The Mysteries of the Great Cross of Hendaye

by Jay Weidner

  This cosmic dust storm would begin to cause problems as it entered the solar system. At first the cloud of dust would block the sunlight and make the earth’s surface very cold. Soon, however, a new problem would begin as the earth cooled rapidly.

  Astronomers have noted that there are stars affected by large amounts of cosmic dust falling onto their surfaces, called T-Tauri stars. As the dust falls onto the surfaces of these stars it becomes heated and causes the skin of the star to brighten. This dust eventually forms around the star a cocoon that holds in the heat and causes the temperature of the star’s corona to rise rapidly. This heating causes huge solar flares to appear on the surface of these T-Tauri stars. LaViolette postulates that this same event occurred with our own sun when the cosmic dust storm arrived soon after the blue star. As this dust gathered and finally settled on the surface of our own sun, it would also cause the sun to heat up, producing massive solar flares into the surrounding space.11

  Figure 12.5. Superwave-induced cosmic-dust invasion can produce varying catastrophic results. (From LaViolette, Earth Under Fire)

  This solar activity and these flares would begin to have an effect on the weather here on earth. After the initial cooling period—brought on by the influx of dust—the sun would suddenly become very hot. A cocoon of cosmic dust and hot gases would gather around the sun, causing huge solar flares. It is possible that the superheated corona could increase in size until it overwhelmed our planet. This solar bubble would heat up the earth, causing tropical latitudes to become unbearably warm and the ice floes in the north and south polar regions to quickly melt. Lakes of fresh water that had been trapped in the polar glaciers would unleash their contents. These glacier waves would race down from the north and south polar ice sheets and drown and destroy all life in their deadly path.

  This is LaViolette’s explanation for the end of the Ice Age. Thousands of animal corpses have been found frozen in the wilderness of Alaska and Siberia. They seem to have been deposited there about 13,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene era. Hundreds of thousands of these animals died suddenly and inexplicably, including woolly mammoths, giant tree sloths, Arctic foxes, and many others. Their bodies are distributed in such a way as to indicate that they died from a violent influx of water. The bodies were then flushed down the rivers, collecting in gullies and ravines, until they were frozen in the cold that would return quickly after the bubble of hot gases from the sun disappeared. Hundreds of species did go extinct at the end of the Ice Age, about that there is no argument.

  With astronomers openly admitting that galactic core explosions are highly probable, it is difficult to argue against LaViolette’s explanation. LaViolette is saying that he has found proof of a catastrophe in the past that nearly destroyed all life on our planet. He is also saying that this catastrophe was of a “double” nature. The initial outburst from the galactic core caused electromagnetic shifts on earth, which may have caused crustal torque, pole shifts, tidal waves, and high winds. This first catastrophe was followed—sometime later—by an explosion of the sun’s corona, caused by the influx of cosmic dust pushed by the galactic superwave. It was, in fact, just what Fulcanelli had said it would be, a double catastrophe.

  In one fell swoop LaViolette had answered many of the questions that had haunted us as researchers. Amazingly, LaViolette had never heard of Fulcanelli, and knew even less about alchemy. He was a true modern scientist who wanted empirical proof for any thesis. And he had spent thirty years proving the very same information that had been engraved on the cross of Hendaye.

  Perhaps the most convincing of all of LaViolette’s evidence is the information provided by a radio contour map of a supernova remnant in Cassiopeia A (see fig. 12.6). This map, compiled from information published by astronomers Dickel and Greisen, clearly shows the expanded wave front of the supernova impacting the galactic superwave.12 This distortion shows clearly in X-ray images, indicating a tremendous output of energy from the superwave’s shock front. This also suggests that the galactic superwave might even be a factor in making a star into a nova.

