Giza:The
(Half) Truth I & II began as a series of private exchanges
between Chris Ogilvie-Herald and his-co-author Ian Lawton, authors
of the book of (almost) that name, and myself and Robert Schoch.
This quickly escalated in both heat and number of participants.
At a certain point I realized that the entire exchange, effectively
unedited (long-winded though it may be) could be of value for
those sufficiently interested in the procedure of establishing
a new paradigm. Here is the detailed, inside, day-to-day, blow-by-blow
insight into Life on the Academic Babblefield. If we are right,
and ancient history has to be totally rewritten, those of you
who bother to follow this will get a good idea of what ALWAYS
attends the establishment of anything new in science and scholarship.
The
victors will write the story in word-bytes (Galileo good; Church
bad) but it's never, ever that simple. In and of itself, the
exchanges should go a long way toward disabusing ANYONE of the
delusion that science and scholarship are rational pursuits
with Truth as the objective -- this pertains particularly to
those who call themselves rational and who talk most about 'critical
thinking', 'detailed analysis' and especially THE TRUTH.
Eventually
I will get around to writing my book about the entire long quest,
and much else besides. But space will forbid devoting more than
a couple of pages to this present skirmish. Yet, at least as
well as any other it underscores, (for those with patience to
wade through it all) the nitty-gritty of the process in action.
Bismarck once said that 'laws are like sausages. You should
not watch them being made'. Good line. Equally applicable to
science and scholarship, but in this case, for the reasons detailed
above, I think it's useful to watch them being made, as long
as it doesn't put you off them for life. So I must thank Ogilvie-Herald
and Lawton for inadvertently goading me into this little exercise.
It's refreshing to be able to thank them for something. Giza:
The (Half ) Truth I & II will shortly be followed by Part
III and that will be followed by further updates as the ongoing
controversy dictates.
Read
on, gentle (and I hope patient!) reader.
Happy
New Millennium All !
And
remember....
Below
is an ongoing series of e-mails between myself (and one from Robert
Bauval to Chris Ogilvie-Herald and Ian Lawton, authors of the
volume modestly entitled GIZA: THE TRUTH (an act either
of boundless effrontery --given the controversies swirling around
that plateau for two full centuries- or of equally unadulterated
hucksterism, or both) a work of exhaustive but largely bogus and
highly selective Egyptology designed to trash the 'Lost Civilization'
theory.
Schoch
and myself have been invited to provide a rebuttal of their
rebuttal. The rest of what follows is, I like to think, more
or less self-explanatory. In any event, here it is.
In
the event that what you read makes you want to run out to buy
this volume to see for yourself, I applaud your sense of objectivity,
but nonetheless suggest you wait a few months - until the paperback
is out and duly remaindered at which point you can pick it up
cheap, without supporting these authors' efforts.
John
Anthony West
12/13/99
From Chris Ogilvie, co-author, with Ian Lawton, of GIZA:
THE (HALF) TRUTH:
Hello
John,
Ian
and I are in the process of updating our book for the paperback
edition, which will be published in April 2000. Although the
deadline for revisions to the main chapters has now passed we
have until January 14 to update the Epilogue. If either you
or Robert Schoch have any comments on, or disagree with, the
issues that we have raised regarding the age of the Sphinx debate
then we would be happy to present those comments in the Epilogue.
I
am currently building a web site where I would like to present
the arguments for or against the various theories such as the
Orion correlation and the age of the Sphinx. Ian has recently
been having some constructive debate with Robert Bauval re the
Orion theory and also with Christopher Dunn regarding 'ancient
machine technology'. This correspondence has taken place on
two separate web sites, The
Daily Grail and the Atlantis
Rising forum. We both believe these and other issues
would be better presented on dedicated pages within one web
site. My question is; would either you or Robert Schoch be willing
to contribute once I have the site up and running?
In
the meantime I hope you are well and look forward to hearing
from you soon.
Cheers,
Chris.
12/14/99
JAW to Ogilvie
In
a message dated 12/15/99 6:41:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chris
Ogilvie writes: "If either you or Robert Schoch have any comments
on, or disagree with, the issues that we have raised regarding
the age of the Sphinx debate then we would be happy to present
those comments in the Epilogue."
Chris,
You
will be unsurprised to learn that we find little merit in the
arguments you raise re: the redating of the Sphinx.
It's
a pity your stingy publishers couldn't see their way to a review
copy for Schoch. This is what review copies are for. I have
just sent Schoch my copy of your book and we will discuss the
value of publishing a joint response once he reads the relevant
passages.. I appreciate the opportunity.
If
we choose to respond, is there a word limit? And can I have
from you in writing a promise to publish whatever we may write
intact and unedited?
