Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Femano has failed all along to understand just how
> > far “physical evidence” (so-called) depends on
> > testimony. It needs chain of custody and Görlitz
> > and Erdmann have no credibility on that. Taking
> > the sample in the first place was a criminal act,
> > Görlitz did not follow the correct sampling
> > protocols and their statements about what they did
> > are wildly contradictory: they sampled the
> > cartouche/they did not sample the cartouche; it
> > was not iron oxide (red ochre)/it was red ochre
> > (iron oxide). Credibility zero.
>
> Witness orthodoxy in its final throes.
A hobbyist on a message board is “orthodoxy”?
> When did Görlitz say he sampled the Khufu
> cartouche? How could he have sampled the Khufu
> cartouche when those same scratches have been
> there for years before he was ever up there?
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,329195,329260#msg-329260
You will note that the Indiegogo link, valid at time of posting, is now stale. The relevant quote (reproduced for your convenience) is this:
“A first sample of the cartridge [kartusche] was taken during a first expedition with our camera crew and is now in the hands of a well known institute for lab analysis in Germany.”
Said, I think, by the maker of the film, Frank Höfer.
Being so utterly, cluelessly ignorant of the matter, perhaps you should shut up about it.
Observant readers will notice the slippage from what Görlitz said to what Görlitz did. If Görlitz couldn’t have done what he said he did, that’s his problem, not mine.
> It's hilarious that you focus on everything but
> the simple issue of whether SGS has any official
> statement to make on the matter. Until they do,
> the rest of your argument is irrelevant. As I
> said, I withhold judgement against Görlitz for
> the time being.
Withhold judgement? You have no judgement.
Those of us who were following at the time know that the SGS Institut Fresenius was mortified to find itself in the middle of an international incident and has already said all it is ever likely to say on the question. Try asking your pal Creighton how far he got with them.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Femano has failed all along to understand just how
> > far “physical evidence” (so-called) depends on
> > testimony. It needs chain of custody and Görlitz
> > and Erdmann have no credibility on that. Taking
> > the sample in the first place was a criminal act,
> > Görlitz did not follow the correct sampling
> > protocols and their statements about what they did
> > are wildly contradictory: they sampled the
> > cartouche/they did not sample the cartouche; it
> > was not iron oxide (red ochre)/it was red ochre
> > (iron oxide). Credibility zero.
>
> Witness orthodoxy in its final throes.
A hobbyist on a message board is “orthodoxy”?
> When did Görlitz say he sampled the Khufu
> cartouche? How could he have sampled the Khufu
> cartouche when those same scratches have been
> there for years before he was ever up there?
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,329195,329260#msg-329260
You will note that the Indiegogo link, valid at time of posting, is now stale. The relevant quote (reproduced for your convenience) is this:
“A first sample of the cartridge [kartusche] was taken during a first expedition with our camera crew and is now in the hands of a well known institute for lab analysis in Germany.”
Said, I think, by the maker of the film, Frank Höfer.
Being so utterly, cluelessly ignorant of the matter, perhaps you should shut up about it.
Observant readers will notice the slippage from what Görlitz said to what Görlitz did. If Görlitz couldn’t have done what he said he did, that’s his problem, not mine.
> It's hilarious that you focus on everything but
> the simple issue of whether SGS has any official
> statement to make on the matter. Until they do,
> the rest of your argument is irrelevant. As I
> said, I withhold judgement against Görlitz for
> the time being.
Withhold judgement? You have no judgement.
Those of us who were following at the time know that the SGS Institut Fresenius was mortified to find itself in the middle of an international incident and has already said all it is ever likely to say on the question. Try asking your pal Creighton how far he got with them.
M.
