Thoughts on Robert Bauval

[Winterwind]

I'm curious as to the UM community's thoughts on Robert Bauval.

I know he's frequently tossed in with the "fringies" group and I just don't see it.

I've read most of his work. He's never once mentioned ancient aliens of any sort. I can't recall him ever mentioning advanced and unknown ancient civilisations. From what I've read of his work he doesn't dispute the accepted dates for construction of the pyramids so... why is he so frequently lumped in with the likes of von Daniken, Childress, et al?

To be honest I've got a degree of admiration for, and envy of, the man. A mid-life career change that saw him go from an engineer to rooting around Eygpt and writing books. If I could do that I'd be a happy man rooting around myself with the complete works of the Alan Parsons Project loaded up on an MP3 player. Minus all the political and civil unrest in the region of course.

That being said, I don't think that touch of envy makes me biased. I'm genuinely curious why he's often lumped in with the others who are, in my view, either completely out to lunch or just sensationalising swill for money or both.

[Scott Creighton]

I'm curious as to the UM community's thoughts on Robert Bauval.

I know he's frequently tossed in with the "fringies" group and I just don't see it.

I've read most of his work. He's never once mentioned ancient aliens of any sort. I can't recall him ever mentioning advanced and unknown ancient civilisations. From what I've read of his work he doesn't dispute the accepted dates for construction of the pyramids so... why is he so frequently lumped in with the likes of von Daniken, Childress, et al?

To be honest I've got a degree of admiration for, and envy of, the man. A mid-life career change that saw him go from an engineer to rooting around Eygpt and writing books. If I could do that I'd be a happy man rooting around myself with the complete works of the Alan Parsons Project loaded up on an MP3 player. Minus all the political and civil unrest in the region of course.

That being said, I don't think that touch of envy makes me biased. I'm genuinely curious why he's often lumped in with the others who are, in my view, either completely out to lunch or just sensationalising swill for money or both.

Hi Winterwind,

Any researcher/writer who contests any aspect of Consensus Egyptology is considered by Egypt-apologists as “fringe”. That is how they operate—tarnish all dissenting voices with the same brush. If they can associate the likes of Bauval with the more outlandish alternative thinkers then they can paint Bauval as being just as guilty by mere association—an association the Egypt-apologists have themselves created and which, in reality, most likely should never have been made. In its simplest form it is nothing more than mud-slinging in the hope that some of the mud will stick and that his reputation will be tarnished. However, anyone with an ounce of common-sense can see right through such smear tactics.

I have personally met Robert and spent a lot of time with the man, discussing all manner of subjects including, of course, ancient Egypt and the pyramids. I have always found him to be gracious, respectful and highly intelligent. He has probably forgotten more about ancient Egypt than many on this Board actually know about the subject. But since some of his ideas run contrary to consensus Egyptology, he is fair game for the mud-slingers who treat the subject almost akin to a religious doctrine. And we all know the problems intolerant fanatics can cause.

Myself with Robert Bauval at the Great Pyramid

Regards,

SC

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Then perhaps Bauval should not associate with fantasists, and certainly not co-write a book with the likes of Ahmed Osman. "Breaking the Mirror of Heaven" certainly indulges in mud slinging no less than the above post. I bring attention to the photo of Zahi Hawass on page 55. This is straight from Goebels school of propaganda. I judge people on the friends they keep and who defends them. This topic seems contrived to me........

[questionmark]

Then perhaps Bauval should not associate with fantasists, and certainly not co-write a book with the likes of Ahmed Osman. "Breaking the Mirror of Heaven" certainly indulges in mud slinging no less than the above post. I bring attention to the photo of Zahi Hawass on page 55. This is straight from Goebels school of propaganda. I judge people on the friends they keep and who defends them. This topic seems contrived to me........

Well I have my suspicions about that too. So do most of the habituals, else they would have weight in.

[Winterwind]

Really? The two of you think it's contrived? Gee. So sorry I asked.

[questionmark]

Really? The two of you think it's contrived? Gee. So sorry I asked.

