You are absolutely right. I agree with you on this. If Hancock says he works like a journalist when he write his books, like gathering information, sources and visiting the archaeological sites, he did not do a good job as a journalist and how much less as a writer. I am a lawyer and I wrote 2 books. In both I have to study and show more that one source of research to defend my cases and to give my opinion in a book. Brazilian’s laws come from Roman Law. The judge is considered the JUDEX EST PERITUS PERITORUM ( like the judge it is the expert of all experts) so if I don’t present my case as lawyer with all the sources as possible to the judge analyze I lose. What Hancock did as a journalist was wrong. He didn’t did his job. You always have to check your sources tirelessly. I learned that in Law college. You have to always have a very reliable research base.
Cintia Panizza
————————————————
Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
"Happiness is only real when shared."
Christopher McCandless
