How did Egyptians light inside of pyramids?

[badeskov]

<snip>

What is "Google Scholar"?

It's the tool I use when I am at home and do not have access to University resources (too lazy to do a remote login). Very comprehensive search tool for scientific articles/book/publications. I am very surprised that you are not familiar with that particular tool given your alleged research abilities.

http://scholar.google.com/

Cheers,

Badeskov

[cormac mac airt]

That is precisely what I thought you meant. Your phrasing made it unclear.

The anonymity is relevant; for myself as well as my uncle. I'd rather that until my books are published, people such as yourself be left unaware of our identities and personal information. Can you not understand that?

What is "Google Scholar"?

What you fail to realize is that what you want is irrelevant since, if you're uncle really did publish scientific papers then, it's ALREADY a matter of public record. The fact that you refuse to provide evidence that's (presumably) already a matter of public record suggests that you are, indeed, making it up. That's the position YOU'VE put yourself into. So again, one of you is not telling the truth. So which one is it?

cormac

[badeskov]

You did. I thank you again for your warning.

These people don't seem to understand that at my age finding all of the dozens of "links" or pertinent references is exceedingly difficult--particularly when having to dig through my filing cabinets and library as well.

I thank you for your kindness.

Someone with your alleged body or work would know exactly where pertinent references were. It is something that innumerable scholars in innumerable fields of study do every single day.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Arbitran]

It's the tool I use when I am at home and do not have access to University resources (too lazy to do a remote login). Very comprehensive search tool for scientific articles/book/publications. I am very surprised that you are not familiar with that particular tool given your alleged research abilities.

http://scholar.google.com/

Cheers,

Badeskov

As I have said, I am not well-acquainted with computers. Call me old-fashioned, but I've always just used books.

[Arbitran]

What you fail to realize is that what you want is irrelevant since, if you're uncle really did publish scientific papers then, it's ALREADY a matter of public record. The fact that you refuse to provide evidence that's (presumably) already a matter of public record suggests that you are, indeed, making it up. That's the position YOU'VE put yourself into. So again, one of you is not telling the truth. So which one is it?

cormac

Your suggestion is absurd.

Of course my uncle's papers are a matter of public record, having been published: this however does not mean that I wish to retain anonymity, and thus I do not wish to direct you to the papers at this time, given that my uncle's name is present.

[Arbitran]

Someone with your alleged body or work would know exactly where pertinent references were. It is something that innumerable scholars in innumerable fields of study do every single day.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I regret my memory and organizational skills are not quite so keen as that.

[Gaden]

You did. I thank you again for your warning.

These people don't seem to understand that at my age finding all of the dozens of "links" or pertinent references is exceedingly difficult--particularly when having to dig through my filing cabinets and library as well.

I thank you for your kindness.

Yes we are all aware of your problems digging up your referrence, but surely in all of this time, you have managed to find one single scrap, anything? As to the matter of links, surely they are only a few seconds away? you have sorted them, like any diligent researcher would, right? Try looking under Egypt, subheading electric generator idea, pertinent links. Something of that sort?

You must be aged, indeed, I myself am 58 yrs old and sometimes find myself in the kitchen, wondering just what the hell I came in there for. However, if I were writing a book, I'm pretty sure I could lay my hands on my research papers, books and links. I can see you are not going to prove your "uncle" is a published Egyptologist, So, as before, I ask give us something, anything at all.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Gaden

[kmt_sesh]

I can't say that under definitions I am technically a scientist--I'm more of a historian. I compile historical evidence and construct theories based on it; my uncle is more hands-on scientific.

Arbitran, you must understand why we're all skeptical, myself included. I've tried to be civil and respectful to a point, but my own patience has worn thin. You've stated that you've been researching history for many years, and in fact I think in one post you said it was some forty years now. That's longer than I and most others here have been at it, and indeed it's longer than many professionals have been at it. So imagine our incredulity at your persistent efforts to avoid supporting your statements. You say you understand the methodologies but you, yourself, seem to avoid them. Instead of providing corroboration, you mention a learned relative or knowledgeable acquaintance. You assure us you'll contact this person but then we hear really nothing more on the matter.

Early on when I and others were challenging you on points specific to Egyptology, you announced that you have an uncle who is an accomplished Egyptologist. When you were challenged on matters pertaining to the Hindu religion and Sanskrit, you announced that your uncle has a colleague who's an expert on Sanskrit. And when challenged earlier in this thread on matters of chemistry and physics, you announced that your uncle has another colleague who's an expert on chemistry and physics. (I was noticeably absent in that portion of the debate because I know almost nothing about chemistry and physics and am not ashamed to admit it, so I prefer to avoid commenting on matters in which I am not well educated.)

