1650 replies to this topic

[Scott Creighton]

Wearer of Hats, on 01 June 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

And where do you get yours? The dreams of Edgar Cayce? The channelled messages from the inhabitants of Zeta Ridiculi? The hashish fever of some passing semi-ascended master?

SC: It's called 'evidence' (actual, physical evidence). Not that the Egypt-apologists on this Board seem too familiar with such terms.

Quote

WOH: Frankly, I'll take the word of someone who takes the time to qualify as an expert over the ravings of any passing madman who happens to agree with what I believe.

SC; If the hat fits.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 02 June 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[Swede]

Scott Creighton, on 01 June 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

Hint – check the geology of the site.

Kindly elaborate.

.

[kmt_sesh]

Scott Creighton, on 01 June 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

SC: What complete and utter tripe - and then some! How on earth can you be so gullible? How can you so brazenly misinform people? What – did you read this in some orthodox Egyptology book somewhere? So, because you read this in some mainstream Egyptology book means it must be correct and so it then becomes fact? Are you listening to yourself? When will you wake up and smell Vyse’s cordite?

WHERE’S THE CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE FOR YOUR STATEMENT? Obviously you are not "aware".

It really doesn’t take a lot of searching to discover that the Sphinx dogma you happen to subscribe to and happily espouse forth on this Board is nothing but the prescribed narrative mainstream Egyptology has been using to hoodwink us all for decades, if not centuries. But will you look beyond what you think you know?  Probably not because you already think you have all the answers (from the books).  As the old adage goes - what you fail to realise is that he who thinks he has all the answers has not been asked all the questions.

Just how long exactly have you been perpetuating this hidebound, closed-minded nonsense on this board – and getting away with it? You're talking absolute nonsense. Want to know why?

Hint – check the geology of the site - that should offer you some actual scientific facts that cannot be disputed. And I am NOT referring here to the erosion of the Sphinx question vis-à-vis West/Schoch, but rather something much more fundamental and obvious.

As I have told you before – do your research (before espousing forth your disinformation).

Best wishes,

SC

You might have noticed, Scott, that I rarely bother to reply to your posts nowadays. Let's look at the above as an example. Of the six paragraphs in your post, five were ridiculing either Egyptology or me personally. In the fifth paragraph you played the usual game of "There's something there if only you'd look to see it" (meaning: "You have to see things my way!")

I've done my research, more than twenty years of it. I can corroborate my sources. You make it up as you go along.

I'd be glad to debate you, Scott, but I no longer see the need. I don't deal well with juvenile and nasty attitudes. Nor do I deal well with the tactic of ridiculing a respected field of study while offering nothing grounded to substantiate your own beliefs.

Kindly do not respond to my posts any longer.

Best wishes, indeed.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I personally have read statements from kmt and have done further research to corroborate his statements. I've done thus as a starting off point to further research. In every case unless specifically stated as opinion I have found sesh's statements to be honest and backed by mountains of data. Quite frankly I believe sesh could over whelm us with fact based data on any topic he addresses. In my opinion he has allowed for my own personal learning with which I am able to research further on my own without taking his word for granted.
SC YOU HAVE FAILED TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO PRODUCE ANYTHING OF ANY VALUE. Your do more research ditty is a farce. Present something we can research further on... unfortunately you are grossly unequiped for this task. But hey your goal is to sell your fiction so of course you have to attack orthodox peer reviewed research. But that's OK right because anyone not in line with your own thoughts is simply an apologist. There will be no yes men when you cannot substantiate a single claim you make $C.

ADB: good day

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Scott Creighton, on 01 June 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

SC: It's called 'evidence' (actual, physical evidence). Not that the Egypt-apologists on this Board seem too familiar with such terms.

Listen, I'm probably the most open-minded skeptic here, so what's you're evidence? The most convincing "Sphinx is older then believed" argument I've heard is connected to the water erosion and how the erosion on the head seems to differ to that on the body.

Quote

SC; If the hat fits.

LOL, if only I had the followers that Cayce does. Or the money Erich does.

