In other words, the Carlos Oliver Coke creep doesn't use his personal name online, either. I have conversation records of this psychopath quaking in panic when he learned his government name had been posted in retaliation for posting other people's personal information. Other than in the event of doing foul stuff behind the scenes like Carlos Oliver Coke, it's perfectly normal to want to keep your name off the internet. We ALL do this here on this forum. Nobody here posts with their full name out.
This creepy middle aged Carlos Oliver Coke character gets more bizarre by the second. As if his foul behind the scenes conspiracies and antics weren't bad enough, he just can't seem to stop making himself look even worse.
Also, it seems that this double dealing Carlos Oliver Coke creep was secretly making copies of the then-active website, while he was smiling in my face. Note that this loon is deliberately silent about the contents of the website or the promotion material he keeps referencing. He consistently talks about the last page of the document he is referencing, skipping over the rest of the pages. Ask yourself why, lol. He knows there wasn't ***ANYTHING*** in there to suggest I was using a pseudonym to "hide" something from customers.
This would have been impossible to do anyway, given the laws around registering businesses and websites. As the lying creep Carlos Oliver Coke knows, the WHOIS information of the website he's is referring to, as well as all other legal documents reflected authentic information.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ^Really? We can always count on Brandon Pilcher to try and get Sidney Anson out of a hole.
Now back to your imbecilic cartoons.
Ooh...that reminds me. Didn't you claim somewhere that white women en masse were lusting after black men, as if black men really were sexually superior? And yet there's all the times you've thrown a shitfit over my interracial art. So is it OK for men of your background to sleep with white women, but not for white men to sleep with "your" own women? My sexist hypocrisy radar is picking up a signal here...
Posts: 7105 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can always count on Brandon Pilcher to try and get Sidney Anson out of a hole.
"Hole". Lol. His figments are going through the roof. Carlos Oliver Coke only knows what he knows about me because I gave him access to said information, which includes both a pseudonym I used at the time, as well as my government name. Spreading around this information I gave him access to, and which customers could have figured out themselves by doing a WHOIS and business registration search on me and my website, constitutes "having someone in a hole"?
People contacted by Carlos Oliver Coke in the academic world, are you taking notes on this Carlos Oliver Coke creep and his bizarre insistence on posting people's personal names, private email conversations, completely unrelated and mundane (business) activities?
What a way to contribute to your exposure online as a creepy middle aged geezer who obsesses over people in their twenties and their personal information.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take it you had your little run with your desperate and ineffectual posts about my personal life, Carlos Oliver Coke? Just so I know I have the stage all to myself when I proceed.
I think this time, I'm going to focus on posting the emails Carlos Oliver Coke uses for his gossipy tell-all book. Not that they're that interesting to read (although there are some utterly bizarre moments), but, you know, take that whole 'exclusiveness' thing away from the launch of his gossipy tell-all book.
It should also help potential book publishers and readers find this Egyptsearch page (as well as other sites where I will repost the utterly bizarre behavior Carlos Oliver Coke is displaying here) and see what a creepy stalker he is when he's confronted publicly with his depraved and unlawful behavior.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I heard a couple of hours ago that I've lost [X] Wish me luck!
I suggest you go look up what you said in the blanked out part. I can understand the butthurt in having very little incriminating stuff to quote from after our many conversations, while I have shitloads of incriminating stuff on you.
But if you continue your laughably ineffective detours into my personal life, I take it I have the permission to post completely unrelated personal stuff that is of the level of 'personal' of what I just blanked out and worse. Even though I have so far refrained from going there, I suggest you thread carefully.
However you want to go from here. All you have to do is let me know.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the academics googling Carlos Oliver Coke, compare his most recent slanderous comments with his admission that he was completely wrong about his false allegations:
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Carlos Oliver Coke, can you confess that your slander campaign against me for "unethically" using a professional alias, failed horribly and is just another example of mental instability in your long line of embarrassing blunders?
I've looked at this further, and sole traders don't have to use their real names in business.
More evidence that Carlos Oliver Coke habitually smears the names of people and academics, only to later realize his assumptions were completely wrong. Usually when this happens, especially when the stakes are high, Carlos Oliver Coke will typically continue to smear the names of the people he's targeting.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the academics who have been approached by Carlos Oliver Coke, and who are doing a background check on him.
Carlos Oliver Coke claims that his deceptive use of 'black' only intends to describe "black Africans". He claims he adheres to the US use of "black", which is, in the west at least, widely understood as code for 'African American', and extremely narrow in scope (this use of the term isn't applied to brown skinned Indians, for example, or many brown skinned North Africans).
But Carlos also tends to confuse the Unites States' use of the term with a use that is often found in the pan African movement (parallel terms [e.g 'Arab'] can be found in pan Arab movement). This use considers all dark skinned Africans "black", but also excludes all historical dark skinned Asians who fall in the same brown pigmentation range. This use is basically a race-like concept that seeks to sort dark skinned Africans and set them apart from non-Africans and certain North Africans.
I could write an entire article about why Carlos deliberately uses this term in a deceptive way in anthropological discussions (e.g. he knows full well that the African continent isn't necessarily structured based on collective relatedness vis-a-vis Eurasians, but based on the predictions of OOA theory). (See images below).
But this is not what I'm going to discuss. What I want to discuss right now is Carlos' claim that his use of 'black African' is really as inclusive as he claims it is, or whether it's secretly his attempt to appeal to a stereotyped image of Africans, to deceive people. One of the ways we can look at Carlos true motives is by simply looking at how he responds when people observe that certain Saharan populations were "negroid" or "black", without necessarily conforming to other "negroid" or "black" people.
Now that I've provided a context for people to interpret what I'm quoting below, let's delve into it.
1) Below, we can see how Carlos reacted when we discussed the ethnic background of a recently excavated Sudanese sample (al Khiday). I told him several times that the sample differs from Sub Saharan samples in its non-metric affinities, but that it generally clusters with indigenous Saharan populations, including (pre)dynastic lower Nubians and Egyptians. Despite several times of relaying this message to him, Carlos kept fishing for me to tell him that there is no difference between Saharan and Sub-Saharan populations. Moreover, he kept fishing for me to tell him that any difference between many natives from both regions, is purely arbitrary and a man-made distinction:
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Yes, but Khartoum is technically not sub-sahara, because its in the Sahara, geographically speaking. So, [the al Khiday people are] biologically African, but with a subset of variation which is unique to north Africa.