Below,
I append a bit of a comment from one of my correspondents (never
met the fellow) which might interest you. I suspect it reflects
what any intelligent reader, with some knowledge of the controversy,
would conclude.
"Just
read "Giza: The Truth". I presume you have. What did
you think? I found their "analysis" to be quite biased, and
self-righteous. It bothered me that they would scrutinize certain
evidence scientifically, then later, for example with Domingo's
evidence, they take the "non-forensic" point of view to come
to a conclusion. A bit of a double standard, I should think.
I can't help but imagine that they are guilty of looking at
evidence and examining it to fit their pre-formed opinion..."
In
a message Chris Ogilvie writes: "This correspondence has taken
place on two separate web sites, 'The Daily Grail' and the 'Atlantis
Rising' forum. We both believe these and other issues would
be better presented on dedicated pages within one web site.
My question is; would either you or Robert Schoch be willing
to contribute once I have the site up and running?"
Unlikely
(on my part) but I wouldn't close the door a priori. I cc'd
Schoch your email. He can respond as he sees fit.
John
Anthony West
12/15/99 From Chris Ogilvie to John Anthony West
Dear
John,
There
undoubtedly will be a word limit as the Epilogue is only some
eleven pages in length. We are devoting most of those pages
to events that have transpired since the publication of the
hardcover. So on reflection I doubt if a page, or perhaps two,
would be sufficient space for a joint response. But then again
I did originally make the offer some two months ago and did
not receive a reply.
I
am sure there are many intelligent readers that do have comments
regarding our book. One of which is Colin Reader who viewed
our book in a very positive light. I understand from him that
he sent Schoch and yourself a copy of his paper. Therefore,
I think you would agree that he does have a great deal of 'knowledge
of the controversy' and that the value of his comments rate
somewhat higher than those of a fellow you had never met.
I
will be speaking to Ian at the weekend and discuss with him
how much space we can give should you both choose to respond.
Cheers,
Chris.
12/16/99
From Ian Lawton to John Anthony West, etc.
Dear
All
Just
a quick note to let you know that I have now developed the "Giza:
The Truth" Discussion Site, which can be found at the following
URL:
It
contains various correspondences I have had with fellow researchers
regarding some of the theories discussed in the book. For example:
- There
are currently two "debates" in progress, one on "Advanced Machining"
with Chris Dunn, and the other on the "Orion Correlation" with
Robert Bauval.
- There
is an initial posting from Chris and I dealing with the possibility
of "Sonic Levitation" in the raising of the huge monoliths used
in the construction of the main temples on the Plateau, which
I hope will generate a new debate in this important area.
- I
am hoping that in due course I will be able to post some responses
to our support of the orthodox position regarding the "Age of
the Sphinx" and the "Age of the Pyramids", subject to the relevant
researchers joining the fray.
This
is a free site, the aim of which is to allow serious researchers
and more discerning members of the public to have access to
considered and respectful interactive debates as they develop
in relation to these highly publicised issues. A such I hope
it will provide a valuable addition to the "free for all" of
live debates, and to the uncontrolled environment of open discussion
forums.
Those
of you who run a web site of your own might like to provide
a link to it, or you might know someone else who would. Alternatively
you might just want to take a look every now and then to see
if you find it valuable.
Thanks
for your time
Best
wishes
Ian
Lawton
From
Lawton to John Anthony West
Dear
JAW
Perhaps
I could just add a little to the response Chris sent to your
last email.
JAW
said "You will be unsurprised to learn that we find little merit
in the arguments you raise re: the redating of the Sphinx."
No,
I'm not surprised!
JAW
said,"It's a pity your stingy publishers couldn't see their
way to a review copy for Schoch. This is what review copies
are for. I have just sent Schoch my copy of your book and we
will discuss the value of publishing a joint response once he
reads the relevant passages.. I appreciate the opportunity."
Many
apologies - you are right, they were pretty stingy (for what
it's worth that goes for our advance too!).
JAW
said, "If we choose to respond, is there a word limit? And can
I have from you in writing a promise to publish whatever we
may write intact and unedited?"
There
are really two issues here. As Chris has already indicated,
we do not have a great deal of space for the paperback update
(thanks to me being long-winded it is already rather too long).
However, you will know from Chris' previous e-mail and from
my own more general e-mail which I have recently sent to yourself
and Robert, that I have now set up a web site which incorporates
discussions with, for example, Chris Dunn and Robert Bauval.
