posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 01:39 PM
I had heard Cayce claimed to be the reincarnation of an Atlantean High Priest who had overseen the construction of the pyramids at Giza. I also recall
something of his photographic memory, which doesn't surprise me, as it would certainly lend a hand in amalgamating different sources to create new
prophecies, if that is indeed what he did.
I'm not familiar with "The Secret Chamber." Does this book pre-date his work with Hancock on "Message of the Sphinx" (the US title -- I can't
remember the UK title)?
As for Hawass, I feel that he is not acting in the best interests of science and history when he makes the statements he does about Egyptian artifacts
and sites that we have located. As a man of science, who heads an organization that is supposedly devoted to science and to the ancient history of his
nation, he has a responsibility to seek the truth in its entirety. This is a situation where national pride is at stake unfortunately, which makes his
already questionable actions even more controversial when you consider the motivations that may be behind his judgment.
Once again, whether or not he is acting improperly is irrelevant, as his actions and words have served to foster the perception that all is not what
it seems. He certainly doesn't help his cause when he makes statements declaring DNA testing to be unreliable and safe testing with passive
seismographs to be too damaging.
Perception is why we debate everything on ATS, after all. We don't need to be the experts to make observations. And when those observations don't
jive with the establishment's story, then there certainly is the perception that something is wrong with the established viewpoint.
Just for the record, I feel that Hawass is not alone in the behavior I have characterized him with. Too many historians and scientists would prefer to
stick to the status quo, whether it fits all the facts or not, than actually look for the truth.
Whether or not they are all being coerced into giving stories that don't seem to make sense when you look at the big picture, I cannot say. I'd just
like to know how people who are the so-called experts in their field can't see the possibilities that someone looking in from the outside can. When a
new observation is made that conflicts with the established theory, that observation is generally denounced as foolishness, without so much as an
honestly open-minded view of the findings, in context with other "established" findings.
[Edited on 1/14/2004 by TheDemonHunter]