In Post 200 Swede contributed an outline for properly providing qualified documentation. It was soon after this post that you explained you're familiar with the methodology. Why have you not used it, then? I am not a professional historian but I have taken the time through the years to learn the protocols, so I can support my own arguments when challenged or when I think it's necessary. Moreover, I am not a published historian but I train personnel to work inside our Egyptian exhibit at a Chicago museum, so in that position I am required to know how to write papers, give lectures, and provide citations. If I'm only an amateur historian who knows this stuff, why don't you utilize this stuff?

For example, earlier I was talking about when in Egypt glass production is known to have begun. I had stated that it was in Dynasty 18. I pulled a book from my library just now, so I could phrase this by saying: According to Lucas and Harris in their book Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, regular glass production on a large scale dates from about the beginning of Dynasty 18 (page 179). I usually keep it simpler than that and provide the bare bones. I would add onto the statement as such: Regular glass production on a large scale dates from about the beginning of Dynasty 18 (Lucas & Harris 1962: 179). Then, if someone wants to know more about who these Lucas and Harris guys are, I can provide the information. In normal fashion I would provide the full bibliography of citations at the end of my post, in the manner of a paper or article.

But I'm not that rigid about it and don't tend to look at UM posts as a peer-reviewed paper. I'm only sharing information--but I fully understand and appreciate the importance of supporting one's statements. Again, you state that you understand the methodology, which means you should already understand everything in the above paragraph, and yet not once in any of your posts have you followed the methodology. We have not received a single instance of corroboration on your part. I know that when I write something that's based on my own theory or might otherwise depart from standard research, I will clearly state as much so there is no mistaking it. Perhaps you should, too. If it's your own speculation and you cannot offer support for it, simply say as much.

Finally, I know of one book that's helped me to practice proper citation and corroboration protocols. I think Swede might agree with my suggestion (and for all I know it was he who recommended it to me in the first place, although I can't remember). It's Kate Turabian's venerable A Manual for Writers. Anyone with a serious penchant for writing publicly about any historical or scientific topic should have this book on his or her shelf.

[cormac mac airt]

Your suggestion is absurd.

Of course my uncle's papers are a matter of public record, having been published: this however does not mean that I wish to retain anonymity, and thus I do not wish to direct you to the papers at this time, given that my uncle's name is present.

Nope, mine is the only suggestion remaining as you refuse to substantiate your claim. Leaving you nothing to offer but hot air. And I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. So quite literally Thanks For Nothing.

cormac

[Arbitran]

Yes we are all aware of your problems digging up your referrence, but surely in all of this time, you have managed to find one single scrap, anything? As to the matter of links, surely they are only a few seconds away? you have sorted them, like any diligent researcher would, right? Try looking under Egypt, subheading electric generator idea, pertinent links. Something of that sort?

You must be aged, indeed, I myself am 58 yrs old and sometimes find myself in the kitchen, wondering just what the hell I came in there for. However, if I were writing a book, I'm pretty sure I could lay my hands on my research papers, books and links. I can see you are not going to prove your "uncle" is a published Egyptologist, So, as before, I ask give us something, anything at all.

I've largely been working by memory here... I will keep trying to find the pertinent references in my evidence.

[kmt_sesh]

Yes we are all aware of your problems digging up your referrence, but surely in all of this time, you have managed to find one single scrap, anything? As to the matter of links, surely they are only a few seconds away? you have sorted them, like any diligent researcher would, right? Try looking under Egypt, subheading electric generator idea, pertinent links. Something of that sort?

You must be aged, indeed, I myself am 58 yrs old and sometimes find myself in the kitchen, wondering just what the hell I came in there for. However, if I were writing a book, I'm pretty sure I could lay my hands on my research papers, books and links. I can see you are not going to prove your "uncle" is a published Egyptologist, So, as before, I ask give us something, anything at all.

I was wondering about that. Gaden, what in the hell are you doing in my kitchen?

Kidding aside, I am all of 45 years old and, sadly, I know exactly what you mean.

Arbitran, if this uncle of yours is real and you're trying to protect your anonymity by not providing his name or references to his work, there is nothing we can do about it. I prefer to practice a certain amount of anonymity, too.

But turning to your uncle should not even be necessary. It would be hard to imagine the number of Egyptologists who've written on just the subject of glass or any other specific topic. If not your uncle, what other researcher's work can you cite? There is no scarcity, to be certain.

