Zahi Hawass Storms out of Debate with Graham Hancock

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So your going to ignore the mounds of information from the builders explaining why they built the great pyramid and just out right lie saying Egyptologists don't know what the pyramid wad used for??

SC: Okay--until you accept that people are entitled to have different views from you without you then accusing them of lying, this discussion is over.

I do not care for your zealotry. People are entitled to have different views from you without being called a liar. You will do well to understand that.

This discussion is ended.

SC

... the elephant on the room a huge sarcophagus sitting in it. Unless you know of another use they had for them. So far all we've ever found them used for is a dead pharaohs last resting place..

SC: It seems you are not aware that the AEs had different uses for these stone boxes within pyramids. The AEs used 'qrsw' which were indeed sarcophagi, ususally found in mastaba, rock-cut and shaft tombs. Only a few of the giant pyramids contained a stone box (the vast majority didn't) and the few that were found to contain a stone box were not 'qrsw' but rather 'neb-ankh'. Here, have a look:

Project osiris.

SC

Your NOT Being honest again an Neb Ankh means possessor of life or lord of life it refers to the outer most casing of a coffin. The Greeks called it a sarcophagus.In Greek it means flesh eater. It started in Africa as unadorned wooden boxes Egyptians took it to new levels making it out of stone even eventually gold. It's sole purpose protection of the body from either spiritual or physical abuse.

So now what's a Neb Ankh doing in the great pyramid??

a reply to: dragonridr

DR: ...an Neb Ankh means possessor of life or lord of life it refers to the outer most casing of a coffin...

SC: We are discussing the Old Kingdom pyramids. For your education and edification--both 'qrsw' AND 'neb-ankh' were Old Kingdom names for stone boxes:



The problem here isn't any dishonesty on my part but of ignorance on yours. Now stop calling people dishonest and stop calling them liars. That is the language of the zealot, the fanatic. This is a discussion board.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

So you proved my point on what they were used for so again why is it in the great pyramid decoration? ?
all you did was showed the old kingdom prefered one usage over the other. And by the way your book said the same thing l did. You didn't like the use of the word sarcophagus guessing you don't like Greek . Either way the Greek didn't care what th egyptians called it. And has been adopted as common use. It still refers to any box meant to hold the remains of a mummy. Doesn't matter if it's wood or stone. Doesn't even differentiate between inner and outer. So what was your point exaxtly??

a reply to: dragonridr

There is a reason why the AEs referred to stone boxes by different names in the Old Kingdom and it is because, although the stone boxes appear similar, they served different purposes/functions.

The stone boxes ('qrsw') below are of Khafre's siblings. Notice how each and every one of them is decorated and inscribed with the names and titles of the deceased:








Now here is the stone box (supposedly) of their brother, Khafre (in pyramid G2):



No names, no titles, no decoration. Just a plain stone box.

Why? Why has Khafre's brothers and sisters inscribed/decorated their 'qrsw' but Khafre (and their father Khufu too) apparently didn't? Why?

Well because this plain, uninscribed stone box found in G2 pyramid was NOT a qrsw (i.e. a sarcophagus for human burial) like that of his siblings but was actually a 'neb-ankh’ (typically a plain uninscribed stone box containing earth and, in later times, grain seed – hence the appellation ‘possessor of life’).

Here is what Belzoni found when he first looked inside the stone box in G2:

"The sarcophagus is eight feet long, three feet six inches wide, and two feet three inches deep in the inside. It is surrounded by large blocks of granite, apparently to prevent its removal, which could not be effected without great labour. The lid had been broken at the side, so that the sarcophagus was half open. It is of the finest granite; but, like the other in the first pyramid, there is not one hieroglyphic on it.

Looking at the inside, I perceived a great quantity of earth and stones, but did not observe the bones among the rubbish till the next day..." - G. Belzoni, Narrative, p.271.

And here is how the stone box in G2 may have appeared to Belzoni when he first set eyes upon in in 1818:



(Artist impression of stone box in G2 as it may have looked to Belzoni in 1818 when he found it filled with "a great quantity of earth and stones")

The above earth-filled stone box is 'neb-ankh' (possessor of life) just as the later, much smaller, uninscribed ceremonial earth-filled boxes were also 'neb-ankh'. Nebankh stone boxes were used as part of a deep chthonic ritual related to earth-renewal/rebirth. They were NOT for human burial.

The "elephant in the room" is the fact that the uninscribed, earth-filled stone box found by Belzoni bears all the hallmarks of being a neb-ankh and NOT a qrsw (sarcophagus).

You came into this debate claiming a number of things and each and every time they have been debunked.

Your Heliopolis alignment claim – DEBUNKED.

Your Cygnus makes more sense claim – DEBUNKED.

Your “elephant in the room sarcophagus” claim – DEBUNKED.

And each an every time one of your claims is debunked you refuse to accept the reality and start accusing me of being a liar and dishonest. Perhaps you should put less stock in what you read in orthodox books and start applying a little more critical thinking. From what I see you much too readily accept everything you read in orthodox books and I think it might serve you better to be a tad more questioning.


SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

You debunked nothing you believe you did because you like to twist facts. The pyramid alignment for orion required you to invert orion. I showed you many other theories including cygnus and showed even that one is better. Then your actually lying again go back and look as to what I said I believe. I don't agree with any of them. I was showing how useless it is to postulate and try to make the facts fit an Idea. Because through manipulation anything can seem correct if you are willing to ignore facts like you are. This whole idea started with a person flying over the pyramid going gee that reminds me of Orion's belt. Then the facts were manipulated to show this belief with no historical context.

No where was this alignment hinted at it was a delusion created by one man.And others have followed down this path. Funny part is even Hancock admits he was wrong. Yet people like you still try to prove it was not the resting place of Khufu. Unfortunately for your theory we discovered the workers complex and their tombs telling us about the great pyramid. Even Hancock was required ti alter his beliefs. Do to the overwhelming evidence he wad forced to admit that Khufu built the great pyramid in 2500 BC. He believes though that it's not a tomb. Which in itself makes little sense but he's moving in the right direction lol.

"For the record I believe that Khufu did build the Great Pyramid - or anyway most of it (perhaps the subterranean chamber and some other rock-hewn parts of the structure may be earlier)."

www.grahamhancock.com...

So in conclusion you maniplated data to prove your theory. This is not how science is done this is not hiw archeology is done. You gain the facts then create a theory not the other way around. Even a neb ankh is just an outer coffin containing the sarcophagus. This would have had his name ad well as other information he needed to complete his journey. The sole reason or was unadorned is simple it was early kingdom and the cult of osirus wasn't the ones to handle the burial . They become much more elaborate is the process as tomb building progressed. There are so many interesting things like there has to be an undiscovered entrance to the Kings chamber for example There is no way to seal it without one. There is no need to make stuff up the great Pyramid still has unsolved mysteries.

a reply to: Peeple

In response to your debunkatory quote earlier, you left out Bauval's response, and the part about the scientists that supported Hancock and Bauval, not to mention the fact that the BBC remade their "Atlantis Reborn" documentary to include Hancock's response to criticisms of his work. From where you left off:

] Ed Krupp repeated this "upside down" claim in the BBC documentary Atlantis Reborn (1999).

According to Bauval and Hancock, some astronomers (including Dr. Archie Roy, Dr. Percy Seymour, Dr. Mary Bruck, Dr. Giulio Magli), however, have rejected Krupp's argument. The correlation, they claim, is a visual one when standing north of the Giza pyramids and looking south. Archie Roy, professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Glasgow University, and Percy Seymour, astronomer and astrophysicist at Plymouth University U.K., have both publicly rejected several of Krupp's arguments, including the accusation that Bauval and Gilbert deliberately inverted the pyramid map.[11][12]

In a ruling by the Broadcasting Standards Commission (UK), the committee ruled in favour of Robert Bauval that Krupp's statement that maps were placed upside down was "unfairly" presented in the BBC documentary Atlantis Reborn, without Bauval's having been given a right to a filmed response.[1] Bauval and Hancock's filmed responses to Krupp's statements were included in the modified version of the documentary Atlantis Reborn Again shown on 14 December 2000.

