Atlantis Reborn - Graham Hancock (fact or fiction?)

reply to post by Scott Creighton

---

Does your last response in this thread mean you will not be providing a link to the translation of the Edfu building text?

If so, that is too bad, I was looking forward to seeing it.

Enjoy.

Hans: Yes it is unbelievable that you never post the actual inscriptions. I guess the use of scanner is not within your skill set




Hans: Oh so you have no online translation, so I guess you are the only source for determing what it says. Odd you haven't scanned such a critical piece of information. Why is that~?




Hans: I never claimed that- you made it up. What I said was your idea was examined and not accepted.




Hans: Really you started that rant only a few days ago, you should learn to count better. Since it cannot be produced, as it doesn't exist, you will need to wait a long long time. If you wish to show how your ideas were dealt with you'd have to post links to all the many threads your work was examined in. Links you yourself are most capable of providing.




Hans: You're right and your right because you made up something that doesn't exist and yet you insist it DOES exist, LOL




Hans: What that your work was examined and found to be wanting and not accepted? I find that I cn keep saying that without difficulty. If that is wrong point to the Egyptologists and others who have accepted your idea.




Hans: Your ability to publicly demonstrate how you make stuff up and insist it is real demonstrates your complete lack of credibility.

So why have you never found it necessary to provide a networkable version of one of your key pieces of evidence? Is it just easier for you to tell people what you want it to say instead of letting others see the evidence and making up their own minds?

So lets see this inscription.



[edit on 11/9/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Harte

---

I was wondering why it took you so long Every time hancock and his theories about pyramids or their age is mentioned, is like a bee stunk for some :p

Interestingly I believe he couldn't produce a version of it when he was at the Hall of Ma'at well over a year ago. As I'm living in a Hotel room without an academic Library within a few hundred kilometers I cannot do the deed either. I'm sure what Scott says it says it says but what I'm interested in are the parts before and after, context and all that kinda of thing.

edfu explorer

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hello Hans,



SC: My source was Aldred’s ‘The Egyptians’. Are you suggesting Aldred is in error? If so then I suggest you state why.



SC: Irrelevant ad hominem.



SC: No, Hans. The translation of this particular Building Text is Aldred’s – not mine. Clear now?



SC: There is no need. I am sure your local library can furnish you with a copy of Aldred ‘The Egyptians’, 3rd Edition. I even gave you the page number - 32. But don't take my word for it - check Aldred’s translation for yourself.



SC: Incredible! Either you are suffering from a severe bout of amnesia or you are hoping this board suffers from such. You claimed my work was DEBUNKED at the Hall of Ma’at AND ATS. Here’s a little reminder of just some of your comments:



‘Debunked’ implies my theories have been PROVED to be false through the existence of a fatal flaw.

You claim (see above) that my theories were “taken apart” and "convincingly debunked" at the Hall of Ma’at. Well I categorically refute that such occurred. Yes my work was discussed and yes they disagreed with what I presented. Disagreement is not equivalent to debunking. So, unless you can post a link on this board directing readers here to the pertinent HoM post(s) that demonstrate my theories having been “taken apart” and "convincingly debunked", I doubt very much that many on this board will give your allegations the slightest bit of credence.

And let's be clear here. No one is asking you to re-enter a debate about my theories, Hans – only that you place the relevant links here on ATS where you allege the Hall of Ma’at took my theories apart. If such exist it surely can’t take more than a few minutes of your time to post them here on ATS. Let’s have the links, Hans – the links that show clearly how my theories were “taken apart”.

You may not actually realise this, Hans, but you owe it to the readership of this board to substantiate your claims. You have a responsibility here. To say something and refuse to back it up is not proper debate and makes a mockery of what ATS stands for. Refusing to present your evidence is to treat the users of this board with contempt and that is totally unacceptable. Now, if you wish to keep any semblance of integrity you would present the evidence that substantiates your claim and shows how my theories of a unified Giza plan based upon Orion's Belt and precessional knowledge at Giza based upon Orion's Belt were “taken apart”.

