Zecharia Sitchin was the only one who got it right and so called scholars are so jealous ...

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Pimander
It has always been that way. Researchers who collect which protects the status quo may have the easier careers. That is true and contributes to stagnation in some fields.

Such as?

Not sure we should be this off topic but I guess we have no readers by now? Egyptian archaeology is an obvious example of stagnation. Despite the sphinx being scientifically dated as much older than most of the Giza monuments, archaeologists just cannot accept the new dating.

There has been no such scientific dating.

Apparently, you're unaware of how thin a thread Schoch follows to claim the Sphinx might date to a few thousand years earlier than currently thought.

Schoch's data, based on subsurface weathering only (and not actually based on any particular erosion aboveground,) relies for the rear of the Sphinx enclosure on a single pass of a seismographic detector .

No measurements were taken anywhere else in the rear of the enclosure.

Given that your "scientific" dating yeilds a very ancient date only for the front of the enclosure, and this date relies only on the single reading taken in the rear, it's no wonder that this hypothesis has not been accepted.

Schoch's entire thesis depends on his "measured" difference between the subsurface weathering in the rear of the enclosure and the front. If the rear enclosure data is in question, then the entire hypothesis falls apart.

In a word, that is why it never was accepted.

More recent findings indicate that it's a good thing it wasn't accepted. The geological survey at Giza (done by, ahem, geologists) provided data indicating the Sphinx dates to the Old Kingdom, exactly what Egyptologists thought.

These were Schoch's collegues.

I'm not sure Schoch is the guy to trust on this anyway. He had concentrated in Environmental Science prior making an attempt at becoming a fringe writer ("The Pyramid Builders.") I believe he is still concentrated in Environmental. Last I checked, that's what he teaches and works in at Boston U.

Harte

This has nothing to do really if Sitchin is wrong or right, but about the story of the Annunaki using humans as slaves to mine for gold, so that they could take it back to their planet to supplement their atmosphere. I figured there are some Sitchin fans in here who could work with me on this idea.

Let's assume they got a bunch of gold and returned to their planet (I've only read one of his books, so I don't know if that did or did not happen, according to him). Nonetheless, they would eventually return to earth approximately the next time the planet came around (although, you would think they would have the technology to do so at any time). Maybe, they would need more gold. So, under this explanation I have somewhat setup, let me present the following.

Do we really know if humans in whatever era that preceded the Annunaki, admired gold as much as they do in this era? Why is it today, gold is so esteemed? I realize it is nice and shiny and all that, but what if it is actually because the gods had us mine for it and from a childlike perspective, we inherited that desire? In this sense, it would be a misplaced, inherited desire.

Because of the crazy on goings in the world economy, every country at this current moment is collecting more and more gold: China, Russia, and India, to name a few. What if, the world then drops the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and goes back to a gold standard - could happen. The IMF comes in and says ... we now have a gold backed SDR or something like that. Everyone agrees and then the IMF establishes a Fort Knox of sorts and has everyone put all the worlds gold into this Fort Knox. This too could be possible and could very well happen by the notorious 2012 date. Then, right as everybody is expecting world doom because of all the earth changes, Nibiru shows up and the Annunaki return.

Everyone is surprised, except for TPTB. TPTB address the Annunaki and say, "Lords, we have collected all the gold for you, as you requested." They beam the gold onto their ship, reward their earth puppets and then scoot along back to their planet, until they return again.

Sound silly, but could be possible. There are many ways to live as humans on earth and probably as many economic methods. But, we have been living under this system ever since this era began. What if it was a huge scheme to get all the gold for the Annunaki, and in the mean time, allow their minions to live like mini-Annunki kings?

Feel free to attack the hell out of all this ... unfortunately, it was just one of those thoughts that pops in your head.

Originally posted by Harte
I'm not sure Schoch is the guy to trust on this anyway. He had concentrated in Environmental Science prior making an attempt at becoming a fringe writer ("The Pyramid Builders.") I believe he is still concentrated in Environmental. Last I checked, that's what he teaches and works in at Boston U.

Crap! You are simply making a lame attempt to discredit the guy. He is an expert in the field he was writing on.

