Forbidden Egyptology

reply to post by Harte

Originally posted by Harte
BTW, your quote is from 1999.

Yes I know, but I see no problem in that?

Originally posted by Harte
Gantenbrink cannot legally be given a permit to continue (no individual can be permitted - they must go through a recognized academic institute or society, that is the law in Egypt.

This is what Gantenbrink saying about that.

The success of the three Upuaut campaigns was based on the efforts of not one individual,
but a dedicated team, travelling paths opened by committed officials.

And take for instance a look to all the team members.

www.cheops.org...

Originally posted by Harte
His backers at the German Institute in Cairo have not applied for the concession.

That is not true because look what Hawass himself said about that in your own quote.

The German Institute in Cairo had the concession to the Great Pyramid, and I could see that they were not interested in completing the work on the shafts. So I decided that the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) would do the work instead.

So in my opinion, Hawass and CO doesn’t wanted Gantenbrink there anymore.

That is absolute another story in my opinion.

Gantenbrink and his team was absolute willing and ready to continue there magnificent work then, but they where intentional taken out of the loop.
And the real reason for that isn’t so difficult to understand in my opinion.

Here another site I stumbled on, www.hansrey.com...
It fits in my opinion exactly in this excellent thread “Forbidden Egyptology”.


[edit on 10/4/08 by spacevisitor]

If I started using "google scholar" Id only get to things already known, not to the unknown.

Ah Skyfloating, browsers work by finding what exists - not what doesn't! LOL. It helps to understand what is known to give speculation on the unknown a basis of reality.

This concept is really difficult for you to understand since you keep bringing up the attempt to draw our attention to the known and away from the unknown.

I suggested google scholar because you said this:

But I can find nothing on google reflective of what I actually mean to say and show. So until google catches up with the depths of ancient libraries...

Guess what was in most ancient libraries Skyfloating? Unknown stuff or known stuff? answers known stuff.

Strange

To other matters

* Hawass has his website sponsored by an ET-Channeller

So I've hired Hindu Librarians who give Indian astrology lessons in University library - after hours - doesn this mean I'm a devotee of Gagesha?

* Hawass gave his consent to ET-channellling activities in the Pyramids

I bet these were activities that were non-evasive, he and his ministry tend to restrict only that which might damage the site.

* Hawass holds friendly associations with Edgar Cayce A.R.E.

They denonate money to Egyptian research, I believe they paid for the RC-14 test in 86 and 94. One is always nice to donors.

* The CIA has been caught activley sponsoring fringe theories

So?

* Masonic men of reputation espouse fringe-egyptology

So? Why shouldn't they?

You associate with skeptics who don't believe any evidence for Atlantis or Aliens has been found - does that mean you really don't believe what you keep talking about?

reply to post by Hanslune


One "layer of deception" in my conspiracy-minded-worldview is making look people who dont hold consensus viewpoints look stupid. The intention of this thread has been to weaken this stance. Thats been the motivation behind the thread. Not to actually prove fringe science, but start at layer 1:

Are pseudoscientists worth listening to or are they a bunch of kooks to be laughed at?

This "layer" is evident everyhwere...in school, in the press, even right here at a forum that supposedly invites kooks to cook.

In any case, by talking to us, Hanslune, you legitimize us. Thank you.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Harte

I haven't seen any of this actually documented in his thread either, though I suppose I may have missed it.

You must have missed anything pertaining to something different than you believe.

"Nothing to see here folks. Move on."

Actually, no.

I've seen where you have asserted (almost) all the things you claim to have "evidence" for. But I say that you haven't shown any of this "evidence."
I have not seen where you have demonstrated that your claims are actually factual.

For example - you have asserted that Hawass has allowed "channeling" activities in the G.P.

You have not shown that Hawass controls tourism in the G.P. hence you have not demonstrated that Hawass has "allowed" anything at all.

For all we know, "channelling" activities go on there every day - done by members of paying tour groups.

Do you think Hawass cares what activities are conducted inside the GP if said activities do not result in any damage? How many "channeling" groups go into the GP during the times it's open and do their thing? How would Hawass know? Is there a special "channeling permit" these groups must have?