Therein lies the problem - arbitrary geographic convention.
2) Carlos tends to get angry with academics like Shute and Robins. It doesn't matter to Carlos that these academics repeatedly stress that the AE had "super-negroid" limb proportions. All it takes to set him off is when an academic tells him that the Egyptians differentiated themselves from certain other Africans on their monuments. See below:
quote:originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:ROBINS (1983) and ROBINS & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more like those of modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal limb segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. If ancient Egyptian males had what may be termed negroid proportions, it seems reasonable to suppose that females did likewise. Consequently, we shall in this paper be concerned only with the applicability of TROTTER & GLESER male and female negro formulae. --Robins and Shute (1986)
The defensiveness and racism in this is incredible. I had to recheck the year to make sure I read 1986 and not fucking 1886!"
Why this sensitivity and defensiveness (note that he's projecting his own defensiveness), when, as far as he knows, the authors didn't say that they AE weren't indigenous Africans. Besides, if Carlos' own use of 'black African' is inclusive enough to account for Africans who don't fit the "negro” designation, what is the problem then? Maybe his problem is that he any academic who says something he doesn't like, becomes a fair target, in his mind.
3) Carlos thinks Hawass’ statement that the phenotype of “black Egyptians” differs from certain other African phenotypes is **in and of itself** “racist” and "negrophobic". Hawass made this comment in the context of Diop's book, which, at least in its translated version, used the word "negro" a lot in relation to ancient Egyptians.
In an even stranger twist, he starts calling the widespread practice of describing visual differences of various African groups "engaging in the True Negro fallacy". That's not what the True Negro fallacy means, of course. But by the time Carlos finds out what it means, he has already smeared the names of these academics.
This shows that Carlos simply doesn't tolerate ANY non-"black" academic who makes distinctions between Africans, and that his beef with certain academics is simply based on that he doesn't like what they say. From a purely factual standpoint, often it just doesn't matter to him if what they say is accurate.
quote: Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:look at the features of the people, the Black, in Egypt today. Their nose, their lips is completely different from the Negro. --Hawass
[...] There's a pretty clear 'negrophobia' in his comments. [...] I note the way he tries to invoke the true negro stereotype - which, come to think of it, seems like a concession in itself, however inadvertent.
^There is more where that came from. But I think I've made my point. It makes you wonder the extent to which academics have to walk on eggshells so as to not piss Carlos off or get accused of being a "racist".
Carlos' bizarre habit of picking fights with scholars for the mere act of pointing out morphological differences between various Africans is extremely bizarre. If he doesn't agree with Hawass that there is "a type of black" in Egypt, how can his use of 'black' be truly inclusive of all indigenous Africans? "Black African" is permitted, but not "a type of black" in Egypt?
The obvious answer is that Carlos only accepts scholars who state that the AE were 'black', on the condition that their individuality is kept under wraps, becomes taboo to talk about and they became interchangeable with and indistinguishable from what he calls 'black Africans'. This is why Carlos use of 'black' a nothing other than a sneaky trojan horse that means something different from what he's making it out to be.
This is consistent with how he repeatedly kept fishing for me to say that the al Khiday people were "black Africans", even though I had already pointed out several times that they were biologically African. And even when I did, he still pretended to have not heard me when I said that indigenous Saharans aren't recent immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and that there are demonstrable differences between both regions that are consistent with OOA.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: they were biologically African
This is something we can all agree about Ancient Egyptians. They were biologically Africans. It's also true they must have linkage to the OOA migrants, as most Africans. Since most Africans share the CT and L3 haplogroups with OOA migrants for the greater part of their genome. The only exceptions are Khoisans and Mbuti people from the A and B haplogroups.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would Pinocchio Pepsi's book, were he to actually write it, fall into the jurisdiction of defamation and slander laws over in the UK, perchance?
posted
^Good question. Some other laws might also apply. It would be interesting to get a legal expert involved. Good to know everything has been documented since he lies about everything.
Speaking of his pathological urge of to snitch, gossip, post private conversations and/or making threats to do so..
Note how insensitive this lying clown is to other people. Bass and Sundiata have moved on to other things in life. They might not want these old things to resurface. IIRC, Sundiata never intended his correspondence with Godde to be public.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Message from Swenet 02/07/2012
quote: You've made a thread about Frank Yurco's antics regarding the appearance of Egyptians in certain versions of the book of gates. I believe the biases of many Egyptologists regarding the evidence of a predominantly African Egypt, including the Egyptologists under discussion here, are all symptoms of the same disease.
I do not believe Wilkinson or Kemp would ever go to the lengths of misinforming the public as much as certain researchers in the Theban Mapping Project and Yurco have done in the past, but they all display symptoms of the same disposition.
Thanks for bringing the Barry Kemp issue to our attention, its always good to know that some scholars, who on the surface seem to be on your wavelength, are saying contradicting stuff elsewhere.
BTW, this happens with Physical Anthropologists too. Not too long ago, a poster named Charlie Bass exposed a female Physical Anthropologist name K Godde, who concluded from her cranio-facial work in '09 that Nubians and Egyptians were mostly indistinguishable, and that some Nubian groups were closer to Egyptians than some Egyptians were to those Egyptian samples.
She cited Keita and also synthesized a lot of work in the area, which generally came to the same conclusion (about Egypto-Nubian mutual inclusivity).
She said a lot of things that were off in what she thought would remain a private email conversation between her and Sundiata (another poster who emailed her), but the thing that struck me as flatout bizarre and surreal, is that she actually believed we'd have to go back to Homo Erectus to find a common ancestor between the Nubian population, and the Egyptian population!!
In private, she also said Nubians were distinct from Sub Saharan Africans, even though she cites Keita, and notes several times that Nubians and Ancient Egyptians also show ties to Sub Saharan people.
I guess the thing to be learned from this all is to generally not make assumptions about the views of researchers who cite the same/similar studies we're citing to reinforce our positions, even if they explicitly lend credence to those works.
posted
Perchance? Slander? Like the academics assisting with this would help produce anything libelous.
