Cintia Panizza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I know you are thinking for yourself. What I meant
> is that I think Hancock provides a lot of theories
> that makes sense. Makes sense exactly to what I
> think. It is like somebody confirming what you
> already think.

...

> I believe sometimes a person who study a specific
> subject get influenced by the scholars. Sometimes
> a person from outside see things more clearly. I
> don’t think that is a rule. But sometimes irbid
> the case. I think the sine of Egyptology. I think
> they are pressed by Zahi Hawassto fit his agenda
> that is a extremely orthodox Egyptology.
> I think Zahi Hawass use his position to manage
> things to fit into his beliefs of how Egypt was in
> the past.

Hawass stepped down from the post of secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities of Egypt some years ago. The present holder of the post is Mostafa Waziri.

> I don’t believe Egyptology.

Let's go back to the non-Egyptological example of Cambay.

Applying Hancock's dictum of carefully examining claims before we agree to accept them, we discovered that there were other - more probable - explanations of the nine or so sets of objects than those proposed by Hancock himself.

Could the same be true of some of his ideas about ancient Egypt?

Take, for example, his findings concerning the Great Pyramid's supposed embodiment of various Earth-based dimensions. He writes that:

Quote

... the perimeter of the pyramid’s base stood in the relationship 2 pi to its height and that the entire monument seemed to have been designed to serve as a map-projection —on a scale of 1:43,200—of the northern hemisphere of our planet (FoG: 417)

In support of this point, Hancock quotes the conclusions of a well-known researcher into ancient metrology, Livio Catullo Stecchini:

Quote

The Great Pyramid was a projection on four triangular surfaces. The apex represented the pole and the perimeter represented the equator. This is the reason why the perimeter is in relation 2pi to the height (Tompkins, Secrets of the Great Pyramid, p. 378).

In his section of "Secrets of the Great Pyramid", Stecchini explains that his conclusions were formed on the basis of the work of an ancient Greek writer, Agatharchides, who:

Quote

... was not concerned with presenting the actual dimensions of the Pyramid, but in illustrating the mathematical principles according to which the Pyramid had been conceived (373).

Some years ago, a curious researcher decided to find out more about this mysterious Greek author. But, after a prolonged and immensely detailed investigation - [irna.fr] - she was astonished to discover that Agatharchides had written nothing of the sort; that Stecchini's pronouncements were based on little more than supposition and assumption; and that there was no solid evidence whatever for his conclusions.

How, then, can it have been safe for Hancock, when propounding his idea about the relationship of the Great Pyramid with earth measure, to rely on Stecchini?

Why did he not follow his own dictum here? Why did he not carefully investigate and examine these claims before he agreed to accept them?

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me