Dr. Robert M. Schoch, a full-time faculty member at the College of General Studies at Boston University since 1984, earned his Ph.D. (1983) in Geology and Geophysics at Yale University. He also holds an M.S. and M.Phil. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, as well as degrees in Anthropology (B.A) and Geology (B.S.) from George Washington University.
www.robertschoch.com...

Originally posted by Harte
Schoch's entire thesis depends on his "measured" difference between the subsurface weathering in the rear of the enclosure and the front. If the rear enclosure data is in question, then the entire hypothesis falls apart.

Then you follow up by misrepresenting the theory itself. Misrepresentation seems to be a bit of theme in this thread.

On the body of the Sphinx, and on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure (the pit or hollow remaining after the Sphinx’s body was carved from the bedrock), I found heavy erosional features (seen in the accompanying photographs) that I concluded could only have been caused by rainfall and water runoff. The thing is, the Sphinx sits on the edge of the Sahara Desert and the region has been quite arid for the last 5000 years. Furthermore, various structures securely dated to the Old Kingdom show only erosion that was caused by wind and sand (very distinct from the water erosion). To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion that the oldest portions of the Great Sphinx, what I refer to as the core-body, must date back to an earlier period (at least 5000 B.C., and maybe as early as 7000 or 9000 B.C.), a time when the climate was very different and included more rain.
www.robertschoch.com...

As we can see from the highlighted text, his entire thesis does not depend on the subsurface weathering data. The subsurface weathering was only cited as supporting evidence for the conclusion.

To further test the theory of an older Sphinx, we carried out seismic studies around the base of the statue to measure the depth of subsurface weathering. Basically, we used a sledgehammer on a steel plate to generate sound waves that penetrated the rock, reflected, and returned to the surface. This gave us information about the subsurface qualities of the limestone bedrock. When I analyzed the data, I found that the extraordinary depth of subsurface weathering supported my conclusion that the core-body of the Sphinx must date back to 5000 B.C. or earlier.
www.robertschoch.com...

I am not surprised you misrepresented Schoch. It was precisely what I expected. I hope anyone reading this can see that too.

Now you will claim that you didn't and try to worm your way out. I won't get drawn into another drawn out argument when anyone reading can see I'm absolutely right. You are either deliberately misrepresenting Schoch or you are defending orthodoxy from a position of ignorance. Whichever is the case, it is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

For more information on Schochs ideas regarding the sphinx see the Emmy award winning documentary The Mystery of the Sphinx

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Harte
I'm not sure Schoch is the guy to trust on this anyway. He had concentrated in Environmental Science prior making an attempt at becoming a fringe writer ("The Pyramid Builders.") I believe he is still concentrated in Environmental. Last I checked, that's what he teaches and works in at Boston U.

Crap! You are simply making a lame attempt to discredit the guy. He is an expert in the field he was writing on.

Dr. Robert M. Schoch, a full-time faculty member at the College of General Studies at Boston University since 1984, earned his Ph.D. (1983) in Geology and Geophysics at Yale University. He also holds an M.S. and M.Phil. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, as well as degrees in Anthropology (B.A) and Geology (B.S.) from George Washington University.
www.robertschoch.com...

In fact, he is not an expert at all in the field his theory addresses, exactly like I told you.

Do you actually think I'm making up what Schoch does for a living and what his concentration was in?

Do you know anything about subsurface sonar scanning? I do, because I've made that effort.

So, where's the "crap" in my post?

It is you that is full of crap here. Geologists, as I said, disagree with Schoch's interpretation of the sonar scans. Like I said, the "older" part of the Sphinx enclosure was scanned only once, in a short, straight line.

Originally posted by Harte
Schoch's entire thesis depends on his "measured" difference between the subsurface weathering in the rear of the enclosure and the front. If the rear enclosure data is in question, then the entire hypothesis falls apart.

Then you follow up by misrepresenting the theory itself. Misrepresentation seems to be a bit of theme in this thread.

You haven't read his original paper then, apparently.

I've quoted from it more than once here. You can find it posted on his website - or it used to be. As I recall, it's also on the Morien Institute website. Read the part about how he calculated the age. He used the difference in the depth of subsurface weathering. He assumed the rear was dug out in Khufu's time, and calculated the age in front assuming a linear progression of this sort of weathering (this weathering, in his scans, appeared to extend deeper in the front than in the rear.)

