Date: 01 Jan 1998
Remote Name: 18.104.22.168
While current egyptology does not take seriously the theories of Hancock or Bauval, neither did scholars living during the dark ages take the round earth theory seriously. This does not prove nor disprove their creative concepts. It only indicates that people work within the accepted paradigm of their age. As a collegue recently expressed, `It's often possible for us to overlook information that doesn't fit our `filters of awareness`. What we don't believe can be, often `can't be`, simply because we aren't willing or able to see it. I've read of a scholar who said of similar ideas, `This is the kind of stuff I wouldn't believe even if it were true.` We cannot look to prevaling scientific or theological opinion when ideas outside the paradigm of the group challenge the consensus. We must explore on our own, but armed with the tools used by conventional thinkers. We can't throw out carbon-14 datings if they don't fit our theories, for example. We must allow our theories to breath and expand, to find a way to understand a world of thought, emotion, movement and life. Perhaps understanding how and why we choose to believe one thing or another is more critical then deciding on the actual date of the creation of the sphinx. What I find most distressing about the general academic response is the lack of respect paid to a potentially life-changing idea. Who cares, they cry, if geologists are beginning to agree that the dating on the sphinx could be way off (based not on circumstantial archealogical evidence, but on well-defined geological erosion patterns)? Actual science with physical evidence, not conjecture or opinion. Of course, actual science with physical evidence has been wrong over and over again, but so has conjecture based on circumstantial archealogical evidence. Why not bring all of our resources to the table to access greater understanding and clarity? But then, what's new? The earth used to be flat, the moon made of cheese and slavery an acceptable form of social contract. As ideas change,as hearts open, new versions of reality emerge and we are recreated. What do you think of them apples?
Date: 17 Nov 1997
Remote Name: 22.214.171.124
The written record was found in the late 1880's and keep quite, for some time, and eventually reappeared in the area of Egyptian Myths, not more then 30 years ago in published works, in the american (english) language. Look to Founders Petre as one of the finders and translators; the record first appeared in english in 1886, and as late as 1975, that I have found.
Date: 26 May 1997
Remote Name: 126.96.36.199
Go to the mummy page .. as well you can find useful info in the quick windows and the tut page ......[egypt/_private/disc1_aftr.htm]