Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

Tony (guest) 26 Oct 2010 14:37

I am really curious about these people and what they have to say about 2012. Has anyone seen the show were Robert is interviewed? Its called 2012: Science or Superstition?

These are the guys who present evidence that the Giza pyramids are in close coordination with Orion's belt during the time of the ancient egyptians. They believe that they were built around 10,500bc I think. Soon after a worldwide cataclysm, which also destroyed Atlantis. So far I haven't been able to find much skepticism about it, other than a quote saying that Bauval is the source of many unique discoveries of the ancient egyptian culture from an actual egyptologist.

If there is anything you guys know about their predictions for 2012, and then possibly helping me make sense of them….that would be great. Thank you.

Re: Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

Astrogeek 26 Oct 2010 16:59

Hi Tony;

Unfortunately the field of Egyptology has historically been the playground of some crazy ideas. Late 19th century and early 20th century authors proposed that the Egyptians couldn't possibly have built the pyramids using the tools and methods of the day, and that they must have had access to advanced technology. Of course, this completely ignores the archaeological evidence of ramps and support structures, etc.

Many people have also taken the fact that the Egyptians built pyramids and that the Maya built pyramids, and claimed that this shows a connection. Of course that completely ignores the fact that the two cultures were not contemporaries, that the structures served different functions, and that they used different designs and methods.

The "New Age" movement has borrowed a lot of this thought from these early 'egyptologists', and have accepted these ideas uncritically. Modern archaeology, as a counter-example, shows that the idea of the diffusion of culture from an earlier third culture to both Egypt and Meso-America is shot full of unresolved problems, that people like Bauval and Hancock simply ignore. Eventually it all boils down to "They come from atlantis because we say so".

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Moo (guest) 26 Oct 2010 15:11

"Soon after a worldwide cataclysm, which also destroyed Atlantis."

False. There is no possibility a worldwide cataclysm has happened since the era of the dinosaurs. It is flat out an impossibility due to all the data and otherwise information we have at out disposal. Atlantis does not exist. It never has existed.

We also have the same methods of knowing the age of the Giza Pyramids, which were built around 2560 B.C.E. So, you're telling me to believe in two people with their zany ideas of a magical lost city, and saying these pyramids were built nearly 7,500 years earlier, and that the Egyptians had insight into the cosmos?

Yeah no. Bull. Sorry. Going to go with the professional, stone-cold evidence proving they're absolutely wrong and pulling out of their *** to make money.

(account deleted) 19 Nov 2010 22:03

You know, you are a very rude person. You dont have any debating skills whatsoever. If you disagree with someone, you simply just get this crappy attitude and basically start calling people names. I really respect a few people on this site, however, your not one of them. Putting it in simple terms, you have an attitude problem.

obaeyens 19 Nov 2010 22:49

You are crossing the line again, and you are reacting on a very old post.

There is nothing to debate about the 2012 claim.
Any debate about this ends up into the small meaningless post copy-catting the same old baseless stories like a broken record.

Any debate is just wasting time. Shock therapy is sometimes needed.

Moo (guest) 19 Nov 2010 23:00

… Did you really just necromancer a thread to tear into me? Yeah. I don't see you recovering what so ever. I really do believe you're just 'playing nice' until a chance for you to be a total wank arrives (like now, for example).

I do hope the administrative staff reconsiders their position about you.

PS: I was helping Tony with my shock-therapy treatment there. There was nothing rude toward him at all. If nothing else, I was being a dick to the people who believe in Atlantis. And frankly, I could care less.

obaeyens 19 Nov 2010 23:04

Shock therapy is indeed a very good method.
It forces them to think for themselves.

CaneLaz 19 Nov 2010 23:07

I made a post today about Hancock's book. Ghost didn't go searching for it, I think it was just at the top of the page. That being said, I think he comment is off base.

