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