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).
Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think most people tend to draw their conclusions
> from evidence that DOES exist and, as such, can
> inform the debate as opposed to that which is
> non-existant and which can't inform the debate.
So do that. What you’re doing at present is drawing conclusions from the present absence of evidence.
> At least, that's how most sensible folks would
> operate. If you can find an old kingdom hieratic
> 'n' sign (that is NOT a date) anywhere outside the
> Vyse Chambers, I will gladly accept the argument.
> I have said that a number of times before. Just
> one sideways 'n' that is NOT a date and I'll
> accept the argument. I can't say fairer than
> that.
One example, he cries “forgery”, two examples, he’ll accept it? Bullshit.
And we note the ARBITRARY stipulation again. Now, don’t go looking at those dates:
—or comparing them with these:
Creighton will be cross if you do.
> BTW - in the Vyse Chambers we observe the value
> '20' written as 'uu' (presumably two upside-down
> 'n' - or, according to you, sideways). The
> orientation is immaterial to this particular
> question which is: why do we find at virtually the
> very same height of the GP in the small cavity
> chamber at the end of the Queens' Chamber southern
> shaft, the number '20' written using what is
> believed to be a completely different hieratic
> sign i.e. not 'nn'? And why isn't it written
> sideways?
And now you’re back to pushing this junk. Already covered:
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1133868,1133984#msg-1133984
Are you sure of the 20 in Campbell’s Chamber? You shouldn’t be.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think most people tend to draw their conclusions
> from evidence that DOES exist and, as such, can
> inform the debate as opposed to that which is
> non-existant and which can't inform the debate.
So do that. What you’re doing at present is drawing conclusions from the present absence of evidence.
> At least, that's how most sensible folks would
> operate. If you can find an old kingdom hieratic
> 'n' sign (that is NOT a date) anywhere outside the
> Vyse Chambers, I will gladly accept the argument.
> I have said that a number of times before. Just
> one sideways 'n' that is NOT a date and I'll
> accept the argument. I can't say fairer than
> that.
One example, he cries “forgery”, two examples, he’ll accept it? Bullshit.
And we note the ARBITRARY stipulation again. Now, don’t go looking at those dates:

—or comparing them with these:

Creighton will be cross if you do.
> BTW - in the Vyse Chambers we observe the value
> '20' written as 'uu' (presumably two upside-down
> 'n' - or, according to you, sideways). The
> orientation is immaterial to this particular
> question which is: why do we find at virtually the
> very same height of the GP in the small cavity
> chamber at the end of the Queens' Chamber southern
> shaft, the number '20' written using what is
> believed to be a completely different hieratic
> sign i.e. not 'nn'? And why isn't it written
> sideways?
And now you’re back to pushing this junk. Already covered:
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1133868,1133984#msg-1133984
Are you sure of the 20 in Campbell’s Chamber? You shouldn’t be.
M.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.