Zahi Hawass Storms out of Debate with Graham Hancock

originally posted by: sacredvisions
i am in egypt at the moment i was at the debate, i have been in egypt with graham for 2 weeks now as part of a tour, hawass acted like a clown he was sweating so much he was unable to answer questions and he was getting others to answer questions for him at times, he was rude to graham and showed zero respect, graham was a gentleman the entire time, after "answering" a few questions he said he was far too tired to continue the debate and left, i saw him at dinner he was sitting there drinking wine and laughing and enjoying conversations with his entourage he didnt look tired at all then, what a joke the guy is a coward and ran with his tail between his legs, graham is one of the most genuine people i have met and deserves to be treated with respect, in my opinion hawass"s cowardly performance shows to me that what graham is saying has truth to it and that hawass has no credible answers to debate with.

Thanks for the inside outlook on this. This sad little man Hawass is shady at best. How on earth does he have this kind of power and prestige?


I am a newcomer to this topic in general and after doing a little research I actually hate this man.....Hate is a strong word I know but the way he treats people is so over the top. TPTB that pay this man should rethink it pretty hard.

I may not buy into everything Hancock says, but that Hawass is an arrogant, pompous, egotistical, buffoon of an ass who thinks the pyramids are his own private property and that he is the only one who is entitled to examine and interpret the ancient Phoenician civilizations.

Hancock, meanwhile, is a polite, respectful, thoughtful, scholar who merely has an alternative perspective. Again - it isn't as relevant if Hancock is correct or not -he has intriguing, thought-provoking ideas that are worthy of consideration if nothing else.

Where does that dick-head Haw-ass get off treating everyone who doesn't lick his filthy boots as if they were not worthy of even his contempt.

I've seen a LOT of documentaries and read many papers on this subject. Haw-ass is the ONLY pseudo-archeologist that when his mug shows up on the screen, I instantly turn off the program. I despise that moron -and, apparently, I'm not alone. GET OF YOUR HIGH HORSE, Haw-ASS - the ancients never elected YOU as their one and only spokesman and benefactor.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Your context is unrealistic this amounts to going to someone's grave and pissing on their headstone it's a lack of respect. But even that aside an archeologist doesn't go puss ing on artifacts they know better. And he's right she doesn't deserve to work with him

Context.....What if that poor girl could not get out from being underground.......What if she was having a medical issue.......What if this Hawass scum bag would not let her leave......



If she was out of line I would have said this is a sacred place what are you doing.....You will not be on the team in the future. His reaction was arrogant.....Self serving........belittling.......Pathetic......And maybe even sexiest.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: TinfoilTPnot knocking your theory, but hancock is not just some dummy that writes fiction. and who's to say that just because someone writes fiction, that their not well versed in all manner of subjects, even to the point of being able to debate scholars of other fields. on that note Arthur C Clark comes to mind.

Issac Asimov was the first to come to my mind, but Arthur is another good one.

Hawass is the prime example when a man of science becomes arrogant because of their position and do no let anything question their "truths" and looks like is written in stone. Science in their infancy use the premise to question everything even your own theories, but lately like in any burocracy it gets corrupted, like the church in ancient times excomulgate and in most cases burn of witchcraft or throw to the jail the man of science, now science is doing exactly the same (karma??), well not burning any one but instead of excomulgate now is "he is nut" or "crackpot" or it belongs to the fringe type and its separated, segregated and never to become something serious.

I doesnt surprise me Hawass doing that, that doesnt mean he is a bad person, it just means is mind is not open to any other interpretation of history, only his.

a reply to: dragonridr


she didn't piss on any ones grave if you truly believe the narrative put forth in the show, she had a accident inside and pissed her pants. one many people have had in one form or the other.

like i said if she had dropped her panties and squatted over a pharaoh's cartouche which there is none in the damn thing, a sarcophagus, or something in that manner, or even just dropped her panties and let it flow i could see raising hell, but she didn't do that, she pissed her pants while crawling around in the top crawl spaces that were likely used while building it. far away from where the pharaoh would have even been.

i wouldn't include myself as the one being disrespected like hawass did. seems to me he should have pointed out that she disrespected the supposed pharaoh grave more than himself. he used the word sacred place one time during his me mini rant.

here is the clip, you hear it at the 1:02 mark.


plus i'll even bet you, that she wasn't the first archeologist, explorer, worker or grave robbers to piss inside, by accident, intentionally, or just not caring.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Scott Creighton

My bottom line?