Although we are in basic opposition to the theories of both
of these two, I feel it is important that all of us can discuss
our differences and amend the details of our position, even
if not our eventual conclusions (although I do not feel this
should be ruled out on either side), as we see fit and as the
discussions unfold. Therefore, for example, Robert has convinced
me that the use of Skyglobe for the measuring of the angles
of the belt stars at 10,500 BC is inappropriate, and I shall
note this important point accordingly in the update even though
I cannot incorporate the entirety of our correspondence. However
that will also be available unedited on the web site for people
to judge for themselves whether or not I have been fair in my
"editing" for the book.
I
hope this might allay any fears you have about the value of
responding to us.
JAW
said, "Below, I append a bit of a comment from one of my correspondents
(never met the fellow) which might interest you. I suspect it
reflects what any intelligent reader, with some knowledge of
the controversy, would conclude. [etc. see above]"
Just
a quick word on this if I may. You may recall that you and I
corresponded by e-mail a few times in the middle of last year,
during which time I made it quite clear that at that time I
supported yours and Robert's attempts to redate the Sphinx.
However I had not then researched the issue properly for myself,
and nor had Chris. When we did do this for the book we found
our conclusions changing until they reached the stage you see
them in the book. I think it is therefore undeniable that we
did not come from a preconceived position. However, for what
it is worth, I have had a lengthy debate since with Colin Reader
(whose paper I believe has been sent to you both), and am probably
more open-minded about the age of the Sphinx and Valley Temples
now than I was when we wrote the book (although he does not
attempt to take the dating back as far as either of you). He
has not convinced me fully yet, but I will certainly be covering
his theories in the update. This is of course what constructive
and civil debate can achieve.
One
final word. I would love for you to be right about the age of
the Sphinx, and indeed am still open-minded about the possibility
of previous highly advanced civilizations. But I made a promise
to myself at the outset that I would report what I found in
each area of study as a result of my own research, rather than
what I would like to find to fit into a preconceived plan. I
hope you can at least respect this standpoint.
With
best regards and seasons greetings
Ian
Lawton
JAW
to Lawton
Dear
Ian,
This
discussion is already much longer than I want it to be.
Ian
Lawton said, "I would love for you to be right about the age
of the Sphinx, and indeed am still open-minded about the possibility
of previous highly advanced civilizations."
We
ARE right about the age of the Sphinx. The argument is very,
very, very simple. Nothing explains the weathering to the enclosure
wall, drastically more deeply weathered on its western end than
its eastern end, EXCEPT rain, lots and lots of rain, over long
periods of time. Until that can be explained within the context
of dynastic Egypt, (and it cannot be) the theory stands intact;
full stop...
Colin
Reader is, as Chris notes, 'knowledgeable'. So is Lehner, and
so are Gauri, Harrell, Zahi and El-Baz. All are in sharp disagreement
with each other. Their rebuttals are mutually exclusive, and
all are dead, demonstrably, and quite comically wrong. You both
have selected the bits and pieces you liked (from each of these
untenable and mutually exclusive arguments) that seem to discount
individual elements within the theory to support your own position.
If this is not consciously preconceived on your part, it was
in Chris's case perhaps, let us say, subliminally preconceived.
Good soldier that he was for all those years, long training
has made it impossible for him to do anything other than carry
out orders without question and to defend the faith, whatever
that may be.
A
simple phone call discussing your mutual growing 'misgivings'
about the weathering would have resolved it long ago. Chris
was picking my brain mercilessly (sometimes even on my nickel,
if I recall correctly!) as he was researching your book, but
stopped (evidently) when he found what he wanted.
If
you had not been able to fudge away the weathering argument
to your own satisfaction, you would, in fact, have been obliged
to support the entire 'lost civilization' hypothesis -- even
if bits and pieces of it (e.g.: the astronomical argument) did
not seem to fit in as neatly as originally thought. In that
case, you would not have had much of a book to write. Sorry,
that's what it looks like to me -- and will look like in due
course to anyone following the progress of the theory from inception
to general acceptance in the not so distant future.
I
still do not yet have from you or Chris an agreement to publish
a response from Schoch and myself, at whatever length you may
allot us, complete and unedited, and I'd appreciate that courtesy
before taking this any further.
I
am disinclined to enter your chatroom online discussion and
take up my time to provide you with lively free copy to promote
your book. If it proves necessary, I much prefer to deal with
your arguments, such as they are, in my own way, on my own site
or book, and in my own good time. But I thank you nevertheless
for the invitation.
By
the way, I much enjoyed your forward re: Mustapha Kunt,
though I did not need to be forewarned of its inherent humor.
I'd have figured that out for myself. I also appreciate your
modesty regarding your own level of amateur literary professionalism.
I make no such modest claims for myself.