  It is indeed hard to argue with evidence such as this. LaViolette backs up his hypothesis with ice-core samples and cosmic-dust counts—including the 1993 Ulysses spacecraft results that conclusively demonstrated that cosmic dust is currently entering our system from the direction of the galactic center—and reaches the same conclusion as we have in decoding the cross at Hendaye. A double catastrophe happened 13,000 years ago, caused by an eruption of cosmic-ray energy from the center of the galaxy. Fulcanelli and the cross at Hendaye suggest that this catastrophe is about to happen once again. Ice-core samples show that galactic superwaves pass through our region of space once in about 26,000 years, or one complete precessional cycle. The galactic core explosion may in fact be the mechanism, through a type of gravity wave, that produces the precessional effect, the tilt of the planet on its axis, as Wihelm Reich predicted.

  Figure 12.6. Radio contour map of Cassiopeia A. The small central cross represents the position of the supernova explosion center.

  Although LaViolette steers clear of an exact prediction for the next superwave from galactic central, he does suggest that there might be a connection with the coming precessional alignments with the galactic center. He points to the many prophecies that indicate our immediate future as one of change and upheaval. The reality of the double catastrophe that he depicts, however, is firmly grounded in hard science, from ice-core samples to radio-telescope observations. Whenever it arrives, it will be the end of life as we know it.

  Understanding this, our attention was drawn back to Fulcanelli’s promise that the inscription on the cross at Hendaye pointed to a place of refuge during the time of the double cataclysm. We found that Hendaye did indeed point to a place of refuge, perhaps one from the last catastrophe. We would also find that Hendaye identified the only reasonable location for Atlantis, the center of the last global civilization. These discoveries would lead us to the final truth about alchemy, Fulcanelli, and the Great Cross, both of Hendaye and of the galaxy.

  THE INSCRIPTION’S MESSAGE AND THE PLACE OF REFUGE

  In the end, the mystery encoded in the cross at Hendaye boils down to the message contained in the oddly divided Latin inscription. Fulcanelli instructs the reader that its message concerns a place of refuge from the double cataclysm described by the monument. But how exactly does it tell us this? And does it give us any clue to where this place of refuge might be located?

  Everything that Fulcanelli had alleged, regardless of how bizarre it sounded on first reading, we found to be based on truth. There seemed no reason to doubt Fulcanelli’s word on the inner meaning of the inscription’s message. But in the Hendaye chapter, Fulcanelli gives us no clue as to what or where this place of refuge might be.

  He simply informs us that from the inscription “we can learn that a country exists where death cannot reach man at the terrible time of the double cataclysm.” It is up to us to find it, implying that the inscription does indeed tell us the “geographical location of this promised land.” Those who find it, Fulcanelli promises, will take up the mission of renewing mankind after the disaster. Fulcanelli assumes that this elite will be “the children of Elias”—that is, the followers of the astro-alchemical path of transformation. As we shall see, this hope may or may not have become reality.

  With this in mind, let’s take another, closer look at Fulcanelli’s method of reading the inscription and see what other clues turn up. We are left with the seventeen letters of the inscription—OCRUXAVES / PESUNICA—and Fulcanelli’s peculiar comments on it. As mentioned in chapter 11, he tells us that it is easy to recognize the inscription as the familiar mortuary phrase O Crux Ave Spes Unica, “Hail, O Cross, the Only Hope,” but he notes that this one is different because of the misplaced S. He does not, however, tell us much more about the peculiar rendering of the word spes other than to call attention to the incorrect grammar of the second line, even though he knows that including
the S on the second line would correct the grammar. As we have seen, pes, “foot” or “measure,” can also be related to unica, the word “only,” by transposing the I and the C to form uncia, “the twelfth part.” This “measure of the twelfth part” can be connected to the cycles of the catastrophe measured by the galactic cross. Fulcanelli is calling attention to this interpretation with his fudging about grammar. But he doesn’t say that this is the reason for the split S; he merely speculates that it was done on purpose.