Let’s see it, Hans. The Board is waiting.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 12/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]

I have read two of Graham Hancock's books, "Fingerprints of the Gods" and the one dealing with underwater archeology. I started reading the Superstitions book, but couldn't read too far into it. This was when I started getting the impression that Graham Hancock was just in the business of selling books, rather than actually believing anything he was writing. No facts to back me up, just a strong impression. He is entertaining though, and much of his material is good food for thought, although I don't put a lot of creedence into information he presents as fact or theory based on fact.

Hans: Yes and they didn’t accept your idea. Now THEY debunked you I didn’t. But I agreed with their non-acceptance. I did note that I put up what I thought were the fatal flaws, on this board – which you ignored, why not answer those to start, why not start there? Hmmmm?




Hans: Its not a claim its a fact. That’s nice but the reality is different. If that didn’t occur please list the people who have accepted your idea. If it had been accepted you could do so- you cannot.



Hans: In your mind yes in others no.




Hans: You can, at any time post the links to the hundreds of posts in multiple threads that you know the location of. All you want to do is go over the same stuff again – feel free to post the links and do a post-debunking counter-debunking – which I believe you’ve already done at your sub forum. Haven’t you?




Hans: Feel free to post them at any time, you know where they are Scott. And lets be clear here Scott. So please keep up the disruption of other threads.




Hans: No I don’t your the only person involved in this discussion.





Hans: I have backed it up but you just want to go over and over on it. If your ideas were NOT debunked and not accepted list the people who accepted them? If they disagreed why did they disagree - because they thought they were correct or they thought they were wrong?




Hans: Melodrama doesn’t change the fact that your ideas were rejected, debunked and NOT accepted at the Hall of Ma’at. Why don't you stop derailing others threads? My actions are acceptable and I will continue to act in this way towards your odd behavior.




Hans: I suggest you post your own links to the Hall of Ma’at simple to do as you’ve done it before.




Hans: The board? You mean you, yourself and your ego,

By the way Scott the fact you cannot post a critical part of your idea, says volumes about the quality of your work. Why not post the actual transciptions and not just Alfreds interpretation? What is it that you don't want us to see? Failure to provide a scan is damning, acting like its okay is a sign of you hiding something.




[edit on 13/9/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hello Hans,



SC: Yes – and what exactly is your point? The orthodoxy, by way of example, didn't accept Copernicus or Galileo's ideas either. But neither could they debunk them. So, you believe that simply by virtue of the fact that the orthodoxy did not accept their ideas means that they (Copernicus & Galieleo) were wrong?

Have you ANY idea of how absurd an argument this is? Simply because one group does not accept a (sometimes radical) idea DOES NOT make the idea wrong. Do you even understand this concept?



SC: So you CLAIM. But hey, Hans – I totally disagree. I more than held my own with those at HoM. So, if you assert that HoM debunked my theories (which I wholeheartedly dispute) then you MUST present the relevant posts where you claim that this occurred. Come on now – it's not a big ask.



SC: On WHAT GROUNDS? This is what the readership here at ATS wants to know. Let's see the links.



SC: Do refresh me, Hans. Let's see what YOU thought were the fatal flaws in my theories. That I allegedly ignored. If I have not responded to them then it must have been an oversight but I shall be happy to do so now. Post the links – let's see them.



SC: Okay – if it's a FACT then you should have no difficulty in pointing the readership here at ATS to those facts. Let's see them.



SC: Only in your mind.



SC: Hans, you are not getting this. I fully ACCEPT that my radical ideas have not been accepted by orthodox folks such as those at HoM. So, how can you possibly expect me to list those who have accepted my radical ideas?

But Hans – for the umpteenth time – non-acceptance by those hidebound to the orthodox view DOES NOT MAKE ME WRONG!!!! Think Copernicus – think Galileo. They were NOT accepted by the orthodoxy of their day. But NEITHER were they wrong. Non-acceptance DOES NOT automatically mean an idea is wrong.