[Time Spy]

kmt_sesh, on 02 June 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

You might have noticed, Scott, that I rarely bother to reply to your posts nowadays. Let's look at the above as an example. Of the six paragraphs in your post, five were ridiculing either Egyptology or me personally. In the fifth paragraph you played the usual game of "There's something there if only you'd look to see it" (meaning: "You have to see things my way!")

I've done my research, more than twenty years of it. I can corroborate my sources. You make it up as you go along.

I'd be glad to debate you, Scott, but I no longer see the need. I don't deal well with juvenile and nasty attitudes. Nor do I deal well with the tactic of ridiculing a respected field of study while offering nothing grounded to substantiate your own beliefs.

Kindly do not respond to my posts any longer.

Best wishes, indeed.

You know THAT'S it Kmt.  Who do you think you are, some bottom line history major final answer.  WRONG, you weren't there to see., nor were your buddies there either, who like to kiss your butt just to respond in every other thread.  So do us all a big favor and come down off that know it all ever increasing biased high horse attitude, that everyone wants to set you upon and welcome yourself back to planet earth, PLEASE.  Just because you sound like a repeat lesson from the new age encyclopedia with all the answers doesn't make you correct or accurate at all.  In fact you are wrong, while Scott and 'L' are right.  NO ONE can provide PROOF no matter how hard they try.  The Sphinx outdates the pyramids, ALL of them.  Say what you want and get all the support from the suck ups available, neverthess this still changes NO truth or facts behind anything.

Telling someone to 'quit replying' is like admitting that you lost the debate.  That's a fact here and Scott made it, so deal with it and leave well enough alone.

Good point Scott, your reasoning doesn't fall on deaf ears, no matter how many 'fans' Kmt has in his ever increasing over biased 'fan club'.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Time Spy, on 02 June 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

You know THAT'S it Kmt.  Who do you think you are, some bottom line history major final answer.  WRONG, you weren't there to see., nor were your buddies there either, who like to kiss your butt just to respond in every other thread.  So do us all a big favor and come down off that know it all ever increasing biased high horse attitude, that everyone wants to set you upon and welcome yourself back to planet earth, PLEASE.  Just because you sound like a repeat lesson from the new age encyclopedia with all the answers doesn't make you correct or accurate at all.  In fact you are wrong, while Scott and 'L' are right.  NO ONE can provide PROOF no matter how hard they try.  The Sphinx outdates the pyramids, ALL of them.  Say what you want and get all the support from the suck ups available, neverthess this still changes NO truth or facts behind anything.

Telling someone to 'quit replying' is like admitting that you lost the debate.  That's a fact here and Scott made it, so deal with it and leave well enough alone.

Good point Scott, your reasoning doesn't fall on deaf ears, no matter how many 'fans' Kmt has in his ever increasing over biased 'fan club'.

oh God you have me rolling right now...


Oh wait you were serious... hrmmmm OK you know the answers then first describe how orthodoxy works (hint: how it changes)
Next answer me this since you so adamantly made the claim of the sphynx's age... how old is it and what brought you to this conclusion... and no psychics or anything like that... show me... by the way you may not be able to read German and in short my name means out of the box skeptic so I am open to new facts... (less Braun or of but my name was already to long)

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch, 02 June 2012 - 04:18 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

Time Spy, on 02 June 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

You know THAT'S it Kmt.  Who do you think you are, some bottom line history major final answer.  WRONG, you weren't there to see., nor were your buddies there either, who like to kiss your butt just to respond in every other thread.  So do us all a big favor and come down off that know it all ever increasing biased high horse attitude, that everyone wants to set you upon and welcome yourself back to planet earth, PLEASE.  Just because you sound like a repeat lesson from the new age encyclopedia with all the answers doesn't make you correct or accurate at all.  In fact you are wrong, while Scott and 'L' are right.  NO ONE can provide PROOF no matter how hard they try.  The Sphinx outdates the pyramids, ALL of them.  Say what you want and get all the support from the suck ups available, neverthess this still changes NO truth or facts behind anything.

