| May 19, 2024, 1:46 pm UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| September 25, 2001 01:18PM |
<HTML>Hi Robert,
> You have good reason to be scared, but not of me. When big
> media like BBC and responsible programmes like Horizon start
> messing around in this way, then there is, indeed, good
> reason to be scared. The really scarry thing in this fiasco
> of the BBC was that they pretended they were being 'fair and
> unbiased' all along, when it was plain to all that it was
> designed as a hatchet job on GH and I. But let's put this to
> rest, as so much was said on this affair in the last two years.
Well I suppose I've never had a tv program devoted to my work so I'm not really able to understand what your feelings about this might be. I agree that there was an 'agenda' behind the making of the program but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was unfairly motivated or directed with the expressed aim of undermining you (or GH). Instead I thought they were only attempting to query aspects of the lost civilisation hypothesis as proposed by GH and yourself. Seeing as your books have sold in their millions, yet have never been peer reviewed and have rarely been critically reviewed I thought they were trying to redress the balance by subjecting those ideas to scientific scrutiny.
> Yes, but only insofar that it was more fair than the original
> programme.
Well thats an honest answer.
The revised version still fell a long way short of
> the mark; for example in not allowing a balanced rebuttal to
> Krupp to be made by astronomers such as Seymour,
> Wickramsinghe or Archie Roy.
I think the problem is that none of the astronomers that support the Orion correlation are able to state that it is any better than an "artistic representation". I'm not knocking that evaluation at all just indicating that if it's not scientifically accurate and only artistic it becomes difficult to use it as evidence for locking a precise date using precession.
The revised version also failed
> to present the star correlation theory properly, such as not
> discussing the PT and Orion or showing the alignment to
> Orion's belt of the southern shaft of the KC. I know Chris
> Hale has come up with all sorts of reasons why and why not
> about this; but I simply don't buy them. It's just
> editing-room double-talk.
The art of the cutting room floor eh? You're probably right but in his defence he's trying to make a 50 minute program covering all aspects of GHs LC hypothesis. Unfortunately I suppose some parts had to be dropped. He could also argue that this information is covered well enough in your own books, papers and tv programs.
As an aside I'd be interested in your opinion of John Legon's criticism of the Orion correlation (<a href=""></a>
<a href="[thehallofmaat.com]
. Can we be certain that the AEs associated Osiris with the constellation of Orion as we recognise it or did they associate Osiris with a particular star? If Isis was Sirius why wouldn't Osiris also be identified as a single star?
The other matter that Legon raises, which I had wanted to ask Kate Spence about seeing as she also uses it to bolster her theory, is the alignments of the 'air shafts' with specific stars. John Legon seems to think the fact that the shafts would have exited the pyramid at particular courses of masonry indicates that their function was intended as an expression of geometry and symmetry rather than of stellar symbolism. I'm sure you disagree with his opinion (as I'm sure Spence does too) but I'd be interested in any criticisms you have of Legons conviction that they are only 'air shafts' and that the angles chosen were for geometrical concerns.
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
> You have good reason to be scared, but not of me. When big
> media like BBC and responsible programmes like Horizon start
> messing around in this way, then there is, indeed, good
> reason to be scared. The really scarry thing in this fiasco
> of the BBC was that they pretended they were being 'fair and
> unbiased' all along, when it was plain to all that it was
> designed as a hatchet job on GH and I. But let's put this to
> rest, as so much was said on this affair in the last two years.
Well I suppose I've never had a tv program devoted to my work so I'm not really able to understand what your feelings about this might be. I agree that there was an 'agenda' behind the making of the program but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was unfairly motivated or directed with the expressed aim of undermining you (or GH). Instead I thought they were only attempting to query aspects of the lost civilisation hypothesis as proposed by GH and yourself. Seeing as your books have sold in their millions, yet have never been peer reviewed and have rarely been critically reviewed I thought they were trying to redress the balance by subjecting those ideas to scientific scrutiny.
> Yes, but only insofar that it was more fair than the original
> programme.
Well thats an honest answer.
The revised version still fell a long way short of
> the mark; for example in not allowing a balanced rebuttal to
> Krupp to be made by astronomers such as Seymour,
> Wickramsinghe or Archie Roy.
I think the problem is that none of the astronomers that support the Orion correlation are able to state that it is any better than an "artistic representation". I'm not knocking that evaluation at all just indicating that if it's not scientifically accurate and only artistic it becomes difficult to use it as evidence for locking a precise date using precession.
The revised version also failed
> to present the star correlation theory properly, such as not
> discussing the PT and Orion or showing the alignment to
> Orion's belt of the southern shaft of the KC. I know Chris
> Hale has come up with all sorts of reasons why and why not
> about this; but I simply don't buy them. It's just
> editing-room double-talk.
The art of the cutting room floor eh? You're probably right but in his defence he's trying to make a 50 minute program covering all aspects of GHs LC hypothesis. Unfortunately I suppose some parts had to be dropped. He could also argue that this information is covered well enough in your own books, papers and tv programs.
As an aside I'd be interested in your opinion of John Legon's criticism of the Orion correlation (<a href=""></a>
<a href="[thehallofmaat.com]
. Can we be certain that the AEs associated Osiris with the constellation of Orion as we recognise it or did they associate Osiris with a particular star? If Isis was Sirius why wouldn't Osiris also be identified as a single star?The other matter that Legon raises, which I had wanted to ask Kate Spence about seeing as she also uses it to bolster her theory, is the alignments of the 'air shafts' with specific stars. John Legon seems to think the fact that the shafts would have exited the pyramid at particular courses of masonry indicates that their function was intended as an expression of geometry and symmetry rather than of stellar symbolism. I'm sure you disagree with his opinion (as I'm sure Spence does too) but I'd be interested in any criticisms you have of Legons conviction that they are only 'air shafts' and that the angles chosen were for geometrical concerns.
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.