Great Pyramid not built by Khufu?

[Jon101]

Scott, my rather whimsical point was that it isn't necessary to possess anything other than a good laymans foundation in egyptology in order to scorn your ill considered claptrap.

[Scott Creighton]

Goodness, such obfuscation, and so soon after your recent post. I seem to have touched some buttons. Understandable, but no book was advertised?

SC: I've written a number of books. Which one did I advertise? Which title did I say you will find this information in? I didn't say ergo I advertised nothing.

KMS: From your own Post 108:

This response clearly requires that we get your book to see your take on my earlier question of you.

SC: But it doesn't mean you have to buy it, does it? Much of my work is freely available for anyone to read here on UM, GHMB, ATS my own website and elsewhere. But you know this--I've said this before here on UM.

KMS: I'm not aware of other posters providing links for your books. If it's happened, I've missed it.

SC: Clearly you did.

KMS: Whether or not a book is free, it still stands against policy to advertise your product on this forum.

SC: No product was advertised.

KMS: If you are not willing to discuss a point you yourself brought up, even if it is defined or discussed briefly, then don't bring it up at all. Spartan called you on this, too. It is an irritating and nonproductive practice.

SC: Well, sorry that you are feeling irritated. But I have explained that you can read about it in my book--just like I told you before. And it is freely available to download.

KMS: I and many others have debated you in detail. Your arguments and themes have not survived scrutiny. That's not our fault, so please don't unload on me or anyone else for your own frustrations.

SC: And yet, my arguments had you running to the mods for help, dear boy.

KMS: If I am able to restrain myself, this will be my last reply to you in this discussion, unless the content is relevant to the topic. You should start another thread to address some of the other things brought up, including my Khufu question (which does happen to be relevant to this thread). If you do not wish to do so, then don't mention things you're not prepared to or interested in discussing.

SC: I will say what I want, when I want. Do not dictate to me where and when I can speak. The term 'thought police' comes to mind.

Now, back to the topic........

SC

Edited September 14, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

Scott, my rather whimsical point was that it isn't necessary to possess anything other than a good laymans foundation in egyptology in order to scorn your ill considered claptrap.

SC: Alas, saying my article is "claptrap" won't actually make it "claptrap". You can only hope to ever achieve that with evidence and argument. Argument, dear boy, argument.

Get to it.

SC

[Quaentum]

SC: Not unlike cherry-picking, consensus Egyptology then.

SC: Not unlike cherry-picking, consensus Egyptology then.

SC

Amazing, truly amazing. The same reply twice and it has absolutely nothing to do with what's out in the fringe or whether your own paper is hypothesis or fact. That is unless your are comparing your paper to cherry-picking, consensus Egyptology.

[Scott Creighton]

It is this attitude that is the reason I don't even read his posts anymore, as I am completely convinced that he has absolutely nothing of interest to say.

SC: Well, I really wouldn't expect an Egypt apologist to say anything else.

” First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Gandhi (disputed)

“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. - Nicholas Klein

SC

[Jon101]

Actually Scott, your bi-allusive use of inverted commas renders yours rebuttal entirely untrue, dear boy.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Jon101

[Scott Creighton]

Actually Scott, your bi-allusive use of inverted commas renders yours rebuttal entirely untrue, dear boy.

SC: If you actually have anything useful to offer to the TOPIC of the thread that would be good. Now toddle off and be constructive for a change.

SC

[kmt_sesh]

Scott, my rather whimsical point was that it isn't necessary to possess anything other than a good laymans foundation in egyptology in order to scorn your ill considered claptrap.

LOL Thanks for the chuckle, Jon101.

Welcome to UM, by the way. We always need more grounded and logical people to weigh in against the ethereal and misleading fringies.

Edit: Correction. I see you joined back in April, so you're not exactly "brand new." Welcome, anyway.