[Arbitran]

Arbitran, you must understand why we're all skeptical, myself included. I've tried to be civil and respectful to a point, but my own patience has worn thin. You've stated that you've been researching history for many years, and in fact I think in one post you said it was some forty years now. That's longer than I and most others here have been at it, and indeed it's longer than many professionals have been at it. So imagine our incredulity at your persistent efforts to avoid supporting your statements. You say you understand the methodologies but you, yourself, seem to avoid them. Instead of providing corroboration, you mention a learned relative or knowledgeable acquaintance. You assure us you'll contact this person but then we hear really nothing more on the matter.

Early on when I and others were challenging you on points specific to Egyptology, you announced that you have an uncle who is an accomplished Egyptologist. When you were challenged on matters pertaining to the Hindu religion and Sanskrit, you announced that your uncle has a colleague who's an expert on Sanskrit. And when challenged earlier in this thread on matters of chemistry and physics, you announced that your uncle has another colleague who's an expert on chemistry and physics. (I was noticeably absent in that portion of the debate because I know almost nothing about chemistry and physics and am not ashamed to admit it, so I prefer to avoid commenting on matters in which I am not well educated.)

In Post 200 Swede contributed an outline for properly providing qualified documentation. It was soon after this post that you explained you're familiar with the methodology. Why have you not used it, then? I am not a professional historian but I have taken the time through the years to learn the protocols, so I can support my own arguments when challenged or when I think it's necessary. Moreover, I am not a published historian but I train personnel to work inside our Egyptian exhibit at a Chicago museum, so in that position I am required to know how to write papers, give lectures, and provide citations. If I'm only an amateur historian who knows this stuff, why don't you utilize this stuff?

For example, earlier I was talking about when in Egypt glass production is known to have begun. I had stated that it was in Dynasty 18. I pulled a book from my library just now, so I could phrase this by saying: According to Lucas and Harris in their book Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, regular glass production on a large scale dates from about the beginning of Dynasty 18 (page 179). I usually keep it simpler than that and provide the bare bones. I would add onto the statement as such: Regular glass production on a large scale dates from about the beginning of Dynasty 18 (Lucas & Harris 1962: 179). Then, if someone wants to know more about who these Lucas and Harris guys are, I can provide the information. In normal fashion I would provide the full bibliography of citations at the end of my post, in the manner of a paper or article.

But I'm not that rigid about it and don't tend to look at UM posts as a peer-reviewed paper. I'm only sharing information--but I fully understand and appreciate the importance of supporting one's statements. Again, you state that you understand the methodology, which means you should already understand everything in the above paragraph, and yet not once in any of your posts have you followed the methodology. We have not received a single instance of corroboration on your part. I know that when I write something that's based on my own theory or might otherwise depart from standard research, I will clearly state as much so there is no mistaking it. Perhaps you should, too. If it's your own speculation and you cannot offer support for it, simply say as much.

Finally, I know of one book that's helped me to practice proper citation and corroboration protocols. I think Swede might agree with my suggestion (and for all I know it was he who recommended it to me in the first place, although I can't remember). It's Kate Turabian's venerable A Manual for Writers. Anyone with a serious penchant for writing publicly about any historical or scientific topic should have this book on his or her shelf.

I sincerely apologize if you are becoming impatient. At my age though, things are a bit slower, and my inadequacy on the computer coupled with the fact that I've largely been working from memory thus far makes things very difficult at "21st-Century speed". I will continue to dig through my work and find what pertinent references I can--until I can find them though, I'll likely have to continue by my (now-poor) memory. My apologies again.

[Arbitran]

Nope, mine is the only suggestion remaining as you refuse to substantiate your claim. Leaving you nothing to offer but hot air. And I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. So quite literally Thanks For Nothing.

cormac

Adieu.

I would certainly love to give you what you want, but seeing as I'm going from memory here until I can locate the proper citations in my work, you clearly won't be getting what you want yet.

[Gaden]

I was wondering about that. Gaden, what in the hell are you doing in my kitchen?

Oops, sorry, that must have been the time I tried to find the bathroom in the Field Museum, found myself later wandering around down by the docks. (my wife still doesn't believe me)

[Arbitran]

I was wondering about that. Gaden, what in the hell are you doing in my kitchen?

Kidding aside, I am all of 45 years old and, sadly, I know exactly what you mean.

Arbitran, if this uncle of yours is real and you're trying to protect your anonymity by not providing his name or references to his work, there is nothing we can do about it. I prefer to practice a certain amount of anonymity, too.