His result somewhat matched what at the time was assumed to be the last wet period at Giza, so he used the "water erosion" to supplement his findings.

He also admitted in a later paper that erosion of limestone depends mostly on the morphology of the stone itself, and not on the type of weathering. That paper is also on the Morien Institute website. This means that the mainstream explanation for weathering in the Sphinx enclosure is as valid, if not more so, than the "rainwater erosion" claims made by the fringe.

As we can see from the highlighted text, his entire thesis does not depend on the subsurface weathering data. The subsurface weathering was only cited as supporting evidence for the conclusion.

As I explained above, his actual date was calculated based on subsurface weathering alone. I also told you how he calculated it. You can find this in his paper, if you're not afraid of the truth.

I am not surprised you misrepresented Schoch. It was precisely what I expected. I hope anyone reading this can see that too.

I'm not surprised that you don't know what Schoch's findings were, nor that you don't know how he arrived at them.

Relying on "to make a long story short" for your info has caused this problem.

Now you will claim that you didn't and try to worm your way out. I won't get drawn into another drawn out argument when anyone reading can see I'm absolutely right. You are either deliberately misrepresenting Schoch or you are defending orthodoxy from a position of ignorance. Whichever is the case, it is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

Of course you won't. You don't want to find out that Schoch was wrong. You might actually have to believe that the Sphinx dates to the Old Kingdom.

A reasonable hypothesis is that when Khafre repaired and refurbished the Great Sphinx and its associated temples in ca. 2500 B.C., he had the back (western end) of the colossal sculpture carved out and freed from the cliff (or enclosure wall).

SNIP

Based on either this chain of reasoning, or the scenario suggested immediately above-and given that the weathering of the limestone floor of the Sphinx enclosure is fifty to 100 percent deeper on the front and sides of the figure than at its rear-we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front end) may have been carried out ca. 7000 to 5000 B.C. (in other words, that the carving of the core body of the figure is approximately fifty to 100 percent older than ca. 2500 B.C.). This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago.

Source: REDATING THE GREAT SPHINX OF GIZA

The basis of his seismic interpretation is that weathered limestone has a lower seismic velocity because of its higher porosity. This is generally true, but in the case of Dr. Schoch's seismic profiles it leads to a contradiction. [16] In the profiles figured in his KMT article, we see that the velocities for both the "weathered" and "sound" limestones at the back of the Sphinx (line S3) are twenty-three to twenty-eight percent lower than the corresponding layers along the sides (lines S1 and S2).

Using Schoch's reasoning of lower velocities indicating greater weathering, we would have to conclude that the enclosure floor behind the Sphinx is more weathered and hence older, which is just the opposite of what he is claiming. The discrepancy between the seismic profiles perhaps results from an error in the preparation of line S3. [17] Picking the boundary between two velocity layers is always somewhat subjective. The consistently lower velocities for both the "weathered" and "sound" limestones in S3 suggests that the boundary between them was set too high. A lower boundary in S3 - giving the "weathered" limestone the same thickness as in S1 and S2 - would produce similar seismic velocities for all three profiles.

Source: The Sphinx Controversy: Another Look at the Geological Evidence
"S3" was the single line of sonar detection done in the rear of the enclosure. This single line was only a few feet long, far shorter than any other line of measurement done in the enclosure.

Note that by Schoch's own data and reasoning the rear of the enclosure should be younger than the sides.

You were the one that stated that you couldn't understand why Schoch's "scientific methods of dating" weren't accepted. I have told you why.

Whether or not you wish to engage in any conversation with anyone at all on this subject is completely beside the point. Schoch's findings have not been accepted for the reasons I have given you. They are valid reasons.

It might turn out that the Sphinx is much older that is currently thought. It's not likely though. Archaeology has artifacts and sites in the Nile Vally going back 60,000 years (IIRC.) It's not as if some civilization was there prior to the Egyptians. That is certain.

Harte

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx


Perception and conscience is an ever growing attribute isn t it?

I respect your status.

Just so i cannot accept let alone respect Stitchins'.....
As such i try to protect the people from such dissorientation from real problems.

PEACE

GTG

reply to post by Harte

Yes I have read the paper. Again you fail to recognise that the theory does not depend on the sub-surface weathering which is supporting evidence. If you don't understand the material, you can't expect the readers to take you seriously. Rubbish post!