You claim Hawass' webpage is hosted by an ET channeller. That is factual, the man was a "channeller" at one point in time and was, in fact, during the time he was there at met Hawass. You wouldn't even know this last fact if I hadn't checked it for you, BTW. But you have not shown that Hawass is aware of this, that this person continues to believe in channeling, or that Hawass is "friends" with this guy - which you have implied.

I have said here and elswhere that the A.R.E. is a recognized academic society when it comes to Egyptology - they have paid Egyptologists in their group. They go through exactly the same processes that the University of Memphis, the German Institute in Cairo and the Smithsonian Institution (among others) go through when they want to conduct research at any archaeological site in Egypt.

That is the law. Hawass couldn't keep the A.R.E. out if he wanted to. You have not demonstrated that he can, nor have you shown that he doesn't want to.

The CIA thing is what I may have missed. I haven't seen where you've shown that the CIA is involved in any fringe archaeology, though you may have claimed so (I guess I didn't see this claim either.)

The idea that any Mason espouses fringe Egyptology ideas comes with the territory. When the Masons were founded, basically nothing was known about the age of the G.P. nor who built it or why.

They glommed onto it as part of their supposed Masonic "heritage" the same way they claim to have ties to the builders of Solomon's Temple.

So what?

They don't. You know this and so do I. The Masons weren't around back then. You know this as well and so do I.

Well, they do, sort of. I mean, the builders of both ancient sites were masons (small 'm') by definition, they laid stone after all, right? So, technically, they were masons (by trade) because they laid stone.

It was mason trade guilds that started the group we call "The Masons," so they have that connection, but no other.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
reply to post by Harte

 

Originally posted by Harte
BTW, your quote is from 1999.

Yes I know, but I see no problem in that?

Neither do I, but the shaft has been explored since then - in 2005.

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Harte
Gantenbrink cannot legally be given a permit to continue (no individual can be permitted - they must go through a recognized academic institute or society, that is the law in Egypt.

This is what Gantenbrink saying about that.

The success of the three Upuaut campaigns was based on the efforts of not one individual,
but a dedicated team, travelling paths opened by committed officials.

And take for instance a look to all the team members.

www.cheops.org...

Team members don't matter at all. What matters, again by Egyptian law, is that they must be associated with a recognized academic institution or society.

That's all.

They cannot legally permit Gatenbrink. An individual cannot receive the permit for this - only an institution or a society.

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Harte
His backers at the German Institute in Cairo have not applied for the concession.

That is not true because look what Hawass himself said about that in your own quote.

The German Institute in Cairo had the concession to the Great Pyramid, and I could see that they were not interested in completing the work on the shafts. So I decided that the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) would do the work instead.

So in my opinion, Hawass and CO doesn’t wanted Gantenbrink there anymore.

That is absolute another story in my opinion.

What does I could see that they were not interested in completing the work on the shafts. mean to you?

Do you have any reason to believe that the German Institute in Cairo had actually filed for a concession permit but were rejected by Hawass, whose job description does not include that option?

Originally posted by spacevisitorGantenbrink and his team was absolute willing and ready to continue there magnificent work then, but they where intentional taken out of the loop.
And the real reason for that isn’t so difficult to understand in my opinion.

It is against Egyptian law for an individual to be permitted to do the work you claim Gatenbrink is "willing and ready" to do. It is up to Gatenbrink to get his associated academic society to apply for the concession to do so.
Alternatively, Gatenbrink could realign himself with some other institution or society that does wish to continue the work and then they could apply for it.

I think you should perhaps do some more reading about Gatenbrink and the German Institute. Perhaps he is no longer with them. I don't know.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


fine, have it your way. Do you want to "be right" or explore possibilities?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

 

fine, have it your way. Do you want to "be right" or explore possibilities?

The fact that you see that as an "either-or" proposition is the problem I have with most of your positions.

One can do both, after all.

Harte

Do you need to be legitimized? Are you presently illegal? LOL

[edit on 10/4/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by spacevisitor
reply to post by Harte

 

Originally posted by Harte
BTW, your quote is from 1999.