The OP, the link et al seem to want us to conflate/equate whether we "like" Hawass with whether all history, research and science surrounding the Pyramids and history at large is credible or not?

Whether the accounting of this debate is correct or bias, whether Hawass behaved badly or not? completely different questions from did Aliens build the pyramids.

No offense, but moving on now.

Aliens building the pyramids? I guess you are not at all familiar with hancock's theories. But by all means move on from something before you even know what that something is.

What i don't get is how could the pyramid and sphinx be related to astronomical images made up much later? Wasn't it the greeks or even later?
Wouldn't we then have the "great thigh of Seth" instead of a lion with a human face?

originally posted by: pikestaff
Hawas has a job and pension to worry about, plus the Egyptian tourist authority would be down on him like a ton of bricks, it all boils down to money.

That's probably about 99% of the reason, if not 100%. Money and ego rank up at the top for most humans.

originally posted by: Peeple
What i don't get is how could the pyramid and sphinx be related to astronomical images made up much later? Wasn't it the greeks or even later?
Wouldn't we then have the "great thigh of Seth" instead of a lion with a human face?

What do you mean exactly here, Peeple? I don't understand what you're asking.

originally posted by: frankensence

"Fingerprints of the Gods" is plain and simple bad science.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

a reply to: engineercutout

Well this

An argument put forward by Bauval and Hancock to support the Orion Correlation Theory is that the construction of the Great Sphinx was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx's lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River are an accurate reflection or "map" of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion's Belt) and the Milky Way, respectively.

Wiki
is Bauvals and Hancocks theory, but the ancient egyptians, or pre-ancient eyptians wouldn't have called them leo and orion.
So why would they built a lion when the zodiac was invented about 10.000 years after their proposed building date of the Sphinx?

The zodiac was in use by the Roman era, based on concepts inherited by Hellenistic astronomy from Babylonian astronomy of the Chaldean period (mid-1st millennium BC), which, in turn, derived from an earlier system of lists of stars along the ecliptic.

wiki

a reply to: Indigo5

graham never said aliens built the pyramids, he dosnt beleive that at all

a reply to: Peeple

"An argument put forward by Bauval and Hancock to support the Orion Correlation Theory is that the construction of the Great Sphinx was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx's lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River are an accurate reflection or "map" of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion's Belt) and the Milky Way, respectively. "

is Bauvals and Hancocks theory, but the ancient egyptians, or pre-ancient eyptians wouldn't have called them leo and orion.
So why would they built a lion when the zodiac was invented about 10.000 years after their proposed building date of the Sphinx?

I see now. I wish I could better answer that one but it's been awhile since I read "Fingerprints Of The Gods", so I'm afraid I might be getting it wrong. Hopefully someone with a better memory of it can correct me if I'm off base.

As for the star alignments, I remember Hancock's observations being that, for those stars that the pyramids aligned to to have been shining directly overhead of the locations in which they were aligned, the year would have been about 10,500 BC. Many of the pyraimds in other parts of the world also exhibit this date-sensitive stellar alignment of about 10,500 BC.

As to the zodiac question, I don't remember Hancock making a specific Leo argument, but I could be wrong here. I thought he did mention that thought in the book, but that he phrased it as a sort of pregnant question that he just left hanging, similar to the way in which you questioned it.

a reply to: sacredvisions

No he believes as most do that there may have been an entire epoch of civilization, maybe even a global civilization during the last ice age that came to an end during the cataclysmic period of the end of the last ice age, he believes that in all of that underwater land that was exposed when so much water was locked in massive ice age glaciers that civilization could have flourished, we forgot and had to start over so complete was the destruction, he uses the term racial amnesia to describe this forgetting, the problem is though he is most likely correct he steps on too many toes, idiots often from wealthy backgrounds who have scholorship's and seat's on college boards, universitys and are well placed socially because they have a degree and if Mr Hancock's obviously true point is proven should be proven then these degrees would be demonstrated to be utterly worthless credential's based on Victorian pseudo science.

Thing's that back him up but even here on ATS are aggressively denied.