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by Harte

 

Yes I have read the paper. Again you fail to recognise that the theory does not depend on the sub-surface weathering which is supporting evidence. If you don't understand the material, you can't expect the readers to take you seriously. Rubbish post!

Not only have you not read Schoch's paper, then, you haven't even read the quote from Schoch's paper that I posted.

Harte

Sitchin was a Prophet among men.

He heard the Tru7h;

He knew the Tru7h;

He spoke the Tru7h;

R.I.P. Zecharia Sitchin; October 9, 2010 [9.10.10]?

reply to post by truthbeetellin

Zecharia Sitchin based his whole story on two Sumarian manuscripts...
...that he said he translated...
...only no one but him ever saw them.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by Harte

 

Yes I have read the paper. Again you fail to recognise that the theory does not depend on the sub-surface weathering which is supporting evidence. If you don't understand the material, you can't expect the readers to take you seriously. Rubbish post!

Not only have you not read Schoch's paper, then, you haven't even read the quote from Schoch's paper that I posted.

Harte

Another pseudo-skeptical tactic. Question my integrity. You're clinging to what you perceive to be a weakness in Schoch's theory without understanding the entire theory (or pretending not to).

Are you calling me a liar now? I have read more than one paper by Schoch on this.

Originally posted by Pimander
Yes I have read the paper. Again you fail to recognise that the theory does not depend on the sub-surface weathering which is supporting evidence. If you don't understand the material, you can't expect the readers to take you seriously. Rubbish post!

Can you cite the data from the paper to support this statement?

Originally posted by Pimander
Another pseudo-skeptical tactic. Question my integrity. You're clinging to what you perceive to be a weakness in Schoch's theory without understanding the entire theory (or pretending not to)..

Says the person using the "pseudo-skeptic" tactics.

Originally posted by Pimander
If you don't understand the material, you can't expect the readers to take you seriously. Rubbish post!:lol]

Those who most often trot out the "pseudo-skeptic" attack are those who are incapable of citing the evidence, so they resort to ad hominems.

Instead of relying on ad hominems and semantic arguments, tell us why Harte is wrong and cite the part of the study to support the claim.

reply to post by WingedBull

My answer is here. I have used Schochs own words. Anybody who does not believe me should refer to Schoch's work or better still email him and ask whether it is me or Harte who is attempting to misrepresent him.

Originally posted by WWu777
Remember folks, a true skeptic is willing to challenge authority and orthodoxy, and apply his critical thinking and skepticism in that direction. Those who absolutely cannot are not skeptics, they are establishment defenders. Randi, Shermer, CSICOP, the BadAstronomy.com folks, the Mythbusters, Penn and Teller, and the skeptics on my SCEPCOP forum are establishment defenders, not true skeptics.

These establishment defenders were taught in high school that "authority = truth" and therefore is never to be questioned, and that doing and believing what you're told leads to reward, while the opposite leads to punishment. They are unable to free themselves of their programming and conditioning, so in that sense, they are not "freethinkers".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is what makes men like Schoch so important. Unlike WingedBull and Harte he is prepared to challenge orthodoxy. He is a free thinker and a true skeptic.

I have stated my case. It is up to the readers to look into it in more detail if they wish. It is 3am in the morning in the UK. I have to sleep and I am a busy man. Anybody reading this who doubts me should follow this thread through or contact me on U2U for an explanation. I cannot afford for this thread to distract me any longer from more important work. Thank you WingedBull and Harte for your contributions. I am pretty sure readers have learnt a lot from observing your behaviour in this thread. You know what I mean.

reply to post by alyoshablue

I figured there are some Sitchin fans in here who could work with me on this idea. Let's assume they got a bunch of gold and returned to their planet (I've only read one of his books, so I don't know if that did or did not happen, according to him). Nonetheless, they would eventually return to earth approximately the next time the planet came around (although, you would think they would have the technology to do so at any time).

Yeah, me. Read all of his books, and more books on the Annunaki. They are real, and here is a thread I made on this: HERE. All based on what I read. I'm reading "End of Days" right now!

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by WingedBull

 

My answer is here. I have used Schochs own words.