What a couple of cartoon imbeciles, it's like Laurel and Hardy.
quote: Pinnochio pepsi
and...
quote: Stupid blockhead.
So unbelievably immature.
quote: Note how insensitive this lying clown is to other people. Bass and Sundiata have moved on to other things in life. They might not want these old things to resurface. IIRC, Sundiata never intended his correspondence with Godde to be public.
So, rather than simply leaving the email in the other thread, you thought you'd limit any damage done by reposting it in this one?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
The lying lunatic psychopath is at it again. Here, below, is another example of how he will lie deliberately slander people. He's trying to make it seem like I'm contradicting myself by spamming lies I've already debunked many times. The filthy liar is deliberately quote mining from a time (April 2014) when I was genuinely beginning to suspect that an academic was selective in his use of 'black' because of racism. I then later learned (late May 2014) this wasn't necessarily the case. So, of course, not wanting to wrongly brand someone a racist, I revised my views about this scholar. But the liar Carlos Coke refused to ask himself the same critical questions about maybe being wrong on this particular issue. Instead, he realized he had too much invested in his persecution of this particular academic and that admitting that he was wrong would cause him to lose face. So instead of giving up on that particular issue, he continued to try to trick this scholar so as to justify persecuting him.
Recently I referred to this whole 2014 mess when I said:
^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation. —Swenet
Below, you can see how Carlos Oliver Coke is spinning what happened to make it seem like I was contradicting myself when I said that I revised my views about certain academics. Note how Carlos Oliver Coke is deliberately quote-mining. Note how he says "mate" to try to suck up to people like the filthy boot licker he is. This filthy liar will stop at nothing to mislead people.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: BBHorus sez:
quote: I still did not expect this thread to get a wopping 34 page. I did not expect this thread to even have this much of a serious discussion...
Neither did I, mate!
I've tried reading this thread from page 1, and some of the nonsense is incredible. Of course, Swenet makes a significant contribution. In reply to DougM's assertion that racism was still a problem in terms of how academics handled the population affinities of the ancient Egyptians, Swenet said:
quote: 11/12/2016 ^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
To be clear to anyone not apprised of this, those e-mails he refers to are the responses I received from academics that I shared with him. Anyway, let's see what he said toward the end of the time that he was privy to the correspondence:
An Egyptologist had replied:
quote: April 17 2014 “People sometimes write books or organise exhibitions about 'black' Pharaohs. But the same people would never dare write about traditional Chinese culture under the heading 'Yellow Emperors'; and 'Red' Indians are now 'Native North Americans'. Even 'black' Americans are becoming 'Afro-Americans'. Best wishes:
Swenet, after reading the response, replied:
quote: April 20 2014
I misunderstood his comment. I thought his angle was to criticise the oft-expressed "black pharaoh" thing in reference to Nubians or a minority of Egyptian kings, where the tacit implication is that a black identity and an authentically ancient Egyptian identity are mutually exclusive. If that's what he was trying to say--that black in this context is offensive on par with yellow or red--that's indeed a very strange thing to say. Who exactly would feel discomfort with the use of black in reference to Ancient Egyptians? Certainly not the Afram community. He's projecting his own psychological discomfort with the term! Refer to ancient rulers as red and yellow and you may get backlash from Native Americans and East Asian communities. Refer to Egyptian kings as black and you upset racists who feel discomfort with allocating advanced societies to black people. He's literally window dressing his own discomfort with black as looking out for the interests of black people in the area of racial sensitivities. This is projecting of the highest order. He's not only being racist but, by putting black on par with truly offensive terms, he's framing the situation as if he's looking out for our interests. I think you've hit a sensitive spot; African is okay, just don't say black.”
It's said with a certain conviction, but it's hard to tell now the above all bullshit, or whether he was being sincere. I still don't fully understand this: "African is okay, just don't say black.” Was this irony, or was Swenet actually suggesting that I ditch "black" so as not to offend the sensibilities of an Egyptologist?
Whichever it was, Swenet, after his apparent disgruntlement and ensuing 180, would now have us believe that the criticisms made on this board and elsewhere of certain academic disciplines, are imaginary.
Whenever I come by this forum, and see Swenet making claims inconsistent with past utterances, then if I have any information that highlights his BS, I'll be certain to post it.
posted
I will keep updating this thread as things develop. If you don't care about this drama then don't click on this thread and just ignore it. Academics have the right to know what Carlos Oliver Coke's real intentions are when they're contacted by him.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carlos Oliver Coke tries to clean up now. Whenever I bring up in the forum that I confronted him in May 2014 about his weak 'evidence' of academic 'racism' and that he botched several email exchanges due to his epic clumsiness, he tries to redeem himself. That's why you regularly see him posting out of private conversations—to rally clueless looney toons like him who don't know that Carlos Oliver Coke is playing them, just like he plays everyone. This is why you see him suck up to people, calling them 'mate' when he tries to spam his misinformation about me. After all the lies I exposed, he's desperate to try to make it seem like all his conversations with academics are harmless. Good thing I'm here to set the record straight about what really happened.
Recap on some of the reasons why Carlos Oliver Coke is criticized. Note that Carlos Oliver Coke deliberately stays mum on these issues when he makes he tries to window dress the situation with his email correspondence threads.
Carlos Oliver Coke throws around the race card even when the disagreements he has with academics are superficial and don't even call for it.
