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). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Go to: Forum HomeBoardNew Topic

Current Page: 1 of 1
Results 1 - 24 of 24
7 years ago
HungryHun
Quote SC: A wrong assumption, I'm afraid. I am not a scientist. Until science is permitted to look into this issue then we will likely never know how it can assist. But I do think it worthwhile that Egyptology should at least ask the question, don't you? Oh. So the question you're asking is not a demand that the paint be tested, because you're not aware that any such test exists. But that sci
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
Oh, my apologies, I thought you were calling for the paint to be 'tested'. I'd assumed you knew that there was a test that could do that. I might not have read all the posts properly, HH
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Scott, If you believe your source and the comment, Quote: "Feint marks were repainted; some were new." Doesn't that make testing the paint very difficult? A 'modern' date would not rule out an ancient origin? HH
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
Quote: HH: I didn't say that I had no doubt that the markings were genuine. SC: So you DO have some doubt(s). Care to enlighten us? (1) It is my opinion (at the moment, awaiting further update from you) that the marks were there as discovered by Vyse. (2) I am not sure (at the moment, awaiting perhaps further research, or understanding, maybe I'll never have the time for all this) how these m
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
SC: So, if, in your opinion, there is no doubt that these markings are genuine 4th dynasty (as Egyptology inists) then you will have no problems presenting the convincing evidence that will prove the marks are genuine and help allay my doubts? I await your presentation. I feel this is turning the argument on it's head somewhat. I didn't say that I had no doubt that the markings were genuine. I
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
SC: If you were to see a line of text written by Vyse from his handwritten journal that clearly shows how he instructs his assitants to place hieroglyphs in the chambers, would you accept that as definitive proof of the hoax/forgery? Great question. Not definitive, no. I would need to see a little more than intent in a private diary, but that would indeed be enough to do what you claim you want
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
PS: It would be interesting here to 'bullet point' your list of various evidences. The other threads are so long and winding that I may well have missed something crucial. (Apologies.) Is it - (a) the physical evidence looks suspicious for reasons 1,2,3? (b) the discover's diary of the time looks suspicious for reasons 1,2,3? Or is there more? And are reasons 1,2,3 easily listed? HH
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
SC:No--the doubt has been substantiated with a variety of evidence. The question is whether the doubts raised are valid or not. Obviously, the simplest way to dispel any doubts is to present the hard evidence that compells us to accept the mainstream view. I hope you'll forgive me, but I would respectfully say that, No--for my mind, the doubt has not been substantiated with a variety of evidenc
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
Ah, sorry! In that case: I rather think the default here then is that your doubts are unsubstantiated whilst we await your further evidence. Look forward to it! HH
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
Then I rather think the default here is that your conjecture is unproven whilst we await your further evidence. Look forward to it! HH
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Scott, First, right or wrong, I commend you for putting your money where your mouth is and spending time setting out what you think. Do you mind if I ask you some questions? I've had a look at your pp - it might have been nice to see the analysis lead to a conclusion, rather than the other way round, but I think that ship has sailed. 1. On the page of Vyse's dairy, the cartouche to the rig
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
Ah, apologies, we are using different definitions of the word disprove, I was thinking (a) to show (an assertion, claim, etc) to be incorrect or (b) to prove to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate x
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
HungryHun
Dude, that's nonsense isn't it? >"I cannot disprove something that has not itself been proven. That is a logical fallacy." Can't you disprove a statement? Even if that statement hasn't been 'proven'? Here's one: I built the pyramids! All of them, not just the big ones. The lot. It was me. I ate a lot of spinach, took ages, but it was me. You can't disprove that? x
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Scott, I think this is a very odd post. I think I must have misunderstood some of it! Scott Creighton wrote: > Quote"...I don't see any problem with the quarry marks, so > wouldn't see any particular point in a 'forensic scientific > consideration'." - Callan MacKenzie > > > Ladies and gentlemen - does that sound like a reasonable > position to take - to NO
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Martin In this I agree with you. We seem to have learned nothing new of the past, but perhaps more about ourselves, and how we should treat information in context and use it to formulate and support ideas. But Scott seemed so sure and clear in his last post that I think he must have seen something I haven't in all of these (many) posts. I'm sure I haven't been able to read each one properl
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi TBird I'm afraid I don't understand any of your posts. I'm sure it's just me but the lack of recognisable sentences leaves me really confused. I am sorry. Jx
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Scott, What have we come to learn of Howard-Vyse's character? (I wonder if I could ask you not to use the nickname you have invented for him, as it detracts from the discussion?) Your analogy seems to wildly miss the mark. Had Howard-Vyse previously been known to have counterfeited historically ancient marks, but then claimed THIS ONE was totally not one of his but actually real this time
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Thanks, Martin. I guess it was a storm in a teacup, but in the end we are no wiser. My only concern at the end really was the use of the name, 'Tricky Dicky'. It seems childish and insulting to those interested in pursuing this and other things in an adult, polite and considered fashion. I guess it was a reference to Richard Nixon, a disgraced politician - but this doesn't add weight to an a
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
So the suspicion of an earlier imagined willingness to enter an environment with a potentially lower set of moral standards is an indicator of later imagined but entirely unproven fraud in a totally different environment. Have I it right? It seems like this isn't the interesting discussion I thought it was. Sorry for butting in, Jx
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Scott, You seem very personally invested in your argument! It makes for very powerfully worded posts. I have some questions, I don't know if you have time to look at them Do we have any evidence that Vyse engaged in any or all of the following in an attempt to become a member of parliament? - Bribery, intimidation, violence, or threats of eviction? (If yes, I'd be interested in taking a
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Audrey - I only chipped in at the end, I do hope you felt no insult from me, and I can assure you I felt none from you! You argue robustly and with passion and whilst I don't agree on this thread's point, disagreement is not a negative thing. We don't all think alike we celebrate the difference. Jx
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Audrey, I love your passion for this subject! It comes across in everything you write. But you put words in my mouth somewhat :) I didn't mean to suggest illegal activity was ok. I meant to suggest that we must understand what that activity was and from within what historical context. I don't *properly* understand either, and I would suggest that you don't either? However - you choose
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi Audrey, That is a good question! First, I'd say that your statement is both part of loaded question and taken out of context. The question would need to address whether his known activities really mean he was 'crooked', in the terms of the age, and secondly, what being crooked really meant. I do not know the period well, but if it was the only way to succeed in politics it would be see
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
HungryHun
Hi someone called Scott and someone called Martin, I don't know you guys and you don't know me, but I've started to read this message board with real interest. Hope you don't mind me joining in! These postings ('answer my questions!', 'no!', 'go on, you're rubbish if you don't', 'no, your questions are rubbish', etc.) seem to add very little to the discussion. I'd like to say why - first,
Forum: Mysteries
Current Page: 1 of 1