Then a little further down there's this:

The Great Sphinx is commonly accepted by Egyptologists to represent the likeness of King Khafra (also known by the Hellenised version of his name, Chephren) [13] who is often credited as the builder as well. This would place the time of construction somewhere between 2520 BC and 2494 BC. Because the limited evidence giving provenance to Khafra is ambiguous and circumstantial, the idea of who built the Sphinx, and when, continues to be the subject of debate. 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.[14]

A date of 10,500 BC is chosen because they maintain this is the only time in the precession of the equinoxes when the astrological age was Leo and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox. They also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three stars of Orion's Belt and the horizon were an "exact match" to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids. These propositions and other theories are used to support the overall belief in an advanced and ancient, but now vanished, global progenitor civilization.

The theory of an older Sphinx has received some support from geologists. Most famously, Robert M. Schoch has argued that the effects of water erosion on the Sphinx and its surrounding enclosure mean that parts of the monument must originally have been carved at the latest between 7000–5000 BC.[15] Schoch's analysis has been broadly corroborated by another geologist, David Coxill, who agrees that the Sphinx has been heavily weathered by rainwater and must therefore have been carved in pre-dynastic times.[16] A third geologist, Colin Reader, has suggested a date only several hundred years prior to the commonly accepted date for construction. These views, however, have been almost universally rejected by mainstream Egyptologists who, together with a number of geologists, e.g. James Harrell, Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai, and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyaym,[17][18] stand by the conventional dating for the monument. Their analyses attribute the apparently accelerated wear on the Sphinx variously to modern industrial pollution, qualitative differences between the layers of limestone in the monument itself, scouring by wind-borne sand, and/or temperature changes causing the stone to crack.

wiki page

Then there's this one:

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: dragonridr

Chris White invested a lot of work to take a closer look at the ancien aliens history channel scheme:

Also i'd like to point out Hancock was speaking at the '99 scientology conference and who exactly would benefit the most from all the lost and lonely, believing in ancient aliens? Where has Däniken etc. all the money from, for their "research"?
Which country has become prominent to promote ancient aliens and pushing other countries to accept scientology as religion? See why i call it a big conspiracy? It's about nothing less than brainwashing the masses to make way for nothing less than a scientology world of slaves. (Disclaimer: no i can't prove that claim. Yet. I am working on it.)

I finally got around to watching the three hour documentary that you posted in here awhile back, and I noticed that Hancock is not mentioned in it once.

Give Tsoukalos, Childress, and Von Daniken the stage for a couple of hours and they'll make a mess of the ancient history mystery for sure. Those guys practically debunk themselves. They get into some interesting speculation at times, though, so I guess they deserve a little time under the scope every now and then. Sitchin, I think, is not so easily debunked, and I noticed the creators' debunking of Sitchin was cursory at best. I hope the show is presenting better research than this. If not, then I suppose it's not too surprising that the show hasn't made much of an impression on the public. A little silly smoke screen for your public consumption there, perhaps? I don't know. I honestly have not watched the show yet. I have read quite a bit on the subject of Ancient History, though.

The pyramid construction theories floated in the video were interesting, and I liked the stuff on the trilithon and the Nazca Lines.

originally posted by: engineercutout

Sitchin, I think, is not so easily debunked, and I noticed the creators' debunking of Sitchin was cursory at best.

You might be interested in this article - written some time ago, but still relevant.

a reply to: Hooke

Interesting read. I tend to agree in that you can't really verify Sitchin's claims, and he certainly set mainstream archaeology/ancient history against him with the work that he published. Some of his claims were admittedly fanciful, and I'm not here to defend every word he ever wrote as the "gospel truth". What I found most interesting about his work was the comparative mythology that he engaged in during his Earth Chronicles series of books. Looking at the parrallel mythologies of the world, you could throw out the Sitchin version of Sumerian translations and you are still confronted by these fantastic tales in our planets mythologies of these beings who ran the show back then and possessed mysterious and awesome powers.

Whether Sitchin was correct in his translations or not, you still can't dismiss world mythology and its enigmatic nature as a whole. Sitchin did a good job of highlighting this with his work, so I have to admire his work even if he did err. I do appreciate his work even if he did get caught up in the excitement and made some fanciful speculations along the way. Those claims that some see as fanciful are really only a small part of his work, after all.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

How do we explain the chemical presence in the great pyramid.. specifically the queens chamber. I'm intrigued by the idea surrounding the possible production of hydrogen gas.