Carlos Oliver Coke is uninterested in properly investigating his allegations of racism. Because Carlos Oliver Coke is too uneducated to understand what proper, permissible evidence is, he's under the impression that his so-called 'evidence' is going to shake the world. In fact, he's only exposing relatively minor biases people already know exist. When he suspects an academic is racist and he's told to follow up and play by the rules by getting CONCLUSIVE evidence, he's often reluctant to do so. Sometimes he gets defensive. His excuse is always that "their bias foregrounds their racism", whatever that means. On several occasions I had to urge him to properly follow up until he had REAL evidence of racism. In one case, it was unclear whether an academic's misinformation was driven by racism or ignorance. Carlos Oliver Coke was reluctant to properly follow up. See here, for instance:
But its your responsibility to ask [him] to directly state his sources. I can't stress that enough. [There] are way too many [pending] threads running and you've opened new ones. The usefulness if this exchange will hinge on how much you can get him to say on record which can end up making him look incompetent. This should have been addressed as well, by directly asking for his source —Swenet (2014)
His answer:
He said to read the information on the X-Group, which I did. It may not have been the right paper, but if it's not, he'll have to clarify. If he doesn't offer a source, then I ask. At this stage I'm trying not to come across as too interrogative. Although I did ask him for research on the generality of globular skulls within African populations. I've got 3 months to get to the bottom of this - dependent on my joining the course. However, I will have to try to avoid direct confrontation which makes for an atmosphere in the classroom. —Carlos Oliver Coke (2014)
Here you can see his reluctance to take responsibility in his investigative efforts. Getting conclusive evidence should have been his utmost priority, not something that can 'wait'. (Note that Carlos Oliver Coke ended up botching his 'deadline' as he failed to gather this information). Sloppy as he is, Coke is reluctant to do something as simple as getting an academic to BACK UP his claims by asking for sources. This is customary. Coke's bullshit excuse is that he doesn't want things to get awkward. But if his reluctance stems from this, why is he privately already coming to premature conclusions about 'racism'?
When new information surfaces that calls for a revision of whether an academic was as unfair as previously assumed, Carlos Oliver Coke refuses to adjust. He'll typically just move the goalpost and continue his slander campaign. You can even see this mental tic play out on this forum when he deliberately keeps spamming misinformation that has already been clarified many times. By May 2014 I was already starting to revise some of my initial views on Kemp. Because of this I suggested staying away from a racial use of 'black'. Carlos Oliver Coke's response to my common sense suggestion shows how manipulative he is:
Hey, it was good to get your feedback. I wasn't going to adapt the term 'black' because that lies at the crux of the debate. —Carlos Oliver Coke (2014)
Note that Carlos Oliver Coke resorts to playing manipulative games with the academics he's investigating. Above you can see him move the goalpost when he says that his correspondent's racial use of 'black' lies "at the crux of the debate". This is certainly not what I signed up for. This isn't what Carlos Oliver Coke signed up for either, before he started moving the goalpost. The issue is whether various Africans whose Africanity has been questioned are indigenous Africans, not whether they fit racial categories. You can see why I started questioning Carlos Oliver Coke's racial use of 'black'—it had nothing whatsoever to do with my use of the term. Even though Carlos Oliver Coke knows this, he keeps spamming my past use of 'black' when I criticize his completely different use of the term. This is the type of manipulative liar we're dealing with.
Carlos Oliver Coke slanders academics for views he himself holds. For instance, Carlos Oliver Coke went on record saying he thinks that pharaohs like Amenhotep III throw him off in terms of being able to place them 'racially'. But when academics make similar comments, Carlos Oliver Coke uses the race card. See here, for instance, in response to Robins and Shute who said that negroid limb ratios don't have racial implications (which is correct):
The defensiveness and racism in this is incredible. I had to recheck the year to make sure I read 1986 and not fucking 1886! —Carlos Oliver Coke (2014)
Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't distinguish between ignorance/incompetence and racism in his slander campaigns against academics. When an academic with no expertise in ancient Egyptian anthropology says something that's factually accurate, but misleading due to ignorance (e.g. "the ancestors of ancient Egyptians and Nubians were Mechtoid") Carlos Oliver Coke starts speculating about racism.
Thanks for that. Slightly concerned. Do you think [X] should have known that about the various populations that have been labelled 'mechtoid'? —Carlos Oliver Coke (2013)
To get support from the academic community, Carlos Oliver Coke deliberately withholds information. Most, if not all of the correspondents who agree with him are not trained in physical anthropology and have no access to the many critical notes I gave Coke when I was still on good terms with him. Most, if not all of his friendly correspondents don't know the implications of the fact that the bulk of the Egyptian population wasn't a transplant from Sub-Saharan Africa. They are indigenous North Africans. Coke knows this, yet he obscures this in public to further demonize his targets in academia. This way, he can make it seem like his targets are racist for making certain correct observations and deserve to be put on blast. All the while Carlos Oliver Coke knows that he's manipulating the situation.
An example of this Coke's oft-repeated lie that dynastic Lower Egyptians didn't differ from their predynastic antecedents. When Coke spams this lie he uses Irish for support. But Carlos Oliver Coke already knows that his Irish excerpt don't state what he's using it for. Yet, he continues to use that Irish quote in his crusade against the academics he's targeting.
I will keep updating this thread as things develop. If you don't care about this drama then don't click on this thread and just ignore it. Academics have the right to know what Carlos Oliver Coke's real intentions are when they're contacted by him.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you ever considered contacting some of these academics directly rather than just letting this thread sit in ES where they may not see it? I think Kemp in particular would be very interested in knowing what Mr. Coke had planned to inflict on his reputation after their correspondence.
posted
You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
Posts: 8808 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sidney Anson (Swenet) just can't bear the fact that I've brought his flip-flopping, expedient crap to light.
quote: I will keep updating this thread as things develop. If you don't care about this drama then don't click on this thread and just ignore it. Academics have the right to know what Carlos Oliver Coke's real intentions are when they're contacted by him.
But I've already got the information I need, so your 'warning' is fatuous. The correspondence I have now is with supportive academics.
quote: Have you ever considered contacting some of these academics directly rather than just letting this thread sit in ES where they may not see it? I think Kemp in particular would be very interested in knowing what Mr. Coke had planned to inflict on his reputation after their correspondence.
That's funny, because Sidney Anson, you know, the guy who used a fake name on LindkedIn (he used Willy Emblem), said that he'd contacted academics about me, saying that I should shut up or he'd post their responses about me in the thread.
When I called on him to do so, nothing happened.
I've also previously suggested he contact them, copying me in so I could see his bullshit.
Nothing happened.
But hey, contact them. Sidney knows the names of some of them. Get in touch.
quote: You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
Libel?
Do you know what libel is? Anyway, thanks for your concern.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
noun 1. Law. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. the act or crime of publishing it. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge. 2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
My question is have you contacted the people you plan to put in your book with your grievances against them to get their opinions on the matter, also do they know about you using them in your workd, do they have your consent. Im just saying legally you should protect yourself if your really go through with it.
Posts: 8808 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: My question is have you contacted the people you plan to put in your book with your grievances against them to get their opinions on the matter, also do they know about you using them in your workd, do they have your consent. Im just saying legally you should protect yourself if your really go through with it.