Edited September 14, 2012 by kmt_sesh

[Scott Creighton]

KMS We always need more grounded and logical people to weigh in against the ethereal and misleading fringies.

SC: Yes, KMS, you need all the help you can muster, don't you. You like you're little coterie of co-dependent reactionaries around you, don't you. Cos you just can't crack it on your own.

So very sad.

SC

[Jon101]

I'm only here for the entertainment value your crackpot theories provide - why can't you just be content that you are a nincompoop and that your theories are mildly amusing in a gamine and quirky way and be content with that?.

The trouble is Scott, you are so very, very wrong and misguided, but that doesn't mean that your work has no value, instead you should view what you write as an elaborate satire, or skit perhaps. You will not feel so defensive if you see things in this way and may be able to move on and apply your talents in a more productive way.

You profess to be open minded so why not give it a go?.

[kmt_sesh]

SC: Yes, KMS, you need all the help you can muster, don't you. You like you're little coterie of co-dependent reactionaries around you, don't you. Cos you just can't crack it on your own.

So very sad.

SC

Please stop trying to make this personal, Scott. If you have no support in your beliefs, it's not my fault. Stop derailing the thread—it's not about you or your ego.

Leave me alone. If you wish to debate me, do so on relevant points. I have no time for immature remarks. I've made that clear.

[cladking]

If you do not wish to do so, then don't mention things you're not prepared to or interested in discussing.

The depth and breadth of the evidence from the so-called 4th dynasty is very poor

and most of this stuff doiesn't interest me enough to pay very close attention to it. But

some things are more than apparent. What is apparent is that Egyptology picks and

chooses what they want to believe from the kings lists, both of which are self contradictory

so neither of which can be accurate.

Yes, it's well established that there was a king named Khufu but it's not established when.

Nor is it certain there was only a single king named "Khufu". It is apparent that there

were epochs during which specific families ruled and these are called "dynasties" but

it's not as certain exactly what these dynasties were comprised f or why they changed.

Within this framework there is actually quite a bit known. But we only know relative times

within and between dynasties and absolute times has to be interpreted from carbon dat-

ing. It appears about 2750 BC is when "Khufu" reigned but we don't know where he was

buried or even if he was buried because the evidence is far too thin to make such deter-

minations. It is and has been the best guess of Egyptology that the great pyramids were

tombs and the kings were buried within. There is tremendous and still growing evidence

that thwese best guesses are wrong.

[cladking]

..., it is such a pity he cannot see why he is so wrong.

Can you put this refutation in such simple language that even I can understand?

I know this would prove a challenge even if you had the evidene to back it up, but

I don't believe you have any evidence to back it up.

[cladking]

It all boils down to one salient fact. Scott wants us to open our wallets and buy his book.

If you want to discuss the "facts" you can, But aint and you are pointing to the books.

of course a man has to live and for that he needs money.

But this is a discussion/debating forum. You discuss, not point towards your books hinting "buy my books and you will learn the "facts".

Then there are two things that make people automatically wrong; writing a book about

"fringe" Egyptology or having a coherent theory that doesn't agree with mainsteam ideas.

I guess he has committed both of these sins so must be excommunicated.

[Scott Creighton]

KMS: Please stop trying to make this personal, Scott.

SC: Just making an observation, dear boy. Perhaps you might consider that observation and, who knows, it might even reveal something that you didn't know about yourself?

KMS: If you have no support in your beliefs, it's not my fault.

SC: Don't concern yourself so. My ideas and theories make sense to many, many people all across the world. Admittedly not to many Egypt apologists--but that's how it goes. But you never know--one bright day.......

KMS: Stop derailing the thread—it's not about you or your ego.

SC: No, it's not about me or my ego. On that we are both agreed. It is about FACTS; facts presented in my article that you do not wish to discuss. But that's fair enough. Some other time perhaps.

KMS: Leave me alone.

SC: You came to me, dear boy. Get your facts straight.

