Computer reconstructions of the ancient skies of 10,500 bc show that the star Alnitak was located precisely on the colure containing the two solstice points, and nearer to the winter solstice. If an observer was there to ‘lock’ the perfect ‘as above so below’ condition in 10,500 bc, the image of the sky containing the star Alnitak would convert into a ‘hologram’ on the ground precisely in the manner we find at Giza today. That such a perfect sky-to-earth correlation cannot be the result of some incredible ‘coincidence’ is confirmed by the equinoctial rising of Leo, which took place in precisely the same epoch of 10,500 bc and precisely when the star Alnitak transited the south meridian. This brought the vernal (spring) equinox point in perfect alignment with the Great Sphinx, the terrestrial counterpart of the image of Leo. The conclusion thus seems inevitable: the ancients appear to have established a global prime-meridian at Giza locked into the time frame of 10,500 bc.
All this implies, however, that the ancients were somehow attempting to ‘navigate’ not only in distance (‘space’) but also in ‘time’. What did they have in mind? How can ‘time’ be navigated?
Hypothetically at least, a time-related apparatus locked into the colures of 10,500 bc would present the ‘reincarnated’ Horus-King with a subliminal landscape or ‘magical theatre’, at the height of his extensive initiation, to work out intuitively how far in time his ‘soul’ had travelled from its point of genesis. In Parts III and IV of this book we have shown how the Horus-King may have used the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes to perform such a task by inducing his mind to undertake a journey or quest to find his ‘ancestors’ using the subliminal architectural setting or ‘cosmic ambiance’ of Giza as some sort of ‘star-memory’ device. Today we use a computer to re-create the ancient skies on a television monitor. We are suggesting that the Horus-King initiate could perform this task intuitively with the ‘computer’ of his mind and the ‘monitor’ of his inner perception. This conclusion does not present a problem to us. We have found that by fully familiarizing ourselves with the apparent motions of the skies and by constantly reconstructing ancient skies with the aid of computers, images, coordinates and epochs subliminally enter the mind and become logged in the memory. We have discovered for ourselves that these ‘files’ are easily retrieved at will without the mechanistic aid of the computer. Hypothetically then, with such ‘star-memory’ logged in the mind, should we suddenly find ourselves flung into a future ‘time zone’, say ad 6000, we could relatively easily ‘work out’ how far ahead in time we had moved.
By extension of such rhetoric, therefore, it could be said that the function of the Giza blueprint is to provide a virtually indestructible ‘holographic’ apparatus for the use of ‘reincarnated’ or ‘reborn’ entities of the Horian lineage in order to induce ‘remembrance’ of a ‘divine’ genetic origin in Egypt in the time-frame of 10,500 bc. The ultimate function, however, appears to have been to perpetuate the ‘immortality’ of their souls into ‘time’—in short, the ultimate gnostic experience entailing the release of the spiritual part of the living entity from its material, inert, part. To put it in other terms, ‘living’ man is the result of a holographic union between matter and spirit. It would very much appear that the ‘Followers of Horus’ understood the cosmic mechanism to somehow re-separate the two.
Such questions, we are well aware, lead us into the misty realm of metaphysics, extrasensory perception and psychic thinking from which we have tried to steer clear. Nonetheless, we must respond to our intuitive feeling that a form of metaphysical thinking very much like this was used by those mysterious ‘Followers of Horus’ who set their initiatory and ‘astronomical’ academy at Heliopolis—and whose genius resulted in the construction of the amazing ‘holographic’ star/stone (spirit/matter) apparatus of Giza. All references in the ancient texts to this mysterious brotherhood suggest that we are dealing not with ‘priests’ but with high adepts who fully understood the working of the human psyche and the subliminal techniques needed to evoke ‘remote memory’ through deep-felt inner perceptions of ‘time’. The esoteric teachings and initiations into such cosmic mysteries using the skies are certainly not prosaic ones, as Egyptologists maintain, to develop and refine calendrical systems for ‘land irrigation’ and ‘religious ceremonies’, but far more subtle: somehow to reach and harness the extrasensory capabilities of the human mind in order to link up to the invisible and immaterial, yet very perceptible, ‘flux of time’.
