Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid


  • Please log in to reply
476 replies to this topic

#391    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 27 April 2013 - 02:07 PM

View Postmstower, on 27 April 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

MS: Stop trying to be the expert on things you know nothing about… The Hungarians did not hold a design competition.  They chose their engineer (William Tierney Clark) and let him get on with it.  Resident Engineer was Adam Clark (apparently no relation).

Mr Stower,

Quote

The early history of this bridge contains other links to England. While W. T. Clark entered the competition with three designs, another English engineer, George Rennie, also submitted designs for various options. The referees, engineers John Plews and Samuel Slater, were also British. They gave their votes for the three bay suspension bridge not to be built at the narrowest point of the Danube between Buda and Pest but rather at its to-day existing location. (From here)

SC: That very much sounds like a design competition to me. Even the great Brunel created a design for this competition but, in the end, did not submit it to Hungary. Out of my depth? Hmmmm...  I think it best we let the facts be the judge of that.

What was that you were saying about "experts"?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 27 April 2013 - 02:08 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#392    Irna

Irna

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 April 2013 - 04:22 PM

Mr. Creighton, I fear you're again clutching at straws here. No, it does not seem to have been a "design competition" in the modern sense, in that it was not an "open" competition. It appears that Széchenyi asked Clark to submit his projects; and that later one of the bankers, Wodianer, wished to contact Rennie in order to have a competiting project, see below.
Unless you can come with really convincing evidence, your fiction of a precocious engineer of 18, with absolutely no realisation of his own, winning a supposed "Best New Promising Engineer" prize (a very contemporary idea), will remain just that, a fiction.


Quote

The construction of the first permanent bridge in the Hungarian capital was ordered by law No. XXVI. in 1836. Following this a national committee was elected, which was chaired by Count István Széchenyi. Their first trial to achieve a national collaboration for collecting the financial background of bridge remained unsuccessful. Széchenyi began discussions with bank owner György Sina, who was ready to deal with the financial questions of the realization process of the bridge. Later an other bank, owned by Sámuel Wodianer and his son, was also joining to the job.
For the proposal of Count Széchenyi, Sina invited William Thirney Clark, the well-known English bridge engineer to come to Pest and to present his ideas about the bridge. Clark had three versions, all of them were chain bridges, and they were prepared to different sites for crossing the Danube. At the same time an other, also well-know English bridge engineer, George Rennie was invited by Wodianer to come to Pest, who presented four alternative proposals. But nobody was brave enough to select any of the seven solutions. Having the agreement of the designers, two other English specialists, Plews and Slater were asked to study the possible sites, the conditions and the proposed versions and to express their opinion about them.
From: http://www.hsz.bme.h...s/danubeb8.html

Quote

English architects George Rennie and William Tierney Clark were invited to submit their proposals for the bridge, and subsequently tendered several plans spanning different sections of the Danube.
English engineers John Plews and Samuel Slater advised that a chain bridge with as few piers as possible would minimise the damming effect, and special care should be taken when constructing the foundations.
From: http://suite101.com/...lanchid-a400297

Quote

In 1836 or 1837 Salomon von Rothschild could not have known that Georg Sina would later, in 1840,
complain bitterly to Széchenyi in a private letter that, “never would I have undertaken the building of the
Pest-Ofen bridge if you had not persuaded me to do it ...”3 Rothschild was evidently convinced that he
had been excluded from a profitable enterprise and began to intrigue, lending his support to some of the
many enemies of the project in Hungary. The Jewish banker Wodianer, from Pest, was his special ally and
he and several other businessmen from the town contracted another architect to provide a lower estimate
than Széchenyi had secured from his chosen architect. (As it later turned out, both costings were far
removed from reality). In the end Sina could only resolve the situation by granting a portion of the stock
to Wodianer and Rothschild, thus giving them a share in the enterprise
From: http://www.alanier.at/chainbridge.pdf



#393    Windowpane

Windowpane

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 56 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2012

Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:41 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 27 April 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:


Even the great Brunel created a design for this competition but, in the end, did not submit it to Hungary.


Which of the Brunels?  And when?

