Zahi Hawaas refuses to debate Graham Hancock after seeing...

...a slide of Robert Bauval in Hancock's presentation!
I just ran across this on Graham Hancock's website. To me it depicts very clearly that "established Egyptology" does not have a leg to stand on in regards actually countering Bauval's and Hancock's well researched hypothesis regarding the alternative timeline for the creation of the pyramids etc... Why do I say this? Well, any time in life that someone throws a tantrum, it is typically because they have no rational response to a particular dilemma, that inability is expressed as anger and childish tantrums because the dilemma entirely refutes a long, deeply held personal belief which in being rattled, literally shaking the consciousness of the individual to the core (Hawaas).

Self-styled "world's most famous Egyptologist" Zahi Hawass had agreed to participate with me on 22 April 2015 in what was billed and advertised as "the first open debate between the representatives of two completely different versions of history." Each of us was to give a one-hour presentation, followed by a debate in which the audience would join in with questions. In the event the debate never happened. Zahi refused to accept a coin-toss to decide the speaking order and insisted that I speak first. I agreed to this, despite the fact that the first speaker is at a slight disadvantage in any debate since he does not have the opportunity to hear the other speaker's presentation before giving his own.

Before most of the audience had arrived, I was checking the focus on the slides in my PowerPoint presentation prior to giving my talk and I put up on the screen an image which shows the Orion/Pyramids correlation and the Sphinx/Leo correlation at Giza in the epoch of 10,500 BC. Rightly and properly since the Orion correlation is Robert Bauval's discovery I included a portrait of Robert Bauval in the slide. As soon as Zahi saw Robert's image he became furiously angry, shouted at me, made insulting and demeaning comments about Robert, and told me that if I dared to mention a single word about Robert in my talk he would walk out and refuse to debate me. I explained that the alternative view of history that I was on stage to represent could not exclude the Orion correlation and therefore could not exclude Robert Bauval. At that, again shouting, Zahi marched out of the debating room. Frantic negotiations then took place off stage between the conference organisers and Zahi. Finally Zahi agreed to return and give his talk and answer questions from the audience, but he refused absolutely to hear or see my talk, or to engage in any debate with me. I therefore gave my talk to the audience without Zahi present (he sat in a room outside the conference hall while I spoke). When I had finished I answered questions from the audience. Then Zahi entered, gave his talk, answered questions from the audience and left.

If you are interested, please check out the entire article at: www.grahamhancock.com... I of course side with Hancock on this, he also included a video partially capturing Hawaas' hissy fit:www.youtube.com... Apparently Hawaas was also asked questions in regards Gobekli Tepi and feigned igorance of the topic, especially in regards any correlation between Gobekli Tepi's antiquity and Egypts pyramids.

Head on over to the link and get the full read, Im into the video at the moment, but really felt the need to bring this to my friends here at ATS. I look forward to whatever conversation this evokes!

The arrogance of this chap is beyond belief. How does he stop all debate on this matter and what does he know that enraged him so much. Is he frightened of some one or an organisation that is supressing the truth?

a reply to: BlueJacket

There is another thread on this subject www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: BlueJacket

About Hawas and Bauval...I didn't know what it was about.

Here it is...

Hawas-Bauval accusation


There is a digital copy of the letter...refuting Hawas's claims...for what it's worth.

a reply to: druid1

Yeah, I have always wondered the same. I mean could just ego and patriotic feelings account for this level of emotion? Perhaps so, but why not investigate these suppositions in the spirit of science rather than angrily dismissing them out of hand.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

ouch, my bad...my search was inadequate I guess. Mods...do your thing.

He doesn't want to be associated with bogus science, what it wrong with that?

They always try to trick established people from fields to leech off of their credibility. He knows very well if he was in the same debate with these hacks they would take all of his comments out of context to live forever on the internet as if undisputed facts.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Absolutely hilarious. Don't shake up the status quo, don't offer new and supportable theories, by no means think for yourself, leave it to those in charge and those who are often times wrong.

a reply to: BlueJacket

More like BS will be rejected by the scientific community, regardless of how feverish the delivery of the topic, or how large the on-line support is.

The claims of Bauval and Hancock (in regards to OCT) has been crossed checked by astronomers...and found wanting. More than wanting, truth be told. There is a reason that words like 'fraud' and 'misrepresentation' are these gentleman's most ardent followers.

a reply to: peck420

I totally disagree it's very easy to use an ephemeris...but this thread should really be closed as theres another one where you can express your opinion for discussion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, I had been waiting for this for a couple of weeks, and then Hawass threw a tantrum. How typical and predictable.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Absolutely hilarious. Don't shake up the status quo, don't offer new and supportable theories, by no means think for yourself, leave it to those in charge and those who are often times wrong.

Why do they invite established people to speak if they hate them so much?

It is to leech off of their credibility.

Can anybody clear this up for me? I thought Zahi Hawas was threw of the council for Egyptian antiquities a couple of years ago?

originally posted by: crayzeed
Can anybody clear this up for me? I thought Zahi Hawas was threw of the council for Egyptian antiquities a couple of years ago?

He's like Christ....rises from the dead.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Lol "established" you mean establisment

originally posted by: sacredvisions
a reply to: TinfoilTP

you sound like an uneducated douche , do your research before opening your mouth, i was at the debate, hawass is a clown

You say you were at the debate.... But clearly there was no debate hawass wasn't even in the same room at the same time

Thanks OP for bringing this to our attention.

Very, very interesting indeed.

I know a few archaeologists who refuse to entertain any thoughts about the existence of life beyond their established scientific understanding.

Perhaps this is why the earth is still in kindergarten.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
He doesn't want to be associated with bogus science, what it wrong with that?

They always try to trick established people from fields to leech off of their credibility. He knows very well if he was in the same debate with these hacks they would take all of his comments out of context to live forever on the internet as if undisputed facts.

Quoted for truth.

What set Hawass off in this case was the inclusion of Bauval in Hancock's presentation. Hawass is convinced Bauval played a role in the vandalism of the worker graffiti in the so-called 'relieving chambers; in the GP. Whatever you want to say about Hawass as a person you can't deny his passion for protesting Egyptian antiquities from knuckleheads who want to destroy them to prove some pet theory (like ancient astronauts or long-lost civs).

I hear you, but at what expense does he protect these antiquities? A valid body of research enjoined by all parties while holding to a certain set of parameters seems logical.

I mean we regularly pillage tombs to ascertain age with no respect for the buried...nobody was buried that we even know of here in the gp. reply to: Blackmarketeer