(account deleted) 19 Nov 2010 23:22

What evidence do you have that Atlantis didnt exist? Why is it so far out of the realm of possiblity that Atlantis did exist? Plato said it existed. If it were under water( as there are a lot of ancient cities underwater) why would it be strange that we havn't found it? The earth is covered by 75% of water and in terms of how much we've explored, it would be equal to a glass full of water. Just because something hasn't been found, dosen't mean that it dosen't exist. I dont know if it does or not, but I do believe in order to discover places like this, you have to have an open mind.

Moo (guest) 19 Nov 2010 23:44

No he didn't, for the record. You should do some research.

snorks 20 Nov 2010 17:01

Plato supposedly got the idea from the Egyptians, although he was deliberately vague about the whole thing. It was more philosophy than writing about an actual place.

Atlantis is more of a modern invention along with Mu. It was co-opted by the extreme cultural diffusionists who wanted to explain why the Mayan and Egyptians both built pyramids. Instead of thinking that various groups of peoples could arrive at similar ideas or whatever, there had to be a master culture that spread out. No one once thought that perhaps the triangle was the most stable of structures or that it looked like a mountain or such sensible things. Of course this master culture of Atlantis seemed to be more like the Western European culture of its day in the 1800s. Mu came in the 1920s.

Now they are memes that people actually believe in especially when Edgar Casey got a hold of them.

snorks 20 Nov 2010 17:03

How it plays into the 2012 is that Atlantis was destroyed during the first go round of the mythic belt of Photons, and they passed their knowledge onto the Mayans who are actually from Atlantis, so some of the stories go.

snorks (guest) 26 Oct 2010 16:20

Sigh, dealing with people and the Egyptian pyramids is how I got into the New Age stuff in the first place. (long story) Hancock if I recall was a newspaper man who wrote about the Ark of the Convenent. He had a life changing experience, and proceeded to add to the cottage industry of how Egyptians etc were either influenced or descended or visited by aliens or gods. He wrote Fingerprints of the Gods and is into alternative-archeology. There are sites that debunk both these people and their ideas of archeology. They do make a convincing argument but if you start actually studying ancient Egypt in depth, you discover that they do not make sense. They take a jumble of unrelated ideas put them together in the mix-master, and show skewed proof. Shades of Eric Van Dankein and Chariot of the Gods. (please excuse spelling).

As there are Mayanists (not Mayan scholars), there are the Egyptian counterpart with the same crazy stuff. Please remember that these two are not trained archeologists, Egyptologists, etc. They are writers who have ideas about things.

snorks (guest) 26 Oct 2010 16:28

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=14
an article from the Hall of Maat - reproduced from an article from Sky and Telescope Magazine about Bauval and his ideas.

This is a good site to search since they do discuss alternative-archeology and whether there is anything to it.

Moo (guest) 26 Oct 2010 16:43

Actually, Mayanist is the proper term for a Mayan Scholar, IIRC.

Astrogeek 26 Oct 2010 17:15

Historically, yes, but the 2012 woo-woos have been running around calling themselves that too.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

CaneLaz 02 Nov 2010 23:06

Graham Hancock isn't exactly well respected for his theories.

This is an article that rips Hapgoods and his own version of ECD:
http://the2012deception.net/?p=38

I will comment on Bauval shortly. He co-wrote The Orion Mystery with Adrian Gilbert. Gilbert and co-author Maurice Cotterell wrote the "Mayan Prophecies." It's the book that would influence Geryl. In an email exchange with John Major Jenkins, Gilbert refers to his books as having "entertainment" value.

Re: Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

CaneLaz 03 Nov 2010 17:57

Tony,

Here is an additional page refuting both Hapgood and Hancock's ECD. It goes into FPOTG in-depthly.

http://members.cox.net/pyrophyllite/wildside.shtml

Re: Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

CaneLaz 19 Nov 2010 21:03

Hey Tony,

I've been reading "Fingerprints of the Gods" over the last two weeks. I must say, it's been pretty painful to read so far. It's full of generalizations and extremely weak arguements that he attempts to augment into evidence.

