High Weirdness on the Giza Plateau - Who is Dr Zahi Hawass Really? Shocking Facts and Speculation

page: 2
38
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The first half of the article is essentially accusing Hawass of being human!

It's well known that he's egocentric and volatile...my last employer was the same. It's sometimes the bullishness that generates their success in life.

Of the stories, I've heard them all and have read different interpretations. Gantenbrink lost the patronage of his Uni Dept. which makes any contract with the SCA invalid. In that sense, he wasn't refused access by Hawass, the terms of SCA accept only Institution-backed researchers. This was put in place to ensure SCA knew exactly what was being researched and where. It has the added benefit of ensuring a time limit for excavations which has generated the increase of finds. An adverse side-effect is that life can't always run to a time-limit...now and then animosity through frustration is inevitable.

At the core of Hawass' drive is that he's an Egyptian. It adds a dimension to his actions. Did you know the majority of Egypt's heritage is spread across the world's museums and private collections? Very little of it is there by Egyptian consent....at least, not in the modern understanding of the word. He's worked hard to rectify that. He has national pride in the achievements of Egypt's great past. Is that so surprising?


So we have ample evidence of Hawass acting both peremptorily and even erratically. He is on record as opposing alternative history theories and 'pyramidiots' on the grounds that they slight the proud Egyptian people.


Again, he's accused of being human. That he opposes 'alternative history theories' is inevitable. He has a solid academic education and spends a lot of the year immersed in the history and dirt of Egypt. He works side by side with people who live and breathe Egyptology. How else would he respond when the Bauvals, Wests and Hancocks have the arrogance to suggest that centuries of academic and historical study are BS? They compound it further by accusing him of lying and covering things up. They are essentially insulting academia and creating a swarm of innuendo and conspiracy ideas that require the complicity of thousands of scientists and scholars across the world. For anyone who has been, or is in academia it's really insulting...offensive...



You started off very reasonable, but then you started slipping when you started speaking of Hancock, Bauval and West arrogantly and casually dismissing "centuries of academic study". That is absolutely false. It wasn't until the 20s and 30s of the 20th century that what's considered modern Egyptology came into play. It became dominated by bureaucracy and politics, and the state took over. This new environment saw the complete discarding of prior research that did not fit a certain ideology. Namely, the sort of research that supports what the above-mentioned are arguing.

But really, what Hancock, Bauval and West are doing, is bringing "new" information to the mix. Information that is 100% factual. What Hawass is doing, is taking his subjective (inherently subjective) views of history, arrived at almost entirely by making interpretations of highly symbolic writing, and claiming that because they don't agree, the 100% factual information must be wrong.

Have you heard Hawass' explanation for the dozens of profound mathematical and astronomical properties found in the three great pyramids? "Coincidence," he says! I don't think so.

At the very least, the Egyptians must have gotten their information from somewhere else. On the rare occasion that modern Egyptology even acknowledges the following, they would have us believe that between 3000 and 2500 BC, they accurately mapped the polar and equatorial circumference of the earth, discovered pi, phi, trigonometry, and precession of the equinoxes (requiring highly advanced astronomical knowledge) and culminated all this knowledge into the dimensions of one of the first structures their culture ever built.

And yet, Hancock, Bauval and West are the ones being called arrogant? Well I call that ironic.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Son of Will]




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 
Hello John



Example, Look at the weathering erosion of the Sphinx, which most geologist believe were caused by heavy rains. This would make the Sphinx much older than it was previously thought. Hawass refuses to believe this yet, when cornered he does not offer serious plausible explanation into why this has occurred, he simply says these experts are wrong... he presents no facts to back up his claim, when the geologists can show much evidence.


Although there's some dispute about the age of the Sphinx, the burden of evidence associates it with the reign of Khafre. The Sphinx enclosure has been quarried out and the same blocks used to build the valley temple and Khafre's pyramid complex. How can they say that for sure? Fossil analysis of the limestone. There are still blocks that were abandoned en route from the quarry to the complex too.

Adjacent to the complex are the remains of a massive town that housed the builders of Khafre's pyramid. How do they know that? Cemeteries. Some of the graves contain inscriptions identifying them as overseers of work gangs under the reign of Khafre. There's an interwoven fabric of evidence that is very convincing.

In my opinion, the erosion data is a red herring. Schoch and West put the Sphinx at 5000BC whilst Hancock goes for earlier than 10000BC. In neither case can they explain the lack of corroborating evidence for these dates. It's the elephant in the room for their hypotheses....where are the bodies, grave goods, tools or buildings? Not just in Egypt...anywhere!?


reply to post by Son of Will
 

Hello, I wasn't being 'absolutely false,' you've misunderstood my point. It's the curse of blank text on a screen! There has been centuries of academic study of Egypt....Greeks (Herodotus), Romans (Strabo) and Persians for example. The French too, have contributed to the information about Egypt. So, in my opinion, Bauval, Hancock et al are certainly arrogant to dismiss all the evidence and suggest a cover-up by Egyptologists. They offer some trinkets of evidence and an international, centuries-old cover up against established (still developing) histories. That's arrogant imo.

My understanding of ancient Egypt is that it was created by human Egyptians in the established time period and demonstrates an intellect equal to ours today. For these reasons, I see Egypt as a triumph of their hard work and an expression of human achievement.