Thanks, these issues have been discussed.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
Legal issues are the least of Carlos Oliver Coke's problems. He's going to self-destruct as soon as he goes public. All the deliberate lies he told his "supportive academics" are going to come to light. Half of them are going to abandon him anyway once they learn what Carlos Oliver Coke has been withholding. He has no way of coming out of this with his name untarnished. Coming out is only going to make it worse. His lies and fraud are just going to follow him wherever he goes. I'll make sure of that.
The academic community is unforgiving when it comes to fraud. The only reason his so-called supporters are still talking to him is because they're isolated from how I've been exposing him over the years. I'm willing to bet that if I can get an hour with them and relay Carlos Oliver Coke's manipulations, they're not going to want to touch him in public with a ten foot pole.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moving on documenting Carlos Oliver Coke's fraud in this thread.
Here, below, we see Carlos Oliver Coke deliberately manipulate Irish. Carlos knows what the literature says about dynastic lower Egyptians and how they overlap extensively with Maghrebis and early European farmers (and therefore, by extension, to some extent with modern Europeans). Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't like those results, so he starts tuning them out willy nilly. Then he arbitrarily chooses to focus on non-metric data (as opposed to metric data), because the nature of this data hides that dynastic Lower Egyptians generally differ from their predynastic counterparts in ways that dynastic Upper Egyptians typically didn't. The quote below is just one of many times in which Carlos Oliver Coke tried to mislead people using this deliberately nitpicked data.
When I called Carlos out, he continued to lie and defend his manipulations throughout the thread.
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: At a November 2014 British Museum lecture, Who were the Ancient Egyptians?, Joel Irish said that, based on the dental record, there was population continuity from the Badarian through to the Roman period, as well as homogeneity encompassing both Upper and Lower Egypt.
EDIT: OK, managed to find quotes:
quote: What you see then is that there is incredible similarity among all populations leading to the dynastic through pre-dynastic times [with a few?] post-dynastic thrown in. None of these are what you'd call significantly different from one another. They're all the same population. Whether they're from early, late, whether they're from Upper or Lower Egypt. There are two outliers though, trying to figure out what the heck are these guys doing and it now turns out the top one is a Greek site, Greek sample, that just happen to be in Egypt, and the bottom one is Roman. So what we've got here are some outside people, these cemeteries were from non-Egyptians, is what it looks like.
quote:Dentally the ancient Egyptians show an incredible amount of internal homogeneity, between predynastic and dynastic times. They are statistically not significantly different from one another, they show tremendous similarity from south to north and through time - these are one very continuous population.
posted
More Carlos Oliver Coke lies and manipulations in regards to Irish:
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: I give you a quote from an e-mail with Joel Irish to back up my comment that Greek and Egyptian dental morphologies were distinct, and you accuse me of lying. Saying that I fabricated the e-mail.
Note how Carlos Oliver Coke is deliberately spamming the same Irish quotes all over the forum because the point Irish happened to make in that instant and his wording seem to be superficially favorable. But Carlos Oliver Coke knows damn well that when you look at the actual Irish paper and what he says in it, it's nowhere even close to what Carlos Oliver Coke is doing with said citations. So, for instance, when Carlos Oliver Coke spams the part that says that it turned out that the Greco-Egyptian and Egyptian samples were statistically distinct, this only means relatively distinct. When you look at the actual paper, the Egyptian average was equidistant between the Greco-Egyptian sample and the neolithic Gebel Ramlah sample. So, according to this liar's bankrupt reasoning, the Neolithic Gebel Ramlah sample was non-metrically "distinct" from the Egyptians.
These deliberate quote-mining and misrepresentation attempts are Carlos Oliver Coke's MO. I've called him out many times over it. That's ALL the lying fraud does. He does it HERE as well as in his conversations with "supportive academics". He even does it to me, when he spams my quotes and deliberately misrepresents what they're saying.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's look at how Irish actually used words like "homogeneous" and "distinct" and see how Carlos Oliver Coke is deliberately misrepresenting Irish.
quote:Not surprisingly, samples noted to exhibit relatively high or low frequencies are most divergent. Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians have identical mean MMD values of 0.126. El Hesa (0.078), Saqqara (0.079), and Lisht (0.083) are also somewhat distinct. In contrast, Badari (0.028), Thebes (0.039), and Hawara (0.041) show a general affinity to all samples.
Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples (2006)
^So, with just this small excerpt we can already see that Carlos Oliver Coke stacks lies on top of lies. Firstly, contrary to the selective Irish quotes Carlos has been spamming across the forum, typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples do stand out somewhat and certain dynastic Upper Egyptian samples can be identified statistically as being more representative. Secondly, as Carlos Oliver Coke knows very well in spite of his lies, Irish's use of "distinct" simply means relatively distinct. The same applies to Irish' use of "homogeneous".
And the best part is this. I know for a FACT that Carlos Oliver Coke knows this as he's debated at least one academic who used Irish's work against him. So we know that every time Carlos Oliver Coke spammed this quote-mined Irish piece against an opponent, he's fully aware of the fact that Irish is more aligned with his opponent's views than his. What do we call this if not fraud? He debates easy targets who hold that Egyptians were like Maghrebi North Africans, but he uses Irish (whose work says the same thing) against them? He spams 0.0000001% of Irish's work to make a sketchy point about dynastic Lower Egyptian homogeneity, but he tries to obscure that 99.999999% of Irish' work debunks all of his claims about ancient Egyptian biological affinities. That's like a racist Euronut who uses Diop as an authoritative source to argue that Mediterranean Europeans are authentic Europeans alongside Swedes, while obscuring that Diop is polar opposite from him in almost every respect. As a matter of fact, imagine that that same racist Euronut is using Diop to debate Afrocentrics who aren't aware of Diop's work and so don't know that they're being played and lied to. That is what Carlos Oliver Coke is doing.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As a matter of fact, imagine that that same racist Euronut is using Diop to debate Afrocentrics who aren't aware of Diop's work and so don't know that they're being played and lied to. That is what Carlos Oliver Coke is doing.