For example, on page 122 he states the following: " The Olmecs were much, much older than the Maya. They'd been a smart civilized, technologically advanced people and they did, indeed, appear to have invented the bar dot system of calendrical notation."¹

If he was to stop there, he would indeed appear to have made a valid statement. However, he goes on to finish the statement with the following:" , with the enigmatic stating date of 13 August 3114 BC, which predicted the end of the world in 2012 AD."²

That is not correct, there is no data that the Olmecs predicted the end of the world at the end of the calendar. In addition, there is also much debate to when the calendar started.

.

Footnotes

1. Hancock, Finger-Prints Of The Gods pg.122, 1995

2. Finger-Prints Of The Gods pg.122, 1995

Last edited on 29 Nov 2010 15:40 by CaneLaz Show more

Re: Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

CaneLaz 20 Nov 2010 05:15

Early in FPOTG, Hancock makes the assumption that traditional geologist don't accept Hapgood's theory of ECD, yet they are unable to prove it incorrect.¹

Not really, the theory relies heavily on the notion that the crust is rigid. This is simply not the case. ECD has proven to contradict what geology has actually tested. In addition to the rigidity of the crust, areas of volcanic eruptions known as hot spots also present a problem to ECD. Steve Krause states that "Yellowstone National Park, for example, sits on one such hot spot. Since the existence of a hot spot rests upon presence of a mantle plume, ECD would cause a dramatic shift in the locations of such hot spots. However, since evidence shows Yellowstone to be a very old hot spot, this weakens the possibility of such a shift due to ECD occurring."²

This is just a start. I can see many more questionable things to point out on FPOTG.

Footnotes

1. Hancock, Finger-Prints of the Gods, pg11

2. http://www.skrause.org/writing/papers/hapgood_and_ecd.shtml

Re: Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

Astrogeek 20 Nov 2010 16:13

The biggest problem for ECD as a theory, is that even if we accepted all of Hapgood's ideas about the structure of the earth, etc., the proposed mechanism (a centrifugal action on a build-up of ice at the poles) does not provide enough force to actually move the crust. Einstein pointed this out in his forward to Hapgood's book. Hapgood was never able to resolve this issue. Then on top of that there are all of the other issues that you raise above, and more.

ECD is not accepted because it doesn't match the facts, which the Hancock's of this world simply wave away.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

CaneLaz 05 Jan 2011 19:41

I found this to be interesting in regards to Hapgood and Hancock. It refutes their biggest argument.

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/piri.php

Re: Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock

CaneLaz 25 Feb 2011 15:52

Here's some more on Hancock and Finger-Prints of the Gods:

" I remembered the ancient calendrical system of Central America, which the Olmecs had initiated. According to them, and to their more famous successors the Mayas, there weren't any great expanses of time left, let alone three millenia. The Fifth Sun was all used up and a tremendous earthquake was building to destroy humanity two days before Christmas in AD 2012."

Ignore for one second the GMT plus two correlation that he uses( I seldom see 2012ers use it) and examine this quote. At the time this book was written, Olmec writing had still not been discovered. Yet Hancock makes the bold statement numberous times in his book that they had calculated and predicted the "end of the world." It wasn't until a few years later that experts found proof of Olmec writing(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-oldest-writing.html). Second, Hancock falls for the Fifth Sun confusion. Several times throughout the book, he states rather confidently that Fifth Sun cosmology was both Mayan, Olmec and Aztec. This is simply not the case as Dr. Normark shows here: http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/2012-how-to-spot-a-prophet%E2%80%99s-maya-hoax-the-aztec-calendar-stone/

---

There are so many bold yet unfounded statements in this work that I could possibly start my own book about FPOTG's.

Let me know what y'all think. It will eventually be cleaned up and added to my FPOTG article that I'm working on.