I don't believe the Egyptians had advanced science, math or astronomy. There's certainly no evidence to say otherwise in the papyri that have survived. We actually have two extant mathematical texts that show the level of their math...Rhind Mathematical Papyrus and Kahun Papyrus. I can link a very good podcast on the subject if you like?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

I don't believe the Egyptians had advanced science, math or astronomy. There's certainly no evidence to say otherwise in the papyri that have survived. We actually have two extant mathematical texts that show the level of their math...Rhind Mathematical Papyrus and Kahun Papyrus. I can link a very good podcast on the subject if you like?


You are speaking of the Egyptians that we do have record of. Don't you think it's entirely possible, that there was knowledge ancient Egyptians had that was lost to history?

You state your info is from papyrus. You know papyrus does not last forever. If they wanted to preserve the knowledge but keep it secret, they could pass it on by word of mouth. It could be this happened and the line of people with this knowledge died out without passing it on for whatever reason..That's why you won't find it written in stone tablet.. ( or it may be written in stone and we just cannot decipher it) We do know it was the high priests who did have knowledge that was not given to the general population.

Just because you don't have a written record of something, does not mean it is impossible for it to have existed.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   





posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 
Kerry Cassidy?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Hawass is an educated man...utterly fluent in the history of his native land Egypt. He's aware of the hypotheses of alternative historians, but the evidence and facts don't support them. The alternative historians are attacking the man and not the facts.


Thank you for the responses so far.

I find it strange if Hawas is such an expert in Egypt, why did he have to get his schooling in America?


Because the universities there did not (to the best of my knowledge) offer a PhD in Egyptology. Germany, England, and the US all had universities which offered PhDs in Egyptology. The University of Cairo offered a "Diploma" at the time, but the Ivy League school Hawass attended is well known for its research and for its "Oriental Studies" department.

His other degrees were taken at Egyptian universities.


I would never go to another country to learn about American History because it's better than what I could learn here. If you tell me American schools have better knowledge of Egypt than Egypt itself, I'll never buy that.


The good material for study had been taken away to Europe and America, and at the time all the research and translation of hieroglyphics were at those same places -- not in Egypt. At the time, Egypt was also going through a period of unrest, including constant wars with Israel. Egyptian society was now able to support a middle class, so schools were getting better but they were not the equal of those in Europe and America.


I do Not see a lot of alternative historians attacking Hawass "the man".


Actually, they accuse him of hiding all sorts of information (information that he couldn't possibly keep from everyone else, by the way.)


Example, Look at the weathering erosion of the Sphinx, which most geologist believe were caused by heavy rains. This would make the Sphinx much older than it was previously thought. Hawass refuses to believe this yet, when cornered he does not offer serious plausible explanation into why this has occurred, he simply says these experts are wrong... he presents no facts to back up his claim, when the geologists can show much evidence.


It's true that he doesn't do this in tv and radio interviews because the discourse would take hours and would bore the listeners to death. If you use Google Scholar (scholar.google.com...) and google for his name, you will see that he does present papers and writes books where he goes into this in much more detail. Those who scoff at him don't (as far as I know) stop to read the books and papers or book chapters.

But your statement, "most geologists believe were caused by heavy rains" is not true. Most of them haven't said anything about it and may not hold a particular belief about it. Robert Schoch did at one time believe it was much older but other geologists have found problems with his methodology and conclusions.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by Kandinsky

I don't believe the Egyptians had advanced science, math or astronomy. There's certainly no evidence to say otherwise in the papyri that have survived. We actually have two extant mathematical texts that show the level of their math...Rhind Mathematical Papyrus and Kahun Papyrus. I can link a very good podcast on the subject if you like?


You are speaking of the Egyptians that we do have record of. Don't you think it's entirely possible, that there was knowledge ancient Egyptians had that was lost to history?


I think everyone acknowledges this... but not what we'd term "advanced knowledge."

Old techniques (chopping up things with flint knives) get replaced as new technologies come in. New technologies are survivors -- if there's a use for them, they replace other things. For instance, the knowledge of how to hitch a 20 mule team to a wagon is almost completely lost and may be totally lost in the next 20 years. However, a 20 mule team was only an advanced technology for an age of animal powered vehicles.


You state your info is from papyrus. You know papyrus does not last forever. If they wanted to preserve the knowledge but keep it secret, they could pass it on by word of mouth. It could be this happened and the line of people with this knowledge died out without passing it on for whatever reason..That's why you won't find it written in stone tablet.. ( or it may be written in stone and we just cannot decipher it) We do know it was the high priests who did have knowledge that was not given to the general population.


Ooookay.... I'm going to offer you a challenge: what is the source that says "the high priests have knowledge not given to the general population." I'm looking for a primary source (in other words, a direct translation of some ancient work -- even the much maligned Herodotus) rather than a third-hand source (i.e. "Fame and Confession of Rosie-Cross" or Iamblichus (who was writing about mysticism some 900 years after Egypt was conquered by Alexander and given to the Greeks.)

I keep hearing this claim, so I'd like to propose a friendly investigation -- let's see where it comes from and what other proof REALLY supports it.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 1   >>

log in

join