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).
Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would hardly characterize my comment as "hostile"...
Not surprised. You also didn't think you were being hostile when you called me "incredibly stupid" for disagreeing with your opinion in an earlier discussion.
> ...yet can you quote anywhere where
> I have given any "opinion" on the subject?
Well, "And yet Vyse is not afforded the same 'courtesy'" sounds like an opinion. If that's not an opinion, it's certainly not an observation. It's your own personal take which is simply untrue as I made very clear in my subsequent post about me initially being a strong advocate of Vyse.
Your previous post is chock full of opinions, especially when you accused me of "inexhaustible intellectually dishonest behavior ". You continue to be oblivious to your offensive posture when someone disagrees with you.
> > All I said was I was willing to give the Germans
> > and SGS the benefit of the doubt for the time
> > being, pending additional evidence.
>
> Because they tell you want you want to hear.
Thanks for giving us yet another one of your opinions, but you really don't know what I "want to hear".
In my very first post in pt.1 of this discussion, did I not make it clear that I did not fully embrace the Germans' account but rather reserved my opinion until we got further verification from the SGS lab? Did I not question how SGS knew what the commonly known composition of ancient paint was such that they were able to compare the samples to such known composition?
> And you do know the reason these two chuckleheads did
> this was to "prove" Yahweh and the Hebrews built
> the pyramids, right?
I have no interest in the ideology that drives such an investigation. I am only interested in the data. I might strongly disagree with the religious connotations of Pyramidology, but that doesn't make me throw out all of the data reported by Smyth and the Edgar brothers. I also strongly disagree with Mark Lehner's ideological bias in Egyptology, but I still have great respect for his reporting of evidence. Why should I treat the Germans any differently?
> > All of your accusations of me being a liar are
> > empty, based on the written word in these very
> > posts.
>
> I am speaking to your history in general as to why
> you attract such consistent disdain from your
> fellow posters which is not because you "simply
> disagree" but because of the self absorbed, single
> minded, intellectually dishonest and incompetent...
And yet every single time I challenge you to cite a specific instance of something I've posted that support any of the allegations you've issued throughout that one paragraph, we get silence at the other end of the line.
The only people expressing their disdain to me are those securely affixed to the orthodox paradigm of trusting the obsolete standards of "authorities", and "historians", and "mainstream opinion", and not actually contemplating the physical evidence that abounds all around us. A prime example is this discussion about Scott and the two Germans. Why hammer those guys rather than focus on the real issue of the SGS analysis. Where is SGS' report? What do they have to say about the sample?
In truth, I fully expect SGS to say something like "Sure, we found this and that in the analysis of the sample, but we cannot vouch for the authenticity of the sample." I would be amazed if SGS actaully claims the paint up in those rafters is the result of a fraud.
And that is what I call objectivity. I find it curious that some of you can't agree with that simple "wait and see" approach to this.
> you...disagree with anything and everything that does not support your beliefs...
That's kind of the definition of "belief".
Are we not allowed to disagree with something if we don't believe it?
Why would you write such things in light of Stower going out of his way to aggressively throw the bomb at Scott by starting the "Creighton persists" discussion in the first place? Stower not only "disagrees" with Scott, he's obviously obsessed with character assassination. Why don't we see you lecturing Stower about any of that nonsense?
Where's the double standard police when you need them?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31-May-16 18:41 by Origyptian.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would hardly characterize my comment as "hostile"...
Not surprised. You also didn't think you were being hostile when you called me "incredibly stupid" for disagreeing with your opinion in an earlier discussion.
> ...yet can you quote anywhere where
> I have given any "opinion" on the subject?
Well, "And yet Vyse is not afforded the same 'courtesy'" sounds like an opinion. If that's not an opinion, it's certainly not an observation. It's your own personal take which is simply untrue as I made very clear in my subsequent post about me initially being a strong advocate of Vyse.
Your previous post is chock full of opinions, especially when you accused me of "inexhaustible intellectually dishonest behavior ". You continue to be oblivious to your offensive posture when someone disagrees with you.
> > All I said was I was willing to give the Germans
> > and SGS the benefit of the doubt for the time
> > being, pending additional evidence.
>
> Because they tell you want you want to hear.
Thanks for giving us yet another one of your opinions, but you really don't know what I "want to hear".
In my very first post in pt.1 of this discussion, did I not make it clear that I did not fully embrace the Germans' account but rather reserved my opinion until we got further verification from the SGS lab? Did I not question how SGS knew what the commonly known composition of ancient paint was such that they were able to compare the samples to such known composition?
> And you do know the reason these two chuckleheads did
> this was to "prove" Yahweh and the Hebrews built
> the pyramids, right?
I have no interest in the ideology that drives such an investigation. I am only interested in the data. I might strongly disagree with the religious connotations of Pyramidology, but that doesn't make me throw out all of the data reported by Smyth and the Edgar brothers. I also strongly disagree with Mark Lehner's ideological bias in Egyptology, but I still have great respect for his reporting of evidence. Why should I treat the Germans any differently?
> > All of your accusations of me being a liar are
> > empty, based on the written word in these very
> > posts.
>
> I am speaking to your history in general as to why
> you attract such consistent disdain from your
> fellow posters which is not because you "simply
> disagree" but because of the self absorbed, single
> minded, intellectually dishonest and incompetent...
And yet every single time I challenge you to cite a specific instance of something I've posted that support any of the allegations you've issued throughout that one paragraph, we get silence at the other end of the line.
The only people expressing their disdain to me are those securely affixed to the orthodox paradigm of trusting the obsolete standards of "authorities", and "historians", and "mainstream opinion", and not actually contemplating the physical evidence that abounds all around us. A prime example is this discussion about Scott and the two Germans. Why hammer those guys rather than focus on the real issue of the SGS analysis. Where is SGS' report? What do they have to say about the sample?
In truth, I fully expect SGS to say something like "Sure, we found this and that in the analysis of the sample, but we cannot vouch for the authenticity of the sample." I would be amazed if SGS actaully claims the paint up in those rafters is the result of a fraud.
And that is what I call objectivity. I find it curious that some of you can't agree with that simple "wait and see" approach to this.
> you...disagree with anything and everything that does not support your beliefs...
That's kind of the definition of "belief".
Are we not allowed to disagree with something if we don't believe it?
Why would you write such things in light of Stower going out of his way to aggressively throw the bomb at Scott by starting the "Creighton persists" discussion in the first place? Stower not only "disagrees" with Scott, he's obviously obsessed with character assassination. Why don't we see you lecturing Stower about any of that nonsense?
Where's the double standard police when you need them?
______________________________________________________________
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31-May-16 18:41 by Origyptian.