As
I have said earlier in one of my postings on The
Daily Grail, I have no intention of fueling what is
a blatant attempt to hype commercial ventures disguised as 'debate'.
I have, as a matter of fact, my new website coming up soon for
precisely this purpose and I also think that The Daily Grail
and The Noise
Room provide sufficient forum for these issues.
I
think I'll have to be blunt with you. The more I see your eagerness
to draw everyone in an open 'debate', the more I sense the green
eyed monster lurking behind the curtain. I confess that my general
view of your book GIZA THE TRUTH is that it really brings
nothing new to consider other than what is an obvious attempt
to create hype with a hodgepodge of amateurish scholarship and
self-righteousness. Your one-sided line of investigation is
too obvious for words. For example, I have previously pointed
out to you that had you bothered to verify Gantenbrink's accusation
regarding my involvement with his discovery, you would have
been obliged to present the story in a quite different light.
I am also appalled that you quoted from personal e-mails I sent
to Ralph Ellis during the Appleby saga in order to drive you
distorted opinion that I have what you deem to be a sort of
very twisted and profiteering attitude towards the new millennium.
Apart from breaching copyright and confidentiality, you placed
my e-mail totally out of context at the end of your book.
Shame
on you in trying to pass this off as 'research' and unbiased
presentation. I simply do not trust you on such matters. Having
given careful thought to your 'discussion site', I see it as
nothing more than another attempt to create hype for sales for
yourself and your publishers. I thus withdraw my support to
your Website and your paperback edition, and ask you to refrain
from using any of my material forthwith. As surprising as this
may seem, I do not consider you worthy to orchestrate this debate,
and would rather deal with you in my own way and my own time.
First,
An exchange between Robert Bauval and Ian Lawton, then one between
Ogilvie-Herald and myself. After that, a post from me to Schoch
and from Schoch to me.
In
an e-mail from Ian Lawton to Robert Bauval
Dear
Robert
It's
nice to see that you have not lost your infamous capacity for
dramatic u-turns, although the timing and reasoning behind this
one are not immediately obvious.
Robert
Bauval said, "As I have said earlier in one of my postings on
The Daily Grail, I have no intention of fueling what is a blatant
attempt to hype commercial ventures disguised as 'debate'. I
have, as a matter of fact, my new website coming up soon for
precisely this purpose."
Sorry,
Robert, does that mean that your web site will in fact be a
"blatant attempt to hype commercial ventures disguised (sic)
as 'debate'"?
Robert
Bauval said, "and I also think that the Daily Grail and the
Noise Room provide sufficient forum for these issues."
I
couldn't agree more - all I am trying to do in addition is provide
a location in which ALL the various debates I am currently having
can be accessed in one place. You are not the only person I
am corresponding with - for example my discussions with Chris
Dunn originally commenced on an obscure thread of the Atlantis
Rising forum, but he and I then agreed to place them
on our own web sites. I was not suggesting that we continue
our particular debate in any other way than we have started
it - on The Daily Grail
- merely that I include this material unedited on my own site
as well. You clearly had absolutely no problem with this before,
judging by your constructive e-mail to me of the 15th Dec -
so why the sudden change of tack? Is it because I included some
positive reviews of our book on the site - if so I have already
agreed in discussion with Chris to move them to a separate page,
even though I hardly think the overall tenor of the main page
is blatant commercialism, and certainly contains nothing that
you or any other authors with their own web site would not place
therein. Or is it, and let me be blunt with you now, because
you cannot refute the two major pieces of evidence which I use
in my rebuttal - the ones you have consistently avoided about
the relative sizes of Mintaka and the Third Pyramid, and the
extensive replanning of the Second and Third Pyramids?
Robert
Bauval said, "Having given careful thought to your 'discussion
site', I see it as nothing more than another attempt to create
hype for sales for yourself and your publishers."
Robert,
I can assure you that we are quite satisfied with our sales
to the knowledgeable "internet audience" already. "Giza:
The Truth" has spent many weeks now in the top 10 of Amazon
UK's non-fiction list, without the help of a web site. You have
every right to question our motives ad nauseam, but at the end
of the day you will not entice Chris or I into a slanging match.
We will let our work speak for itself on that score. However
we will reserve the right wherever we see fit to point out that,
having been happy to engage in constructive debate for a short
while, you have now seen fit to revert to attacking the messenger
when you cannot successfully attack the message.
Robert
Bauval said, "I thus withdraw my support to your Website and
your paperback edition, and ask you to refrain from using any
of my material forthwith. As surprising as this may seem, I
do not consider you worthy to orchestrate this debate, and would
rather deal with you in my own way and my own time."