None of that answers the charge presented by Harte. I shall repeat it in case you have forgotten...

The basis of his seismic interpretation is that weathered limestone has a lower seismic velocity because of its higher porosity. This is generally true, but in the case of Dr. Schoch's seismic profiles it leads to a contradiction. [16] In the profiles figured in his KMT article, we see that the velocities for both the "weathered" and "sound" limestones at the back of the Sphinx (line S3) are twenty-three to twenty-eight percent lower than the corresponding layers along the sides (lines S1 and S2).

Using Schoch's reasoning of lower velocities indicating greater weathering, we would have to conclude that the enclosure floor behind the Sphinx is more weathered and hence older, which is just the opposite of what he is claiming. The discrepancy between the seismic profiles perhaps results from an error in the preparation of line S3. [17] Picking the boundary between two velocity layers is always somewhat subjective. The consistently lower velocities for both the "weathered" and "sound" limestones in S3 suggests that the boundary between them was set too high. A lower boundary in S3 - giving the "weathered" limestone the same thickness as in S1 and S2 - would produce similar seismic velocities for all three profiles.

SOURCE: Same as Harte's, above.

Originally posted by PimanderThis is what makes men like Schoch so important. Unlike WingedBull and Harte he is prepared to challenge orthodoxy. He is a free thinker and a true skeptic.

Heresy does not automatically make one right, nor does it mean they are a free-thinker or skeptic. Just as ad hominems and appeals-to-spite do not make a cogent argument.

Originally posted by Pimander
I cannot afford for this thread to distract me any longer from more important work. Thank you WingedBull and Harte for your contributions. I am pretty sure readers have learnt a lot from observing your behaviour in this thread. You know what I mean.

,
I agree. They will see how we have behaved in the face of other members engaging in ad hominems, appeals-to-spite, semantic arguments, judgmental language, discussions of other members character, along with diversionary tactics to avoid direct calls to back up claims. Is that the kind of behavior you are talking about?

The SCECOP people are much more comfortable in a world of ad hominems, straw-man arguments and appeals-to-spite than they are the world of facts and evidence. Besides, I'm not sure if the deceitful, logical-fallacy laden, hoax-promoter, spam-master Winstonas Wu is someone you want to be quoting when discussing "character".

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by WingedBull

 

My answer is here. I have used Schochs own words. Anybody who does not believe me should refer to Schoch's work or better still email him and ask whether it is me or Harte who is attempting to misrepresent him.

As I said, Schoch, and the mainstream (which, as you can see, I obviously am capable of questioning,) turned out to be wrong about this:

The thing is, the Sphinx sits on the edge of the Sahara Desert and the region has been quite arid for the last 5000 years.

On top of that, Schoch later admitted, as I said, that erosion patterns depend more on morphology than on the erosion agent. That alone completely invalidates any claim that the Sphinx must be older than the Old Kingdom because it has to be water erosion.

Lastly, Schoch's own data shows the rear of the sphinx as older than the sides. How can this be?

Originally posted by Pimander

This is what makes men like Schoch so important. Unlike WingedBull and Harte he is prepared to challenge orthodoxy. He is a free thinker and a true skeptic.

Odd, then, that you yourself are completely unwilling to question Schoch's findings. Even in the face of conclusive evidence that his findings are faulty. But I, the "pseudo-skeptic," am.

Originally posted by PimanderI have stated my case. It is up to the readers to look into it in more detail if they wish.

Detail which I have provided.

Originally posted by Pimander Thank you WingedBull and Harte for your contributions. I am pretty sure readers have learnt a lot from observing your behaviour in this thread. You know what I mean.

I agree, we've both shown what a woo you actually are.

