The most significant part of Hancock's new book
concerns the temples at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and their possible alignment to the stars of the constellation Draco. Hancock claims an amazing correlation, which he further claims was exact at 10500 BC - the same date
as deduced by Bauval and Gilbert for the pyramids-Orion correlation at Giza. If true, this discovery is of profound importance. And as with all important new 'discoveries', it simply won't do for critics to ignore it or
'sit on the fence'. So let's kick off this debate with some salient observations.(1) One of the most distinctive features of Draco (the dragon) is its 'head' - a quadrilateral and irregular 'box'. On this most
distinctive feature, Hancock's supposed correlation fails the test. There is no such head or box formed by the position of the temples at Angkor (see p.127 or p.130 or p.169 of his book).
(2) One of the stars in the
'head' of the dragon is Nu - a double star which is easily separable with binoculars. If the site of Angkor was mapped out by a race with the astronomical abilities hypothesised by Hancock, we would expect to see
evidence of this double-star on the ground. But we don't (as above, so NOT below, in this case).
(3) The tail of Draco the dragon, as shown in Hancock's maps, turns away at an angle. This does not seem to match the
temples which appear in what is virtually a straight line.
(4) It is not at all clear which two stars are supposed to match the temples of Neak Pean and Ta Sohm. Hancock is not justified in including these in his 15
correspondences.
(5) Of the 14 remaining 'correspondences', the 3 temples near Roluos stand separate from the others. Hancock matches these with 3 minor stars. These are three stars among numerous minor stars, and it
is simply not scientific to claim a sky-ground match in this case.
(6) Of the 11 remaining 'correspondences', one star stands alone supposedly matching Deneb (the brightest star of Cygnus). But any possible
correspondence is undermined by the lack of any temple matching a large bright star between it and Draco (see this unmatched star on p.169 of Hancock's book).
(7) Of the 10 remaining 'correspondences' in the head,
body and tail of the dragon, the match-up is highly subjective. One is reminded of the Rorschach inkblot test - the image is in the eye of the beholder. It is, for example, possible to see one or two adzes (similar in
shape to Ursa Minor), these implements being used in the ancient Egyptian ceremony of the 'Opening of the Mouth'. Other people will see other things.
(8) Not only is the head of the dragon missing, but there are 3
very important temples nearby - Bayon, Phimeanakas and Baphuon, that do not match the stars of Draco in any way whatsoever. Maybe someone stood on the head of the dragon and crushed it!
(9) In summary, I feel that
Hancock's case is extremely weak, and by pursuing it with such vigour (claiming 'no doubt that a correlation exists' p.126, and then winding back the skies to 10500 BC to claim a 'precise' match) he risks bringing this
kind of research into disrepute. He certainly does Robert Bauval no favours, for many people will now highlight the poor quality of Hancock's research to debunk the more plausible (though unproven) 10500 BC alignment at
Giza. Why is Hancock so obsessed with the date 10500 BC? Perhaps the answer is revealed by his emphasis of the precessional cycle and the dawning 'new-age'. Those who are familiar with the occult will recognise that he
is, wittingly or unwittingly, following a masonic agenda in this matter, with all of its emphasis on the Sun and the stars. And as I have shown in my new book 'The Phoenix Solution', the masonic agenda conceals the true
inter-planetary meaning of the original Egyptian mythos.
(www.eridu.co.uk Latest News 'Hancock's New Book and TV series - A Personal Comment by Alan F. Alford, 15th September 1998)