  “No doubt,” Fulcanelli elaborates, “our workman traced them first in chalk or charcoal, and this rough draft must rule out any idea that a mistake occurred during the actual cutting of the letters. However, since this apparent mistake exists, it follows that it must really have been intended. The only reason that I can think of is that it is a sign put in on purpose, concealed under the appearance of an inexplicable blunder, and intended to arouse the curiosity of the observer. I will, therefore, state that, in my opinion, it was with knowledge and intent that the author arranged the inscription of his puzzling work in this way.”13

  Next, Fulcanelli explains something of his method: “I had already been enlightened by studying the pedestal and knew in what way and by means of what key the Christian inscription should be read; but I was anxious to show investigators what help may be obtained in solving hidden matters from plain common sense, logic and reasoning.”14 In this enigmatic paragraph, Fulcanelli is posing us a riddle, an intellectual test. And just in case we missed it, the reference to the key or cross in the sky made by the X of the snakes or dragons is, Fulcanelli informs us, “the helicoidal track of the sun, having arrived at the zenith of its curve across space, at the time of the cyclic catastrophe.”

  “The helicoidal track of the sun” is an archaic term for the sun’s precessional motion against the ecliptic.15 Helicoidal, literally “shaped like a spiral,” is a description of the ecliptic and the slow “suspended” movement of the earth’s wobble against it. The zenith of its curve across space is the moment when the solstices cross the galactic axis—the time, according to Fulcanelli, of the cyclic catastrophe.

  When Leo coincided with the spring equinox 13,000 years ago, aligning the rising sun with the local energy gradient of the solar system’s movement through the cosmic-ray field coming from the center of the galaxy, the summer solstice was slowly coming into alignment with the opposite end of the galactic axis, ninety degrees away, in the region of Taurus and the Pleiades. Now, half a precessional cycle later, Leo rises on the fall equinox as the winter solstice begins its alignment with the galactic center in Scorpio. As Fulcanelli insists, the crossing of these dragons creates “the image of the Beast of the Apocalypse, the dragon, which, on the days of Judgment, spews out fire and brimstone on macrocosmic creation.”16

  This knowledge, however, brings us no closer to finding our place of refuge. Fulcanelli simply says that the symbolic value of the S, displaced on purpose, gives us to understand that the phrase must be translated in the secret language. His explanation, though, of how this phrase can be translated in the phonetic language of the birds seems to lack any emphasis on the displaced S. He tells us to read in French “the Latin just as it is written. Then by making use of the permutation of vowels, we shall be able to read off the new words, forming another sentence, and re-establish the spelling, the word order and the literary sense.”17

  When we do this, Fulcanelli assures us we shall find the sentence “Il est écrit que la vie se réfugie en un seul espace,” which can be translated as “It is written that life takes refuge in a single space.” Yet we have missed something if we take Fulcanelli’s word for it and do not attempt to solve the puzzle ourselves.

  He implies that we are to read the Latin letters as if they were French words. When we do this, certain words pop out at us. “La vie,” or “life,” is easy to derive phonetically from AV, or ah vee, and “espace” is also obviously derived from ESPE, ess pay ee. We can find “écrit” in CRX, eh cree teh, by seeing the X as a T, and “en un seul” can be found in UNCA, en un say ahh. The I and the S form the “il est” that begins the sentence. Therefore, we have I S CRX, AV, ESPE, UNCA, or “Il est écrit (que) la vie (se réfugie) en un seul espace.” There are two letters left, the O and the U.

  Curiously, there is no way to make the French word réfugie from this Latin phrase. There is no consonant for the jay sound of réfu-gie. Even if we reuse the R and assign the U to the oo sound, we are left with only part of the word. Fulcanelli emphasizes the displaced S, which falls in the middle of the word espace, telling us that this is the key to the code. Since refuge is not directly attainable from the Latin inscription as it is, we are directed to the displaced S and its assignment in this specific case to the Greek letter chi, which is X or K. We can find the place of “refuge,” and restore “the literary sense,” only if we can solve the puzzle of the S that changes into an X and the X that changes into an S.

  From this, we can see that Jules Boucher in his 1936 article appears to misunderstand the directions for translating the inscription. He clearly knows that it is a phonetic key, but doesn’t follow through on this awareness. He gives us the French translation of the sound of the Latin words, “O Croix Have Espace Unique,” or “O Cross, the single pale space.” From the above, the missing jay sound in refuge, it is easy to see how he arrived at this version, but it also shows that he was, perhaps intentionally, far from the mark. Fulcanelli uses similar methods and arrives at a conclusion that leads us deeper into the inscription itself. Boucher thinks the inscription points to the disaster—he changes croix to mort, or “death,” to make the point—but seems unaware of its promise of refuge. Or, perhaps, he is unwilling to completely reveal the secret.