The questions, for those looking for ‘scientific’ explanations, can be formulated in another way: Do we humans carry ‘remote memory files’ locked in our genes? And if so, can it not be possible that such ‘files’ could be retrieved by using the correct subliminal keys?
More provocative still: is our ‘consciousness’ umbilically linked to ‘time’ such that it merely passes through biological matter, ourselves, like a thread passing through pearls and stones?
It has long been appreciated by students of intellectual history that monumental architecture and archetypal images can serve as powerful subliminal devices to evoke dormant ‘memory’ in the minds of those who are made receptive through initiation. The murals and panels of gothic cathedrals or the painted ceilings such as those in the Sistine Chapel are but obvious examples of such powerful mind-games—aptly called ‘silent poetry’ by the fourth-century bc poet, Simonides of Ceos. These ancient memory-aids, and the techniques refined for using them, which are loosely termed ‘mnemotechnics’ today, were the subject of a major thesis by Dame Frances A. Yates in 1966 entitled The Art of Memory. In this book Yates shows that powerful cerebral techniques were taught in ancient Greece which were rooted in the so-called ‘Egyptian hermetic tradition’.[704] Recently, the author Murry Hope, in a thesis entitled Time the Ultimate Energy, tackled the complex subject of ‘time travel’ as a form of energy, and suggested that pre-dynastic Egyptian adepts may have understood and harnessed ‘time’ through a yet-to-be discovered ability to break away from the confines of biological ‘time’ and into another mental realm of time-perception. Murry Hope termed this realm ‘Outer Time’. Likewise, in another recent study, From Atlantis to the Sphinx, the author and philosopher Colin Wilson boldly proposes that the ancients may have cultivated powerful extrasensory capabilities through ‘a different knowledge system’ based on intuitive thinking (as opposed to rationalistic or ‘solar’ thinking) in order to enter higher states of consciousness. Such higher consciousness might have been the key into altered perceptions of ‘time’.
That such untapped abilities to perceive dilated time-fields might be an intrinsic part of human mental machinery was very seriously investigated by one of America’s most prestigious scientific foundations, the Stanford Research Institute in California—better known as SRI International. In 1972 SRI International was recruited as main consultant for the so-called remote viewing programmes run by the CIA and other government agencies including the US navy, the US army and the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). These programmes were managed by a highly respected physicist, Dr. Hal Puthoff, who sought out and employed renowned psychics (called ‘remote viewers’ in SRI jargon) to ‘locate’ enemy military targets and installations using extrasensory capabilities.
The reader will recall that SRI International (which has been described as ‘America’s second largest think-tank’) was also, in 1973, involved in high-tech archaeological projects in Egypt and, at least on one occasion, worked in participation with the Edgar Cayce Foundation (ECF) in a series of remote sensing projects at Giza (see Chapter 5).
Many ‘remote viewers’ involved in the remote viewing programmes, such as the psychic Ingo Swann and Nel Riley, the latter a sergeant in the US army, openly claimed to have the inner abilities to undertake a form of ‘time travel’ into any remote locations on the globe. Such claims are in many ways reminiscent of those made by the Edgar Cayce adepts who maintain that, when in an altered state of consciousness such as deep trance or hypnosis, they can ‘remember’ past li
ves, i.e. ‘time travel’ mentally to remote locations. Cayce himself, who is dubbed America’s best-known medium and psychic, claimed to have had a previous life in Egypt in 10,500 bc—a claim which at one time, as we have seen in Chapter 5, was considered worthy of investigation by Egyptologist Mark Lehner in the early 1970s within the framework of his scientific research at Giza.
