Quote

SC: Like I said - it comes down to Brewer's word against that of a known fraudster, Tricky Dicky Howard-Vyse. Who would you believe?

MS: Brewer’s word? You have an authenticated document, in his own hand?

Of course you don’t.

SC: Brewer's word/testimony as passed down by his family. There - better?

Quote

MS: What we have are claims made by his descendant, Walter Allen, claims he did not make before reading a summary of Sitchin...

SC: Stop making things up. The claims (based on a long-standing family oral tradition) were put down in written form by Walter Allen in 1954 - LONG BEFORE Sitchin ever appeared on the scene. Allen may not have made the claims of his great grandfather (Brewer) public before reading Sitchin but the claims of his great grandfather WERE there. Stop telling porkies.

Quote

MS: ...claims whose only evidential warrant is a problematic and questionable oral tradition.

SC: And you entirely miss the point. There is no reason for this charge to have been written down by the Allen family in 1954 - none. It served them no purpose - just a bit of family oral tradiiton that eventually found its way into written form in Walter Allen's notes. They had no reason to make such a charge and yet it has been made. THAT is the point. Are they telling the truth? Is the oral tradiiton wrong? It COULD be all bunk. But it COULD all be fact. The POINT is we will not know until we gather more evidence; until concensus Egyptology gets its finger out and scientifically tests those inscriptions. Are you getting this yet?

Quote

MS: There are no 19th-century documents: the material disclosed comprises notes written by Allen himself, with nothing (beyond Allen’s word) to establish when they were written.

SC: Certainly no letters from Brewer's family have been produced. Does that make Brewer's testimony (passed down to Allen) a lie? No, it doesn't. There was no reason for this family to make such a charge and yet the charge has been made in Allen's notes in 1954 and the charge will remain regardless of your blue-in-the-face protestations. If you want this charge to disappear then the only way that will happen is when you present hard, scientific proof that conclusively demonstrates the inscriptions 'discovered' by Tricky Dicky in those chambers are authentic. Let's see it. Present your scientific proof.

Quote

MS: Allow me to remind you that, until recently (when we goaded you into checking), you relied for Humphries Brewer’s very existence on the known liar Sitchin. Allow me to doubt that you’re much of a judge of what to believe.

SC: "Goaded into checking"? Pardon me while I roll about laughing at the man who has spent several decades being goaded with this debate.

Let me remind you that the basis of the Brewer/Allen claim has NOTHING to do with Sitchin. The Brewer/Allen claim existed (albeit unknown) LONG BEFORE Sitchin ever got to know about it or became involved with it--as you well know. Just because Sitchin's claim of forgery does not stand up to scrutiny (his wrongly claimed misspelling of Khufu) does not mean that the Brewer/Allen claim won't. They are separate claims made by different people at different times albeit Sitchin made the Brewer/Allen claim public. But just because Sitchin made the Brewer/Allen claim public does not mean that the basis of this particular fraud claim belongs to Sitchin - it absolutely doesn't. Period. But, of course, that doesn't suit your ends, does it? You like to drag Sitchin into the Brewer/Allen claim any chance you get because you know the forgery claim made by Sitchim himself turned out to be bogus and you like to tar the quite separate Brewer/Allen claim (made public by Sitchin) with the same poisoned brush of yours. You can fool yourself with your silly ploys but you won't pull the wool over the eyes of anyone with a brain. The Brewer/Allen claim stands entirely separate to what Sitchin alleged and, as such, should be dealt with separately. Period.

Quote

MS: And again we have the usual misdirection of claiming that this is a matter of “taking someone’s word” for something. It isn’t. The inscriptions are judged on their merits, by people who (I dare say) know more about ancient Egyptian script than you do.

SC: "Misdirection" my bahookie! That's the bottom line Stower. Brewer's word against Trcicky Dicky's. Might as well get used to it, dear boy.

SC



Post Edited (15-May-13 13:43)