  Our puzzle, then, is to find the place of refuge by changing the S into K, or a hard C sound. This suggests a cryptogramic or anagrammatic process, such as that proposed by Mevryl in his epilogue to The Fulcanelli Phenomenon. Mevryl’s complex anagrams, however, are apparently designed to deceive the reader, to make sure that this sort of wordplay is discredited before anyone actually applies the riddle of changing the S to a K to the inscription itself. First and most curiously, Mevryl switches the attribution. In his version, X becomes S, not S becomes X or K. This is clearly not what Fulcanelli meant. He tells us that S corresponds to K, takes over its meaning, in fact, not the other way around. At this point, we cannot escape the conclusion that all of our commentators, Boucher, Fulcanelli, and Mevyrl, are in on the joke and doing their best to both reveal and obscure the message. Fulcanelli is oddly insistent on the K of khi and key, with khi or chi being the Greek letter X. As we shall see, Fulcanelli is pointing to an even deeper meaning to the idea of “khi/key.”

  Mevryl’s interpretation of the inscription doesn’t suggest any place of refuge, and his comments on Fulcanelli’s translation indicate that he might not understand as much as Boucher, but given the amount Mevryl does know, we can feel sure this is another dodge. Mevryl tells us that Fulcanelli translated the inscription into French, Boucher’s O Croix Have Espace Unique, and “then transposed it into the langue diplomatique by means of the rules of diplomacy.” This parroting of Fulcanelli shows that Mevryl either did not understand it or chose to make it incomprehensible. A third option might be that a deeper meaning is implied, and this leads, inevitably, to Mevryl’s use of anagrams.

  He does suggest that the front paws of the Sphinx mark our observation point, which echoes Champagne’s curious frontispiece to Le Mystère. He notes that Ha’il, in Saudi Arabia, is in the line of sight along the rising sun to the east from the Sphinx and that far beyond it are the Himalayas and the valley of Kathmandu. This, he suggests, is the place of refuge, drawing attention to the cat, man, and hu, or breath, combination found in the name Kathmandu. The valleys of Nepal are thought to be places of refuge in the Tibetan tradition, associated with both Padmasambhava and the Kalachakra Tantra, so Mevryl is pointing to a possible connection. His attribution, however, of Cat-Man, or Sphinx, a
nd Hu, or breath, as the place of refuge has nothing to do with the message on the inscription. Once again, as we shall see, Mevryl is toying with us; he is directing the gullible toward a spot that is actually half the world away from the place of refuge discernible on the cross.

  A SIGN POINTING TOWARD PERU

  Let’s go back to the inscription on the cross:

  OCRUXAVES

  PESUNICA

  and let’s take the middle X in the words OCRUXAVES as a symbol for the cross itself. Then—if we are to follow the symbolic motif of the pedestal—we should circle this central X, or cross. Dividing PESUNICA between the U and the N then leaves us four words each with four letters surrounding the central X. Just like the pedestal, this X then has four sides, and each side has a word with four letters. There are four letters in the inscription (INRI) on the other side of the cross, as well as four stars around the sun in panel three on the pedestal, and four groups of two bursting rays each in the great star of panel one. There are sixteen rays, a multiple of four, bursting out from the sun in panel three. There are also four A’s in panel four, and so we are not surprised to find that without the X, there are four words in the Latin inscription.

  Split in this pattern, the inscription looks like this:

  OCRU X AVES

  PESU NICA

  No matter how one jumbles the letters, there are no interpretations that make sense of all four words in this layout, although the words save and Inca jump out at us from the right side. There is no certain answer to the inscription’s riddle to be found in this first move.18

  From Mevryl’s clue, we know that the next step involves exchanging K’s, or a hard C sound, for S. The new phrase now possesses four C’s. This is interesting because the word foresee is mimicked by the clue. The major purpose of the cross at Hendaye is to “foresee” the future. To solve the puzzle, it is necessary to make sure that it has “four C’s.” Our inscription now looks like this: