What we’ve been taught in school and are hearing from the ...

February 17, 2008 / Giza Developer /
    Not so much the archeologists, really, but the Egyptologists, i.e., those in the universities and academies who maintain the "standard" line that Giza was begun by King Khufu, whom they maintain built the Great Pyramid, and that the other structures of Giza are of Egyptian origin and provenance, beginning with the Fourth Dynasty. Acrheologists and researchers such as John Anthony West, Alan Alford, and Robert Bauval, while certainly outside the academic "mainstream" in that sense, have compiled very convincing and sophisticated arguments that the main structures at Giza (the temples, Sphinx, and the three larger pyramids) are much older. Even the ancient Egyptians themselves indicate - if one takes their own texts seriously - that their's was not an original civilization, but a legacy from something far older. Suffice it to say that about the only ones who maintain an Egyptian origin for these structures are the Egyptologists and university historians. I would also add that the hypothesis of a non-Egyptian origin and of the great antiquity of these structures does NOT depend on whether or not the weapon hypothesis is true. One may quite plausibly maintain their pre-Egyptian origins without it, as the research of West, Bauval, Alford, and Mehler indicate.
Posted in

Giza Developer

Business and Technical Developer of the Giza Community.

2 Comments

  1. MattB on January 9, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Yes the ‘establishment’ has a lot to answer for by way of the manipulation of public consumption archaeological data. Egyptian and Israeli archaeology would have to be the most ‘polluted’ fields one could study, followed closely by South American archaeology.

    Just look at the fight Martin Bernal went through with Black Athena and its subsequent works. Challenge the ‘dogma’ of the ‘academy’ and watch the wasps rise in anger against you-more often than not with simple strawman arguments and argumentum ad hominem rubbish.

    Show an interest in the idea and you are on the receiving end of the tu quoque. ‘You’re a conspiracy theorist’ etc etc

    Having said that, this phenomenon isn’t unique to archaeological or historical interpretation. You see it within all branches of science ( various creationist scholars have demonstrated time and again the unscientific bias of the ‘academy’ as well as Joseph’s work on public consumption physics), you see it in education with more and more idiotic methods and theories being used to justify stupidity, illiteracy and laziness.

    I dare say religion is, at least from the perspective of theological research, a candidate as well. Dumb down and polarise society and you have the ingredients for evil to thrive.



  2. Justina on January 9, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    And you don’t need sitchin’s dubious work to be valid, for the
    weapons hypothesis or other issues to be accurate either.
    The indications of something outrageous happening out
    there, and the physics and paranormal weirdness with pyramids
    is a given. that moon with a weld seam and a hollow, is damn
    artificial looking. Somewhere on the web or in a book is a
    picture of a child’s toy, it is assumed, that is a dead ringer
    for than moon.



Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events