Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Scott Creighton

Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber (Question)

245 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Scott Creighton
4 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

SC. As I noted to you some time ago: You are simply not worth talking too. Did you forget? Your madness in wanting to go over and over the same thing is both funny and pathological. lol

In other words - you can't offer an explanation for this. That's all you had to say.

Now - jog on.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Just now, Scott Creighton said:

In other words - you can't offer an explanation for this. That's all you had to say.

Now - jog on.

SC

No I follow what Mstower and Kenemet say. That position has been said repeatedly to you and you refuse to agree- great wonderful - now why do you feel a need to go over that position again and again and again and again and again? Is there some point?

Now - jog on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
9 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

The crew-marks in the boat pit were found only after the removal of a covering-stone weighing about 14 tons (Strange Journey II: Ch. 24, n. 34).

Could you please explain how Vyse, prior to any hypothetical insertion of several more false crew-marks, could have gone about lifting this stone?  Been eating lots of spinach, had he?

Hermione,

Let's deal with the topic of the thread, shall we, to wit:

Can you offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing the quarry marks in LA's chamber during their initial inspection. 

Thanks.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

No I follow what Mstower and Kenemet say. That position has been said repeatedly to you and you refuse to agree- great wonderful - now why do you feel a need to go over that position again and again and again and again and again? Is there some point?

Now - jog on.

Ah - you're a "follower" not a thinker.

I understand.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Just now, Scott Creighton said:

Hermione,

Let's deal with the topic of the thread, shall we, to wit:

Can you offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing the quarry marks in LA's chamber during their initial inspection. 

Thanks.

SC

Yes Hermione state it again - that which has been said many many many times before. He will reject it and restate all of his position again. He will then ask you to repeat your explanation - and off on another run of the boring train.

Why SC? Why this devotion to endless repetition? Did it work for Cladking?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Just now, Scott Creighton said:

Ah - you're a "follower" not a thinker.

I understand.

SC

A thinker would have abandoned this failed idea years ago - but hey if you just keep repeating it somebody will believe you. Remember you are following Sitchin's lead. Follow on...lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Yes Hermione state it again - that which has been said many many many times before. He will reject it and restate all of his position again. He will then ask you to repeat your explanation - and off on another run of the boring train.

Why SC? Why this devotion to endless repetition? Did it work for Cladking?

 

Show me the plausible explanation to my question anywhere in this thread. 

Let's see it.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Just now, Hanslune said:

A thinker would have abandoned this failed idea years ago - but hey if you just keep repeating it somebody will believe you. Remember you are following Sitchin's lead. Follow on...lol

Deflection.

Deal with the question of THIS thread. Let's hear YOUR explanation?

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Just now, Scott Creighton said:

Deflection.

Deal with the question of THIS thread. Let's hear YOUR explanation?

SC

Deflection. Cladking, er, ah SC I already explained my position - why would you want me to repeat it?

I hate to say it but endless repetition = equals = boring and boring isn't a good attribute.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
4 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Show me the plausible explanation to my question anywhere in this thread. 

Let's see it.

SC

Now would you say that you NOW understand my position or should I get out the crayons?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Now would you say that you NOW understand my position or should I get out the crayons?

Show me the plausible explanation to my question anywhere in this thread. 

Come on Hans - you're a scientist. Such shouldn't be beyond your ability. So let's see this plausible explanation you claim is somewhere in this thread?

Let's have it.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
9 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Show me the plausible explanation to my question anywhere in this thread. 

Let's see it.

SC

Didn't you already reject everything - why do you want to do it again? What do you hope to gain by repeating the same conversations over and over again? SC acting irrationally isn't going to aid you in in getting your ideas accepted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Just now, Hanslune said:

Didn't you already reject everything - why do you want to do it again? What do you hope to gain by repeating the same conversations over and over again? SC acting irrationally isn't going to aid you in in getting your ideas accepted.

More deflection.

Let's see this plausible explanation you claim is somewhere in this thread?

Come on - you said it's there so you should be able to present it.

SC

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Show me the plausible explanation to my question anywhere in this thread. 

