SC: And around in circles the merry-go-round travels.
MS: Only because you persist in snowing this board with worthless assertions.
SC: And all in a good cause, dear boy – to demonstrate the obvious flaws in your own argument that you are so blind to see yourself. Yes, it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it.
MS: So the full chain of hearsay is this:
Humphries Brewer ? William Marchant Brewer ? Helen-> Pattengill (née Brewer) ? Walter’s mother ? Walter M. Allen ? Zecharia Sitchin
SC: What? Are you having a giggle here or what? Surely you jest? Surely you understand the difference between a primary source and secondary source?
MS: This beggars belief.
You don’t have a primary source here. That’s what I’m pointing out to you.
SC: And once again, my point goes right over your head. I often wonder if you actually do this purposely? The POINT – which I am certain you well know – is that Sitchin merely made public the information passed down to Walter Allen and presented by Allen to Sitchin. If hearsay it is then it was not manufactured by Sitchin - Sitchin is merely making public what has been made known to him. Sitchin is merely reporting third party information of which he had no personal input to. It is not Sitchin's 'hearsay'. The primary source for Sitchin was Allen's document. Sitchin, in reading through Allen's document, would have realised it was a tradition passed down by word-of-mouth i.e. a family oral tradition and, as such, would have asked Allen for the original source (i.e. the Brewer letters etc). But these could not be found though I suspect, even if they had been, they would have been denounced by the Egypt-apologists here and elsewhere as lies.
Is it to be the case that because the original documents are in absentia that the later summary produced by Walter Allen is somehow inadmissible? I don't think so. If you want to travel that particular road then you'll be striking out much of the history of the world that is built on second-hand accounts whereby the original written material has been lost, destroyed or otherwise become unavailable. Just because a later document is based on earlier source material does not make the later account wrong.
MS: As usual, I suggest you learn what the term means.
SC: And, as usual, you merely demonstrate your ability and proclivity to lose the debate by scoring an own goal by your resorting, once again, to ad hominem remarks. I have little need to take any lessons in the use of the Queen’s English from you, thank you very much.
SC: Who first wrote the words "Faint marks were repainted, some were new"? Was it Walter Allen or was it Sitchin? Yes, Stower - it was Walter Allen.
MS: Oh. You know this, do you? You were looking over his shoulder, as he wrote them?
SC: Sitchin merely QUOTED Walter Allen.
MS: Oh. You know this, do you? You’ve seen the original document? You know that Sitchin reproduced it correctly?
SC: Oh, so it is all a big conspiracy Stower? Is THAT what you are insinuating here? Let me, once again, quote to you your own words:
The reality of the case is that they won’t. Why would they? To satisfy a few diehard conspiracy theorists? Who, being conspiracy theorists, wouldn’t be satisfied anyway. - Martin Stower
SC: So, Stower – even if Allen’s notes are proved to have been written by Allen, you still wouldn’t believe it, would you? If the original Brewer letters ever turned up you'd have them as fabrications, wouldn't you. Everyone else is a "conspiracy theorist" but not you. 'It was Sitchin wot dunnit, Guv!' Are you listening to yourself?
MS: You know that Sitchin correctly represented what Allen told him
about this document?
Seeing as how Sitchin waited until Allen was dead, before disclosing any of this material.
SC: And so the conspiracy rumbles on. I can see the epitaph - 'Here lies consensus Egyptology - reduced to defending its position by concocting outlandish conspiracy theories'. Once again, Stower – let me quote back to you, your own words:
You need to deal with things as they are, not as you think they must be. - Martin Stower
SC: As matters stand, Allen’s notes were written by Walter Allen. If you imagine some great conspiracy that they were actually written by Sitchin then present proof of it. Otherwise, “…deal with things as they are, not as you think they must be.” The Allen family (and the other McAlpine branch) were very keen (amateur) genealogists, documenting their family history going as far back as King Kenneth McAlpin of Scotland. I rather suspect that this interest was passed onto Walter Allen’s grand-daughter who should be able to confirm this (his daughter, a keen amateur genealogist herself, died prematurely of cancer). Why would Sitchin, knowing Walter Allen’s family research would most likely be passed down to someone else in the family who would very easily be able to call Sitchin’s bluff, have taken such a risk? Sitchin would have been insane to knowingly place himself in a position where he could easily be found out as a liar by the family concerned. The Allen family tradition didn't end with Walter Allen's death y'know.
MS: Tell me, Creighton, did Sitchin lie about the Hill facsimiles? A yes or no answer is suggested.
SC: Did Sitchin lie or did he have bad eyesight or was he misguided by poor printing in the books of Tricky Dicky and Perring? Look at the print in those books – the circles DO APPEAR as though they have centre dots. For whatever reason, Sitchin was expecting to see diagonal hatched lines and found horizontal ones instead (when he visited the BM to see Hill's facsimilies). So, what he actually found in Hill's drawings at the BM did not appear like the images in the books of Perring or Tricky Dicky (due to the poor quality of print in those books) – the disc looked like a solar disc with circumpunct. And Hill’s drawings in the BM certainly didn’t have any diagonal hatched lines which Sitchin was expecting (apparently this may have been from his observation of the Khufu cartouche on the Inventory Stele). So, the only things Sitchin got wrong was in not realizing that the print of the cartouches in Perring and Howard-Vyse’s books was smudged and unclear, not obtaining actual photographs of the cartouches in question and that the hatched lines need not be diagonal. Is this a lie or just sloppy research? You tell me.
MS: If Sitchin lied, should we be entirely trusting of what he says and shows us on this question?
SC: If Sitchin lied then, of course, we should be wary of what Sitchin says and of what any liar says. But Allen’s words are not the word’s of Sitchin – they belong to Walter Allen and Sitchin has no provenance over them. If you believe in your conspiracy theory then present proof of such. Is there a single eye-witness account/testimony that you can cite that claims Sitchin faked the Allen letter himself?
SC: You do understand the difference, Stower, don't you?
MS: As usual, Creighton, when you venture this style of ill-mannered sarcasm, it’s your understanding which is wanting.
SC: My “ill-mannered sarcasm”? Tut-tut. Go through this thread and the previous one, Stower, and you will find a litany of such from your own pen. So, by your standards, what does that tell us of your understanding? It tells me, Stower, that you lack this basic understanding - yae reap what yae sow.
MS: As when you ignore all of this:
Humphries Brewer ? William Marchant Brewer ? Helen Pattengill (née Brewer) ? Walter’s mother ? Walter M. Allen
What you’ve assumed is perfect transmission of Humphries Brewer’s words through several generations of oral tradition. And this you try to pass (dud banknote!) as the functional equivalent of formal, first-person testimony. Historians (you know, those people who really do understand sources) would laugh at you.
SC: Nice to see, dear boy, that you have now knocked off Sitchin's name from the end of your list--as you should have done in the first place which was my initial point. Oh, and for this being an oral tradition, they sure got a lot of things right, didn't they (even if the spellings of some names were a bit off - to be expected though in an oral tradition).
MS: To complete your analogy:
MS: The person who slips you the note is a known liar.
SC: Irrelevant because the "known liar" did not write the note.
MS: So you trust the known liar not to slip you a dud note? How trusting you are.
SC: The “dud note”? In my analogy, if you had been following with due attention, you would have noticed that it was a THIRD PARTY passing information on a note of paper (NOT A DUD BANKNOTE) that claimed they had seen the fraudster making banknotes that day. You’re getting your ‘notes’ mixed up.
MS: The known fraudster was never convicted of fraud.
SC: Charges were certainly leveled against him but he certainly wasn't formally convicted. However, he DID fraudulently secure for himself 932 votes in the 1807 election and, as such, he SHOULD have been convicted for it:
MS: He secured the votes. That he secured them fraudulently is your mere assertion. Have you studied the 1729 Act? Its specific provisions? Of course not! But you (as usual) know better than the people who actually administered the law.
SC: Surely you are not so dim, Stower? Why do you think Staple raised a Petition if such a practice wasn’t illegal? Raising such a Petition in Parliament was a costly business and not one to be taken lightly. Staple obviously felt he had sufficient grounds for so doing. And he did--932 of them to be exact.
SC: That's 932 crimes, 932 instances of electoral fraud, 932 fraudulent notes/votes.
MS: Hype, hype, hype. You know that the Act would count these as separate offences (if offences at all)? Of course you don’t! Your only criterion here is what sounds good to you as rhetoric: propaganda, not reasoned argument.
SC: Hype? Nah. Fraud. Lots of it.
SC: So, regardless of there not being a formal conviction (did partisan politics prevent Staple's Petition from succeeding as was often the case in those times? Did Tricky Dicky pay Staple to drop his Petition?),
MS: Where’s the evidence of Staple dropping his petition? Reduced to making it up again?
SC: Again? I haven't made anything up in the first place - just doing the basic research. You should try it. Now, note the (?) question mark at the end of my statement, Stower. I asked that particular question because, at that time in 1807, it was perfectly acceptable for Petitioners to simply withdraw their Petition and some took bribes to do so. The later act ensured Petitions could not be withdrawn in order to try and root out this corrupt practice.
SC: … the evidence is very clear that Tricky Dicky was a fraudster nonetheless, a view you evidently share, to wit:
MS: I suggest your refrain from telling me what my views are.
SC: Someone has to because you keep forgetting what you have said.
MS: Having considered the evidence at source, I consider it unlikely that Vyse or his agents did anything contrary to (the letter of) the 1729 Act, any more than Wilberforce did. So Parliament was technically correct in denying the petition.
SC: And so the back-peddling furiously begins in a desperate bid to try and defend the indefensible. No – you were right the first time. It was illegal and Tricky Dicky should have been found guilty as charged. Go with your gut instinct, Stower – generally you find it is usually correct. “Technically correct”?? What - is that like "technically pregnant"? Sheesh….
MS: I await with interest your evidence that 99% of those who entered Parliament in 1807 went on to perpetrate archaeological forgery some 30 years later. Seeing as how you are evidently claiming a systematic relationship between these things.
SC: I don’t give a hee-haw about 99% that entered Parliament. The focus here is Tricky Dicky. Stay focused.
MS: Experts say the banknotes he did pass are genuine.
SC: And incredulously they came to that conclusion without any forensic tests being done whatsoever. The experts simply accepted the fraudster on his word.
MS: Imagine here an impolite and dismissive expression.
SC: And once again, Stower, you demonstrate nothing more than your ability to lose a debate through your implied ad hominems. I do believe on GHMB ad hominems, explicit or implicit, are contrary to the Board rules.
MS: No, Creighton, they used their expertise in assessing the script and content.
SC: Aye right! Says he implying that "the Experts" are infallible of being deceived. How many ancient artifacts are later found to have been faked and had deceived “the experts”. A quick trawl of the Net will show you the shoogly nail upon which you rest your argument. Experts – don’t kid yourself.
Post Edited (19-May-13 12:02)