Are
you suggesting that I should now remove your previous correspondence
from my site, having given such obvious agreement earlier? Do
you not think this would look somewhat strange to people? As
it is, you have already placed me in the awkward position whereby
if you refuse to carry on the debate in the same spirit as before
I will have to post something on my site explaining that you
suddenly pulled out having resolutely avoided my two main arguments,
and let people draw their own conclusions.
The
ball is in your court.
Best
wishes as ever
Ian
Lawton
In
an e-mail from Robert Bauval to Ian Lawton
Dear
Ian,
You
are welcome to leave the already published material on your
Website copyrighted to me. I will , however, contribute no further.
You are welcome to think what you please about my decision,
but I assure you it has nothing to do with avoiding the 'message'
(which is pretty weak, quite honestly, as I shall prove in due
course). You can, however, announce, if you wish, that I am
planning a new edition of The Orion Mystery --which will
be known as The
Orion Mystery Revisited. I also intend to publish articles
in recognized journals and periodicals. These are the legitimate
routes to deal with this matter and to take into account all
worthy criticism and flaws in a proper and orderly way --and
not in this Internet boudoir style which you nice chaps call
a 'discussion site'. Meanwhile, quite frankly, I'm getting pretty
bored with your tit-for-tat dialogue. So proceed without me
please.
Chris
Ogilvie writes: John Anthony West. Ogilvie's post is included
in full, with my responses to its various issues. JAW.
Chris
Ogilvie: "Are you suggesting that without having read your response
we make a promise to include it in our paperback edition - whatever
it may say?"
JAW:
Of course. If I critiqued your work in a book of my own, and
you were dissatisfied with my presentation, I would be delighted
to print your response unedited and unread. Though admittedly
I would not be at risk through such an offer. Given your proven
writing and scholarship skills, you could only dig yourselves
in deeper. And I would have the last word anyway, since it would
be my book. No? In any case, the latter also applies to you
and your book. At least in principle. You have the final word.
What are you afraid of? If I go after the messenger instead
of the message, well, all you have to do is point this out and
let your readers come to their own conclusions -- though in
your case the messenger IS the message ... or, to paraphrase
Yeats, "Who can tell the messenger from the message"
Chris
Ogilvie: "I'm sure Zahi Hawass would have LOVED that opportunity
in one of your own books."
JAW:
Had I thought of it, I'd have offered it. Maybe I will for some
upcoming reprint, or in the forthcoming foreign language editions
of Serpent in the Sky. Good idea! Thanks ... Anyway,
Zahi et al had ample opportunity to reply uncut and unedited
in various Egyptological and mainstream publications and media
and did so. That's how the game should be played. You want a
response from us (good publicity!) but reserve the right to
edit? Are you serious?
Chris
Ogilvie: "When we made our original offer there was still time
to make revisions to the main text but you chose to ignore that
offer and, as you say, not 'bother' to reply. If you had replied
then we would have considered the merits of what you had to
say and made changes to the chapter if we believed it was warranted.
But that deadline came and went. Now that you have responded
to our second offer you appear to be suggesting unrealistic
restrictions by imposing a complete editorial ban. I find it
most bizarre that you would expect any author, or publisher
for that matter, to print your response 'complete and unedited'
without first having read the actual article. We had believed,
naively perhaps, that you would respond to us on matters relating
to issues of theory and not resort to acrimony such as that
displayed in a resent posting, to a 'select' group of recipients,
in which you wrote:
JAW
said, 'Below is an ongoing series of e-mails between myself
(and one from Robert Bauval) to Chris Ogilvie-Herald and Ian
Lawton, authors of a volume modestly entitled GIZA: THE TRUTH
(an act either of boundless effrontery --given the controversies
swirling around that plateau for two full centuries-- or of
equally unadulterated hucksterism, or both) a work of exhaustive
but largely bogus and highly selective Egyptology designed to
trash the 'Lost Civilization' theory.'
Chris
Ogilvie: "If this is the kind of 'response' we can expect? Then
our caution in accepting your conditions is, in our opinion,
entirely valid. It maybe Christmas John but we're not really
into surprise packages. So if you can manage to apply the same
amount of time and effort into a response that we can actually
read, as you have put into copying our various correspondences
to your select group and attempting to force unreasonable restrictions
on us, we could move this issue a little further down the line.
Again: see above.
JAW
said, 'Given your demonstrable facility for selective editing
(e.g. failing to acknowledge the power of the forensic work
of Frank Domingo re: the Khafre/Sphinx facial correspondence;
giving only Rudolph [the Red-Nosed] Gantenbrink's side of the
Upuat robot brouhaha, etc., etc., etc.) and your willful or
just plain ignorant misrepresentations of carefully constructed
theories and chains of evidence, I would not give you two license
to edit my shopping list, much less my scholarly response. You
did not run your draft rebuttal by me for comment prior to publishing
your book, did you?'