The city under the water north west of Cube found or rather officially found by Paulina Zelitsky a former russian naval marine engineer who was then searching for lost treasure galleon's, the problem the city is too deep so may also indicate a continental tilt shift or perhaps a massive diagonal land slide en.wikipedia.org...

The Two large city's found in the gulf of Khambat off the coast of southern India which the indian marine archeaologists probably fearful for there own reputations are constantly revising upward in date as they initial and likely accurate date was about 12000 BC en.wikipedia.org...

This is just the tip of a very large ice berg indeed.

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
i bet he said you must be punished.

i can't find the part i wanted, so i made this one.

Look, he's no angel, but in this case he was legitimately angry. That girl had just urinated inside the pyramid!

Context people!

People are sweating in the Pyramid all the time , that's urine. The poor girl probably drank to much to stay hydrated big deal . These guys have been brought up to regard females in a different way to non Muslim countries . They regard all western females as loose, and are worried sick that their women will become westernised, and they will loose power over the only thing, that makes them feel significant.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: TinfoilTP


plus Hancock holds a First Class Honours degree in sociology, from Durham University.

Would you hire a plumber to fix your leaky roof?

What a stupid thing to say. I doing plumbing, electrical, carpentry, roofing, masonry, etc...

Mainstream archaeology is practically protecting its own existence through a control of the knowledge of the ancient world, and the remains of it that are constantly being discovered. All mainstream sciences do this, they argue for their position even through the contradictions it raises, and it is a poison to the legacy of man's history. Of course, it is very important to ensure one does not simply accept any theory, it has to be backed up and supported by real genuine evidence which has been analysed and scrutinised to death.

In "Fingerprints of the Gods" and "Heavens Mirror" Hancock shows us the connections that existed between peoples separated by great distances, and supposedly, having had no cultural exchange with each other. Connections, left to us in the great edifices they built. I recently found out about a henge here in Yorkshire in the UK called the Thornborough Henge which consists of 3 very large circular henges separated from each other and are said to be alighned to the three stars of Orion's belt, just like the 3 main pyramids in Egypt. Google it if you want to learn more.

Think about it. The three pyramids aligned to Orions belt. The Sphinx built in the time when Leo was in direct line with it. The temples at Angor Wat aligned to the constellation of Draco (Dragon). Other monuments around the world having astronomical connects and all of which point to or near the same period in time...10,500 years ago. These ruins all point to disparate civilisations all of whom not only had astronomical knowledge, but left us evidences that they had in the monuments they built. Mainstream archaeology does not want you to know or accept that.

Egyptians did build pyramids, but they did not build the 3 mains ones. When you see the pyramids actually made by the Egyptians, and view them against the standard set by the 3 main pyramids, the differences in quality are astonishing. The pyramids built by the Egyptians are just heaps of rubble. They did not and could not have built the Great Pyramids, but they did try to copy them and failed miserably. A more advanced and capable civilisation built the main pyramids and the Egyptians took over them as tenants, and later down the centuries claimed their authorship. Hawass is defending this lie as a truth, and I do not doubt at all the belief he holds that the Egyptians did build the Pyramids. Anything else is a slander and disrespectful as far as he is concerned. It is a personal issue with him.

The last glacial melt in this current Ice Age we are still in was a global catastrophic event which raised sea levels around the world by 350 feet. Is it any wonder then that we are now finding lost and destroyed cities beneath the seas and oceans?

One of the reasons I joined ATS nearly ten years ago is because years before doing so, I came to cognise that truth is depicted as a lie, and a lie is depicted as truth. The brilliance of Hancock is that he never makes wild assumptions or flies off on extravagant tangents with his theory. He makes total and very sound sense...and I am not easily persuaded by anything, being the sceptic that I am about most things.

originally posted by: sacredvisions
a reply to: Indigo5

graham never said aliens built the pyramids, he dosnt beleive that at all

Are you sure?

He doesn't quite define what he says.

Unless you can prove to me he said - - it is not off-planet beings.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: sacredvisions
a reply to: Indigo5

graham never said aliens built the pyramids, he dosnt beleive that at all

Are you sure?

He doesn't quite define what he says.

Unless you can prove to me he said - - it is not off-planet beings.

Yes. It's common knowledge for anyone that is actually familiar with graham Hancock that his theory is not an ancient aliens theory. No one needs to find proof, you just have to become familiar with Hancock...it's not a point of contention at all, that's just...not what he says.