-Caveat Lector- from: http://www2.eridu.co.uk/eridu/news.html <A HREF="http://www2.eridu.co.uk/eridu/news.html">Latest News</A> ----- SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY - A PERSONAL COMMENT BY ALAN F. ALFORD During 1997-98, the 'new-age' gang of Robert Bauval, Graham Hancock and John A. West negotiated a peace treaty with the Egyptologists at Giza (Zawi Hawass, Mark Lehner et al), and everyone now appears to be on surprisingly good terms. An ongoing dialogue now exists between the two sides, with RB, GH & JAW setting themselves up as a kind of unofficial 'Opposition Party'. The next phase of this dialogue will occur at the Mena House Hotel, Cairo, in January 1999, when both sides will debate the age of the Sphinx and the astronomical significance of the structures at Giza. There is, however, a potential downside to this outbreak of cordial relations, and this is well illustrated by the 'personal tours' of the Great Pyramid which Dr Hawass has been giving to RB, GH, JAW and, in some cases, to their wives too. In particular, Hawass has gone to great lengths to erect the necessary ladders and lighting to enable GH and JAW to personally inspect the so-called 'Construction Chambers' above the King's Chamber (this is where the graffiti containing Khufu's names is found). This is a rare privilege indeed, which precious few mortals have ever experienced. The outcome is intriguing - both JW and GH have now reversed their previous opinions and declared that the cartouches of Khufu's name are genuine. In other words, they are now certain that Khufu built the Great Pyramid. And yet it staggers belief to think that JAW and GH suddenly became experts on hieroglyphic writing and criminal detection the moment they set foot in those chambers. Did they lose their critical faculties? Or did they see some miraculous evidence that no-one has ever seen before? What could they possibly have seen or been told that was so persuasive? If it was (as is claimed) the masons' marks which can be seen between the joints in the stones, then this proves absolutely nothing about the Khufu cartouches on the face of the stones (these are entirely separate matters). So what on Earth has happened here? Sleeping with the enemy is a dangerous game. Hard and objective thinking has a tendency to go soft and fuzzy when it plays second fiddle to personal rapprochement. Compromise is only a win-win situation for the egos of those involved. Truth is always the loser. I therefore await with trepidation the outcome of the Giza debate in January 1999. I had previously thought that we could rely on Bauval, Hancock and West to kick butt against the Egyptologists, but now I question their objectivity. Personally I felt more comfortable when the two sides were spitting blood at each other. At least then we knew that the battle was real. But as soon as politics takes centre stage, no-one knows who or what to believe! ALAN F. ALFORD, 15th SEPTEMBER 1998 HANCOCK'S NEW BOOK & TV SERIES - A PERSONAL COMMENT BY ALAN F. ALFORD The most significant part of Hancock's new book concerns the temples at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and their possible alignment to the stars of the constellation Draco. Hancock claims an amazing correlation, which he further claims was exact at 10500 BC - the same date as deduced by Bauval & Gilbert for the pyramids-Orion correlation at Giza. If true, this discovery is of profound importance. And as with all important new 'discoveries', it simply won't do for critics to ignore it or 'sit on the fence'. So let's kick off this debate with some salient observations. (1) One of the most distinctive features of Draco (the dragon) is its 'head' - a quadrilateral and irregular 'box'. On this most distinctive feature, Hancock's supposed correlation fails the test. There is no such head or box formed by the position of the temples at Angkor (see p.127 or p.130 or p.169 of his book). (2) One of the stars in the 'head' of the dragon is Nu - a double star which is easily separable with binoculars. If the site of Angkor was mapped out by a race with the astronomical abilities hypothesised by Hancock, we would expect to see evidence of this double-star on the ground. But we don't (as above, so NOT below, in this case). (3) The tail of Draco the dragon, as shown in Hancock's maps, turns away at an angle. This does not seem to match the temples which appear in what is virtually a straight line. (4) It is not at all clear which two stars are supposed to match the temples of Neak Pean and Ta Sohm. Hancock is not justified in including these in his 15 correspondences. (5) Of the 14 remaining 'correspondences', the 3 temples near Roluos stand separate from the others. Hancock matches these with 3 minor stars. These are three stars among numerous minor stars, and it is simply not scientific to claim a sky-ground match in this case. (6) Of the 11 remaining 'correspondences', one star stands alone supposedly matching Deneb (the brightest star of Cygnus). But any possible correspondence is undermined by the lack of any temple matching a large bright star between it and Draco (see this unmatched star on p.169 of Hancock's book). (7) Of the 10 remaining 'correspondences' in the head, body and tail of the dragon, the match-up is highly subjective. One is reminded of the Rorschach inkblot test - the image is in the eye of the beholder. It is, for example, possible to see one or two adzes (similar in shape to Ursa Minor), these implements being used in the ancient Egyptian ceremony of the 'Opening of the Mouth'. Other people will see other things. (8) Not only is the head of the dragon missing, but there are 3 very important temples nearby - Bayon, Phimeanakas and Baphuon, that do not match the stars of Draco in any way whatsoever. Maybe someone stood on the head of the dragon and crushed it! (9) In summary, I feel that Hancock's case is extremely weak, and by pursuing it with such vigour (claiming 'no doubt that a correlation exists' p.126, and then winding back the skies to 10500 BC to claim a 'precise' match) he risks bringing this kind of research into disrepute. He certainly does Robert Bauval no favours, for many people will now highlight the poor quality of Hancock's research to debunk the more plausible (though unproven) 10500 BC alignment at Giza. Why is Hancock so obsessed with the date 10500 BC? Perhaps the answer is revealed by his emphasis of the precessional cycle and the dawning 'new-age'. Those who are familiar with the occult will recognise that he is, wittingly or unwittingly, following a masonic agenda in this matter, with all of its emphasis on the Sun and the stars. And as I have shown in my new book 'The Phoenix Solution', the masonic agenda conceals the true inter-planetary meaning of the original Egyptian mythos. ALAN F. ALFORD, 15th SEPTEMBER 1998 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