Chris
Ogilvie: "(Oh, by the way, your use of the word 'effrontery'
seems to imply that we were insolent even to question your theory,
is that an ego thing or just a typo?)"
JAW:
It implies no such thing, and it is not a typo. I would not
have thought it possible to misunderstand my intention, but
on second thought, since you misunderstand everything else,
I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise. My response has nothing
to do with your handling of my theory. I am implying / suggesting
/ stating that the complexities of Giza are such that any book
claiming to reveal The Truth (the whole truth and nothing but
the truth?) is an act of 'boundless effrontery' and/or hucksterism.
When this claim is made by a brace of semi-literate amateurs
(in the most pejorative sense of that word) the effrontery takes
on comic overtones, but remains effrontery nonetheless.
Your
post and Lawton's recent post to Bauval now go to my select
list as well, as you see above, and I am cc'ing it to you. No
Christmas surprises there.
Looking
for something unrelated the other day, I came across your (Chris's)
post purporting to account for the weathering of the Sphinx
enclosure wall within Dynastic times (sent by you to Ray
Grasse, former editor of the American Quest magazine, the
Theosophical Society's magazine and cc'd by Ray to me, 9/17/99).
To your credit, your explanation is no worse than those put
forward by people who actually have some knowledge of such matters,
and therefore should know better, (and yet decline to look through
the proffered West/Schoch geoscope to see what is unmistakably
clear to large numbers of other people, many with relevant credentials
in various fields of expertise). But your explanation is no
better either.
That
is to say: it is utterly without foundation, based entirely
upon speculation and contradicted by a dozen Facts written large
into the deeply weathered stone of the Sphinx itself as well
as its enclosure wall; by the weathering pattern (or lack of
it) in the Fifth Dynasty tomb of Khamerernebti, immediately
adjacent to the Sphinx, and like it, cut from member II; by
the Northwest corner of the Khentkaus tomb -- deeply pre-weathered
behind intact, indisputably Fourth Dynasty casing stones; by
two deep water-weathered shafts at Saqqara, and by much else
besides. (Attention reader Ogilvie-Herald has declared his 'explanation'
as confidential for reasons I cannot fathom. It will be dealt
with at length and in decorous paraphrase in Giza: The (Half)
Truth IV.)
It
takes little time to merely cite the above pieces of evidence;
but it is more complicated and takes much more time to explain
and provide their context within the overall theory. Nevertheless,
if that was your thinking, (what Lawton fondly calls 'analysis')
I could have explained why it is untenable with a phone call,
as suggested to Lawton, (Attention reader ; see Lawton's response
to that suggestion in the first series of communications) But
of course, you did not call. Well, who can blame you? It would
have scuttled your book.
Assuming
that you will not give us carte blanche to respond to your criticisms
as we see fit, I rather hope this will be the last correspondence
needed between us.
With
that in mind:
Lawton,
I have nothing much against you personally. We corresponded
on several occasions. I took more time out than I wanted to
take to give you information on a number of complex questions
that you posed. It goes without saying that I don't much care
for the way you used those answers. But it does not matter much.
Giza The (Half) Truth will run through its paperback
edition in short order, hit the remainder shelves, and be gone.
If will be remembered, if it is at all, only on the basis of
the several pages I may eventually devote to your interminable,
groundless, and above all, mean-spirited attacks in a forthcoming
book of my own.
I
note in your bio that are an accountant and race driver. I would
suggest that, in future, you stick to counting beans and racing
bikes. You are obviously better suited to these activities than
you are to scholarship and writing. Were it otherwise you would
long since be broke or dead.
Chris,
you picked my brain mercilessly on matters of all sorts, and
not just the politics. You had ample opportunity on the two
trips we took together to Egypt to go deep into the many complexities
involved in this research. Instead you took at face value the
wrongheaded rationalizations of a half dozen critics desperate
to shore up at any cost the foundations of an undermined discipline
and to somehow pretend to the world that their egocarts had
not been overturned after all.
Were
it not for the feigned friendship, this would have been perfectly
OK with me; you'd just have been another self-inflated ignoranus
[See the last definition from The Washington Post Invitational
contest reprinted as a PS, below] marching blindly and alone
into an academic minefield, fatuously confident of emerging
unscathed with "Giza: The Truth" where all others had
failed. I might have responded or not responded to attack as
the situation seemed to demand.