Szechenyi had some contact with Sir Marc Brunel (along with Rennie and Telford) during his visit in 1832.  But I've never come across any mention of a Brunel design for this bridge.


#394    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,358 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:43 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 27 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

1. Harte just commented that there were cartouche's also refering to other kings. But if you say so i will let this pass but all i can say is there is nothing scientific in the orthodoxy position as well.

I noticed Harte's earlier post, but too late. Before I could reply to point it out to him, he posted first to admit his error. See Post 352 on Page 24. Linguistics isn't a hard science, of course, but it follows rigid protocols and the scientific method. The names in the relieving chambers say Khufu, Khnum-Khufu, and Medjedu, and all three refer to the same king (no other kings are mentioned). This is attested at other sites, like the before-metioned discovery in the Sinai. There is no possible, logical doubt to this.

Quote

2. Regarding the heiratic script, again what you offer is that "currently most Egyptologist do not believe so" as evidence, But i will take your word for this too. But what you mentioned caught my intrest regarding the pappyri written during Khufu's reign, do any of these pappyri mention the building of the great pyramid?

It is not hieratic but linear hieroglyphic. There is a clear distinction. Hieratic is a cursive version of ancient Egyptian script that also dates to prehistory, and probably evolved simultaneous to hieroglyphs. Hieratic is loaded with abbreviations and ligatures. I have a hard time deciphering it myself, but my training has been in hieroglyphs (linear and formal). Harsh, it would be a grand mistake to doubt Egyptology just for the sake of doubting it, and nothing more. Your stance against orthodox, professional historical research is not logical. If you doubt Egyptology's research on any topic of the ancient writing, you must then prove through your own concerted research how Egyptological conclusions on the scripts are wrong. Just stating they're wrong proves nothing.

The Sinai papyri have next to nothing to do with the Great Pyramid, nor would one expect them to. They relate to quarrying operations in that distant region, so they are not going to concern themselves with building descriptions. Now, not a lot has been released on them yet, but there is mention of an official named Merer who was involved with building operations of Khufu's pyramid. My guess is he was overseeing the importation of certain valuable raw materials from the Sinai mines and quarries. I started a discussion on the Sinai discovery here, and it includes photos of the papyri fragments.

Quote

3.Was also trying to debate point no. 3 in a different topic that i created, i got this from 3 different people that the "pyramids before the great pyramid also did not have funerary texts", but then how do we know that they were tombs? There has to be more evidence then the evidence we find in the great pyramids for us to believe so strongly that they were tombs.I request you to post the pictures of these previous pyramid tombs (inside view ofcourse) and if you can also comment on the evidence that led us to declare them as tombs.

I don't wish to bog down this discussion with this line of argument, which I feel is not relevant to an evaluation of the graffiti in the Great Pyramid and the wider debate about it. This is better suited for the pyramid discussion you recently started in a separate thread. I do want to join that discussion but have very little free time as of late, due to other obligations. But for the time being, I will stress the consistent overall site plan for nearly all pyramids from Dynasty 3 to the end of Dynasty 12, which includes an overall similarity in the architecture of these pyramids inside and out (in most cases including sarcophagi); the existence of associated temples and causeways involved with the mortuary cults of all of these kings, including their own inscriptional plans and relief carvings; the fact that all of these pyramids stand in known ancient necropoli where a great many other people contemporary to each king were buried; and scientific analyses such as C14 dating which establishes that all pyramids tested do in fact belong to the timeframe where orthodox scholars have always placed them. These are the highlights, at least.

Quote

4.The sarcophagi in the great pyramid is very interesting if it is indeed a sarcophagii, as forget about decorations with heiroglyphics etc, even the stone has not been dressed or there are no carvings also. This comes across as very strange if it indeed a sarcophagii. Sesh are then any such bare sarcophagii, can you post pictures if you have any.