Now, if you can present categorical, unequivocal, undeniable, incontrovertible PROOF of a FATAL FLAW in my theories then THAT is a wholly different matter. If my theories can be debunked through a fatal flaw then I shall withdraw them and bow to your superior knowledge and the superior knowledge of the Hall of Ma'at. But Hans – that scenario simply has not occurred AND YOU KNOW IT. If you still maintain that my theories have been “taken apart" and “convincingly debunked” then you MUST present the HARD EVIDENCE to this Board that demonstrates that this did indeed occur. Nothing less will do. We do not want OPINIONS, Hans – we want EVIDENCE. Let's have it.



SC: Obviously then you would be one of those telling everyone that Copernicus and Galileo were obviously wrong simply by virtue of them not being accepted by orthodoxy. Forget the facts and the evidence. If you're not accepted by orthodoxy you are clearly wrong!! BALONEY!!! Hans, do you not see? We needed the likes of Copernicus and Galileo (just two examples) – people who stand by their theories regardless of being accepted or not by orthodoxy. And yes, Hans – we still need such people today; people like me. That will NEVER change.



SC: Yes, I could post links to any one of my many thousands of posts. But I'm not the one here claiming I was debunked – YOU ARE. And I have NO IDEA what posts exist that allegedly substantiate your claim that my theories were “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked”. So this is YOUR responsibility to present the links to the pertinent posts that demonstrate this. YOU are the only one here that apparently knows the whereabouts of such posts. SO LET'S SEE THEM . PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!



SC: No I don't. I simply want you to post here on ATS the links to those posts on HoM where you allege my theories were “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked”. Just the links will do – so let's have them.



SC: This is YOUR job. If you are so convinced that such exists (which I totally dispute) then let this board have the links you refer to and which this board can then follow and evaluate for themselves whether or not my work was debunked as you claim. Let's have your links, Hans.



SC: Just post the goddamn links, will ya?



SC: No I have no idea. So – you made the claim. Time now for you to back it up. Let's see your counter-evidence to my work, Hans. Let the Board see how the HoM – in YOUR opinion – took apart and “convincingly debunked” my theories. Let's have it.



SC: Disruption of the other threads?? Get real!! This so-called “disruption” could be ended in a single post – a post from you that contains the links to the relevant HoM post where you claim my theories were “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked”. Let's see 'em and end this “disruption”.


Continued.....

[edit on 13/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Continued from previous......



SC: “No I don't” ? Your arrogance is obscene. I may be the only person debating this particular issue with you but I am sure there are many ATS members reading this debate and wondering when you are going to post your links to HoM posts that demonstrate how my theories were “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked”. You have a responsibility to the readership to back up - with evidence - that which you allege. You owe the readership here at ATS the evidence you claim that debunks my theories. Do you expect the readership here simply to take your word that such debunking evidence exists? It would be much simpler for all concerned if you simply posted the links to the relevant posts where my theories were “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked”. Once again – let's have 'em. Let's have 'em all!!!



SC:Hogwash! Where? How? Show this board where and how you have backed up your allegations? Simply claiming my work was debunked elsewhere without linking to the relevant posts where this alleged debunking took place is a complete dereliction of duty – a cop-out.

The readership here at ATS are not stupid, Hans. They know that if you could post such damning evidence that you would not be slow to present it. That we have debated this for goodness knows how many posts now and you have still completely failed to present your evidence by way of simple links to the damning evidence SPEAKS VOLUMES.

You make a lot of noise, Hans but there is nothing to back up what you say. If there was, everyone here knows you would have presented it long before now. Do not treat this board as if we are idiots. And truly this has to be one of the best examples EVER of the empty vessel making the loudest noise.



SC: Quit the diversions and just give everyone your evidence. Let's have it for pete's sake!



SC: Copernicus was not accepted. Galileo was not accepted. Does not mean their theories were debunked, now does it?



