Case Study: Pretending that Ed Krupp’s discredited “debunking” of the Orion Correlation is generally accepted as valid

Examine this exchange posted on Ma’at on 25 July 2002:

(Note: These comments are in response to Nic Flemming’s Channel 4 Encounter).

Where’s the surprise ? Hancock still dodges explanation of the Orion “mirror” earth-sky correlation that is the cornerstone of his $ Pyramid Scheme. A fraud by any other name reeks just as bad. (“David,” Nic Flemming’s Channel 4 Encounter)

That would be Robert Bauval’s “Orion ‘mirror’ earth-sky correlation”… not Graham Hancock’s. (Anthony Sakovich, Ummm…David….)

So here I, and by direct inference Robert Bauval the discoverer of the Orion correlation, are accused of fraud and I specifically am accused of dodging explanation of the Orion “mirror” earth-sky correlation that is “the cornerstone” of my “$ Pyramid Scheme”.

Both the general and the specific accusations, like so many other defamations touted around about us on Ma’at, are entirely false. Other than Ed Krupp’s self-contradictory and counter-intuitive “upside down” argument — which is not an established fact but merely the opinion of one astronomer shared by few others and already rejected by several of his eminent peers – there is nothing particularly problematic to explain about the Orion correlation. However, far from “dodging” anything, I have chosen to explain the correlation extensively and published refutations of Krupp’s arguments prominently on this site as early as November 1999.

Once again, therefore, I’m confronted by a completely bogus and baseless slur — one that is potentially very damaging to my reputation as an author.

Truth, justice and balance?

The question I want to ask at the end of all this is the question of motives.

Why throw such baseless, hurtful and damaging slurs in the first place?

And why do the moderators at Ma’at permit them to be thrown?

Again and again and again.

Once might be an accident.

Twice might be a coincidence.

But three times? Four times? Seven times?

That looks like policy to me.

A policy that has strayed far from Ma’at’s stated objective to weigh the evidence for alternative history in a spirit of truth, justice and balance.