I thought this post may be of general interest, especially since so many on this board are serious students of Egyptology, presumably of orthodox and alternative disposition.
I remember the moment when I got turned on to Egyptology. It was early 1997 and I had just returned to Japan after a year of travel. I went to my local gym and saw Peter the Canadian riding an exercise bike while holding a book. Having not had seen him in a while, I went over and said hello. After the usual things I asked about the book, Fingerprints of the Gods. Peter said it was an amazing read. He showed me the first chapter where the Piri Reis maps were discussed. That was enough. At the earliest possible convenience, I went to the local English bookstore where I eagerly allowed myself to be gouged for around 40 US dollars so I could get my own copy.
I presume many of you know the same learning curve that I went through. I was utterly amazed. Graham proved to be a master writer, but the subject matter he was discussing was even more compelling. So many unanswered mysteries! In certain contexts there seemed to be coverups. I was enraged. The 'alts' held the moral high ground. The orthos, personified by ZH, had been exposed.
It took me a few years to calm down enough to look for, or stumble across, 'ortho' arguments that reasonably countered and in some cases fully or adequately addressed my earlier concerns. Then it took me more time to forgive the ortho community for not doing this in a systematic way: That came when I realized that I had overlooked the fact that Egyptology was essentially a nebulous community of intellectuals from various disciplines, rather than a singular entity-agency whose headquarter recalls the one seen at the top of Seattle's Space Needle in that Austin Powers movie whose name I no longer recall.
I am thankful to both sides for reminding me of my own position in the proverbial peanut gallery, as a pretty bright guy with a nominal commitment to a vast subject that I really know very little about.
That said, I think I can hang my hat on some ideas that may not be accepted by orthos yet, such as the OCT. Any layman can confidently state that the pyramid texts support the notion of Orion being a big deal to the AEs, and one doesn't require a doctorate in Egyptology or astronomy to opine on the matter of the three pyramids and the belt stars being aligned in sufficient measure. Such an assessment is a matter of opinion, which is to say that the OCT is accessible to unpedigreed types like myself.
That said, when I do come back to this subject, as I do rarely, I find myself being more and more inclined to want to hear what the orthodox community has to say before I delve deeply into any alt idea that is new, or one that I haven't thought about in a long time, as was the case with those bare walls in the King's Chamber. I have been consistently pleased by the quality of the responses; framing my question correctly seems to be the main issue. In a nutshell, I have gone from framing them as guilty of coverups to granting them the benefit of the doubt and true respect.
That said, I think there is enough on the alt side that the orthos can't answer to- although maybe they have, concedes this peanut gallery member: like those holes in the sarcophagus in the KC that apparently can't be drilled but with diamonds (I think!), or how nicely the GP's dimensions align with the top half of the planet and pi. A bunch of stuff, as you all know probably a lot more than I ever do.
Anyway, I thought I might just throw this post out there. Looking back over the last quarter century or so, I'm just wondering if any of you would care to comment on how your views of Egyptology have changed or strengthened over the years. Many of you probably entered this discussion in much the same way that I did. Others, clearly, seem to have had a much more longstanding interest in this subject. I really do think that the Internet and this board has benefitted both parties.
Any takers?
I remember the moment when I got turned on to Egyptology. It was early 1997 and I had just returned to Japan after a year of travel. I went to my local gym and saw Peter the Canadian riding an exercise bike while holding a book. Having not had seen him in a while, I went over and said hello. After the usual things I asked about the book, Fingerprints of the Gods. Peter said it was an amazing read. He showed me the first chapter where the Piri Reis maps were discussed. That was enough. At the earliest possible convenience, I went to the local English bookstore where I eagerly allowed myself to be gouged for around 40 US dollars so I could get my own copy.
I presume many of you know the same learning curve that I went through. I was utterly amazed. Graham proved to be a master writer, but the subject matter he was discussing was even more compelling. So many unanswered mysteries! In certain contexts there seemed to be coverups. I was enraged. The 'alts' held the moral high ground. The orthos, personified by ZH, had been exposed.
It took me a few years to calm down enough to look for, or stumble across, 'ortho' arguments that reasonably countered and in some cases fully or adequately addressed my earlier concerns. Then it took me more time to forgive the ortho community for not doing this in a systematic way: That came when I realized that I had overlooked the fact that Egyptology was essentially a nebulous community of intellectuals from various disciplines, rather than a singular entity-agency whose headquarter recalls the one seen at the top of Seattle's Space Needle in that Austin Powers movie whose name I no longer recall.
I am thankful to both sides for reminding me of my own position in the proverbial peanut gallery, as a pretty bright guy with a nominal commitment to a vast subject that I really know very little about.
That said, I think I can hang my hat on some ideas that may not be accepted by orthos yet, such as the OCT. Any layman can confidently state that the pyramid texts support the notion of Orion being a big deal to the AEs, and one doesn't require a doctorate in Egyptology or astronomy to opine on the matter of the three pyramids and the belt stars being aligned in sufficient measure. Such an assessment is a matter of opinion, which is to say that the OCT is accessible to unpedigreed types like myself.
That said, when I do come back to this subject, as I do rarely, I find myself being more and more inclined to want to hear what the orthodox community has to say before I delve deeply into any alt idea that is new, or one that I haven't thought about in a long time, as was the case with those bare walls in the King's Chamber. I have been consistently pleased by the quality of the responses; framing my question correctly seems to be the main issue. In a nutshell, I have gone from framing them as guilty of coverups to granting them the benefit of the doubt and true respect.
That said, I think there is enough on the alt side that the orthos can't answer to- although maybe they have, concedes this peanut gallery member: like those holes in the sarcophagus in the KC that apparently can't be drilled but with diamonds (I think!), or how nicely the GP's dimensions align with the top half of the planet and pi. A bunch of stuff, as you all know probably a lot more than I ever do.
Anyway, I thought I might just throw this post out there. Looking back over the last quarter century or so, I'm just wondering if any of you would care to comment on how your views of Egyptology have changed or strengthened over the years. Many of you probably entered this discussion in much the same way that I did. Others, clearly, seem to have had a much more longstanding interest in this subject. I really do think that the Internet and this board has benefitted both parties.
Any takers?