SC: Er – Galileo, Copernicus. HoM THINKING they are right does NOT mean HoM ARE right!!! THINKING you are right is no substitute for EVIDENCE that PROVES you are right. I am more than satisfied that my evidence proves I am right and they are wrong.



SC: Puh-leeeeeeeezzzz!!! This “melodrama” can be ended right here, right now with a simple post from you showing this Board how my theories were “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked” by the Hall of Ma'at. So – let the melodrama be ended. Let this Board see your evidence. Enough holding back – it's bordering on contempt.



SC: Rejected DOES NOT equate with debunked. Are you not getting this yet?



SC: Oh my – we're really grasping at straws now, aren't we, Hans. But hey, guess what – some advice for ya. Don't start something you can't finish! I won't be going away any time soon – at least until you present your evidence.



SC: The only 'odd' behaviour here is your complete refusal to substantiate your allegations. No Hans – this is NOT acceptable action on your part however much you may wish to delude yourself into thinking that it is.



SC: Evasion. And pathetic evasion to boot. Give us the links Hans – the links that you allege have “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked” my theories. Once again – put up or shut up.



SC: Stop making a mockery of debate on this Board and present your evidence – if you have any.



SC: It's not “Alfred” - it's Aldred. I can only present to you what is in Aldred's book. If there was more I may well have presented it. I can onlypresent what Aldred tells us. Are you now suggesting Aldred is a liar?



SC: Eh? Nothing at all. I have given you my source – even down to the page number. Go check it out for yourself if you think I am hiding something. You know the page number – you have all the info you need. Now – let's have the links to the posts you claim my theories were “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked”.



SC: We really are grasping at anything now, aren't we, Hans. I'm sure you know where your local library is. I have nothing to hide. You know precisely where to read the Aldred quotation, right down to the edition and page number. So, how 'bout you do likewise - give us the relevant posts that debunks my theories. Save everyone here days in searching through the thousands of posts I have made (and the thousands more replies). Help us all out, Hans.



SC: Deflection. You're clearly looking at yourself in the mirror.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 13/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Okay boys, enough of that...

I have a question. I am in the middle of watching this video and at 21:20 the narrator says that there is a problem with the pyramids lining up with the stars and that "no other pyramids" match any constellations.

But at this website it shows all the pyramids lining up along the Nile River as it were Milky Way, which I believe was discovered in 2006.

www.thehiddenrecords.com...

So the question is was this video done before 2006? Or did they not know about this discovery, or has this discovery not been verified.

I trust Scott's opinion on this - do you agree with this websites analysis of the pyramids matching the Nile River as if it were the Milky Way?

Just my own unsolicitated opinion here. I read Hancock and related writings as they were coming out through the 80s.

It seemed pretty apparent that of the heels of the enormous success of CHARIOT OF THE GODS and new entrants like Sitchin's supposed Sumerian translations to show interplanetary interference, Hancock was just mining a slightly more sober commercial vein in New Age paperback publishing. .

Hancock is a master at weaving archeological data with numerology, questionable measurements, gross specualtion presented as facts.
His ventures into Atlantis, ancient numerology, Nazca lines, et al are pretty standard fantasy prehistory. The alignment of the pyramids to a constellation always seemed particularly forced.

All this stuff is charming and there is a small but dedicated audience.

Hancock may have been sincere at some point in time, but is just an othe hasbeen used pyramid saleman now. He is now tapping into the more lucrative "Government keeping it secret" conspiracy theory vein of selling wishful thinking.

A good overview of Mr Hancock's career.



Mike



[edit on 13-9-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Hanslune

Quote from Julie Washington




Its always fun to deal with a one topic fanatic!


SC: Are you now suggesting Aldred is a liar?

Hans: I'm suggesting it is very very odd that you refuse to provide a scan - no logical reason for it don't your think



SC: Eh? Nothing at all. I have given you my source – even down to the page number.

Hans: Odd this is a website, you've had your idea for years and have always refuse to provide it. The question is why?

