Archaeologica.org

When the Sahara began to dry out about 2000 B.C., the population was pushed out from there in all directions, thereby forcing the spread of both people and cultures. Even then, the Sahara did not become a block to communication as has been thought. There is clear evidence that trade routes continued to be used even after the Sahara became a desert.

http://www.rit.edu/~nrcgsh/bx/bx01a.html (Rochester Institute of Technology)

looks like Hancock got it wrong again
so I guess this means that as Egypt was already established for over a thousand years the desertification of the Sahara is completely irrelevant
which of course is why he used it as evidence
just in case you forgot

pseu·do·sci·ence
n. A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.

loved your source Min
are travel agents recognised as credible sources now then

Beagle - did a little checking last night and the download for ggl earth was not for ggl earth though I found it in a list of links related to ggl earth.

Ggl erath can display the overlays but it belongs to a NASA application which is available on the web. I will download today and check it out then tell you about it.

Thank you Monk. I appreciate it.

Well Beagle after a 14 hour day at work, I did get the program downloaded, and installed. Its a NASA type of google earth with lots of add-ons and graphics to visualize hundreds of scientific research topics in a veriety of topic groups.

Thus far I can the sea-level tick, on and off. But have not firgured out how to set the ice-age sea level. It doesnt seem to be all that intuitive or perhaps Im just fried.

Maybe at some point I may have to breakdown and read the help file but of course that is always the last thing an engineer does.

Monk, it's not worth going to all that effort. Thanks. I'll keep looking around for something definitive.

This book came out well before the Pokotia stone was found. But still, at that time, GH was drawing the comparisons with the Bolivian culture and the Sumerians.

I may borrow some of those observations for the Pokotia Monolith discussion.

at no time has Hancock drawn any comparisons between the Sumerians and anyone else
thoughout the entire book he mentions them a handful of times claiming that they and the egyptians are the leftovers of some previous advanced but now vanished culture
he mentios babylonian characters such as Uan who he seems to believe are sumerian (he later totally reverses what he says here about Uan in "underworld" anyway)
he then goes on to claim a similarity between mexican and sumerian myths between Tiamnat and Cipactli
Cipactli is an Aztec character and Tiamat a babylonian one
so he once again is way off the mark
he then connects the flood story from Gilgamesh with the flood story of Noah and tries to claim that these two seperate accounts one hebrew and one Sumerian are evidence that there was a great catastrophe
when in fact
Gilgamesh isn't sumerian
its akkadian
and it is already well known that the story of Noah is derived from the akkadian flood story
which graham could easily have proved had he posted the correct part of the gilgamesh flood section
it seems though that this was not part of his agenda as the more seperate claims of "flood" mean the more likely it is to have happened like he has already claimed at the end of the ice age when the glaciers melted
didn't you already find out that a ocean level rise of up to 25 mm a year over a 7000 year period is unlikely to globally be described as a catastrophic flood
so
hes wrong on his details
wrong with his agenda
and wrong with his conclusions
but then
what did you really expect

I'm not going to go back and read all the stuff you've been writing. I have a good idea. That ends now though. I know how you feel about this book.

I got it. Posting after our every post is harassment - stop now.
Playtime is over.
Read the rules.

Posting after our every post is harassment

telling me not to post my opinion on a public forum is censorship
you are not living in communist Russia or Nazi Germany you know Beagle
this is also a review
not a fan club
if I want to add my opinion of a book to a review I will do so
thanks

May need to up the dosage, Beags.

if you think that will make you feel better you go ahead

harassment - stop now.

Not censorship.

you learn to read the rules Beagle
having checked them myself you have clearly breached rules 1 2 3 and 4
and thats just been in the last two weeks
I am claiming a right to post in this thread under rule 2:6
clearly that is something you could never claim
so I actually have more right to post in here than you do
if you don't like that then go post somewhere else
I'm sure the ghmb would welcome you with open arms and you can spend all day telling Hancock how great you think he is
I guarantee you won't be seeing me there

Never mind - you're going wacko again.
G'night.

No Beagle
this last day has really shown your true colours hasn't it
you have been
1) proven a liar
2) proven to be extremely rude
3) proven you don't care about facts as long as your personal belief is believed by others
4) proven you are breaking all the rules while telling others they are doing it (transference)
5) lost what little credibility you had

if you really knew just how many pms i have received congratulating me for the way I have dealt with your snide remarks and personal attacks you would perhaps rethink your approach

but as we saw earlier
that would be too much for you to handle