Telling someone to 'quit replying' is like admitting that you lost the debate.  That's a fact here and Scott made it, so deal with it and leave well enough alone.

Good point Scott, your reasoning doesn't fall on deaf ears, no matter how many 'fans' Kmt has in his ever increasing over biased 'fan club'.

You're in the same boat Scott is. Like he, you've never offered anything in the way of evidence to substantiate your "timedrive" idea, so please stop preaching to me or anyone else like me. You hop between friendly demeanor and silly tirades and frankly I've grown weary of it.

It's practically impossible to have a reasonable, level-headed, and rational discussion or debate with people like you and Scott because you throw mountains of make-believe at us and cop the attitude that you're in possession of some kind of private, secret, arcane knowledge that can trump two centuries of solid, hard-won scholarship. So you throw a fit when I present information from the orthodox perspective and spend more time whining about me than you do trying to support your claims. Good show, that.

I asked Scott not to reply to my posts, if all he has is vitriol, condescension, and ridicule. I extend you the same request. No, I have no control over what you post or what you say to me, but if the above is any indication of only more of what's to come, I have better things to do than dealing with it. I don't do well with juvenile behavior.

This is a tough day for me. It marks the one-year anniversary of my mom's passing, so I came to UM to do some posting and discussion. I wasn't intending to get involved in a silly flame-war, and if you look back through this thread, you'll see things were pretty light, open minded, and civil until you and Scott lurked in.

Frankly, I hope a Mod comes in and clears away all this crap. Thank you, Time Spy (and Scott) for spewing your toxicity and ruining a perfectly decent discussion.

Good night.

[Time Spy]

kmt_sesh, on 02 June 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

You're in the same boat Scott is. Like he, you've never offered anything in the way of evidence to substantiate your "timedrive" idea, so please stop preaching to me or anyone else like me. You hop between friendly demeanor and silly tirades and frankly I've grown weary of it.

It's practically impossible to have a reasonable, level-headed, and rational discussion or debate with people like you and Scott because you throw mountains of make-believe at us and cop the attitude that you're in possession of some kind of private, secret, arcane knowledge that can trump two centuries of solid, hard-won scholarship. So you throw a fit when I present information from the orthodox perspective and spend more time whining about me than you do trying to support your claims. Good show, that.

I asked Scott not to reply to my posts, if all he has is vitriol, condescension, and ridicule. I extend you the same request. No, I have no control over what you post or what you say to me, but if the above is any indication of only more of what's to come, I have better things to do than dealing with it. I don't do well with juvenile behavior.

This is a tough day for me. It marks the one-year anniversary of my mom's passing, so I came to UM to do some posting and discussion. I wasn't intending to get involved in a silly flame-war, and if you look back through this thread, you'll see things were pretty light, open minded, and civil until you and Scott lurked in.

Frankly, I hope a Mod comes in and clears away all this crap. Thank you, Time Spy (and Scott) for spewing your toxicity and ruining a perfectly decent discussion.

Good night.

Easy now Kmt.  I have told you before that I respect your opinion and I like your attitude.  That is a fact.  I am seriously reconciled with you and deeply sympathize with at the anniversery of the passing of your Mother/, SERIOUSLY.  However, you got to admit, you have a reputation.  I admit it  You are a walking Egyptian encylcopdia.  I've said it before.   However, sometimes history is recorded innacurately and those who honor the so called 'facts' don't stop to admonish the truth.  This is so in this thread.  The Sphinx is ancient beyone the GP.  I know you don't agree, but you should give it more thought, since you're open to discussion, and respect more the opininon of others at times.  That's all I'm saying.

Also I apolegize for upsetting you know matter our diagreements.  Regards to this day and may peace abound with you.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Time spy you may have missed my post directed to you above. If so I will await a response. I really hope you do want to further the discussion. I would hate for you to invalidate yourself from all future discussions due to Making hasty baseless claims.