SC: Go check it out for yourself if you think I am hiding something. You know the page number – you have all the info you need.

Hans: I'm in a hotel room in Manama care to point to the library that would have it - however you must already have it but like a difficult child refuse to present it.




SC: We really are grasping at anything now, aren't we, Hans. I'm sure you know where your local library is.

Hans: Its your idea Scott why should I have to provide your proof for you - what a weird position to take


SC: I have nothing to hide.

Hans: Actually you do you are hiding the translation of the inscriptions you say the secondary source is commenting on. Why refuse to provide the primary source if it supports your position? Your a Funny guy?

SC: You know precisely where to read the Aldred quotation, right down to the edition and page number.

Hans: Then what prevents you from scanning it - I can sent you a PDF that explains how to scan a document and post it to the web.

SC: Deflection. You're clearly looking at yourself in the mirror.

Hans: I'm not trying to present evidence of support of an idea - you are.

1. Refusal to show evidence from a secondary source
2. Refusal to show evidence from the primary source
3. Considering #1 & 2 I can consider your comments on Edfu to be debunked until you provide the documentation.

So there you go Scott a solid DEBUNK of a part of your idea - well untill you provide the secondary and primary evidence. With no back up your claim is moot. Now you scoot off and get that.

By the way you again refuse to address my observations on the failure of your idea - why is that?



[edit on 13/9/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hello Hans,

Thank you for your reply.



SC: Oh dear. Reduced to ad hominems again, I see. Yes – your ad hominems are hilarious, Hans, but alas they are no substitute for the evidence you claim exists that has allegedly “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked” my theories.




SC: You can think this little deflective smokescreen of yours ‘odd’ all you like. You know where to look to find the information I have quoted from Aldred’s book. Now what truly IS ‘odd’ is YOUR complete refusal to present your alleged counter-evidence to my theories. If you have it, or know where such exists, present the links to the board so that the readership here at ATS can make an informed opinion. Let’s see this alleged counter-evidence of yours.



SC: Nonsense and a pathetic smokescreen to divert away from your problems here, Hans. You well know – as I am sure most of this Board who have followed my work will know – that I have always provided the source to this particular text from Cyril Aldred. Now – where is this counter-evidence to my theories? Present it to the Board, Hans. You made the claim that such exists. It is up to you to now back up your claims. We're waiting.



SC: Pathetic. But it’s an irrelevant smokescreen anyway. I have given you the reference.



SC: More smokescreen. You have the specific reference. Now let’s have a specific link from you to the HoM Forum that allegedly demonstrates how my theories were “taken apart” and “ convincingly debunked”. Let’s have them.



SC: I’m not asking you to provide proof for my theories, Hans. I know where the proof for my work is. What many here at ATS would really like to see is a specific link from you to the HoM Forum that allegedly demonstrates how my theories were “taken apart” and “ convincingly debunked”. Let’s have them.



SC: It’s obviously escaped your attentions again, Hans but no one here is interested in a scanned page from a book. They know they can check the book for themselves because I have supplied the reference. What those following this tiresome thread are more interested in is that you present a specific link to the HoM Forum that allegedly demonstrates how my theories were “taken apart” and “ convincingly debunked”. Let’s have them. The Board expects you to deliver. Don’t let them down.

Consistent failure to present your alleged counter-evidence to my theories renders your argument untenable and invalid. You have effectively debunked yourself. You treat the readership of this Board with contempt and make a mockery of debate. Everyone here knows that if you had the slightest shred of counter-evidence to my theories you would not be so backward about coming forward with it. Clearly you have NOTHING and are obviously out of your depth here, Hans.

I have given ample opportunity in this subthread for you to present the counter-evidence you claim exists to my work. You have not delivered so as far as I am concerned (and I’m sure many here will probably agree) you have demonstrated that you have little credibility and even less integrity.