Sorry if it is not, but we have seen it all too frequently, and the first response within minutes surely made us suspect that somebody is trying to peddle his books again. (Not looking at anybody )

As to Bauval, I stopped taking him seriously when he claimed that the pyramids are oriented along the Orion belt. Anybody capable of reading a topographic map can see plainly the reason why the pyramids are placed as they are, and probably even why they have the sizes they have.

The topographic maps of Giza have been posted half a dozen times on this forum so I will not do it again here.

[Winterwind]

I realise my post count isn't high enough to make me memorable but I'm not a fringie or AA believer. That's mainly why I have such a low post count. I can't take the aliens/bigfoot/paranormal stuff seriously and when the only possible response I can think to those that do would be a joke, there's really no point in posting. I was simply, genuinely curious as to why he's painted with the same brush when I've never once heard a word from him about aliens, advanced secret civilisations, etc. Shame the influx of the absurd means even simple curiosity is met with insinuations of agendas though. Understandable but a shame.

But hey, forget I asked. I'll just stick with lurking and laughing in the crypto and ufo forums.

[questionmark]

I realise my post count isn't high enough to make me memorable but I'm not a fringie or AA believer. That's mainly why I have such a low post count. I can't take the aliens/bigfoot/paranormal stuff seriously and when the only possible response I can think to those that do would be a joke, there's really no point in posting. I was simply, genuinely curious as to why he's painted with the same brush when I've never once heard a word from him about aliens, advanced secret civilisations, etc. Shame the influx of the absurd means even simple curiosity is met with insinuations of agendas though. Understandable but a shame.

But hey, forget I asked. I'll just stick with lurking and laughing in the crypto and ufo forums.

See, you have to take these things with a pinch of salt, and with the thought in mind that just because they insist on some wild theories they might not be totally incompetent. One of my profs used to show up for lecture with two different shoes, the sweater under the shirt or wearing two ties... but that did not take away that he was a (sometimes eerie) capacity in his field.

There are some "fringies" whose word I would take any day in their areas of expertise (Davidotis, for example I would believe any day of the week if my question was regarding the resistance of a certain cement mix, just when he tries to sell me that the blocks in the pyramids are made of cement I tend to not believe him) but that does not mean that they always know what they are talking about.

Edited January 7, 2013 by questionmark

[SpiritWriter]

I don't know anything about what you guys are talking about but I went to the King Tut exhibit in Seattle, WA last week and got to see a lot of statues etc... From the tombs.

It was amazing... I can kind of see how some of it looks like alien stuff.... One very interesting part is the DNA results of king tut, his father and grandfather... You all probably know this but it is new to me how they were all inbred brother and sister, and the DNA results prooves it.. Cool...

Here's a link to some of the artifacts I got to see if you care at all..... Make sure your browser is on 'images' so you can see them.

http://www.google.com/search?q=seattle+king+tut&hl=en&safe=active&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=tSzrUNTJMqn8iQLqloG4Dg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=690&sei=uCzrUNaLN4vYigKvv4C4Bg

Edited January 7, 2013 by SpiritWriter

[Winterwind]

Your post makes me feel old. I saw the King Tut exhibit in Toronto back in the late 70s.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Winterwind

[+DieChecker]

I think Robert Bauval is a very intellegent man, but I think his Orion ideas are not just off track with modern Egyptiology, they are off in left field. All kinds of acrobatics have to be done to make those pyramids match those stars in the sky.

I also think that since he was rejected by Mainstream Egyptology, he decided to just head toward the Fringes, since he got acceptance there.

There are many threads here about the Orion belt alignment, but I've yet to see it shown to be a easily prooven theory. And a theory that requires all kinds of adjustments to the data to make it fit, really does not fit.

[Scott Creighton]

... All kinds of acrobatics have to be done to make those pyramids match those stars in the sky... And a theory that requires all kinds of adjustments to the data to make it fit, really does not fit.

SC: Alas, your comments (above) are somewhat outdated. I have discussed this issue with no less a figure than Dr Ed Krupp himself - the astronomer who first put forth the objections (that every Giza-Orion skeptic here regurgitates ad nauseum) to Bauval's Orion correlation. Whilst I cannot disclose the precise nature of our conversation (Dr Krupp does not wish me to make public his comments to me and I have to respect his wishes), I was every bit convinced that the validity of my response to Dr Krupp's original objections to Bauval's theory remained perfectly valid at the conclusion of our discussion.