See this hilarious situation play out below. Either it's because he's too stumped or because his a fraud, or both. But this clown fraudulently uses Irish to debate opponents who are in line with Irish's views, while Irish completely differs from his views. Because Carlos Oliver coke picks his targets wisely (little to no knowledge about specific authors) he gets away with it. Carlos' opponent below had no idea that Carlos Oliver Coke was playing him:
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver coke: ^Of course, the question is how long a black-skinned population would have to be in situ for before they become unrecognisable, no?
Don't know what bearing this has, but Joel Irish has said that:
"Dentally, the ancient Egyptians show an incredible amount of internal homogeneity..."
"They're all the same population. Whether they're from early [or] late, whether they're from Upper Egypt or Lower Egypt."
"Don't know what bearing this has". Lol @ this stumped cretin. You don't know what "bearing" it has, so why are you even posting it in a debate? This same cretin wants people to believe he's in any position to write a book about academic fraud. He's obviously a bigger fraud than all of his opponents combined.
What stumped cretin starts taking on academics with a coach in his ear telling him how to respond on anthro topics. Then he realizes the awkward position he's in and he starts taking a course on anthropology halfway into his debates with academics. Lol. To make matters even worse, this cretin then started biting the hand that fed him, leaving his circle filled with yes-men who don't know what they're talking about half the time. Look where he's now in 2016. He's supposedly ready to publish a book but just in 2015 he admitted he doesn't have the foggiest clue what he's posting. WTF?
But I guess Carlos Oliver Coke is making progress. In early 2015 he was spotted on this forum stooping to an entirely new low. He was asking insulting questions that pale in comparison to his his examples of academic bias:
"Are Sub-Saharan Africans capable of crossing the Sahara desert on their own".
quote: "Are Sub-Saharan Africans capable of crossing the Sahara desert on their own".
Sidney, did they not teach you in school how to quote? Or did you spend too much time playing truant and getting stoned out of your head in coffee shops? Has this impacted your ability to recall reality and report fairly? Or are you just out to misrepresent and lie (again)?
You keep making a fool of yourself. Anyone following that link will see from my response to 'Blackman' in that thread that the Sahara claim wasn't one I entertained:
quote: I take it you think I'm the person making and endorsing these comments?
My question arose from something academics had said at the time -- it's not enough to approach an academic and say: you know what, I think you're bullshitting. I was incredulous so brought it here for a detailed, technical rebuttal. I didn't get one. Anyway, a number of academics to whom I forwarded the Sahara statement did provide detailed, useful responses... -------------------------- But this is what you get when you engage with Sidney Anson, someone who thinks nothing of mischaracterisation and outright lies.
For readers who may have missed it, here's content from a PM Sidney Anson sent the former forum moderator on this board, whose crime, believe it or not, was being insufficiently attentive to Anson's Facebook page (Hahahaha!!!):
quote: I invited you, never deleted you like the others, despite the fact that you was a no-show. Let you walk in and out whenever you wanted to, without asking you to lift a finger. Yet you spit in my face and apparently don't even have the decency to at least speak the truth. Have it your way, then. You're no longer welcome on the FB group as far as I'm concerned. I'm doing you a favour by not confronting you in the open or slandering your name by banning you and announcing why openly. I'll leave that to you and the rest of you ladies at the gossip table during your next get together. The moment I see you rear your head in the FB group, you're banned.
See. The abject pettiness. Still not sure whether this arises from malevolence, a personality disorder or what.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Sidney Anson's Facebook comments on the question of population variation between Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt :
quote: Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that. It also doesn't matter what later dynastic Egyptians looked like, just like it doesn't matter what modern day Mexicans look like. Many Mexicans are primarily European and that is immaterial. The European part is only a layer on top of their Meso-American foundation. Even if their European component grows to 99% in th future. It's not native to the area; it's intrusive. You'd describe them as admixed Native Americans and take their ancestral foundation into account. You wouldn't say that they aren't Native Americans; you'd look at it from the context of them changing from their ancestral type to where they're know. Especially if they remained intact as a cultural unit and absorbed the outsiders into whatever they had going on.
Again, based on the dental record, Irish announced population continuity and dental homogeneity in front of a lecture of some 2-300 people.
Boring desperation, Sidney.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason why Carlos Oliver Coke spams that Irish excerpt is because of the EXACT SAME quote-mining intention he had, below:
The images are attached- you've no doubt already seen them elsewhere. I find the image of Amenhotep I on page 2 really striking; I've got to admit that I'm thrown by the images of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III on p.6 and p.7. Can't articulate what it is about the photo of Sitamun that jumps out at me as African. I don't want to talk about the three pictures of Sety I but would rather focus on what I think I can see in the x-ray! —Carlos Oliver Coke (2013)
The manipulative liar is simply obscuring ancient Egyptian phenotypes that panic the crap out of him. By spamming that Irish piece Carlos Oliver coke tries to downplay already established differences between dynastic Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians. Painting a distorted image of ancient Egyptian variation allows Carlos to justify forcing academics to adopt his racial use of 'black'. It allows him to inject his inappropriate and political driven terminology into the conversation with scientists who would otherwise reject him. It allows him to create a racial dynamic where everyone who disagrees with Carlos on calling the AE racially 'black' is automatically a racist with no further evidence required. Carlos Oliver Coke's vested interests in his racial use of 'black' in relation to the AE requires him to tamper with data (see that quote above). If he's up front about AE variations with his "supportive correspondents", many of them are going to have sympathy for the academics he's been targeting, if not side with them on certain issues.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the knowledge of African diversity especially within SSA, I can't take seriously anyone who implies there's ques that "jump out as African"...how do you *look* African???
For that same reason I don't see why diverse phenotypes among the AE mean anything at all, especially to give someone reason to take pause unless said person has a very specific idea of what an African or "Black" person is supposed to look like.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Alls I know is that when I say something like "looks African" is that a particular phenotype is consistent with Africans. It can be a useful shorthand in the right hands and with the right underlying intentions. But you can tell in the way he uses that phrase that he's disowning African variations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
What an idiot we have here in Sidney Anson. Someone who creates their own reality in pursuit of a grudge.
Look at how he completely avoids reference to his NOW embarrassing statement from a couple of years back, which chimes with Irish's comments. Again, Anson said:
quote: Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
But then, out of a grudge, after we'd fallen out , he's since tried to accuse me of misusing Irish's comments. See his comments upthread.