And we all know you will only come back with the same, tiresome avoidance tactics. But never fear, Hans, I shall be right back at you demanding that you present the counter-evidence to my theories you allege exists.

This one ain’t going away until I am fully satisfied that you have presented the counter-evidence you claim exists or until you retract your allegations.

Over to you.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 14/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Julie Washington

---

Hello Julie,



SC: To be honest, Julie, I have not read Herschel's book. I am familiar with his Egypt-star-charts from his website and whilst they look interesting, I would need to read more of his work before I felt able to make specific comments.

Certainly we know from the Pyramid Texts that the Pyramid was associated with the King and the King with a star. Indeed, many pyramids even have stellar names. Also, the work I have done here and here demonstrates compelling NEW evidence of a Giza-Orion correlation.

Best wishes,

Scott

[edit on 14/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton

---

Howdy Scott

1. Refusal to show evidence from a secondary source
2. Refusal to show evidence from the primary source
3. Considering #1 & 2 I can consider your comments on Edfu to be debunked until you provide the documentation.

You really need to provide evidence for your claims Scott - or renounce them - show the evidence and I will gladly remove my skepticism of your claim about Edfu and the building texts.


[edit on 14/9/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hello Hans,

Thank you for your post. Whilst I find your last post somewhat amusing, unfortunately for you your little diversionary tactic won't fool anyone here and most certainly won't get you out of this.

Your blatant obfuscation and attempts to twist this debate around will not wash with anyone here, least of all me. Present to this Board links to the alleged evidence you claim debunks my theories. Let's see it, Hans.

We're STILL waiting. Present the evidence you claim exists. Best to do it sooner rather than later because this is not going to go away.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton

---

Dear Scott

You appear to have no evidence to support your claim regarding the Edfu building text.

I suggest you do some real research, come back, post the evidence then we can evaluate it.

At this moment your claim is debunked and unaccepted. Remember what thread this is.

Here is what you said earlier:




Hans: So it "tells us quite clearly" does it Scott - why not share? Show us where it says this.




Hans: that word again 'clear' but you seem to have decided we cannot see this clear document -we must just believe you ....on faith! So are you now admiting you just made this stuff up?


[edit on 14/9/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hello Hans,

Thank you for your post.



SC: Nonsense. I gave the relevant reference many times now on this board. It seems you just can't read.



SC: You're a charm, you really are! For the umpteenth time, if you want to read Aldred's interpretation of the Edfu Building Texts then do yourself a favour (and everyone else here I might add) and actually read Aldred's 'The Egyptians', 3rd Edition, p.32 for yourself. I suggest you read this and then tell me and this Board precisely where you consider Aldred's translation (not my translation) of the Edfu Building Texts are in error. Let's see it.



SC: Hyperbole and you know it. This thread is questioning Graham Hancock's theories. Well part of GH's theory (in association with R. Bauval) links Giza with the stars of Orion's Belt. I have presented new evidence that supports that contention. You have told this Board that my new evidence was "taken apart" and "convincingly debunked" - an allegation I thoroughly refute. So, Hans - it's up to you here, sunshine. Prove to this Board that you are right. If you can't do that Hans then this Board can only assume that you are thoroughly wrong.

Have a nice day now.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 14/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton

---

Howdy Scott

Hans: So Scott your saying giving the reference is good enough? That people have to go read it? LOL who taught you how to sell your ideas? A dead wombat? Your interpretation has been challenged.

Lets see the secondary and the primary data- or admit you just made it all up? Not that that you did of course but we do have to verify don't we?

Right now your idea is debunked and unaccepted - I noted too that you ignored your own quotes.....are you to shamed by them to response?




Hans: Sorry Scott but you've been ranting about the debunking and unacceptance of your idea on the H of M, what is this claim now of 'new evidence'? If its the edfu information - it stand debunked and unaccepted until you provide the evidence....

I will NOT accept your verbal statement that the secondary sources says what it says and I want the primary evidence too....provide it or admit the claim is wrong


[edit on 14/9/09 by Hanslune]