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

mstower
41 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

And can you tell us why a decision has been taken to once again disseminate this podcast, with its redundant mentions of Humphries Brewer as eyewitness to an alleged forgery?

Falling back in the end on what Sitchin presented.

As if the “Humphries Brewer legend” had not been subjected to close scrutiny and found wanting in credibility.

M.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I asked for "credible/plausible explanations". None have been given. At least, none that would satisfy any reasonably objective person

Creighton persists in his crude ploy.  He sets himself up as the judge of what’s “credible” and “plausible” and would have us believe that he is the exemplar of “objectivity”—and he expects us to fall for this?

M.

Edited by mstower
To remove one word.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
47 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Humphries Brewer? You haven't found it yet, have you?

Now he’s playing “What have I got in my pockets?” again.

M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I'm quite certain you'd love to believe that. However, since none of the other luminaries here has been able to offer up a credible/plausible explanation to the question in the OP, perhaps you would like to give it a go?

SC

Your rejection of everything you don't like isn't credible and rather laughable.

Share this post


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

I asked for "credible/plausible explanations". None have been given. At least, none that would satisfy any reasonably objective person.

Humphries Brewer? You haven't found it yet, have you?

SC

Sorry SC you're not by any measure a 'reasonably objective person' you are instead thoroughly obsessed and biased towards your own ideas. As Mstower noted you don't judge the value of your own work others do......lol

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Creighton persists in his crude ploy.  He sets himself up as the judge of what’s “credible” and “plausible” and would have us believe that he is the exemplar of “objectivity”—and he expects us to fall for this?

M.

Well yes he does, what else can he do? No Egyptologist or scientist is going to go for his contrived setup he has substituted for reality - so the best he can do is pretend.

I wonder if he'd go with the idea that each Egyptologist is the only person that has to believe what he himself says? I wonder too what science would be like if it was based on the self judgement of each scientist........chaos anyone?

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
6 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Well yes he does, what else can he do? No Egyptologist or scientist is going to go for his contrived setup he has substituted for reality - so the best he can do is pretend.

His preferred audience these days would seem to be the Edgar Cayce crowd and now it seems he has added Atlantis to his broth:

https://lost-origins.com/

“. . . Scott also shares his theories surrounding the purpose of the great pyramids, a possible connection to Atlantis, and his upcoming sequel to The Great Pyramid Hoax.”

M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well yes he does, what else can he do? No Egyptologist or scientist is going to go for his contrived setup he has substituted for reality - so the best he can do is pretend.

I wonder if he'd go with the idea that each Egyptologist is the only person that has to believe what he himself says? I wonder too what science would be like if it was based on the self judgement of each scientist........chaos anyone?

You're a scientist, Hans. You believe in empirical evidence obtained through experimentation.

So do 'The Experiment'. Let us all know your results and then we can compare with the Vyse result.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)

So, Creighton, now that we’ve got your attention, perhaps you’d like to give some attention to this?

Quote

S. 6. Sent off the people, ?chapel, breakfast, went to the works, copied the Hieroglyphics in the Temple of the 2d. Pyramid a young Frenchman came who said that he was Son of the Consul I gave him some Candles ?for the Pyramids & soon after ?when I joined Mr Perring, & Mr. Mash at the S. W. angle of the Great Pyramid, I met his Father, to whom I gave ?an ?invitation to ?my Tents; after some time I sent to them; & found ?the ?Pr—, & ?his ?Son, & the old Dragoman, they ? ? ?, a ?watch, & ? their ? ?, (they had ?loyal ?, ? ? ?.)  Mr Raven returned from the Great Pyramid, and ?soon ?after ?we ?ascended ?fr[om] ?Chamber ?int[o] ?the room above Nelson’s, ?we ?then paid the people off, & Mr Raven, Mr Perring, Mr Mash, & Myself ?came to Cairo, I took a Bath & dined with Mr Brettel, & ?noted Armenian Effendi who had been educated in England, & who spoke good English.

Unlike the published version (a narrative written in 1838), this is what Vyse wrote on the day of the event, May 6th, 1837, and the question is, what support (if any) does it give to your key contention, that Vyse and Raven made a close inspection of this chamber on that date?

You see, I can’t help noticing that the descriptive details in the published “entry” (of which you’ve made so much) are absent.

Also that it confirms that their entry to the chamber (if I’ve read it right) was the last event of the working day.

All of which tends to confirm the common-sensical explanations that you’ve been given and chosen to disregard: that there was no such detailed inspection, and Vyse and Raven departed for a much-needed break in Cairo, with a fuller inspection following on the 9th and 10th (when Perring made his drawings).

M.

Edited by mstower
To remove one word and correct a name.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
7 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

You're a scientist, Hans.

So don’t preach science to him.  Deal with the evidence yourself: my post above, on what Vyse wrote on the day.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
3 hours ago, mstower said:

Now he’s playing “What have I got in my pockets?” again.