You,
however, had easy access to me, and to Schoch, to see how we
might meet any objections put up by yourself or by those you
regard as authorities. You declined to make use of that access.
So, as it stands, given those two prior trips together, conversations,
meetings, phone calls, I regard it as a breach of trust and
confidence: I see you (and so will History) as a sneak and an
opportunist; Linda Tripp's twin brother, - though it's possible
your testosterone level does not run as high as hers.
Happy
New Millennium
John
Anthony West
John
Anthony West to Robert Schoch
Hi
Schoch, below is more long-winded palaver re: dreary book. But
I like to think my contribution is sufficiently amusing to make
it worth reading. I did, I think, forward Ogilvie's latest to
you, did I not?
But
before I send my response, not having the book here, I want
to be sure that these guys short-changed Domingo's work as I
claim they have. Would you have a quick look through the index
and make sure. I'm also very open to any other feedback / comments
you might have.
If
we can goad them into giving us the carte blanche I insist upon,
then good! If not, then we don't have to waste still more time
preparing a response that they then edit into innocuousness.
So let me know.
JAW
Robert
Schoch to John Anthony West
Hello
West,
I
just received a message from you (see below), and I also received
one from you yesterday (see even further below). I assume these
are the messages you are referring to when you asked "I did,
I think, forward Ogilvie's latest to you, did I not?"
I
also just received the copy of the dreary book in the mail.
I will have to force myself to read the relevant parts. If they
will give us carte blanche, then I very much want us to together
coauthor a response (including mention of Coxill and Reader).
If they will not, then I guess we don't write anything for them.
But, can we write something for another outlet? Perhaps even
"Atlantis
Rising" or something like that? I would simply like
to have a response out there in print (and I don't consider
web postings "in print" - but if we could get something actually
in print, then it could be posted on the web). Just flipping
through the dreary book quickly, it really is (to put it mildly)
annoying. And it really is wearing on me, at least, going through
all their inane comments and arguments.
So,
are they going to eventually let us know if we should write
something for their book or not?
Re:
Domingo's work, according to the index, they mention him only
on pages 333 and 334, but I could find no mention of Domingo
or his work directly on page 334. On page 333 they quote Domingo's
conclusions but then go on to write: [quoting from the book]
"However,
at a 'nonforensic' level, Domingo's reconstructions and Khafre's
face from the statue do, from the front at least, look strikingly
similar in our opinion - - except that the Sphinx's jaw is rather
more squared. Turning to the lateral view, once the nose is
reconstructed, the Sphinx's face is nowhere near as negroid-looking
as it usually appears, and indeed if it is tilted forward somewhat
it once again appears very similar in our view. Certainly the
profile of the eyes, nose and lips is remarkably consistent,
even if their relative positions do not match exactly."
What
nonsense. They are simply making things up, in my opinion. From
their point of view, it seems, any two faces can look the same.
Also, you don't reconstruct a nose to look like what you want
it to look like (I guess they have been taking lessons from
Lehner); you reconstruct a nose based on the evidence of the
remaining portions of the face. At any rate, they certainly
did short-change Domingo's work.
Please
keep forwarding me copies of the exchanges. Just so you know,
I will probably be away from the computer and e-mail for a few
days after Christmas (family obligations). Also, on the recommendation
of knowledgeable colleagues at BU, I plan to shut down and unplug
my computer sometime on December 30th at the latest and not
plug it in or turn it on until January 2nd, 2000, at the earliest.
"The
Washington Post's Style Invitational asked readers to take
any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting
or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are
some of the winners:
Sarchasm:
The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient
who doesn't get it.
Reintarnation:
Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
Foreploy:
Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting
laid.
Inoculatte:
To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
Hipatitis:
Terminal coolness.
Osteopornosis:
A degenerate disease.
Tatyr:
A lecherous Mr. Potato Head.
Giraffiti:
Vandalism spray-painted very, very high up on walls.
Karmageddon:
It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really
bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's,
like, a serious bummer.
Glibido:
All talk and no action.
Dopeler
effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when
they come at you rapidly.
Intaxication:
Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize
it was your money to start with.
Ignoranus:
A person who's both stupid and an asshole."
And
in that spirit, I guess it would be appropriate to call the
above 'deftinitions" -- JAW
Once
again, to all of you out there, in case you've forgotten:
Happy
New Millennium
John
Anthony West
PART III
Readers
of my first two Giza: The (Half) Truth posts may not be surprised
to learn that no carte blanche permission has been given to
respond (within an agreed-upon word limit) to what Ogilvie-Herald
and Lawton call 'analysis' and I call 'attack'.