Yes I know, but I see no problem in that?

Neither do I, but the shaft has been explored since then - in 2005.

Yes I know that.

Originally posted by Harte
What does I could see that they were not interested in completing the work on the shafts. mean to you?

That he [Hawass] had the impression or such for “some reason” that they [Gantenbrink and his team] were not interested in completing the work on the shafts anymore.
“some reason” = more a sham in my opinion.

But what does it mean to you then?

Originally posted by Harte
Do you have any reason to believe that the German Institute in Cairo had actually filed for a concession permit but were rejected by Hawass,

They were rejected for the reason of secrecy, so in a way “Forbidden Egyptology”.

Originally posted by Harte
whose job description does not include that option?

I really wonder, how do you know for shore what is or isn’t included in his job description?

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Harte
What does I could see that they were not interested in completing the work on the shafts. mean to you?

That he [Hawass] had the impression or such for “some reason” that they [Gantenbrink and his team] were not interested in completing the work on the shafts anymore.
“some reason” = more a sham in my opinion.

But what does it mean to you then?

I read it for what it is, Hawass' assessment.

How would he reach this assessment if the German Institute had applied for another permit?

You should at the very least make some effort to discover the truth before you call someone a liar, shouldn't you?

You do not know whether any application for permit was ever filed by any group that wanted to do this work at anytime after Gatenbrink's last exploration, do you?

Yet your mind is completely closed to the very real possibility that the German Institute may very well have decided themselves that further exploration beyond the end of an 8 inch by 8 inch shaft wasn't worth their time, effort or money.

See if you can find out before you blame Hawass, that's all I'm saying.

After all, the shaft was eventually explored further, wasn't it?

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Harte
Do you have any reason to believe that the German Institute in Cairo had actually filed for a concession permit but were rejected by Hawass,

They were rejected for the reason of secrecy, so in a way “Forbidden Egyptology”.

I understand that you believe this to be the case. I also understand that you haven't shown any evidence that this is the case.

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Harte
whose job description does not include that option?

I really wonder, how do you know for shore what is or isn’t included in his job description?

You claimed that Hawass blocked further work by Gatenbrink on these shafts, did you not?

It is incumbent on you to show that Hawass did this. It is not incumbent on me to show that he didn't.

What I do know is that Hawass works for the Egyptian Supreme Council on Antiquities. They do not work for him. It is the Council that issues these permits.

I'm not exactly fond of Hawass myself. I don't know him. I'll agree that he sometimes seems to be more of a publicity hound than an Egyptologist.

But that doesn't make him a conspirator, and it doesn't mean he would exclude a researcher from conducting research so he could take over and get all the credit himself, or any of the other things that have been said about him on this board.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

 

fine, have it your way. Do you want to "be right" or explore possibilities?

The fact that you see that as an "either-or" proposition is the problem I have with most of your positions.

One can do both, after all.

Harte

As I see it Skyfloating, that's your whole problem. You don't explore possibilities, you pull things from thin air, make claims, insinuations, etc., present them as fact with little to no real evidence and expect people to buy it.

By denying facts because of WHO they are coming from (me, and you dislike me) is spilling the baby with the bathwater.

There is very little you have presented, other than speculation, insinuation, innuendo, etc., that can be taken as fact. Because of this, I don't dislike you. I pity you.

Harte is absolutely correct. You can "be right" and "explore possibilities", both. The fact that you see that as an either-or proposition suggests that you prefer NOT to deal with facts.

I've said pretty much the same thing to you several times before and you still don't GET IT. Seems to me that you are the one who doesn't DENY IGNORANCE. Pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

cormac

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Actually, throughout my ATS years Ive taken both the skeptics and the believers position and many positions in between on a variety of subjects.

Ive never seen you take any other position than the mainstream/skeptics position.

What does this tell us?

I wont answer that. Its something to think about.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
I pity you.

I have and I will continue to post references, weblinks, pictures and evidence.

And you will probably continue not to adress the topic but wage personal insults and attacks like the one quoted above.

You are free to post whatever you want, just don't expect me to buy it just because you said so. Three years here doesn't make you an expert by any means.