So very full of sh1t.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Look at this raving lunatic. He's literally out of his mind. How is that supposedly "embarrassing" quote different from what I've said in public MANY times.
See here, for instance, a couple of weeks ago:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Do you have anything rare/new on pre-dynastic lower Egyptians? Only data that comes to mind is Petrie's Tarkhan cemetery (thought to be the "Anu" in the flesh due to their supposedly peculiar chin morphologies which they're said to share with Tera Netjer) and some other skeletal remains from Maadi and Heliopolis. Also, Junker's predynastic lower Egyptian remains from Tura come to mind. From their descriptions these all seem to be local variants of the predynastic Upper Egyptian model pattern, with some variations tending towards (but still maintaining some distance from) what would later appear in the record as the "lower Egyptian" pattern. This is also what Patricia Smith says about some of these samples. None seem to have been as distinctly "lower Egyptian" as some of the 1st dynasty royal Egyptians from Abydos.
This is why I ignore Carlos Oliver Coke half of the time. He is CRAZY lunatic. I have no idea what he's talking about half of the time when he contrasts my public posts with supposedly "secret" private statements.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can backchat all you want. But your BS is there in the open.
quote: Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
You ignore me half the time?! Please, this is the man who prides himself on getting the last word, and enters a thread when there's an indirect reference to him.
Now as for lunacy, let's replay that PM you sent Tukuler:
-------------------
I invited you, never deleted you like the others, despite the fact that you was a no-show. Let you walk in and out whenever you wanted to, without asking you to lift a finger. Yet you spit in my face and apparently don't even have the decency to at least speak the truth. Have it your way, then. You're no longer welcome on the FB group as far as I'm concerned. I'm doing you a favour by not confronting you in the open or slandering your name by banning you and announcing why openly. I'll leave that to you and the rest of you ladies at the gossip table during your next get together. The moment I see you rear your head in the FB group, you're banned.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Note how Carlos Oliver Coke operates again. His supposedly "embarrassing" quote has been exposed as a figment of his imagination but he's going to keep spamming it for the next 10 months. This is EXACTLY what he does when new evidence surfaces that his targets in the academic world don't deserve his slander. He just keeps persecuting them whether he's right or not.
The point about Carlos Oliver Coke's abuse of Irish is that he tries to obscure heterogeneity using convenient quotes and convenient data (non metric data) that he already knows are misleading in the way he's using them.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Irish said the population was dentally homogenous and dentally continuous. That's what I've quoted. If Irish's findings irritate you, take it up with him...but then:
quote: Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
quote: ^Note how Carlos Oliver Coke operates again. His supposedly "embarrassing" quote has been exposed as a figment of his imagination but he's going to keep spamming it for the next 10 months.
Not sure about the timeframe, but I'll certainly repost it to highlight your insecure bullsh1t.
quote:This is EXACTLY what he does when new evidence surfaces that his targets in the academic world don't deserve his slander. He just keeps persecuting them whether he's right or not.
You've accused me of misusing Irish, when his comments are in accordance with what you yourself said.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recap on Carlos Oliver Coke's abuse of Irish. Carlos Oliver Coke's abuse of Irish work is evident:
1) in how he repeatedly spams quote-mined Irish excerpts to obscure heterogeneity he knows he cannot accommodate in his racial use of 'black'. As noted earlier, non-metric data can't pick up on heterogeneity as well because light skinned groups to Egypt's west had the same dental pattern as Egyptians and Nubians. But Carlos Oliver Coke has called light skinned North Africans non-black, hence, the importance of the Irish quotes in highlighting Coke's hypocrisy and fraud. Carlos Coke deliberately spams data he perfectly knows will paint the picture of Egyptian variation he wants his uneducated public to see. Without this leverage he cannot persecute people like Kemp for daring to say that many Egyptians don't fit his racial use of 'black'.
2) in how he spams Irish EVEN to debate people whose views are more in line with Irish than Coke's views are. Carlos Oliver Coke gets away with it because a lot of these people don't know about Irish's work and so have no idea that Carlos is manipulating them with his quote-mining.
3) in how he spams Irish's use of "homogeneous" but conveniently leaves out that the AE shared this "homogeneous" dental pattern with groups Carlos Oliver Coke considers non-black. He also leaves out that most of the groups he considers racially black don't share this dental pattern. When Carlos Oliver Coke is called out for his underhanded use of Irish, the best this brainless cretin can muster up in his defense is to hide behind something a forum poster said a decade ago:
I remember Djehuti commenting something along the lines of the North African/Sub-Saharan African dichotomy being a false one —Carlos Oliver Coke
No need to go back and forth over his manipulative use of Irish. He's a compulsive liar. Compulsive liars are supposed to not admit their fraud. Carlos is simply playing the part I've described for several years. We'll see what Carlos Oliver Coke's "supportive academics" will think about his repeated attempts to obscure the ancient Egyptian characteristics he doesn't like and how he persecutes people for not going along with his lies. I doubt they will be satisfied with Carlos Oliver Coke's bizarre replies.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anson, you're all the place. Much nutty huffing and puffing, but no reference to his own comments, which correspond with Irish's.
You repeat your accusation that I've misrepresented Irish. The bald facts remain as stated: he said that the population was dentally homogenous and that there was continuity. Yet my posting that, which again is in keeping with something you yourself suggested , somehow makes me a liar. WTF?
I suspect the reason that you're agitated is becomes it doesn't support whatever you may have argued around Egyptian 'heterogeneity'.
Don't try to hang your sh1t on me.
The point of my asking Djehuti that question seems to have flown right over your head. You might remember on FB we worked through a similar conclusion, regarding something Irish had written elsewhere. You agreed my summary. However, after we fell out, you then posted here on ES that the summary was a "reach"... even though you'd helped me with it. Of course, in executing your 180 (what's new?), you suggested that you'd had some sort of 'rethink'.
So that was why I posted that question to Djehuti...but again, seems to have gone over your head.
Anyway, this brings me to the point I made earlier in another thread on Irish's Jebel Moya findings -- that individuals with North African dental characteristics also had sub-Saharan cranio-facial features. Hence Djehuti's, mine, your conclusion that the North/sub-Saharan dichotomy is a misleading one.
