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.

In the Course

of research


across a lot of (dare I say it?) codswallop (aka utter poop—only more so).

To illustrate, I offer this rather pathetic would-be attempt at humour. (It has to be humour—no genuine viewer could be quite that thick~!) (But judging by the ‘comments’ … quite a few of them actually are. Thats’ moddin edyakashun fore yew!)



Taken from:


(Add a letter ‘y’ at the end of that link-address and then you can use it.)

buitre16You really don’t want to go there: it’s a tad worse than pathetic (believe me, I suffer for my research).

I read somewhere that Admiral Byrd’s expedition to Antarctica soon after WW2 was sent scampering home with its tail between its legs after getting beaten up by Nazi and Space Alien flying saucers (’nuff said). I liked the idea so thought I’d check it out—you know, brainless Conspiracy Theorist and stuff. But ye gods, way out of my league …


blurry stuff with US gobs running around in RN hats I thought I recognised a few snippets from other sites and vids, one of which I’d found interesting but under a heading similar to “Kamikaze” (and referring to some Sons Of Heaven hot-footing to their heaven).


apologise if anyone can show me where I’m wrong?






—some rotten bugger slips you a crippler and upsets your equilibrium.

Before you read on, look at the image above (have a quick worship if you like—I’ll wait) … then here’s another shot of the same god, a divinity of many faces. I guess wysiwyg~?


Okaaaaay … he’s a little different from the above image, but still in the ball-park.

We’ll keep him.


I can hear the ‘protesteth-too-much’ folks “Ya not meant to take it literally! They had no cameras in them days etc etc ad etc …”

Perhaps I should allow a little leeway—some slack for artistic licence, for a God made in Man’s image?


for the definitive true-to-life Jesus—


—take your pick.

But wait, choose now and we’ll throw in a free link to Google, where you can choose from many hundreds to find your very own personal exact likeness of someone who actually never existed.

3.pngHeck, here’s another pin-up for reading this far—it’s one especially for the Celtics among us.

So He was a scruffy redhead as well as blond and dark—all things to all men (you can’t ask better of the Guy created the entire universe from diddley-squat).


to stop teasing and put you out of your misery: science has come to the aid of theology. Working as a sort of a team they’ve come up with an answer to that most important of questions:

What did Jesus really look like? 

It appears that God looks like this guy, below. A bit disappointing really, I prefer the blue-eyed aryan type myself but that’s God for you, full of surprises—

Big J.png

see below for a simple comparison image

For the definitive combo look to the pic on left below. (The pic on the right was a tougher call:






I must leave it for now.  Maybe it might turn out one day that, actually—

—He looked like this!  


“Mr Argus, Sir?”

“Yes, Little Ollivia?”

“Sir—does having a piccie of Jesus not violate the second Commandment?”


“An image of God isn’t strictly kosher, Sir—?”


“I think it’s legal, Kiddo, if they love it but don’t worship it.”

“Oh … but what is number two, Sir? I’ve trolled the web—”

“I think you mean ‘trawled’, Cutie?”

“—oops; but everywhere I get different Numbers two. Number twos—”

“Let’s leave it as Number Twos, kiddo. Don’t sweat, religion is full of ’em.”





of dragons17



First, this rather bold (and quite definitive) statement:





I’m still pondering.

My Christian friends tell me that in the beginning all was void, with darkness on the face of the Deep—which they assure me means that the entire universe was nothing. Nowt. Zilch. Diddley squat. Empty too, only much more so:

in the entire universe there was no entire universe ‘cos there was no nothing at all.

Then God miracled the myriad worlds into existence; but … if there were no nothing then there weren’t no God neither. No? Now I really am confused.

Here, time out—have a nice god—

Ol' Weppie

—just one of many hundreds of thousands (but this of course is irrelevant).

Let us not digress—God, then, is/was the Prime Mover.

So God created Himself (had to—before Him there was nothing, not even Him). Or did God always exist, even before any Creation? Did He create Himself from the nothing that was everywhere in the great nowhere?

Let’s move closer.

We are told that there are three Defining Qualities of God, He is—

(a)  Omnipotent

(b)  Omni knowledgeable

(c)  Omnipresent

—which for folk like moi means that God is all-powerful, and knows everything about everything; and

God is everywhere—in the sky looking down, under the bed looking up, in the matchbox we use for trapping spiders for release outside; He’s in the ice on Pluto and He’s sitting in the atoms of the next nuclear bomb to go off; He’s in your coffee right now, and all over Regulus (star, not missile) (okay, both), and on the moon, and in such wood as is left of the True Cross (enough of which was sold in olden days to rebuild the ark)(twice) …

So with all these qualities, powers, gifts and abilities going for Him still we have people making His excuses? cuckoo

Of course Evil comes from God!

How could it not?

The Prime Mover (the guy who started it all, that all-wise being who knew what He was doing (and all the pain He alone would initiate) aeons before He did it:

alone in the universe: God has no excuse 

but ALL the responsibility.


is not of a benign ethereal goblin sitting on a cloud being nice—it is of a vicious brute being unarguably not nice.