Khufu's sarcophagus is not the first but certainly one of the earliest to be produced in hard stone. As such an early example, it's not surprising that it's not perfectly cut and dressed. The typical royal sarcophagus of the New Kingdom, on the other hand, puts it to shame. Again, however, you cannot evaluate Old Kingdom sarcophagi based on those produced much later in time: the overall shape, dimensions, and decoration plans (if any) of Old Kingdom sarcophagi are quite different. They are in effect simply stone boxes. As for other examples, you can use Google to find any number of examples, but for now I can show Sekhemkhet's from his unfinished pyramid at Saqqara; Khafre's from G2; Menkaure's from G3, showing a palace-facade motif (the original was lost on sea en route to England, so only drawings remain); and the sarcophagus of Queen Hetepheres from the East Cemetery of Khufu's pyramid complex. An example of a beautiful sarcophagus with spare inscriptions and the palace-facade motif is that of Queen Meresankh, also from Giza.

Quote

5.Regarding Vyse's findings, there are no heiroglyphs in the davison chamber which was excessed 72 years before Vyse blasted the other chambers and found the graffiti and cartouche's painted in easily available red ochre paint, this comes across as really suspicious.

The lack of hieroglyphs in Davison's chamber is of course not acceptable evidence that Vyse forged the graffiti in the upper chambers. It wouldn't even fall under the category of circumstantial evidence. I have to think you're either missing a lot of the posts in this discussion or are ignoring them altogether, because it's already been shown how unrealistic this scenario is. For it to be true, we would have to imagine that Vyse was not only carrying around quantities of iron oxide on his person but somehow deftly coated all of his "forgeries" in dense layers of the dark mineral debris that was found in each chamber, covering all surfaces—and with no one noticing him doing this. And this says nothing of the sheer improbability of none of the Egyptian workmen, John Perring, or visiting aristocracy noticing Vyse painting this stuff in the first place. Vyse was nearly never alone. He was always with teams of people to perform his blasting operations and to conduct measurements of each chamber. It was only when the first chamber was being measured by Vyse, Perring, and another fellow that anyone noticed the markings on the stone blocks, underneath the ancient grime.

The entire approach to the hoax myth is basically illogical. It now seems to smack of desperation. As I wrote earlier, all avenues of evidentiary argument toward the hoax have been shut down in the pages of this thread: I stress evidentiary, not speculative, the latter of which serves no useful purpose. We are essentially left with the premise that Vyse must have forged the glyphs because of election dealings many years earlier, when he was a young man under the sway of his father and their patron (a superior officer). This is not at all a reasonable foundation on which to rest an entire case, so the case has collapsed in the light of day.

Quote

6.This is not about Sitchin, he may have popularised and pointed out many of these observations, but none of these doubts require Sitchin's testimony.

It is very much about Sitchin. This cannot be avoided due to the simple fact that no elaborate hoax myth even existed prior to 1980, when he published The Stairway to Heaven. Sitchin manufactured the hoax myth to help to sell his book (and subsequent books), and falsified evidence to make it happen. Sitchin was the first to propose that Howard Vyse forged the glyphs, and it took off from there in alternative circles. Sitchin misrepresented the nature and orthography of the glyphs to help bolster his case, and here is where he is directly guilty of falsifying evidence—hence all of the silly and unnecessary fuss about the Aa1 glyph that took off in alternative circles. Sitchin misrepresented the nature and likely even the existence of the so-called Brewer letters to help substantiate the hoax myth, even though we've seen in the pages of this thread that this is actually a gross exaggeration on Sitchin's part.

Remove Sitchin from the equation and you remove the entirety of the hoax myth. Sitchin invented it. All subsequent arguments in favor of the hoax myth are based on the original erroneous and falsified information presented by Sitchin. As is always the case and forever shall be, Sitchin is wrong.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#395    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:34 AM

First footage from Foerster's current Egypt visit.  Accompanied by Dunn and Mehler they are already uncovering forbidden relics.  

Great stuff.

http://www.youtube.c...v=eBWCiAYEMNA#!

Posted Image


#396    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:37 AM

View Postzoser, on 28 April 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

First footage from Foerster's current Egypt visit.  Accompanied by Dunn and Mehler they are already uncovering forbidden relics.  

Great stuff.
VIDEO SNIPPED
Forbidden relics!! forbidden?!?! Posted Image


#397    Windowpane

Windowpane

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 56 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2012

Posted 28 April 2013 - 09:38 AM

View Postzoser, on 28 April 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

they are already uncovering forbidden relics.  



How are the relics 'forbidden' ?


#398    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 10:05 AM

View PostWindowpane, on 27 April 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

[size=4]

Which of the Brunels?  And when?

Szechenyi had some contact with Sir Marc Brunel (along with Rennie and Telford) during his visit in 1832.  But I've never come across any mention of a Brunel design for this bridge.

SC: I believe it to be I. K. Brunel as historians generally refer to him as 'Brunel' and not his father. See here.

SC;

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#399    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 10:07 AM

View PostIrna, on 27 April 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Irna: Mr. Creighton, I fear you're again clutching at straws here.

SC: I disagree. What I am in fact doing and which every critical thinking person should be doing is trying to make sense of the evidence presented before us rather than simply jumping to the first seemingly obvious conclusion. When people jump to the first, seemingly obvious conclusion in a given situation you end up with—for example—the ridiculous claim that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs.

I think it would suit you well to re-examine the real "fiction" in this thread, to wit:

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse simply could not have faked the inscriptions in the chambers because he did not know or understand AE script, implying that the inscriptions must therefore be authentic. I presented a means by which Howard-Vyse could have perpetrated such a hoax without the need for any advanced knowledge of AE Script therefore what had previously been thought by the apologists as impossible is now regarded as possible.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 1

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that some hieroglyphics were placed in tight gaps between immovable blocks where no forger could possibly have placed them. I presented a means by which glyphs could easily have been placed into such tight gaps. I also explained that, according to Hancock, the marks in the tight gaps did not look like glyphs, just random mason’s “quarry marks” (although this would need to be confirmed by experts).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 2

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere questioned that Humphries Brewer even existed. I presented evidence to show he did exist.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 3

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Humphries Brewer was wrongly attributed with the Thames Tunnel. I have shown that this is not even mentioned in the Walter Allen family record.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 4

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there is no record of Humphries Brewer having ever been in Egypt. I have shown that such a record does exist that states he was in Egypt.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 5

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Walter Allen was a fiction of Sitchin. I have shown that Walter Allen existed.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 6

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse was a man whose character was whiter than the driven snow. I have shown how that is not the case.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 7

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there was no design competition to build the Chain Bridge over the Danube. I have shown that there was a competition. (I will come back to this point).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 8

Time and time again the apologists have made claims that have been shown to be wrong. So you have to ask yourself, who exactly is making up the “fiction” here? You have to ask yourself, who is being critically-minded with the evidence rather than accepting it at face value? You have to ask yourself, who is it that is changing perceptions here? Accepting what you see before you at face value is how you end up deceiving yourself and not wishing to dig (or think) any deeper than the surface evidence is wilful neglect. The apologists around here and elsewhere do not wish to think outside the box on this issue (and others) for fear of what they might end of finding; for fear of any new discovery bringing their long-held beliefs crashing down around them. They are happy with their superficial observations and are more than willing and happy to reject real science getting involved. They are happy with their confirmation bias. If you were to be truly objective you would think of every possible context to explain the evidence and not simply let the surface veneer confirm what you want to believe. That isn’t being honest with yourself and it most certainly isn’t science. By following such an approach you simply end up as sheeple.

Now to the bridge question. You have to ask yourself something: who awarded Humphries Brewer his prize and in what context was the prize awarded? The context is not given in the Allen record. Why would Humphries Brewer be falsely credited with the construction of the Chain Bridge at Budapest when it could so easily be discovered that this was a lie? And why is this credit not repeated in Brewer’s obituary? It stands to reason that a major achievement such as this would be foremost in most people’s obituary, so why is it in Allen’s family account but not in Brewer’s obituary?

Do you see what I am doing here? I am digging deeper, asking more questions. I am not accepting the first conclusion that would be in the apologist’s minds. And that is what everyone here should be doing. We need to be objective folks.

A number of years ago my brother-in-law won an award for designing a bridge over the river Clyde in Glasgow, Scotland. The competition was run by his university department. A number of years later, a new bridge was built over the River Clyde. It wasn’t my brother-in-law’s design that was ultimately built. But he is still very proud of his design award. The point here is context—what was the precise context of the design prize won by Brewer? It is simply not given in Walter Allen’s account and so, barring the discovery of the actual letters, we may never be able to answer that question. But we should not presume to know the answer. What we do know is that it would have been silly in the extreme for him to claim something that could so easily be disproved (and which those in the ‘know’ could tell immediately was a lie). And there is no claim of such made in his obituary. This strongly suggests that there was another context for this design prize claim.

Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 28 April 2013 - 10:59 AM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#400    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 6,959 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 28 April 2013 - 10:35 AM

Quote

Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9



Quote

Irna, on 28 April 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:


Irna: Mr. Creighton, I fear you're again clutching at straws here.


:rofl:

Quote

' ... life and death carry on as they always have ~ and always will, only the dreamer is gone ~ behind the flow of imagination, beyond any effort to be still
dancing in the ebb and flow of attention, more present than the breath, I find the origins of my illusions, only the dreamer is gone ~ the dream never ends
'

GIFTS WITH NO GIVER - a love affair with truth ~ Poems by Nirmala

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#401    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 28 April 2013 - 10:52 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 28 April 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9
What smoke and mirrors, what self serving nonsense, what arrogant self-righteousness, what tautology, and how insulting to an entire profession and anybody who does not fall for the bunkum of the fringe. All we see is the usual attack that if you do not take seriously every nonsense theory that emerges, then you are a dimwitted luddite. These riduculous attacks on reality are all the same no matter who is the author, even today I have been attacked, yet again, and in another place, for daring to call the book "The Giza Powerplant" the nonsense it clearly is. Are we expected to believe each of these nonsense theories? are they all to be true? all except yours of course. Do not climb on here with these constant sly insults to peoples intelligence. You call others rigid in their thought processes, yet cannot see this in your own. Your arguments about Vyse and the cartouche have been demolished for all to see. Any blockheaded thinking here is yours.

REALITY 10  - FRINGE 0


#402    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,081 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 10:58 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 28 April 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

SC: I disagree. What I am in fact doing and which every critical thinking person should be doing is trying to make sense of the evidence presented before us rather than simply jumping to the first seemingly obvious conclusion. When people jump to the first, seemingly obvious conclusion in a given situation you end up with—for example—the ridiculous claim that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs.

I think it would suit you well to re-examine the real "fiction" in this thread, to wit:

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse simply could not have faked the inscriptions in the chambers because he did not know or understand AE script, implying that the inscriptions must therefore be authentic. I presented a means by which Howard-Vyse could have perpetrated such a hoax without the need for any advanced knowledge of AE Script therefore what had previously been thought by the apologists as impossible is now regarded as possible.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 1

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that some hieroglyphics were placed in tight gaps between immovable blocks where no forger could possibly have placed them. I presented a means by which glyphs could easily have been placed into such tight gaps. I also explained that, according to Hancock, the marks in the tight gaps did not look like glyphs, just random mason’s “quarry marks” (although this would need to be confirmed by experts).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 2

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere questioned that Humphries Brewer even existed. I presented evidence to show he did exist.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 3

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Humphries Brewer was wrongly attributed with the Thames Tunnel. I have shown that this is not even mentioned in the Walter Allen family record.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 4

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there is no official record Humphries Brewer having ever been in Egypt. I have shown that such a record does exist that states he was in Egypt.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 5

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Walter Allen was a fiction of Sitchin. I have shown that Walter Allen existed.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 6

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse was a man whose character was whiter than the driven snow. I have show how that is not the case.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 7

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there was no design competition to build the Chain Bridge over the Danube. I have show that there was a competition. (I will come back to this last point).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 8

Time and time again the apologists have made claims that have been shown to be wrong. So you have to ask yourself, who exactly is making up the “fiction” here? You have to ask yourself, who is being critically-minded with the evidence rather than accepting it at face value? You have to ask yourself, who is it that is changing perceptions here? Accepting what you see before you at face value is how you end up deceiving yourself and not wishing to dig (or think) any deeper than the surface evidence is wilful neglect. The apologists around here and elsewhere do not wish to think outside the box on this issue (and others) for fear of what they might end of finding; for fear of any new discovery bringing their long-held beliefs crashing down around them. They are happy with their superficial observations and are more than willing and happy to reject real science getting involved. They are happy with their confirmation bias. If you were to be truly objective you would think of every possible context to explain the evidence and not simply let the surface veneer confirm what you want to believe. That isn’t being honest with yourself and it most certainly isn’t science. By following such an approach you simply end up as sheeple.