As the topic of this thread is Forbidden Egyptology and not "What If", you have thus far failed to show where anything has actually been forbidden. Unless you count claims, insinuation and innuendo as FACT.

If you can actually show verification of something that has been forbidden, then do so. Otherwise you're just pandering to anyone who WANTS to believe it.

cormac

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Can you show me where I failed to provide documentation and explanation?

Can you explain why you repeatedly feel the need to resort to personal insults/attacks?

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Why do we find precision drilling holes in ancient artefacts?

Why were there no remains of bulls found in tombs allegedly made for "bulls" (serapeum in saqqara)?

Why is Gantenbrink excluded from further research?

Why is a disc-shaped artefact from the egyptian museum described as a "vase" although there´s a whole in the middle of it?

and a few dozen more questions you and others supposedly "answered" in this thread.

But I do not feel they are "answered". The "explanations" given are not satisfactory AT ALL.

If you´re that easily satisfied by these "answers", so be it.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Yes, you've posted alot. The only thing that means to me is that you like to talk. Including your last post, what you have failed to do is:

show where anything has actually been forbidden.

You asked:

Why do we find precision drilling holes in ancient artefacts?

Not sure of who's definition of "precision" is being used, but if they are there then obviously someone had the capability of making them.

Why were there no remains of bulls found in tombs allegedly made for "bulls" (serapeum in saqqara)?

Taken from:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Serapeum consists of a number of long straight underground gallerys cut into the rock, with side chambers containing large granite sarcophagi, weighing up to 70 tonnes each, which held the mummified remains of the bulls. Mariette found one undisturbed burial which is now at the Agricultural Museum in Cairo. The other 24 sarcophagi had been robbed.

Why is Gantenbrink excluded from further research?

Someone else answered that, you evidently don't wish to believe them.

Why is a disc-shaped artefact from the egyptian museum described as a "vase" although there´s a whole in the middle of it?

I admit, that is an unusual piece. I don't know what it is, either.

You still haven't shown where any of this has been forbidden. There is a difference between that and not having all the answers.

cormac

[edit on 11-4-2008 by cormac mac airt]

[edit on 11-4-2008 by cormac mac airt]

On Hawass, the shafts and "forbidden egyptology"....

Seeing as all three of these have been mentioned on the last page or so I felt it necessary to post this for further argument...

Hawass has openly refused to date pieces of wood that were discovered in the shafts of the GP. There is wood (pieces of a rod that's become part of the Dixon Relics) that is still lodged there. The small pieces recovered by Dixon went missing in England (go figure) and then were traced to a museum in Aberdeen in 2001, but it hasn't been located yet...(go figure)

On the remaining piece that's still there Hawass had this to say:
Some suggest that carbon dating the wood would allow accurate dating of the Pyramid because wood must have been left in the shaft when the Pyramid was constructed (given that the shaft was sealed) but I contend that this is not absolute. Wood may been placed in the shaft after construction via the shaft’s exit, if one exists.
In his own words.

Why not date it anyway just to be sure? Prove his assumption right why don't he....He relies on the highly anomalous results from the dating of itty bitty pieces of wood/charcoal from the outside of the GP to promote his case, but dating wood found inside a sealed shaft is suddenly not absolute? Bogus.

From another site: Here
He (Gantenbrink) discovered a long wooden rod whose shape and general appearance seemed identical to that of the shorter piece found by the Dixons in 1872 at the bottom of this shaft. The wood could, of course, be carbon-14 dated and provide further insight as to the age of the Great Pyramid. So far the wooden rod has not been retrieved by Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Director-General of the Giza monuments, in spite of the many requests for him to do so.

Why not? What's he waiting for? What's he hiding?

As a side note: I brought this up in one of Scott Creighton's recent threads, and he said he'll look into any possible results from tests conducted on any wood taken from inside the GP. Waiting to hear back. As such I haven't been able to locate any of these results, even on Google Scholar.

Here is a site on core drilling by the Ancient Egyptians. Even the sarcophagus in the GP shows evidence of same.

www.geocities.com...

cormac

Originally posted by Harte
See if you can find out before you blame Hawass, that's all I'm saying.