[kmt_sesh]

Time Spy, on 02 June 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

Easy now Kmt.  I have told you before that I respect your opinion and I like your attitude.  That is a fact.  I am seriously reconciled with you and deeply sympathize with at the anniversery of the passing of your Mother/, SERIOUSLY.  However, you got to admit, you have a reputation.  I admit it  You are a walking Egyptian encylcopdia.  I've said it before.   However, sometimes history is recorded innacurately and those who honor the so called 'facts' don't stop to admonish the truth.  This is so in this thread.  The Sphinx is ancient beyone the GP.  I know you don't agree, but you should give it more thought, since you're open to discussion, and respect more the opininon of others at times.  That's all I'm saying.

Also I apolegize for upsetting you know matter our diagreements.  Regards to this day and may peace abound with you.

Thank you, Time Spy. I knew you would understand. I apologize for my own temper in that last post. I actually came back in here to delete it and type something else, but I saw your new post and decided to leave it as is. Hopefully the vitriol is out of the way now—for all of us.

I reacted so strongly because I felt pounced upon and do not know why. Go back to my Post 26 and Post 27. I don't see where I insulted anybody or was uncivil to anyone, so I simply don't understand Scott's nasty reply in Post 29. There was just no call for it. It was beyond the pale.

I don't mind that you sided with Scott. That's absolutely fine. What I didn't understand was the unfriendly tone your post took—directed at me. Yes, I've spent years studying the ancient Near East, but am I to apologize for it? Am I to feel sorry that I feel so passionate about orthodox scholarship? I can't apologize for that, nor will I change. Any more than you will about those things for which you're passionate.

I've said it before: I am far from perfect. I do not know everything. I can and have been wrong. I've been called on it here at UM, and proven wrong. So be it. I live and learn. All I ask is that if you think I'm wrong about some point I've made, present me evidence to the contrary that I can evaluate and review, a source written by someone with the credentials to know the topic. I don't think this is unreasonable of me to ask.

And it's better than all of us flying off the handle and offending everyone (my fault, too). I appreciate your apology, and I accept it. Thanks.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Well timespy don't worry about posting in regards to my question. I don't usually come on the weekends to um because its family time for me.
In short orthodox views change as new evidence surfaces. Meaning its very pliable when new facts are introduced. If you have felt its the same old info being repeated its because no new evidence has come to change current understanding but know we are all waiting for anything new. In fact its exciting when new evidence surfaces.
as to the sphynx... what sesh posted is the current evidence we have to go by. What he posted was quite thorough also in regards to typical response. If you have any new evidence to provide please do so as it is welcomed.
Have a good weekend timespy. Until next week then.

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 02 June 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

KMS: You might have noticed, Scott, that I rarely bother to reply to your posts nowadays.

SC: Your choice. I don’t lose sleep over it. 'First they ignore you' and all that.

Quote

KMS: Let's look at the above as an example. Of the six paragraphs in your post, five were ridiculing either Egyptology or me personally.

SC: I disagree. Nothing in my post was personal. I am questioning only your opinions with regard to Egyptology and in this particular instance, your comments regarding the Sphinx. And I will continue to challenge Egyptology and its apologists. As I said to you before – you should be welcoming someone like me, asking all those pesky, irritable questions in order that you can thoroughly test your theory. Isn’t that what it’s all about? We're in this thing together, folks. I'm here for you.

Quote

KMS: In the fifth paragraph you played the usual game of "There's something there if only you'd look to see it" (meaning: "You have to see things my way!")

SC: Your attempt at twisting my words and reading into them something that simply isn’t there, will not crack it. There are no contemporary records that tell us why the early, giant pyramids were built. And yet Egyptology insists they were tombs. Once that particular paradigm is set then everything else has to be made to fit. Back in the day when that particular tomb paradigm was agreed upon by consensus opinion (which doesn’t mean it’s correct), the people who came to that conclusion could not conceive of a non-tomb paradigm, an alternative paradigm that actually fits the extant evidence (e.g. pyramids, temples, causeways, empty, nameless sarcophagi etc, etc) just as well (if not better) than the paradigm they had agreed upon.  So, I see things my own way – you see what someone else has told you to see. I look at the extant evidence, read what the experts have to say about it, weigh it up, and come to my own conclusions. You just accept uncritically what you are told and that’s the real problem here.  You expect others to do likewise – just take the medicine, accept what you’re told.  They’re all tombs – end of story. Hell will freeze over first before I take someone else’s ill-founded opinion over a considered opinion of my own.