Regards,

SC

Edited January 7, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

SC: Alas, your comments (above) are somewhat outdated. I have discussed this issue with no less a figure than Dr Ed Krupp himself - the astronomer who first put forth the objections (that every Giza-Orion skeptic here regurgitates ad nauseum) to Bauval's Orion correlation. Whilst I cannot disclose the precise nature of our conversation (Dr Krupp does not wish me to make public his comments to me and I have to respect his wishes), I was every bit convinced that the validity of my response to Dr Krupp's original objections to Bauval's theory remained perfectly valid at the conclusion of our discussion.

Regards,

SC

Scott, that reads to me as you saying "I talked to him, and I've not changed my mind" - hardly the same as "Krupp is wrong".

[Scott Creighton]

Scott, that reads to me as you saying "I talked to him, and I've not changed my mind" - hardly the same as "Krupp is wrong".

SC: Part of my discussion with Dr Krupp concerned my own 3-D Giza-Orion cosmographic perspective which resolves Dr Krupp's original objections to Bauval’s Orion correlation, much regurgitated on this Board. I cannot tell you what Dr Krupp actually said - suffice to say that he did not dispute it when I put it to him that my 3-D Giza-Orion cosmographic proposal did indeed resolve his much publicized objections to Bauval’s initial proposal. I am afraid that is as much as I can say on the matter without breaching Dr Krupp's confidence.

Regards,

SC

[cladking]

Robert Bauval is a member here and it is counter my policy to talk about members.

I will say this much though; I wish he were a fringee since it pains me to see sensible people in

the Egyptological camp. I've read some of his books but do not agree with his theories.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I always liked Bauval's commentary on things like AA - seems to keep them grounded in the most concrete likelihoods.

[+DieChecker]

SC: Alas, your comments (above) are somewhat outdated. I have discussed this issue with no less a figure than Dr Ed Krupp himself - the astronomer who first put forth the objections (that every Giza-Orion skeptic here regurgitates ad nauseum) to Bauval's Orion correlation. Whilst I cannot disclose the precise nature of our conversation (Dr Krupp does not wish me to make public his comments to me and I have to respect his wishes), I was every bit convinced that the validity of my response to Dr Krupp's original objections to Bauval's theory remained perfectly valid at the conclusion of our discussion.

Regards,

SC

I don't think they are outdated, because we discuss this almost every year and I've yet to be convinced. The constellation (as seen by Ancient Egyptians) has to be manipulated to make it fit the Pyramids on the ground. Yes, or No?

Robert Bauval is a member here and it is counter my policy to talk about members.

I will say this much though; I wish he were a fringee since it pains me to see sensible people in

the Egyptological camp. I've read some of his books but do not agree with his theories.

Really? I've never seen a Post from him... Sadly. He'd probably be a fun guy to discuss with.

Edited January 8, 2013 by DieChecker

[Scott Creighton]

I don't think they are outdated, because we discuss this almost every year and I've yet to be convinced. The constellation (as seen by Ancient Egyptians) has to be manipulated to make it fit the Pyramids on the ground. Yes, or No?

SC: No, it does not, just as I showed Dr Krupp, the man who first made this objection i.e. the upside-down argument. My 3-D Giza-Orion perspective resolves the upside-down issues Dr Krupp had, with particular reference to the cardinality of the shafts. In my discussions with Dr Krupp he did not deny that my own proposal resolved these issues. You are flogging a dead argument.

Regards,

SC

Edited January 8, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[samspade]

SC: No, it does not,

Scott i suggest you re-read his question, he mentioned how ancient egyptians viewed it, you lied in responding to his question.

[TheSearcher]

Not as much as some people are trying to flog their book methinks.

I realise my post count isn't high enough to make me memorable but I'm not a fringie or AA believer. That's mainly why I have such a low post count. I can't take the aliens/bigfoot/paranormal stuff seriously and when the only possible response I can think to those that do would be a joke, there's really no point in posting. I was simply, genuinely curious as to why he's painted with the same brush when I've never once heard a word from him about aliens, advanced secret civilisations, etc. Shame the influx of the absurd means even simple curiosity is met with insinuations of agendas though. Understandable but a shame.