But turning to your uncle should not even be necessary. It would be hard to imagine the number of Egyptologists who've written on just the subject of glass or any other specific topic. If not your uncle, what other researcher's work can you cite? There is no scarcity, to be certain.

He didn't write a great deal on glass I'm afraid. Much of what he's told me I suspect he formulated after he retired from the field. Just as a note.

[cormac mac airt]

Adieu.

I would certainly love to give you what you want, but seeing as I'm going from memory here until I can locate the proper citations in my work, you clearly won't be getting what you want yet.

Right. As you've left us with nothing substantial to support your claims then there is really no reason to believe anything you've said.

cormac

[Arbitran]

Right. As you've left us with nothing substantial to support your claims then there is really no reason to believe anything you've said.

cormac

Most substantial evidence is in my books. Read them when they're published.

Why am I kidding myself? Of course you won't read them. You wouldn't read or believe my evidence if I had the faculties to show it all to you right now.

[Gaden]

Most substantial evidence is in my books. Read them when they're published.

Why am I kidding myself? Of course you won't read them. You wouldn't read or believe my evidence if I had the faculties to show it all to you right now.

Will your books contain a bibliography? If so, can you give even one source?

[cormac mac airt]

Most substantial evidence is in my books. Read them when they're published.

Why am I kidding myself? Of course you won't read them. You wouldn't read or believe my evidence if I had the faculties to show it all to you right now.

So far you haven't shown you have the faculties to substantiate your claims. Why should I believe anything else you've said?

cormac

[Arbitran]

Will your books contain a bibliography? If so, can you give even one source?

Yes, my books have an extremely long bibliography.

One source: Hindu Scriptures by Dominic Goodall and Robert C. Zaehner.

[The Truth hurts]

That's bullscheise. The purpose of one publishing under their own name is, amongst other things, to be publicly recognized as having taken part in establishing whatever details are in said publication. The possibility of your having made up the claim entirely is the best possible scenario, as the alternative is that your uncle either didn't believe and/or falsified whatever he put his name too. So which is it? You fabricated the claim or he lied about it? Those are the only reasons NOT to show what papers were published. Again, there is NO anonymity in matters of public record.

cormac

Cormac. You are completely correct. That is how researchers (real ones) establish the sequence of establishing who was the first making a given statement or vice versa, in refuting a claim.

In the case of the Kariong Glyphs, it was Steve Spillar in his contribution to to "The Encyclopaedia of dubious Archaeology", who claimed the glyphs were a hoax, a claim since repudiated by him, and claimed hence to be the statement of an unknown person, who published it under Spillard name. But the problem is, it is still under his name on the Public Record.

To pursue his claim made under the Pseudonym "Woy Woy Steve" aka. Artemis Flow, I contacted the Author and Public Speaker Steven Strong, to question him with regards to a statement made in this forum, that it was Steve Strong, who made the Statement about the Campbell Book. I quote Steve Strongs reply at verbatim, speaking both for himself and his son, Evan.

1. We did not make this statement.

2. We where waiting on the copy of the book of Campbell, before we where going to comment on it.

As it was I, relying on "Woy Woy Steve's" socalled research, who ordered a copy of the Book from the Australian National Library, Steve Strong did not obtain my Copy before the 22nd. of March 2012 fom me. I have since been informed, that neither Steve Strong nor his Son found any evidence of the Glyphs in the Book refered to by Steven Spillard, which was identical to my published claim.

Hence my conclusion as a researcher is: Steven Spillard, aka. Artemis Flow, aka "Woy Woy Steve " invented his Claim about the Kariong Glyphs being a hoax and also invented his claim about the Glyps being depicted and described in Campbells "Aborigina Engravings of Port Jackson and Broken Bay."

Hence having made these claims, he therefore should no longer be deemed a researcher, but a fraudulent inventor of falsehoods, whose printed word can not be relied on, even thought they are on the Public Record.

Your considerd opinion would be appreciated.

Dr. Hans Dieter von Senff.

[cormac mac airt]

Hence my conclusion as a researcher is: Steven Spillard, aka. Artemis Flow, aka "Woy Woy Steve " invented his Claim about the Kariong Glyphs being a hoax and also invented his claim about the Glyps being depicted and described in Campbells "Aborigina Engravings of Port Jackson and Broken Bay."

I'm going to cut through the bullscheise of who said what and say this.

1) NO, Steve Spillard DID NOT say that Egyptian glyphs were depicted and described in Campbell's book. What was said at All Things Woy was "This site was documented..." with no actual mention of anything Egyptian being depicted or described. Perhaps in parts of Australia the English language has been so corrupted beyond recognition, but in the rest of the English speaking world the two claims ARE NOT one and the same.

