Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Origyptian Wrote:
> >
> > > I'm the one twisting things here?!
> > > Hilarious.
> >
> > Yes, Femano, you are the one twisting things
> > here—and it’s not hilarious. It’s shabby
> > and contemptible and really rather sad.
> >
> > Were you not operating under a cognitive deficit,
> > it would strike you that poor, overworked Höfer
> > getting just one thing wrong is really
> > rather odd. I quantified to cover what you seemed
> > to be saying: that poor, tired Höfer made more
> > than one mistake, as poor, tired people tend to do.
> >
> > Does it account for your posts here, by the way?
> >
> > M.
>
> So you dug up a SINGLE obscure article that
> oddly constitutes "ALL the
> misreporting" you've been kicking and
> scratching about that's made you lunge into such
> intense character assassination against me and
> that "bungling criminal liar" Görlitz.

So I need to quote you directly?

“. . . Höfer . . . certainly may [sic] have overextended himself, feverishly writing copy for various media venues, and at least once confused the phyle [sic] glyphs [sic] at the far end of the chamber . . .”

Here:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1050359,1050751#msg-1050751

You’re the one saying “at least once” and you’re the one painting a scenario in which multiple errors would be the natural expectation.

All of which is a mere diversion from my key point above, that poor, overworked Höfer making just the one mistake—while being on the ball about everything else—refutes the claim implied that Höfer was in an error-prone condition due to overextending himself, “feverishly” writing copy etc.

You’d have us believe that Höfer, in presenting the crucial “fact” of the matter—the USP of the entire exercise—on a crowdsourcing site which has stated standards of accuracy, didn’t bother getting it right—and Görlitz and Erdmann didn’t bother checking. It’s a bit like a news anchor in 1963 reporting that Jackie Kennedy had been shot.

And what’s with the weasel word “obscure”? What makes the site obscure? That it’s in German? Need I remind you that Görlitz and Erdmann and Höfer are German? Why would they not use a German site? If it were obscure, what would that prove?—and as a matter of fact, it isn’t. It’s the crowdsourcing site: it’s how they solicited donations and evidently not so obscure to Germans. Höfer used the same copy on YouTube: are you going to try telling us that that’s an obscure site?

Added: Wikipedia on Indiegogo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiegogo

The site is international—and the word I should be using is “crowdfunding”.

“Fifteen million people from all around the world visit the site on a monthly basis.” Not so obscure, then.

> And you STILL refuse to tell us whether it
> was Görlitz or Erdmann that you believe surely
> must have approved the
> figure caption that erroneously claims
> Görlitz is pointing to Khufu's cartouche in the photo.

What is this drivel? Are you in your dotage?

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1050359,1050764#msg-1050764

Quote

Excuse me? Görlitz and Erdmann have editorial control over an Australian news site?

Is this really what you meant to suggest?

For your information, the image (without decoration) appears at [the] Abora site much as I found it in January 2014:

http://www.abora.eu/index.php?id=2371&no_cache=1

You will see that it appears with this caption:

“Die Untersuchung der widersprüchlichen Vyse Kartusche von 1837 in der obersten Entlastungskammer.”

I assume that Görlitz approved this one, it being his site.

I have no obligation to state beliefs which exist only in your fantasies.

> And yet you claim I'm the one with
> the cognitive disorder.

And you’ve just proven it.

> You're right. It's not hilarious anymore.

Seek qualified medical help. You should at the very least get a memory assessment.

M.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 22-May-16 16:38 by Martin Stower.