M.

That should be "pocketses," shouldn't it?

Harte

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)

"...that there was no such detailed inspection..." mstower says as if he was there in 1837.

He was in the chamber with Raven on 6th June. That's what the official account tells us. You are basically saying Vyse lied (made stuff up) in his official account. Glad you've come to realise something I've been trying to tell you for years now.

SC

 

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
1 minute ago, Harte said:

That should be "pocketses," shouldn't it?

Pockets: Bilbo.  Pocketses: Gollum.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
Just now, mstower said:

Pockets: Bilbo.  Pocketses: Gollum.

M.

My point exactly.

Harte

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

He was in the chamber with Raven on 6th June. That's what the official account tells us. You are basically saying Vyse lied (made stuff up) in his official account.

Which is what you are relying on, while ignoring what he wrote on the day entirely.  Can you spell “hypocrisy”?

And that would be “basically” saying as in not saying at all, but you’ve chosen to lie about it.

2 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Glad you've come to realise something I've been trying to tell you for years now.

You have nothing to tell me, Creighton, beyond confirming what we all already know about you.

M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

"...Which is what you are relying on, while ignoring what he wrote on the day entirely..."

I work with both accounts, Stower. Because that is where we find Vyse contradicting himself between his published account and his private account (OR vice versa).

He wasn't very good at covering his tracks.

SC 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

...

Humphries Brewer? You haven't found it yet, have you?

 

 

On this page, the text accompanying the latest podcast, << S02E03 - Scott Creighton // The Great Pyramid Hoax >>.

Quote

He examines recent chemical analysis of the marks along with the eye-witness testimony of Humphries Brewer, who worked with Vyse at Giza in 1837 and saw forgery take place. (https://player.fm/series/lost-origins/s02e03-scott-creighton-the-great-pyramid-hoax)

Followers of that website and of those podcasts might therefore be forgiven for concluding that, if they listened to podcast S02E03, they would be rewarded with valuable information and insights about one Humphries Brewer ...

If this is not the case, however, then why is that text there, on that page?

And why would you unexpectedly fall silent on the subject of Brewer the eyewitness - a topic about which you've had plenty to say over recent years on various forums, quite apart from this one?

Why the sudden silence, Scott?

And what might that silence tell us about the rest of your work?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

On this page, the text accompanying the latest podcast, << S02E03 - Scott Creighton // The Great Pyramid Hoax >>.

Followers of that website and of those podcasts might therefore be forgiven for concluding that, if they listened to podcast S02E03, they would be rewarded with valuable information and insights about one Humphries Brewer ...

If this is not the case, however, then why is that text there, on that page?

And why would you unexpectedly fall silent on the subject of Brewer the eyewitness - a topic about which you've had plenty to say over recent years on various forums, quite apart from this one?

Why the sudden silence, Scott?

And what might that silence tell us about the rest of your work?

 

Hermione - Brewer's story is but one piece of the body of evidence I have amassed to prosecute the forgery hypothesis. I have plenty of other pieces of evidence to discuss. So, excuse me if I don't bang on about Brewer day and night. His story is hardly the be all and end all of the case against Vyse.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
5 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I asked for "credible/plausible explanations". None have been given. At least, none that would satisfy any reasonably objective person.

Humphries Brewer? You haven't found it yet, have you?

SC

You realize when you do this — make believe no credible explanation exists or has been presented — you only make yourself look foolish and sap yourself of any credibility, right?

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

You're a scientist, Hans. You believe in empirical evidence obtained through experimentation.

So do 'The Experiment'. Let us all know your results and then we can compare with the Vyse result.

SC

...we’re discussing history here. History isn’t a science. Why would you attempt to substitute the methodology of one field for another unless you do not possess the capacity to tell the difference or are deliberately trying to confuse the issue?

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
3 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

You realize when you do this — make believe no credible explanation exists or has been presented — you only make yourself look foolish and sap yourself of any credibility, right?

—Jaylemurph 

I was rather under the impression I had no credibility among the luminaries here to begin with, so no big loss. 

SC

Share this post


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

"...that there was no such detailed inspection..." mstower says as if he was there in 1837.

He was in the chamber with Raven on 6th June. That's what the official account tells us. You are basically saying Vyse lied (made stuff up) in his official account. Glad you've come to realise something I've been trying to tell you for years now.

SC

 

Errata - 6th May (not June).

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
11 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Errata - 6th May (not June).

You missed one or two more important errors.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
38 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

...we’re discussing history here. History isn’t a science. Why would you attempt to substitute the methodology of one field for another unless you do not possess the capacity to tell the difference or are deliberately trying to confuse the issue?

You give him too much credit.  His experimental design gets a failing grade from me.

It’s really just a laborious false analogy.

M.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
42 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

I was rather under the impression I had no credibility among the luminaries here to begin with, so no big loss.

So why are you here?

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.