Harte

I am currently on the 3rd of the 7 book series of the 12TH planet/Earth Chronicles, but I have all of them already and am looking forward to the reading.
I have always had the inevitably question's of the "Who, Why,What, Where and When" questions, Sitchin helps kind of clarify the possibilities with rather feasible explanation.
Though the realities of Sitchin's concepts are seemingly other worldly, they do have there merit and do explain a lot of the above mentioned questions. I have always been interested in the Ancient Civilizations, they would be the people to turn to for a deeper rendition of what has taken place. With such things as the Mahabharata and the the Epic of Gilgamesh, with texts that predate the religious version's we now rely on as "The word of God" or the "Allah" by Muslim standards, there was a world before that was historically documented with rather uncharacteristic wording and explanation of those times for this to be mere coincidence is kind of taking a way too skeptical point of view for the topic for discussion. These are more than likely the people that have already made up their mind's as to what they think is the right or correct answer for any deliberation or litigation over this being a possible factual event recorded by people that are long gone.
We are "Out of the Box" kind of species. We strive for the stars and we are doing the very same thing's today that the epics that were told to us on stone had achieved. There ways of recording weren't necessarily myth or fable, they have been lost due to the fact of continuous translation and verbal accounts that have their own little twists.
We owe it to ourselves to be open minded to these theories, which is exactly what Sitchin was getting across, as far as I am concerned. One day we may very well be absolutely surprised by the irrefutable evidences still not unearthed when it comes to this matter of our existence.
Some really smart cookies here on the ATS forums, there are as many personal belief's as there are categories in this forum. Respect each other for what we can openly share, and be humbled by the thing's that we learn that we did not previously know and were taught by others around us.
S&F, Great thread with really respectable and opposing views.

Originally posted by truthbeetellin
Ive never heard so much crap talked about a guy that has done his homework so much that others cant accept he knew more........and the fact that people take time out just to slam his work is pathetic and weird,,,,ummm there are people in the world right now like the picketing church freaks but no one cares,,nah im just gonna sit home and write about how i hate this guy who wrote his theories about the sumerian culture,,this site probably wouldnt exist if it werent for him....get real.......they were theories in a book amongst millions of other books

Do you have a question or a point?
I'll even take a coherent thought.

Originally posted by Harte
I'm not sure Schoch is the guy to trust on this anyway. He had concentrated in Environmental Science prior making an attempt at becoming a fringe writer ("The Pyramid Builders.") I believe he is still concentrated in Environmental. Last I checked, that's what he teaches and works in at Boston U.

Harte

Here is the Boston University entry on Schoch.

Research interests: geology, paleontology, evolution, environmental science, ancient Egypt, geoarchaeology, prehistoric/ancient cultures around the world

Robert M. Schoch, professor of natural science at the College of General Studies at Boston University since 1984, earned his PhD in geology and geophysics at Yale University. His interests include geology, paleontology, evolution, environmental science, ancient Egypt, geoarchaeology, and prehistoric/ancient cultures around the world. In 1990, Prof. Schoch won the Peyton Richter Award for interdisciplinary teaching.

As an award winning inter-disciplinary teacher, with a doctorate in Geology, I think you will all agree, he is better qualified that Harte to explain his own theory to the public! That is why I used his own words.

To any interested readers. I have written to Robert Schoch to ask for confirmation that my statements regarding his theory are accurate. I have also advised him that his credentials have been called into question here on this thread.

If given permission I will post his response in its entirety, without additions here.

Originally posted by Pimander
Harte

Here is the Boston University entry on Schoch...

As an award winning inter-disciplinary teacher, with a doctorate in Geology, I think you will all agree, he is better qualified that Harte to explain his own theory to the public!

Again, instead of answering direct questions, you resort to diversionary tactics, this time an Appeal-to-Authority. You have not answered Harte's charges, only stated Schoch's qualifications. Authority does not make one automatically correct.

What was that you were saying about free-thinkers and skeptics equating authority with truth?

Originally posted by Pimander
That is why I used his own words.

But did not answer the question.

Originally posted by Pimander
I have written to Robert Schoch to ask for confirmation that my statements regarding his theory are accurate.

Speaking of misrepresentation, notice you ask if you're statements were correct; you did not ask him if Harte's were. This is important since your quoting of Schoch does not answer Harte's charges. You are being deceptive. Not surprising for a SCECOP supporter.

Originally posted by Pimander
I have also advised him that his credentials have been called into question here on this thread.

Speaking of misrepresentation, no one has questioned his credentials; Harte questioned is qualifications in certain fields. Again, for all you have done accusing people of misrepresentation, you have shown you are the only one here doing that.

So, again in this thread we have diversionary tactics, misrepresentation and deception. Yet you somehow have the audacity to question the behavior of other posters. SCECOP supporters are the least self-aware buffoons in the paranormal.