Supporting the idea that a chemical reaction took place in the Queen's Chamber, (and before the discovery of Gantenbrink's "door") Here is the evidence discovered in the chamber by early explorers as follows:


The rough, unfinished floor inside the Queen's Chamber.


The corbeled niche cut into the east wall of the Queen's Chamber.


The repugnant odor that assailed early explorers.


Drop in Horizontal Passage floor level before it goes into the Queen's Chamber. This would allow chemicals to pool inside the chamber and "wick" up the evaporation tower.


Corbeled niche in wall of the Queen's Chamber. This may have been a means to key the evaporation tower into the structure.


Shafts leading to the Queen's Chamber but not quite connected to it. These could have been supply shafts for chemicals needed in the reaction. The shafts would allow chemicals to enter the chamber and prevent evolving gases from escaping.


Stone ball, grapnel hook, and cedar like wood. The wood and hook assembly could have served as a floating contact to signal the need for more chemical. The stone ball may have been used to prevent erosion of the "left" as the channel filled with fluid. (I am not adverse to the idea that these items were introduced at a later time, but offer this as a reason for their presence assuming they are contemporaneous with the building.)


Flakes of gypsum exuding from joints in shafts. This substance probably resulted from the chemical reacting with limestone (suggesting the use of hydrochloric acid).


Buildup of salt crystals on the walls and ceiling of the Queen's Chamber, Horizontal Passage, and lower level of Grand Gallery. This buildup was likely the result of gaseous vapor passing over the limestone, reacting with the calcium in the limestone, and giving up water and impurities. This was a by-product from the drying of the gas.


Well Shaft bored from the juncture of the Grand Gallery and the Horizontal Passage down to the Grotto. This was probably either a waste removal shaft or an overflow shaft.


Large granite block at the bottom of the Well Shaft at the level of the Grotto. Most likely this was put into place to catch the chemical overflow, thereby preventing erosion of the limestone.



Thoughts? The above supports the idea that it was a power plant, and not a burial chamber.

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Hooke

Some of his claims were admittedly fanciful

I think most of it was.

And various claims he made about his academic qualifications might have been exaggerated.

I'm no expert , but the official history presented
by archaeology sucks and blows .

I met Hawass once , and asked him why the
subterfuge ?....

He got flustered and started murmuring ,
" Annunaki this , Annunaki that " ,
then scuttled off in the other direction .

Go figure

a reply to: radarloveguy

He got flustered and started murmuring , " Annunaki this , Annunaki that " , then scuttled off in the other direction .

Sure he did.

a reply to: Phage

Ask him yourself ...

Wynnum,Brisbane ,Qld. June 2002

... others at same meeting ,
Barack and Michele Obama , Prince Philip , Gordon Brown
etc . etc .....

a reply to: radarloveguy

Ok.
I'll do that.

originally posted by: radarloveguy
I'm no expert , but the official history presented
by archaeology sucks and blows .

I met Hawass once , and asked him why the
subterfuge ?....

He got flustered and started murmuring ,
" Annunaki this , Annunaki that " ,
then scuttled off in the other direction .

Go figure

So did I and he said this never happened. Wow really. First he likes to argue and would have been more than happy to tell you where to stick it. I e thing you can count on he's not polite to the ancient astronaut fools.

Now more on point to thread things have changes a lot since these theories cane out. There is substantial proof as to who built the great pyramod. Take the time to learn about the work done in the workers village. Through inscriptions there is no doubt who built the pyramid and why. The only question left is how.

a reply to: dragonridr

Well the guy is forgetful,

or a liar .



i SAY FORGETFUL LIAR !

originally posted by: Hooke

I think most of it was.

And various claims he made about his academic qualifications might have been exaggerated.

Have you read any of Sitchin's work?

originally posted by: engineercutout

originally posted by: Hooke

I think most of it was.

And various claims he made about his academic qualifications might have been exaggerated.

Have you read any of Sitchin's work?

Yes.

a reply to: Hooke

How much of it have you read?