and make of it what you will.
And yes, extrapolation is allowed (encouraged, actually).
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.
This is a modern ‘scientist’ in frank and open debate? (No, I’m not referring to the gentle Mr Hancock —I mean the nice Mr Hawass.)
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.
One of the few members of the audience who had arrived early did manage to record part of the scene of Zahi storming out of the conference room — see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc
The whole illustrates the arrogant pignorance of the gentleman who had/has (?) his grip tightly around the neck of power at the actual site itself. Not good—but he would doubtlessly disagree; and I imagine that if I tried to debate the point would flounce petulantly out of the room with petticoats aflurry and spitting spiders in all directions.
For Source: CLICK HERE
IT’S A ‘cultural’ thing?
So I (why always me?) must bend over backwards to accommodate such open-minded, well mannered, couth and cultured, scientifically inquisitive little oiks as this nice man? (Unless I do I shan’t earn my Snowflake badge) (Bugger~!)
No, my apologies to any deserving sensitivities I may ruffle—this guy is often both desperate to be liked and desperate to appear unbiassed. But the mask drops easily to reveal the thug within (desperate thug, I must add). (Is he Islamic, by any chance—and thus entirely open to unchallenged debate* ?)
IF THE NICE MR HAWASS
represents the ‘scientific’ establishment of Egyptian studies and antiquities I think our world is a sorry place.
Perhaps he learned his objectivity—if not his manners—at the Adolf Hitler School of Fine Arts in Berlin (and is older than he claims).
But he has style—those ‘Indiana Jones’ hats … ’nuff sed.
For ol’ Zahi, the very antithesis of The Snowflake
* Yes, Little Ollivia … that was indeed sarcasm. Pure, unsubtle, unadulterated, and the quintessentially genuine article.