It is with regret, Mr Bauval, that I note your tactic of slamming each individual who dares to disagree with your ideas and praise for those who support you. I have experienced this shift from when I was sympathetic to your ideas to my opposition, upon closer examination of the evidence. In case you chose to deny this, I have copies of e-mail correspondence between us. Unlike your recent behaviour on Mr Hancock's message board where you posted e-mails from individuals without permission, thereby breaking copyright, I will not include them here. But please note that I will be keeping them on record and should you press me on this matter by denying this point, I give advance warning that I will not hesitate to release some of their content. Mr Bauval, aside from myself you have slated Dr Hawass and Dr Spence, amongst others. Dr Spence has never said anything publicly offensive about you and yet in your article on Mr Hancock's website you have effectively accused her of dishonesty, fraud and falsifying of evidence to suit her "purpose". A quick investigation into your accusations regarding Dr Spence's Nature article on astronomical pyramid alignment reveals them to be baseless: Polak suggested a related method to that used by Dr Spence, but it does not conform to the criteria set out by Dr Spence. It is useful to note that Polak withdrew his suggested method within a year of publication. The method was known before Polak, having been suggested for timekeeping by Gensler at the end of the 19th C and the use of two stars actually seems to be embedded within folk tradition when there is no polar star. The only accessible references to these works are in Zaba which is clearly referenced in the article. Nature does not usually reference obscure Czech journals or books published in the 1880s, which renders your vocal criticism in this regard invalid; it is a point which renders your vocal criticism in this regard invalid. Zaba did not reject the method for the reasons given by yourself, for the rejection came because it would not prove accurate over time and it was a secondary method. Furthermore, references to the Great Pyramid shafts would have been rightly removed from Dr Spence's as unnecessary to the main thrust of her argument, particularly when it is born in mind that not ever Egyptologist accepts that they are star-shafts. You have also been vocal in voicing criticism over Dr Spence's omission of Haack's article, which is a hypocritical stance considering that you never knew about his article, let along mentioned or referenced it in any of your works, before Dr Spence's article was published. The omission was an unfortunate oversight which happens from time to time in the archaeological discipline and usually does not indicate poor research, nor does it in this case. Finally, the gradient line error was unfortunate but the reality is that it does not affect Dr Spence's result: the calculations done should have converted Cos 30 into azimuth. When 0 is divided by Cos 30 you get 0; therefore the basic date does not change, only the gradient of the line which can be accommodated without problems. The published results are therefore not incorrect as you have claimed.
Mr Bauval, you have claimed that Dr E.C. Krupp supports your claim that Dr Spence's work is fatally flawed. Yet, having spoken with Dr Krupp, he has not examined either the Nature article generally or the astromonical calculations behind Dr Spence's results. Your statement, therefore, is a misrepresentation of the facts and you owe the public and Dr Krupp an apology for the misrepresentation. However, I suspect this will not be forthcoming.
I was recently at the University of Cape Town, where I spoke with Professor Tony Fairall, amongst many other academics. Tony produced a production on the astronomy of the Great Pyramid which runs at the Cape Town Planterium, which he heads. At the end of the production he examines the proposed Giza-Orion and Sphinx-Leo correlations, and finds them to be lacking in substance. The production is now showing in planeteriums across the United States; however, the interesting thing is that almost all of the heads of the American planeteriums had never heard of you, Mr Bauval and Mr Hancock. Contrary to your beliefs, both of you are far from being at the centre of archaeology and academia generally has chosen to ignore your cult beliefs. Scientists examine and evaluate the evidence in proper manners and procedures; it is a lesson both of you would do well to learn. Until such time, both of you will continue sitting on the fringe and be rightly regarded as pseudoscientists.
Mr Bauval, despite your vindictive and false portrayals regarding the Pennsylvania State University conference, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all participants in the debate the best of luck - and for them to have a good time at the local bar afterwards together! In other words, leave your professional disagreements behind you at the conference and relax at night.
I am still waiting for Mr Bauval to point out the alleged "personal insults" made in my article "An analysis of the quality of Graham Hancock's science", and I will keeping on about this matter until I receive a public apology for the false allegations and personal insults which have been hurled in my direction.
Mr Bauval, you have also attempted on Mr Hancock's message board to deride my degrees. At the time of writing this letter I do not have a Masters degree in archaeology, for the simple reason that I have taken two years off degree studying to do my own archaeological studies and to earn money on the side in IT. Make no mistake, I will be returning to university to complete my studies. You appear to be of the opinion that as you have written two best-selling books that means only professors who have had years of archaeological experience and many journal articles behind them are qualified in opposing you, and those who do not have Masters and Doctorate degrees are insignificant. In this you are sadly mistaken and again show a distinct lack of understanding of the functioning of the archaeological profession. For example, one of the foremost rock art researchers in southern Africa is Royden Yates, with whom I have had an acquaintance. Royden is currently employed at the South African Museum and is also extensively involved in the important Blombos Cave project run jointly by Dr Chris Henshilwood (University of Cape Town and the SA Museum) and Associate-Professor Judy Sealy (University of Cape Town). According to the criteria you have set, Royden is not qualified to critique your work if he so choose to. I am afraid on this particular ploy of yours, you are very much incorrect. I have never belittled your engineering degrees and experience, and have never called you any names in public on Mr Hancock's message board; therefore I request a public apology for the personally attacks, name calling and false allegations you have deliberately brought against me.
In December 1997 I was helping with the excavation at the South African West Coast site of Dune Field Midden. Professor John Parkington introduced a group of us to a farmer and restaurant owner about 45 minutes drive away. The farmer/restaurant owner showed us around his grounds, which contained Oldowan stone tools, raw material rock sources and even worn groves in the boulders where it is postulated that australopithecines sat. The guy has no formal training in any form in archaeology. But he has a deep fascination and healthy respect for our hominin past, and he has taken every precaution to preserve his material in situ. He has also educated himself and his scientific knowledge and know-how is phenomenal, and is a credit to him. He understands how science functions. It is a lesson and example many people outside the archaeological discipline would do well to follow.
There is an old saying: if you have got nothing to contribute, don't say anything. Here's another saying: novels sell. Now if you will excuse me, I need to return to the rock art and strontium isotope research which currently occupies my time.
Yours sincerely,
Michael J. Brass,
Archaeology BSocSc(Hons), University of Cape Town.
Excellent research my anus!!!!!!!
hello Deano, well because I am part of the great global conspiracy.
Originally posted by Novusordo 