The Ultimate Sadist, in fact—




And now to go back to the post that got me wondering about the good God of the Abrahamics (some of whom claim that He sacrificed Himself to Himself to atone for His the mistakes that He knew they would eventually be making) (they couldn’t not, could they?) aeons before they were born. But other Abrahamics deny such claims … damn, it’s complicated being religious~!



Am I disrespectful? Of course … what is there to respect?



(AGAIN) (!) buitre16

having grown up thinking—believing—that the word ‘universe’ meant everything (you know, a sort of collective noun for ‘the whole lot‘) I keep running aground on statements like this beast—

Scientists now believe that if our universe ”ballooned up” into a vacuum after The Big Bang, then trillions of others could also have formed in the same way, creating a multiverse of other universes beyond our own space-time.

to read from source: CLICK HERE 

—which suggests to me a real vacuum. A vacuum in the collective noun department. So language gallops on, and with it we need a new noun; a noun meaning ‘everything’.


As in every damn’ thing.

No eluding our new noun, no ducking into other dimensions, parallel or otherwise abstract universes; no hiding behind metaphysical concepts or multitudes of unique Gods. Maybe Ark or JZ can spare me a few religiosi to explain where God fits into all this scientific stuff? If there are millions of zillions of other universi, are there likewise oodillions of other singular Gods? Or does our very own Big G cover the whole lot (and still find time to impregnate the odd virgin here and there so He can be nailed to whatever is their local equivalent of a cross?)*

Universal universe.png

(from the Mac’s onboard dictionary)


if those clever scientists are correct a lot of books are going to have to be rewritten. But wait, it gets even more better yet—

Professor Tom Shanks in Durham University’s Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, said: “One explanation for the Cold Spot is that it might be the remnant signal of the collision of our Universe and one of the trillions of others…

Ouch! Can you even begin to imagine the insurance costs for such collisions? Brrr …

For source of the quote above and the image below, click on any of these wee bowling balls—


—and never forget the ages old saying, so famous in the metaphysical worlds:



—which makes no sense at all in a universe with no ups or downs**.


* And by His sacrifice so save the locals from the Wrath Of Himself. (Dammit. There’s never a Mormon or Jehovah’s Adventist around when you need one.)

** Don’t ask me, I’m just a dum ol …




Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 08.16.10says that

one Mr Stephen Fry is “addressing his battle with mental health”.  I know very little of SF Esq. and I really do not give a hoot beyond the natural goodwill I extend to all human beings (unless they show themselves as undeserving of it).


he must be quite insane to make the comments he did against God … in Ireland of all places. Doubleplus ungood: Steve, ol’ fruit, not very clever at all—

Asked what he would say if he was confronted by God, Fry replied: “How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right.

“It’s utterly, utterly evil.

“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”

—but wait, it gets more better/worse—

“I would say, “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about?”

‘Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac.

“Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of God would do that?”

to go there:  CLICK HERE

—but there’s nothing new here. Anyone with half of one third of three eighths of one fifth of five minibits of foxtrot alpha of common* sense has said it—and not been charged with blasphemy and a potential fine of 25 thousand Euros. As they say in real estate: location, location, location.


pcthat Steve did was not go to Mecca (or any other location where the most merciful and most compassionate God rules) and say the same thing. Brrrrr … then he really would know what it’s like to lose your head over a throwaway remark.


a good thing for him that he has a history of mental health problems, no? Even clever people can goof—but at least the rest of us can learn from his example: just because people look like us, talk our language (sort of) and seem like us … doesn’t mean they are like us. Be careful out there.


*  Actually, not all that common …


AKA BB D 2.png

“Beam me up, Scotty—


—there’s not a great deal of intelligent life down here~!”


our little idiosyncrasies. Some of us even dedicate our lives to idiot-syncrasies, which is more than doubleplus ungood.

Like wee cutie, here   ——>

who seems to have slipped the leash back in chapter 1. I no longer trust anything I read in modern media, it could be simple typos (nothing wrong with that if no wars are started because of them) or even the deplorable state of modern journalism. By way of anticipating rebuttitive squawks I offer this verbatim snippet —

Though her eyes are naturally large, she wears contact lenses to enhance them, boosting the size of her iris from 13.5cm to 16.2cm …

—and leave it for you to make any decisions (although I am reminded of a sketch in a Billy Connolley show where he convinces his short-sighted Dad that ‘prescription windscreens’ would obviate the need to wear glasses when driving—

“…but can you imagine the effect on a driver coming the other way? …

‘Eek! What the f**k is that~!?

Damn. He tells it much better than I. Perhaps it really is just a proofing error, the mind would boggle otherwise. Anyway, here’s your link:  CLICK HERE

And if you do go there be prepared to gast your flabbers …


BB D 3.png

And now, with a set precedent preceding me: I wonder how much it would cost to have my own visage enhanced …