Appendix 4
Carbon-dating the Great Pyramid:
Implications of a little-known Study
The evidence presented in this book concerning the origins and antiquity of the monuments of the Giza necropolis suggests that the genesis and original planning and layout of the site may be dated, using the tools of modern computer-aided archaeoastronomy, to the epoch of 10,500 bc. We have also argued, on the basis of a combination of geological, architectural and archaeoastronomical indicators, that the Great Sphinx, its associated megalithic ‘temples’, and at least the lower courses of the so-called ‘Pyramid of Khafre’, may in fact have been built at that exceedingly remote date.
It is important to note that we do not date the construction of the Great Pyramid to 10,500 bc. On the contrary, we point out that its internal astronomical alignments—the star-shafts of the King’s and Queen’s Chambers—are consistent with a completion date during ancient Egypt’s ‘Old Kingdom’, somewhere around 2500 bc. Such a date should, in itself, be uncontroversial since it in no way contradicts the scholarly consensus that the monument was built by Khufu, the second Pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, who ruled from 2551-2528 bc.[705] What places our theory in sharp contradiction to the orthodox view, however, is our suggestion that the mysterious structures of the Giza necropolis may all be the result of an enormously long-drawn-out period of architectural elaboration and development—a period that had its genesis in 10,500 bc, that came to an end with the completion of the Great Pyramid come 8000 years later in 2500 bc, and that was guided throughout by a unified master-plan.
According to orthodox Egyptologists, the Great Pyramid is the result of only just over 100 years of architectural development, beginning with the construction of the step-pyramid of Zoser at Saqqara not earlier than 2630 bc, passing through a number of ‘experimental’ models of true Pyramids (one at Meidum and at two Dashour, all attributed to Khufu’s father Sneferu) and leading inexorably to the technological mastery of the Great Pyramid not earlier than 2551 bc (the date of Khufu’s own ascension to the throne). An evolutionary ‘sequence’ in pyramid-construction thus lies at the heart of the orthodox Egyptological theory—a sequence in which the Great Pyramid is seen as having evolved from (and thus having been preceded by) the four earlier pyramids.[706]
But suppose those four pyramids were proved to be not earlier but later structures? Suppose, for example, that objective and unambiguous archaeological evidence were to emerge—say, reliable carbon-dated samples—which indicated that work on the Great Pyramid had in fact begun some 1300 years before the birth of Khufu and that the monument had stood substantially complete some 300 years before his accession to the throne? Such evidence, if it existed, would render obsolete the orthodox Egyptological theory about the origins, function and dating of the Great Pyramid since it would destroy the Saqqaraà Meidumà Dashourà Giza ‘sequence’ by making the technologically-advanced Great Pyramid far older than its supposed oldest ‘ancestor’, the far more rudimentary step-pyramid of Zoser. With the sequence no longer valid, it would then be even more difficult than it, is at present for scholars to explain the immense architectural competence and precision of the Great Pyramid (since it defies reason to suppose that such advanced and sophisticated work could have been undertaken by builders with no prior knowledge of monumental architecture).
Curiously, objective evidence does exist which casts serious doubt on the orthodox archaeological sequence. This evidence was procured and published in 1986 by the Pyramids Carbon-dating Project, directed by Mark Lehner (and referred to in passing in his correspondence with us, see Appendix III above). With funding from the Edgar Cayce Foundation, Lehner collected fifteen samples of ancient mortar from the masonry of the Great Pyramid. These samples of mortar were chosen because they contained fragments of organic material which, unlike natural stone, would be susceptible to carbon-dating. Two of the samples were tested in the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Southern Methodist University in Dallas Texas and the other thirteen were taken to laboratories in Zurich, Switzerland, for dating by the more sophisticated accelerator method. According to proper procedure, the results were then calibrated and confirmed with respect to tree-ring samples.[707]
The outcome was surprising. As Mark Lehner commented at the time:
The dates run from 3809 bc to 2869 bc. So generally the dates are ... significantly earlier than the best Egyptological date for Khufu ... In short, the radiocarbon dates, depending on which sample you note, suggest that the Egyptological chronology is anything from 200 to 1200 years off. You can look at this almost like a bell curve, and when you cut it down the middle you can summarize the results by saying our dates are 400 to 450 years too early for the Old Kingdom Pyramids, especially those of the Fourth Dynasty ... Now this is really radical ... I mean it’ll make a big stink. The Giza pyramid is 400 years older than Egyptologists believe.[708]
Despite Lehner’s insistence that the carbon-dating was conducted according to rigorous scientific procedures[709] (enough, normally, to qualify these dates for full acceptance by scholars) it is a strange fact that almost no ‘stink’ at all has been caused by his study. On the contrary, its implications have been and continue to be universally ignored by Egyptologists and have not been widely published or considered in either the academic or the popular press. We are at a loss to explain this apparent failure of scholarship and are equally unable to understand why there has been no move to extract and carbon-date further samples of the Great Pyramid’s mortar in order to test Lehner’s potentially revolutionary results.