Come on Hans - you're a scientist. Such shouldn't be beyond your ability. So let's see this plausible explanation you claim is somewhere in this thread?

Let's have it.

SC

Repeating the exact same conversation on the same argument isn't something a scientist would do. A fringe believer however would do so thinking that repetition will cover up the weakness or lack of the evidence.

SC its boring, its been done there no reason to keep repeating the arguments. So I won't you however will keep demanding people repeat their statements so you can repeat yours.........lol

 

 

 

Edited by Hanslune
changed get to keep
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

More deflection.

Let's see this plausible explanation you claim is somewhere in this thread?

Come on - you said it's there so you should be able to present it.

SC

Why? You've already read it and rejected it? Would it make you feel better to do it again?

Go back and reply again to every other persons comments in the this thread - that will save you some time....lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Repeating the exact same conversation on the same argument isn't something a scientist would do. A fringe believer however would do so thinking that repetition will cover up the weakness or lack of the evidence.

SC its boring, its been done there no reason to keep repeating the arguments. So I won't you however will get demanding people repeat their statements so you can repeat yours.........lol

 

 

 

And an answer there came none. Because Hans - you don’t have one. Because you’re haverin’. If you were able to present an answer we all know that you would not be so backward in coming forward with it to ram down my throat. So your claim is complete bogus.

Now away and chase yourself and mind the swing of the door doesn’t smack you on the erse on the way out.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

And an answer there came none. Because Hans - you don’t have one. Because you’re haverin’. If you were able to present an answer we all know that you would not be so backward in coming forward with it to ram down my throat. So your claim is complete bogus.

Now away and chase yourself and mind the swing of the door doesn’t smack you on the erse on the way out.

SC

I gave my answer - and you didn't like it - so what did you do? Accept it? Of course not you kept demanding I repeat it.

You see the problem SC? The problem is you truly believing that going over the same material endlessly is useful. It isn't. Its B O R I N G.

Endless repetition of failed material doesn't make it better.

Oh no I'm going to sit right here while you try to convince others to repeat all the same arguments again.

I'm sure this time it will work......lol

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Let's keep it civil please folks - don't make it personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
2 hours ago, mstower said:

...

“Armenian Effendi” looks good to me (underlining what it has in common with “Russian Officers”.)

...

There's mention of a Russian colonel on 20th Feb (Ops I: 163); and an Armenian (occupation unstated) on 3rd August (Ops II: 89) ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Posted (edited)

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” - Albert Einstein. 

Sounds just like the whole Vyse fraud theme currently being promoted. 

Oops: Wrong thread. 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Deflection.

Offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing the quarry marks in LA's chamber during their initial inspection. That's all you have to do - put up a plausible explanation and this will go away.

Let's have it. Whatcha got?

SC

Creighton makes good on his promise to persist in his ill-mannered hectoring.

A little less of the imperative, laddie.

M.

Edited by mstower
To take out a supernumerary space.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hermione,

Let's deal with the topic of the thread, shall we, to wit:

Can you offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing the quarry marks in LA's chamber during their initial inspection. 

Thanks.

SC

Can you offer up any evidence that the quarry marks were not observed?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Show me the plausible explanation to my question anywhere in this thread. 

Come on Hans - you're a scientist. Such shouldn't be beyond your ability. So let's see this plausible explanation you claim is somewhere in this thread?

Let's have it.

SC

Please show us that any evidence at all that the quarry marks were not observed.

Beginning with this false guess on your part that the quarry marks were not observed seems to be your current fixation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Ah - you're a "follower" not a thinker.

I understand.

SC

No, Creighton, you don’t.  You imagine a “thinker” is someone who follows you.

M.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

There's mention of a Russian colonel on 20th Feb (Ops I: 163); and an Armenian (occupation unstated) on 3rd August (Ops II: 89) ...

“Effendi” works for the second word.  The word preceding it could plausibly be read (in the vagueness of Vyse’s scrawl) as “Russian”, but the initial capital looks more like an “A” and “Armenian” works better in the context.

M.

Edited by mstower
To add M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.