Well Harte, what you saying here is fair enough for me so I try to find out.

And after searching for the “some reason” why Gantenbrink was banned from resuming the exploration and opening the door in the shaft I found this.
The first link doesn’t work in the reply but this one does.
There are very interesting remarks in this article, true or not, I can’t proof it of course.
If this is the way it really happened, I come to the following conclusions.
That it looks that the blame I put on Hawass is wrongful.
But that I was right about the reason of secrecy, in a way “Forbidden Egyptology”, because there was indeed an attempt to a cover-up by others named in the paper in my opinion.
But I hope you and others will read it too and give also an opinion about it.

Historical Paper from Circular Times Archives 1997
As written by Robert Bauval

Archaeological Developments at Giza
by Robert Bauval

In March 1993, a small ‘door’ made of marble or limestone with two copper handles fixed on it was discovered by a mechanized robot (Upuaut II).Since then the discoverer, robotics engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink from Munich, has been banned from resuming the exploration and opening the door.

The official reason given by the Egyptian Antiquities Authorities (known as the Supreme Council of Antiquities - SCA -) was that Gantenbrink leaked the news of the discovery to the British Press in April 1993 and thus, apparently, broke a ‘rule’ of archaeology. The Director of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo, Dr Rainer Stadelmann, sided with the Egyptians and condemned Gantenbrink for his press action.

Dr Stadelmann was adamant about the non-importance of the find. “This is not a door; there is nothing behind it.” The President of the Supreme Council for Antiquities, Dr Muhamad Bakr, went as far as claiming a ‘hoax’. “The orifice of the shaft is too small for the robot to go through” and accused the “German scientist” of not having the correct ‘approvals’ from the SCA to carry out the exploration.

Dr Bakr fired the Chief Inspector of the Giza Pyramid Plateau, Dr Zahi Hawass, although the official reason given was that a valuable ancient ‘statue’ under the custody of Hawass was stolen from Giza. Three months later, in June1993, Dr Bakr himself was fired and replaced by Dr Nur El Din. Amid accusations of malpractice and fraud, Dr Bakr spoke of a “mafia” which had been involved with the Pyramids for “the last twenty years”. Refusing to give names, Dr Bakr said, “I wanted the whole matter investigated by the prosecution authorities, but my request was refused.”

Meanwhile, Dr Hawass, who went to the USA, claimed that the discovery of the ‘door’ was “THE discovery in Egypt,” and speculated that on important artefacts behind it. In early 1994, Dr Hawass was reinstalled at his post at the Giza Pyramids. Meanwhile, Gantenbrink offered his robot to the Egyptians and also offered to train an Egyptian technician to man the equipment and open the door. The Egyptians rejected the offer, “We are very busy at the moment,” replied Dr El Din. About the same time, Dr Hawass was to declare that, “I do not think this is a ‘door’ and there is nothing behind it.” In March 1996 however, Dr Hawass changed his mind once again and declared Gantenbrink’s find as being one of huge interest and that the ‘door’ would be opened in September 1996 by a Canadian ‘mission’, but not including Rudolf Gantenbrink or his robot.

www.dreamscape.com...

Hi spacevisitor,

For what it's worth, here's my take on the information you provided.

From the first two sources it appears that Gantenbrink opened his mouth without proper authorization and that is why the SCA and Dr. Stadelmann shut him down.

From your third source, I would say that Dr. Stadelmann and the SCA were trying to rein in the horse before it left the farm, so to speak. In other words, they were trying to control the situation before it got out of hand.

From your fourth source, I don't actually believe Hawass was ever really fired. I have a feeling, no proof, that Dr. Bakr was possibly involved in something he shouldn't have been and it came back to haunt him. Otherwise, why fire him?

For the last part, I would say after giving the situation time to cool down, Hawass, et al., where ready to try again but as a more measured pace.

None of which means that Hawass is blameless for anything, he's more showman than archaeologist alot of the time. He really needs to let the investigation of the shafts finish to their conclusion, regardless of what is found.

As with anything else, I'm sure there is more to the story than what you have sourced.

cormac