> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > No, John, they use me as a source of arguments and
> > they acknowledge me as the source of these
> > arguments. They present the arguments and leave
> > the rest to the reader. They do not call me an
> > “expert” and there is no appeal to authority
> > (as noted below)—whereas you’ve made it
> > abundantly clear here that an appeal to authority
> > is precisely what Creighton has produced and this
> > is how you see it yourself.
> Which is exactly what Scott has done ..
Thanks for confirming.
> He's identified and recognised an "expert". The
> one and only "expert" in the field as far as I am
> aware. (myself)
> The expertise and method has been described,
> leaving the "ordinary reader" free to carry out
> their own analyses and draw there own conclusions.
Well, John, if you’re the one and only “expert” in the field, who exactly is it who’s validating your expertise? Yourself? Creighton?
Where may we find your published work on the topic? Where may we find your name so much as mentioned in connection with it? And yet the phrase is out there and it’s archaeologists talking about it:
Looks like you need to get out there and stake your claim.
> Time and time again we say carry out your own
> analyses and draw your own conclusions.
> How many times do we need to repeat it?
> > Fully credentialed and degreed expert in brush
> > stroke sequencing!
> The FIRST and ONLY fully degreed expert in brush
> stroke sequencing in this field. The practice of
> sequencing of brush strokes.
So you keep saying. See above.
> It seems that Egyptology has failed to identify
> this analytical process.
But archaeology has. See above.
> I did.
> Which I'm fully prepared to share, so that
> "ordinary readers" can carry out their own
> analyses and draw their own conclusions.
So let’s see your dissertation, thesis, whatever. If not the full thing, the references or bibliography would be a start.
> > Most of us have worked this stuff out before the
> > age of five, remember?—and you’re trying to con us that it’s
> > specialised, esoteric knowledge which requires
> > credentials to comment on?
> > So, will you be showing us your published work on
> > brush stroke sequencing in the work of
> > Roger Hilton (say)?
> > Will you be showing us some of your paintings?
> Why? What do my paintings have to do with
Well, duh. It would show us that you know something about brush work. All we have so far is your saying so.
I notice you’ve bypassed the bit about published work. When may we expect to see it?
> > Past time for “the emperor has no clothes” on
> > this one.
> Ridiculous statement. The "clothes" have been
> demonstrated in the methodology.
> The "clothes" have been freely given away and are
> free for anyone who cares to use them.
The methodology I’ve seen so far includes blurry enlargements and comments on my eyesight. Is this the kind of thing you submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of your degree?
> > And, let me remind you, Scott Creighton has no
> > credentials in any of the stuff he talks about.
> Were talking about ME, the one and only expert in
> brush stroke sequencing. Scott had the
> intelligence to seek expert advice on issues
> outside of his knowledge base and field.
> A fact which is being fully and ably demonstrated
> here by yourself. He sought the advice of an
No, John, the comment being answered was about me and my credentials.
It’s not all about you, you know.
> > > > What credentials does Graham Hancock have which
> > > > make his opinion believable?
> > >
> > > Again Graham Hancock actively and constantly seeks
> > > the advice of credentialed experts and
> > > specialists.
> > I’ve done some of that myself.
> Good for you ..
Yes, John, it’s good for me and it more than meets your standard, as you think it merits praise when Scott seeks advice from people who just happen to be on the same message board.
> > As for Graham Hancock, would you like to give an
> > example? He’s clearly selective in which
> > experts and specialists he believes and which not.
> > What credentials does he have to make this
> > choice?
> The professional integrity of GH is not the issue
And you’ve missed the point.
> > If the books are just compilations of what
> > credentialed experts and specialists say,
> > where’s the room for Graham Hancock?
> Who said they were .. JUST....
And you’ve missed the point.
> > Who, let me remind you, has no credentials in any
> > of the stuff he talks about. Pretty dumb to do
> > this huffing and puffing about credentials on
> > Graham Hancock’s Message Board!
> Not relevant..
Says you, having missed the point.
> > But John, most of us have applied paint with a
> > brush by the age of five! Remember?
> Yes straightforward and easy to understand isn't
> it? Beautiful simplicity.
So much for the specialised knowledge and “one and only expert in the field”.
> Which begs the question why hasn't Egyptology and
> those such as yourself not already recognised it
> and were totally unaware of it until I was
> gracious enough to bring it to your attention.
On the contrary, John, you brought nothing to my attention which I wouldn’t regard as platitudinous or wrong.
What begs the question is your assumption that “Egyptology” hasn’t. Archaeology has, as noted above.
> > Heard of palaeography? You think you have
> > anything on specialists in hieratic or demotic?
> This has nothing at all to do with the reading of
> signs and symbols.
> It is totally about the physical process of the
> application of paint to a surface... Painting..
LOL! You don’t know what I’m talking about, do you?
> > > They sought his expertise in that field and
> > > proclaimed so.
> > BS.
> > Quote please.
> Page 101 "Giza the Truth"
Hardback or paperback—and where’s the quote?