2) Neither yourself, de Jonge, Daniel Collins nor Ray Johnson from Queensland has shown any evidence that there were sons of Khufu by the names of Nefer-Djeseb or Nefer-Ti-Ru.

3) None of you have provided any evidence that you are qualified in translating/transliterating either Ancient Egyptian or Sumerian, despite any claims to the contrary.

4) None of you have provided any evidence that any "investigations" and possible removal of any artifacts was approved by any credible Institutions or Government agencies.

5) None of you have shown any working knowledge in either the layout of Ancient Egyptian tombs nor any contents related to them, whether inscriptional or otherwise, which should be taken seriously.

And the list goes on.

cormac

[ShadowSot]

Was. He claims to have left the site for good.

Nhn,he's popped up on a couple of other forums I', a member of.

[kmt_sesh]

Cormac. You are completely correct. That is how researchers (real ones) establish the sequence of establishing who was the first making a given statement or vice versa, in refuting a claim.

In the case of the Kariong Glyphs, it was Steve Spillar in his contribution to to "The Encyclopaedia of dubious Archaeology", who claimed the glyphs were a hoax, a claim since repudiated by him, and claimed hence to be the statement of an unknown person, who published it under Spillard name. But the problem is, it is still under his name on the Public Record.

To pursue his claim made under the Pseudonym "Woy Woy Steve" aka. Artemis Flow, I contacted the Author and Public Speaker Steven Strong, to question him with regards to a statement made in this forum, that it was Steve Strong, who made the Statement about the Campbell Book. I quote Steve Strongs reply at verbatim, speaking both for himself and his son, Evan.

1. We did not make this statement.

2. We where waiting on the copy of the book of Campbell, before we where going to comment on it.

As it was I, relying on "Woy Woy Steve's" socalled research, who ordered a copy of the Book from the Australian National Library, Steve Strong did not obtain my Copy before the 22nd. of March 2012 fom me. I have since been informed, that neither Steve Strong nor his Son found any evidence of the Glyphs in the Book refered to by Steven Spillard, which was identical to my published claim.

Hence my conclusion as a researcher is: Steven Spillard, aka. Artemis Flow, aka "Woy Woy Steve " invented his Claim about the Kariong Glyphs being a hoax and also invented his claim about the Glyps being depicted and described in Campbells "Aborigina Engravings of Port Jackson and Broken Bay."

Hence having made these claims, he therefore should no longer be deemed a researcher, but a fraudulent inventor of falsehoods, whose printed word can not be relied on, even thought they are on the Public Record.

Your considerd opinion would be appreciated.

Dr. Hans Dieter von Senff.

I don't know why you're bringing this here, Hans Dieter, other than to hide from Steve in the Kariong Glyphs discussion. The glyphs hoax has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

But since you brought it up, I really do wish you'd stop obsessing over Steve as though he were your only detractor. In the weight of things, very, very few people consider the Gosford Glyphs to be real. You're in an extreme minority that cannot possibly prove the glyphs are real.

The book was not written by Steve, as he and other posters have already demonstrated. Your neurotic obsession over this issue is really perplexing. You seem more interested in slandering Steve than in presenting a cohesive defense for your own case. But in the first place, what possible difference could it make who the author is? It's a book in which the Gosford Glyphs are presented as a fake, and that's that. It is what it is. Get over it.

And people have been saying the same thing for a very long time. Accept that, too.

Do a search on Amazon for key words like "cult archaeology" or "false history" or "fake science." You'll see quite a few different books on the subject. Who knows how many of them include the hoax of the Gosford Glyphs? Are you going to blame all of those on Steve, too?

I for one respectfully request that you keep your comments and posts about the glyphs in the discussion you yourself started. You've been conspicuously absent there since Steve joined the debate, so it's clear you're trying to avoid him. Be that as it may, the Gosford Glyphs have nothing to do with how the Egyptians lit the interior of pyramids.

Editing to add: Steve hardly needed to "invent" that the glyphs are a hoax. I knew they were a hoax long before I met Steve (which was in the discussion you started). Most people who've seen them know they're a hoax and they probably haven't even met Steve. No one probably has done a better job documenting the hoax than he, but no one particular person is required when the glyphs themselves are so obviously a half-ass hoax.

Edited April 10, 2012 by kmt_sesh

[dreamland]

I think i know the answer

Edited April 11, 2012 by dreamland