What has to be considered, however, is the unsettling possibility that some kind of pattern may underlie these strange oversights.
As we reported in Chapter 6, a piece of wood that had been sealed inside the shafts of the Queen’s Chamber since completion of construction work on that room, was amongst the unique collection of relics brought out of the Great Pyramid in 1872 by the British engineer Waynman Dixon. The other two ‘Dixon relics’—the small metal hook and the stone sphere—have been located after having been ‘misplaced’ by the British Museum for a very long while. The whereabouts of the piece of wood, however, is today unknown.[710]
This is very frustrating. Being organic, wood can be accurately carbon-dated. Since this particular piece of wood is known to have been sealed inside the Pyramid at the time of construction of the monument, radiocarbon results from it could, theoretically, confirm the date when that construction took place.
A missing piece of wood cannot be tested. Fortunately, however, as we also reported in Chapter 6, it is probable that another such piece of wood is still in situ at some depth inside the northern shaft of the Queen’s Chamber. This piece was clearly visible in film, taken by Rudolf Gantenbrink’s robot-camera Upuaut, that was shown to a gathering of senior Egyptologists at the British Museum on 22 November 1993.[711]
We are informed that it would be a relatively simple and inexpensive task to extract the piece of wood from the northern shaft. More than two and a half years after that screening at the British Museum, however, no attempt has been made to take advantage of this opportunity. The piece of wood still sits there, its age unknown, and Rudolf Gantenbrink, as we saw in Chapter 6, has not been permitted to complete his exploration of the shafts.
Appendix 5
The Door Inside the Great Pyramid;
Tunnels and Chambers
Under the Great Sphinx
Further developments
Since the first English-language edition of this book went to press in February 1996 there have been a number of significant developments concerning the opening of the door in the Great Pyramid
at the end of the southern shaft of the Queen’s Chamber (see in particular Chapter 7) and the search for tunnels and chambers under the Great Sphinx (see in particular Chapter 2 and Chapter 5). We anticipate that there will be further developments—quite possibly of major historical significance—which we will cover in a future book. It is our intention, meanwhile, to monitor this ‘running story’ and to update our readers in a series of appendices that will be published in future editions of The Message of the Sphinx.
The update presented herewith covers the period from March to end-August 1996.
The Great Pyramid
At the end of 1995, as reported in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, the position of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization regarding the ‘door’ at the end of the southern shaft of the Queen’s Chamber was apparently one of official disinterest. The reader will recall that Dr. Nur El Din, Chairman of the EAO (now renamed the Supreme Council of Antiquities) had declined Rudolf Gantenbrink’s offer to donate the robot to the Egyptian government and to train an Egyptian technician to operate it: ‘Thank you for your offer to train the Egyptian technician ... Unfortunately we are very busy for the time being, therefore we will postpone the matter ...[712] Similarly Dr. Zahi Hawass had declared: ‘I do not think this is a door and nothing is behind it.’[713]
The Message of the Sphinx AKA Keeper of Genesis Page 31