Contact Irish and ask him whether or not he posits population homogeneity and continuity. I sense you won't because you know the implications if he confirms that he did, but anyway, go on
Also, you know of at least one, maybe more, academic(s) that have supported me in this. Carry through with your threat,contact them, tell them that I've misrepresented the findings of an academic.
Go on.
Your mock charges are getting boring -- all those e-mails that academics supposedly sent you about me never materialised when I challenged you to post them, did they?
Questions: Do you now reject the following?
quote: Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
Who are my "uneducated public"?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Continuing with documenting Carlos Oliver Coke's long track record of obscuring and quote-mining...
Somewhere around 2012 I shared a book on Old Kingdom royal family with Carlos Oliver Coke. My intention was to discuss Lower Egyptian cranio-facial variations. This was part of an on-going private conversation I had with Coke over several years wherein I tried to teach him as much as he needed to uncover academic racism. Unfortunately I failed: as you can see, he's still as incompetent today as he was back then. Anyway, the data in question can be found in the link below. See chapter 10, which is called:
Among other things I told Carlos Oliver Coke that the cranio-facial traits which group predynastic Egyptians with Nubians are expressed to a weaker degree in Djedkare's Lower Egyptian family. For those who know how to interpret skeletal remains, here are some pictures out of the book:
Now contrast this information, which we know has come to Carlos Oliver Coke's attention, with his long track record of suppressing inconvenient information about (Lower) Egyptians in public. Like I said, this was somewhere around 2012. Somewhere in between this period and 2014 Carlos Oliver Coke had gone from taking all of this into consideration to believing his own lies. In 2014 this pathological liar was convinced that if the facial features of ancient Egyptian skeletal remains don't come out recognizably racially 'black', then the forensic reconstruction is suspect. He started believing his own lie that if only someone like Keita was placed in charge of the reconstructions, they would necessarily come out racially 'black'.
Never mind that Keita's work already tells you that isn't the case. And that it doesn't have to be the case for AE to be African. What a degenerate cretin. This liar wants me to believe that he's not deliberately ignoring metric data and resorting to quote-mining Irish hearsay. We're supposed to believe that his consistent spamming of convenient Irish hearsay has nothing to do with his earlier 'creative workarounds' to cope with the way Seti looks?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: In 2014 this pathological liar was convinced that if the facial features of ancient Egyptian skeletal remains don't come out recognizably racially 'black', then the forensic reconstruction is suspect.
Find and post the EXACT quote where I said that.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
You didn't address my suggestions and questions:
quote:
Contact Irish and ask him whether or not he posits population homogeneity and continuity. I sense you won't because you know the implications if he confirms that he did, but anyway, go on
Also, you know of at least one, maybe more, academic(s) that have supported me in this. Carry through with your threat,contact them, tell them that I've misrepresented the findings of an academic.
Go on.
Your mock charges are getting boring -- all those e-mails that academics supposedly sent you about me never materialised when I challenged you to post them, did they?
Questions: Do you now reject the following?
quote: Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
Who are my "uneducated public"?
Also, when you contact Joel Irish, ask him which groups the ancient Egyptians shared dental patterns with :
quote: in how he spams Irish's use of "homogeneous" but conveniently leaves out that the AE shared this "homogeneous" dental pattern with groups Carlos Oliver Coke considers non-black.
posted
I highly doubt anyone will pay any attention to his book and the ones that do will simply offer rebuttals. Like I said I dont think he's going to even make the book, it seems like such a silly idea. What is the end goal IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
Legal issues are the least of Carlos Oliver Coke's problems. He's going to self-destruct as soon as he goes public. All the deliberate lies he told his "supportive academics" are going to come to light. Half of them are going to abandon him anyway once they learn what Carlos Oliver Coke has been withholding. He has no way of coming out of this with his name untarnished. Coming out is only going to make it worse. His lies and fraud are just going to follow him wherever he goes. I'll make sure of that.
The academic community is unforgiving when it comes to fraud. The only reason his so-called supporters are still talking to him is because they're isolated from how I've been exposing him over the years. I'm willing to bet that if I can get an hour with them and relay Carlos Oliver Coke's manipulations, they're not going to want to touch him in public with a ten foot pole.
Posts: 8808 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: I highly doubt anyone will pay any attention to his book and the ones that do will simply offer rebuttals. Like I said I dont think he's going to even make the book, it seems like such a silly idea. What is the end goal IMO.
It's not going to be a best-seller, I want to document and air the bias.
So what do you make of those academics and writers who encourage me to write?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: I highly doubt anyone will pay any attention to his book and the ones that do will simply offer rebuttals. Like I said I dont think he's going to even make the book, it seems like such a silly idea. What is the end goal IMO.
It's not going to be a best-seller, I want to document and air the bias.
So what do you make of those academics and writers who encourage me to write?
Who are these academic supporters you speak of? You have no problem disclosing private correspondences on the Internet, so I presume you wouldn't have any qualms identifying your supporters.
Posts: 7105 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who are these academic supporters you speak of? You have no problem disclosing private correspondences on the Internet, so I presume you wouldn't have any qualms identifying your supporters.
Actually, I would. Whether or not a troll like you believes me is immaterial.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. He means the same academics who know nothing about the subject. That's what he forgets to mention. Most of his supportive academics rely on Carlos Oliver Coke's information. This is what I mean when I say that he's withholding information and that this is going to blow up in his face.
It's easy to convince a classicist that ancient Egyptians were racially 'black' because they Greeks describe their level of SKIN PIGMENTATION as melas. It's easy to convince a classicist that lower Egyptians were "homogeneous" using Irish hearsay. It's easy to convince a classist that academics are necessarily racist when they translate 'Aegyptoi' as Nubian. That's how Carlos Oliver Coke warms lay people up to his supposed evidence of academic racism.
Then he comes back on this site and pretends that their approval is going to shield him from receiving a good public spanking when he goes public. Their approval is simply a reflection of the lies he's been feeding them. They don't know any better.
Watch how many seasoned vets in AE population history he's going to mention (if he's not going to cower and avoid answering). I haven't been updated on his gossippy campaign for years, but I'm willing to bet he doesn't have anyone. And if he has even one of them I'm willing to bet that he strikes a different tone with them knowing that they'll just put him in his place with the same things I'm telling him.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic