Author of the Month :  The Official forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
In HOAX, Creighton performs this conjuring trick (p. 18 in the print edition):


. . . Further on in this passage, Schoch goes on to say of this mineral crystallization that it is “. . . a process that takes centuries or millennia” If the crystallization observed on these marks can, in Schoch’s words, take just “centuries” to form, then they could just as easily have formed in the near two centuries since Vyse first opened these chambers (and thereby forever changing the atmospheric conditions within them). . . . . . .

In his chapter summary, he adds this (p. 20):


Schoch believes that quarry marks on the blocks are authentic ancient marks based on crystallization on the surface of some marks. He states also that this crystallization process can take millennia or just centuries to occur.

The word “just” is not Schoch’s. Creighton has added it. Why has he done so? To invert the sense of what Schoch wrote. If Schoch’s intended sense were “just centuries” (or “as few centuries as two”), he would have written that—wouldn’t he, Mr Creighton? He would not have added the word “millennia”—would he, Mr Creighton? And unless I’m missing something, it’s Schoch (and not you) is the geologist.

I find no sign in Void of his even mentioning Schoch. He returned to his misuse of Schoch’s words in this recent post:

To the reader’s surprise, I challenged this shameless distortion as long ago as 2014, when Creighton first came out with it:

In fairness to Creighton, I note that in HOAX (p. 18) he continues with this assertion:


. . . Indeed, photographs of some modern graffiti to the left of the Khufu cartouche shows this graffiti entirely clear of any crystallization but is almost entirely covered with crystals in more recent images—crystallization that has taken, at most, just a few decades to form.

If Creighton has anywhere reproduced these photographs, or specified which ones exactly they are, I have not seen it.

Note: I drew attention to Schoch’s words (in their proper sense) in 2005:,183159,183171#msg-183171


Edited 2021-07-17 to add a note about my post of 2005.

Edited 2021-07-18 to correct a word choice.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jul-21 23:58 by Martin Stower.

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
A conjuring trick with words 189 Martin Stower 17-Jul-21 10:18
Re: A conjuring trick with words 61 Martin Stower 17-Jul-21 18:00
Did our AoM really say this? 50 Martin Stower 21-Jul-21 09:41
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 35 Martin Stower 22-Jul-21 20:16
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 38 Corpuscles 22-Jul-21 21:40
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 35 Martin Stower 22-Jul-21 22:25
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 29 Corpuscles 22-Jul-21 22:44
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 42 Martin Stower 22-Jul-21 23:45
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 28 Merrell 23-Jul-21 07:34
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 30 Martin Stower 23-Jul-21 10:23
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 24 Merrell 23-Jul-21 13:00
Re: Did our AoM really say this? 49 Martin Stower 23-Jul-21 13:19

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.