Now to the bridge question. You have to ask yourself something: who awarded Humphries Brewer his prize and in what context was the prize awarded? The context is not given in the Allen record. Why would Humphries Brewer be falsely credited with the construction of the Chain Bridge at Budapest when it could so easily be discovered that this was a lie? And why is this credit not repeated in Brewer’s obituary? It stands to reason that a major achievement such as this would be foremost in most people’s obituary, so why is it in Allen’s family account but not in Brewer’s obituary?

Do you see what I am doing here? I am digging deeper, asking more questions. I am not accepting the first conclusion that would be in the apologist’s minds. And that is what everyone here should be doing. We need to be objective folks.

A number of years ago my brother-in-law won an award for designing a bridge over the river Clyde in Glasgow, Scotland. The competition was run by his university department. A number of years later, a new bridge was built over the River Clyde. It wasn’t my brother-in-law’s design that was ultimately built. But he is still very proud of his design award. The point here is context—what was the precise context of the design prize won by Brewer? It is simply not given in Walter Allen’s account and so, barring the discovery of the actual letters, we may never be able to answer that question. But we should not presume to know the answer. What we do know is that it would have been silly in the extreme for him to claim something that could so easily be disproved (and which those in the ‘know’ could tell immediately was a lie). And there is no claim of such made in his obituary. This strongly suggests that there was another context for this design prize claim.

Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9

SC

May I interject that just because, for whatever reason, you are ignorant of the facts that detract from your brain maxturbation, or try hard to ignore them, reality is not changed?

And I certainly will not go into arguing with your circle thinking because we always end up at the same point within five posts.

Edited by questionmark, 28 April 2013 - 10:59 AM.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#403    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:07 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 28 April 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

May I interject that just because, for whatever reason, you are ignorant of the facts that detract from your brain maxturbation, or try hard to ignore them, reality is not changed?

And I certainly will not go into arguing with your circle thinking because we always end up at the same point within five posts.

SC: Alas for you, my comments will be judged by the facts that anyone can read in this thread. And most certainly not by you.

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#404    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 6,959 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:36 AM

score sheet ???


Posted Image


he'll want nice 'sparkly stars' next ...


Posted Image


who wants one ?



Quote

' ... life and death carry on as they always have ~ and always will, only the dreamer is gone ~ behind the flow of imagination, beyond any effort to be still
dancing in the ebb and flow of attention, more present than the breath, I find the origins of my illusions, only the dreamer is gone ~ the dream never ends
'

GIFTS WITH NO GIVER - a love affair with truth ~ Poems by Nirmala

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#405    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,081 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:39 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 28 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

SC: Alas for you, my comments will be judged by the facts that anyone can read in this thread. And most certainly not by you.

SC

Well what do you think about this "discussion"?

SC: The pyramids are yellow
Science: Well, no, the definition of yellow is a color  ranging from 570-590 nm wavelenght. The pyramids are around 560 nm, therefore ocher.
SC: The definition of color was not found on a papyrus of the 4th dynasty
Science: It still does not change the fact that the pyramids are not yellow.
SC: Yes it does because Alfred Chester Beatty wrote his journal in pink ink
Sigmund Freud: interesting, do you have that frequently?

And that is been going on, as far as I remember, for at least the last two years. Wherein, when you got enough of a beating showing that most of your so called "discoveries" are but brain maxturbations you disappear for a few months to start back at exactly the same intellectual diarrhea that has been refuted prior.

I can understand that you want to sell your books, but sorry, the stuff you are (in a very ill prose, if I may add) writing does not sell. Try writing something about the reality, or, if you cannot deal with reality try some real fiction. You seem to have a talent for that. But for the rest: You are at a pretty dead end and most who bought something you wrote are sad that it is not in newspaper form: then the paper could at least be used to wrap something in it.

Edited by questionmark, 28 April 2013 - 11:49 AM.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users