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.

well now ....png

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?)


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.


2 thoughts on “A QUOTE

  1. I did not know his name but I have watched Mr. Hawass a few times on TV. He seems to really like the spot light. He also seemed from the debate videos to be demanding, to insist he is always correct, and he feels his word is law in that country on subjects he deems is his domain. In fact I got the feeling he was acting as an authoritative dictator and had turned hostile to the people in charge. They seemed to have a fear of him. He sat and made demands like a royalty or a rockstar. He seemed infuriated that he was not given his way and that his demands were questioned in the first place. I noticed in the second video that the moderator had to stop him from crossing the stage to personally argue with Graham over the age dispute. Again that his word was just not accepted seemed to anger him a great deal.

    So this leads me to assume Mr Hawass has something serious at stake and so does the government he represents. In fact now that I go over his appearances on TV that I remember it seems his job is to safeguard Egypt’s reputation and standing in the world.

    So now that we know there is a debate that has risen over the history as we learned in school over the part Egypt played, tell me what do you think is the alternative history? What should we know and what should we be looking for? You raised the specter of something untaught very well, now please fill the many jars and baskets with the ideas we can carry forward. Thanks. Hugs


  2. Mr Hawass would have me mummified alive if he ever saw my thoughts on his present day Egyptians’ relationship to the guys who built the pyramids and Sphinx.
    The folks who lived there so constructively in antiquity are quite different from the (actually, mostly quite pleasant) folks who live there now.

    My views on the ‘alternative’ history?
    Quite simply, as theory I run with much of it—what the ‘alternative’ school (think ‘crackpot’) offers often makes better sense.
    But I’ve spent a lifetime (~!) researching, and for my own use have distilled down to a line of thoughts that would bring forth loud guffaws and/or sad head shaking were I to table them.

    The problem for mainstream is to stay ahead of the herds: yesterday’s unarguable ‘facts’ are very often tomorrow’s big giggles.
    I don’t care for fashion, I go with what makes sense to me.
    Academia has to defend the ‘current cutting edge’ on which often hard earned incomes depend—so anything that may be a threat to an entrenched position is ruthlessly batted out of the field or (Plan B) the presenter thereof held to the light and pilloried as a total twat.
    Some cynic in the past offered a list of stages that knowledge has to go through, to the effect:

    a) Utter rubbish!

    b) Okaaaaay … might just be possible …

    c) Okay, so it happens, sometimes …

    d) Okay … it’s real.

    e) It’s blatantly self-obvious! Where ya been, dum-dum?

    If you have a strong stomach you might consider the implications of the case of Virginia Steen-McIntyre.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s