KMS: If you wish to debate me, do so on relevant points.

SC: You're the one who doesn't want to discuss the facts I presented, some of which are relevant to the thread.

KMS: I have no time for immature remarks. I've made that clear.

SC: Ditto.

SC

[The_Spartan]

Then there are two things that make people automatically wrong; writing a book about

"fringe" Egyptology or having a coherent theory that doesn't agree with mainsteam ideas.

I guess he has committed both of these sins so must be excommunicated.

Though your geyser theory has been beaten to its death in this forum, you did discuss it with everyone.

You didn't tell us, "hey i wrote a book. if you want to know anything further, please refer to the book"

You did discuss.

Scott isn't discussing. he points to his books hinting "want to know the FACTS?? Buy my books"

That is the difference between you and him.

Edited : for typos

Edited September 14, 2012 by The_Spartan

[Scott Creighton]

Scott isn't discussing. he points to his books hinting "want to know the FACTS?? Buy my books"

SC: Not the case. "Buy my books"? Nonsense. It has been known by a number of regular posters on this board for many months that my latest book (where this information can be found) is freely available via download. This was repeated again in this thread.

Furthermore, I write many articles and presentations that are also freely available from a number of sources and always have been. And the regulars on here have known that for a long time too. But they say nothing about that. Funny that, isn't it.

But this is all but a ruse; we all know exactly why the Egypt apologists feel compelled to make these (baseless) claims against myself as a fringe author and other fringe authors.

Regards,

SC

[Abramelin]

Though your geyser theory has been beaten to its death in this forum, you did discuss it with everyone.

You didn't tell us, "hey i wrote a book. if you want to know anything further, please refer to the book"

You did discuss.

Scott isn't discussing. he points to his books hinting "want to know the FACTS?? Buy my books"

That is the difference between you and him.

Edited : for typos

"The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching."

-Assyrian proverb from the 8th Century BC

[cladking]

It appears about 2750 BC is when "Khufu" reigned but we don't know where he was

buried or even if he was buried because the evidence is far too thin to make such deter-

minations.

Come to think of it the ancient Egyptians clearly stated he ascended to heaven. Saying that

it's impossible for this to be true is now considered politically incorrect. In order to not insult

the pyramid builders we really should stop calling these things "tombs".

[cladking]

Though your geyser theory has been beaten to its death in this forum, you did discuss it with everyone.

You didn't tell us, "hey i wrote a book. if you want to know anything further, please refer to the book"

You did discuss.

Scott isn't discussing. he points to his books hinting "want to know the FACTS?? Buy my books"

That is the difference between you and him.

Edited : for typos

Not to say I agree with you about Scott Creighton as I've not seen this much but what

you say is common among those who have written books. But this same thing appies

to Egyptologists and even some of the scientists who study the great pyramids.

I don't believe we should simply dismiss the ideas of authors even if they aren't always

fully forthcoming with details. I would think they feel that many book buyers are just

seeking a few specific details and they can hurt their sales. I believe this might not be

fully justified since many people won't buy an alt book without having some of the de-

tails.

...And your all wet if you think geysers are dead.

[Harte]

Though your geyser theory has been beaten to its death in this forum, you did discuss it with everyone.

You didn't tell us, "hey i wrote a book. if you want to know anything further, please refer to the book"

You did discuss.

Scott isn't discussing. he points to his books hinting "want to know the FACTS?? Buy my books"

That is the difference between you and him.

Edited : for typos

Though I ignore them both, Sparty, I ignore Cladking with a more diminished gusto.

Harte

[cladking]

Though I ignore them both, Sparty, I ignore Cladking with a more diminished gusto.

High praise, indeed. I'll try not to let it go to my head.

[Arbitran]

Wow, I've certainly missed a lot on this thread today...

[Sundog]

Wow, I've certainly missed a lot on this thread today...

not really

[kmt_sesh]

not really

LOL Well said.