MrRING
Android Futureman
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 6,053
How do people here feel about (and I'm probably gonna misspell their names, so brace yourselves) the theories of Zachariah Sitchen, of Stairway to Heaven and the 10th Planet fame, as compaired to Erik Von Dannaken, of Chariots of Fire infamy?
For me, I've always thought of Chariots as too much speculation compaired to questionible facts, and I thought that many of his theories were based on misreading archaeological evidence.
Sitchen seems more serious and fact-minded combined with some speculation, but the overal theories seem to make more sense in his books.
The reason I ask is that one of Sitchen's claims in Stairway to Heaven seems so plausible, that it's shocking that straight arachaeology hasn't taken notice of it. It's where he shows that the Pharoh's name as carved in the Great Pyramid has the exact kind of basic misspelling in hiroglipics as the translation book that the archaeologist who was excavating the pyramid was using for reference. Sitchen concludes that obviously the archaeologist, who was desperate to find some kind of thing to call his own, carved the name in the pyramid himself so he could finally "prove" who build the pyramid and it's age.
The claim is so persuasively made that I'm shocked that the facts Sitchen presents haven't been substantiated by the mainstream archaeology world... unless he's about as credible as what I've percieved Von Dannaken to be.
For me, I've always thought of Chariots as too much speculation compaired to questionible facts, and I thought that many of his theories were based on misreading archaeological evidence.
Sitchen seems more serious and fact-minded combined with some speculation, but the overal theories seem to make more sense in his books.
The reason I ask is that one of Sitchen's claims in Stairway to Heaven seems so plausible, that it's shocking that straight arachaeology hasn't taken notice of it. It's where he shows that the Pharoh's name as carved in the Great Pyramid has the exact kind of basic misspelling in hiroglipics as the translation book that the archaeologist who was excavating the pyramid was using for reference. Sitchen concludes that obviously the archaeologist, who was desperate to find some kind of thing to call his own, carved the name in the pyramid himself so he could finally "prove" who build the pyramid and it's age.
The claim is so persuasively made that I'm shocked that the facts Sitchen presents haven't been substantiated by the mainstream archaeology world... unless he's about as credible as what I've percieved Von Dannaken to be.
