Newsgroup: it.discussioni.misteri
Titolo: [Posnanky] In questa recensione Posnansky *è* ingegnere

Questa recensione di "Impronte degli Dei" afferma
lapidariamente che Posnansky era un ingegnere. Chi
scrive,qui, ha letto e fotocopiato il libro di Posnansky e
sostiene che nel  libro non vi si parla affatto di "animali
incisi estinti"!
Hancock, Graham
Fingerprints of the Gods
Crown, 1995
Keywords:
megaliths, houses of worship, funerary-cemetery-burial
sites, archaeoastronomical
observatories, symbolic landscaping, religion, myth,
folklore, cosmology, religious
iconography, Atlantis, prehistoric, ancient, Africa, Asia,
Australia, Crete, Egypt, Europe,
Greece, Meso-America, Middle East, North America, Pacific
Islands, Rome, South America,
world survey
Comment:
Is he saying that Osiris, Viracocha, and Quetzalcoatl are
identified with Orion and the legend
of their departure and promised return is linked to the
apparent rising and falling of Orion as
part of the precession cycle? Tasty! Does he postulate that
an advanced unrecognized
civilization during the inter-glacial era spread this gospel
and that a few of their monuments
remain, the Sphinx being one? That these crypto-Atlanteans
drowned when the ice melted and
a few culture-bearers regrouped in far corners? Have I got
it? Close? Hancock's use of a
scholarly book like "Hamlet's Mill" to bolster his opinions
makes me feel similar to the way I
imagine the covert military plane spotter Glenn Campbell
must feel now that the UFO loons are
circling Rachel, Nevada, and invading his playground at Area
51. The buzzer goes off when
Hancock talks about the Von Daniken-esque explanation of
Pacal's tomb at Palenque. This is
Von Daniken's "ancient astronaut." There is overwhelming
iconographic and TEXTUAL
reason to recognize this as the dead king making mudras as
he falls into the maw of the great
earth monster whose insatiable appetite eventually consumes
all living things. This is in the
territory covered by Mayan linguist Linda Schele, et al. I'm
gonna start raving. Arrrgh!
Hancock cites Posnansky on the age of the Sungate at
Tiahuanaco: I've read Posnansky's
original edition. He was an engineer, not an archeologist.
He didn't dig. He surveyed the place.
A good job too, apparently. They have a copy of his book at
the University of Texas. It's big. I
was the last person they let xerox out of it. Now it's in
special reserve. You have to read it in a
special room. Why? Part of the "conspiracy," no doubt.
Extinct hippos and elephants on the
Sungate? I have my xerox of Posnansky right here. I don't
see 'em. In the nascent computer
electronics era of the '70s, brainy acid-fueled fabulists
drew comix comparing the relief on the
Sungate to the patterns on printed circuits -- proof of
something, I forget. The key to
extraterrestrial engine design if only we understood --
something. But if it's proof of ancient
archaeoastronomical knowledge he wants, why didn't Hancock
comment on Posnansky's
remark in the caption under the photo about how the door
width of the Sungate is defined by
the shadow of the sun at the solstice? I wish Hancock well
in his further adventures. This will
raise some cash, but archaeology has lots of substantial
mysteries that are never part of these
kinds of books. BC
Comment:
My theory exactly! CY
Comment: See also my Notes on a Lecture by Graham Hancock
for further details on
Hancock's theories.
--
questo testo è reperibile qui
http://www.luckymojo.com/biblioh.html
altri testi anti-Hancock:
http://www.luckymojo.com/hancocklecture.html

http://www.cristalweb.com/ethno/reportage.html
Sembra che alcuni scienziati abbiano verificato i risultati
del Posnansky e li abbiano trovati *attendibili*.
gi@der      [< was it a cat I saw >]   (L. Carroll)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E-mail:    mailto:
gia...@eostel.it
  {Giacomo Delre}
Home page: 
http://www.freeweb.eostel.it/user/gdp060
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Posted from 
mizar.eostel.it
 [195.216.228.1]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.mailgate.org


Beh, non vedo concettualmente cosa ci sia di differente se
certe cose le analizza un "ricercatore" o un "archeologo de
facto". Ammesso che il primo possa avere lo stesso background
cognitivo del secondo (il che non è impossibile)...
bye stànz
PS: cmq. inquieta la faccenda delle verifiche 'positive' fatte
da scienziati ufficiali...