Quote

KMS: I've done my research, more than twenty years of it. I can corroborate my sources. You make it up as you go along.

SC: I can corroborate my sources too.  How many posts/threads would you like me to show you where I can also present my sources?  And from where I stand what I make up are questions for the Egypt-apologists that they cannot answer. No surprise there.

Quote

KMS: I'd be glad to debate you, Scott, but I no longer see the need. I don't deal well with juvenile and nasty attitudes.

SC: Well, from where I stand what I see as the real problem here is that you cannot actually deal with someone who asks pesky, irksome questions; someone who asks for real evidence to prove that these early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs. But that figures. You seem to me to be much more in your comfort zone when dishing out from up high the mainstream mantra to some unsuspecting soul with alternative ideas who idly wonders in here whereupon you and your cabal of co-dependent reactionaries sets upon the poor soul with what can only be described as the intellectual equivalent of a mugging. And then you all pat each other on the back – a job well done and retire back to your tombs.

But when someone comes along and dishes as much back at you, oh my - the toys are thrown out the pram, you spit the dummy, take the ball and say you’re not playing anymore because of the nasty big boys. How very grown up.

Quote

KMS: Nor do I deal well with the tactic of ridiculing a respected field of study while offering nothing grounded to substantiate your own beliefs.

SC: First of all, I don’t actually give a hee-haw how well you deal (or not, as the case may be) with my criticism of Egyptology and its apologists. I have no respect for a field of study and its apologists that presents a theory (without any real evidence) and expects people to accept it on faith (small ‘f’). Egyptology has ridiculed itself – I merely outline how it has done so.

Quote

KMS: Kindly do not respond to my posts any longer.

SC: Oh yes, I forgot – it’s your ball and you’re not playing any more. Hate to break it to you bub, but your ball has a puncture and I will post here as often as I like and for as long as it takes in order to show you and the other Egypt-apologists here the precise nature of that puncture.  And how to fix it.

Quote

KMS: Thank you, Time Spy (and Scott) for spewing your toxicity and ruining a perfectly decent discussion.

SC: Yes, I’m not surprised in the least that difficult questions becomes “toxicity” to you.  And it’s only ever a “perfectly decent discussion” for you when it’s going your way and there are no dissenters. Welcome to the real world.

Haste ye back.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 02 June 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[the L]

Scott Creighton, on 02 June 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

SC:There are no contemporary records that tell us why the early, giant pyramids were built. And yet Egyptology insists they were tombs... They’re all tombs – end of story.

Todays Egypotology dont think and insists that pyramids are just tombs. Neither anyone. It was back then. Something like Church and evoultion big bang story. Or like story of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Everything is self correcting. Egyptologists dont claim that.

[Erudite Celt]

Was the GP built 10,500 BC ? No.
Was the Sphinx built 10,500 BC ? I think there is tentative evidence that the Sphinx was in existence before the first Egyptian empire, it seem's to show evidence of having being remodelled by the Egyptians themselfs but! it still ain't 10,500 years old. The bigger mystery is who did build it, if not the Egyptians then who? It certainly weren't aliens as is being postulated in the video, but it is interesting that the constellation of Leo periodically rises between the feet of the Sphinx [originally a lion]. Leo was rising between the feet of the Sphinx when Christ was born! The star described in the gospels as rising in the east as seen by the Zoroastrian  Magi must have been rising in the constellation of Leo as in  Zoroastrian Mystical culture an event in Leo was always associated with Kingship, a star rising = a new King or Kingdom, a star falling = the passing away of a King or Kingdom.
I'm not saying my idea is correct, but just floating it, but as is always the case in public forums the idea is bound to have a few torpedoes fired clean across her beams.