But hey, forget I asked. I'll just stick with lurking and laughing in the crypto and ufo forums.

Now to answer the initial question, the problem comes from Bauval associating with people like Graham Hancock and Ahmed Osman. The latter is a mudslinger extraordinair himself (as mentioned by others before and as to Hancock, well lets just say that I do not have a lot of regard for the man.

As to Bauval himself, I might not agree with his ideas, I do however appreciated that he is the more grounded of the lot and in some areas, other than his Orion theory, makes quite a lot of sense.He is someone I can actually respect.

[Winterwind]

I'm obviously aware of his co-writing credits with Hancock but until this thread I'd never even heard of Ahmed Osman. That's why I started this thread. Bauval never struck me as being "out there" so I was legitimately curious why he gets such a bad reputation.

Now I have to google Osman.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Winterwind

[Alcibiades9]

Hi Winterwind,

Any researcher/writer who contests any aspect of Consensus Egyptology is considered by Egypt-apologists as “fringe”. That is how they operate—tarnish all dissenting voices with the same brush. If they can associate the likes of Bauval with the more outlandish alternative thinkers then they can paint Bauval as being just as guilty by mere association—an association the Egypt-apologists have themselves created and which, in reality, most likely should never have been made. In its simplest form it is nothing more than mud-slinging in the hope that some of the mud will stick and that his reputation will be tarnished. However, anyone with an ounce of common-sense can see right through such smear tactics.

I have personally met Robert and spent a lot of time with the man, discussing all manner of subjects including, of course, ancient Egypt and the pyramids. I have always found him to be gracious, respectful and highly intelligent. He has probably forgotten more about ancient Egypt than many on this Board actually know about the subject. But since some of his ideas run contrary to consensus Egyptology, he is fair game for the mud-slingers who treat the subject almost akin to a religious doctrine. And we all know the problems intolerant fanatics can cause.

Myself with Robert Bauval at the Great Pyramid

Regards,

SC

I must say you and Robert Bauval look very chummy in that photograph Scott...

I don't recall seeing RB on here.

His work is a bit wide ranging to comment on concisely, but I will say that having "encountered" him on the Hall of Maat and Graham Hancock forums I have the strong impression that money is never far away from his thoughts. His "contributions" seem mainly to consist of telling people to buy his book, or to find out more in his next book (once they've bought it of course). I could be wrong of course, but that is the impression I get. And he churns out books like nobody's business, clearly knowing that there's a ready market of "fans". I doubt anyone has that many "big" ideas in one lifetime that they can fill so many books with them.

Did he charge you for that picture?

Edited January 8, 2013 by Alcibiades9

[Alcibiades9]

Scott i suggest you re-read his question, he mentioned how ancient egyptians viewed it, you lied in responding to his question.

Now now... don't go calling people liars. That sort of thing makes the Baby Jesus cry. And I know you wouldn't want that, would you?

[+DieChecker]

SC: No, it does not, just as I showed Dr Krupp, the man who first made this objection i.e. the upside-down argument. My 3-D Giza-Orion perspective resolves the upside-down issues Dr Krupp had, with particular reference to the cardinality of the shafts. In my discussions with Dr Krupp he did not deny that my own proposal resolved these issues. You are flogging a dead argument.

Regards,

SC

My statement was... Yes, or No.... If I was standing just north of the Pyramids and looking at Orion, would they directly be reflected in the arrangement of the pyramids? Is there any angles that need to be adjusted to make it all fit?

In my experience with people who badly want others to believe them....when someone says that a opponent of their theory did not argue against, it usually means that the opponent refused to argue, because it was pointless, or they would not change the persons mind anyway, or because they simply get frustrated and abandon the discussion. The true measure of what Dr Krupp thinks would be told by what he Did Agree with.

Failure to Not-Agree is not Agreeing.

[samspade]

That sort of thing makes the Baby Jesus cry. And I know you wouldn't want that, would you?

jesus is fine with my statement because it was the truth and his statment stands for all to see.