So
the ball goes back into Schoch's and my court, and (since we
are both competent dribblers) we shall, in due course put the
ball through the hoop and respond in depth re: the geology,
on my website certainly, but quite possibly in some heretic-friendly
journal.
For
now, I'd like to put the matter into perspective without broaching
the geology -- which gets complicated. In posts from me and
from others (machinist/researcher Chris
Dunn and graduate archaeology student Michael Brass
to name two) charging Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton with bogus scholarship,
manifest bias and general unprofessionalism, these authors have
been crying foul, pleading innocence, maintaining that only
careful analysis and an exhaustive study of the relevant data
turned them from their initially positive approach to the lost
civilization hypothesis to their present negative stance. And
they probably actually believe this. (People who work or lecture
in jails will tell you that the inmates will, almost without
exception, hotly defend their innocence, no matter how irrefutable
the evidence against them.)
Here
I will select three relevant samples of Ogilvie-Herald/Lawton
scholarship-in-action to see how they might have arrived at
their delusion.
1.
Frank Domingo's forensic work.
This
was quoted in the last post along with Schoch's commentary,
and I re-quote it below since everyone will have forgotten the
details. Since my earlier post (Giza: The (Half) Truth II) was
already long enough, I added no commentary of my own. But later
reflection made me realize that this was one of those 'signatures'
I cherish: some single line or paragraph or story; some brief
gesture or act that captures the essence of an individual or
situation.
'Yes,
but I didn't inhale' is one of my all time favorites. Ronald
Reagan maintaining that ketchup is a vegetable is another. Franz
Kafka's story The Hunger Artist still another. These are little
'psychograms', pictures of the soul as it were, so revealing
that you really do not need to know any more about that individual
or situation to understand their essence. So let us look more
closely at that Ogilvie-Herald/Lawton treatment of Frank Domingo's
forensic analysis.
Ogilvie-Herald/Lawton
write: "However, at a nonforensic' level, Domingo's reconstructions
and Khafre's face from the statue do, from the front at least,
look strikingly similar in our opinion - - except that the Sphinx's
jaw is rather more squared. Turning to the lateral view, once
the nose is reconstructed, the Sphinx's face is nowhere near
as negroid-looking as it usually appears, and indeed if it is
tilted forward somewhat it once again appears very similar in
our view. Certainly the profile of the eyes, nose and lips is
remarkably consistent, even if their relative positions do not
match exactly."
Just
think about this a minute. Frank Domingo is one of the top forensic
artists in the world, a recognized authority in a highly specialized
field. Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald are respectively an accountant/race
driver and a retired army squaddie/van driver and briefly, editor.
Their combined knowledge of forensic art is precisely zero.
To take it upon themselves to challenge Domingo's carefully
considered conclusion (that the face of the Sphinx and the face
on the Khafre statue represent two entirely different individuals,
which in and of itself pretty well scuttles the basis of the
Khafre-as-creator-of-the-Sphinx assertion*) is equivalent to
me, with no medical training, challenging an X-ray analysis
by the world's leading radiologist, or, say, writing an article
claiming that no matter what anyone else may say, Michael Jordan
really isn't much of a basketball player.
*
Actually, it is not entirely damning. Domingo, Schoch and myself
all feel that because the head of the Sphinx is disproportionately
small for its body, it has been recarved, by some unknown pharaoh
at some unknown date. We think this took place deep in antiquity
but it has been suggested (by Egyptologist Ahmed Fayed) that
the head of the Sphinx was recarved in later times, perhaps
by Tutankhamen. For a variety of reasons too complicated to
go into in this post, we don't agree with this, but it is a
considered hypothesis and would, if vindicated, help preserve
the Khafre/Sphinx hypothesis -- if the geological argument could
be ignored (it can't be) it could be useful, if purely circumstantial
evidence for preserving the standard attribution.
'If
it is tilted forward somewhat' indeed! And if you stand on your
head and view the Sphinx from the back, it also looks like Khafre,
as long as you subtract the falcon... To produce his studies
Frank Domingo went to extraordinary lengths to make absolutely
certain the heads of the huge Sphinx and the life-size Khafre
were photographed from exactly the same angles so that an exact
comparison could be made. Sorry, guys, no 'tilting it forward
somewhat' allowed, I'm afraid. 'If it is tilted forward somewhat'
then the Sphinx would be looking at its own paws instead of
the horizon! Both the head of the Sphinx and Khafre's sit squarely
and irrevocably atop their respective necks, both gazing straight
ahead at the horizon. And that is how they must be compared.
This demonstrates the pronounced prognathism in the one profile
and the total lack of it in the other, i.e., two totally different
individuals.
What
Ogilvie-Herald and Ian Lawton call 'analysis' is actually a
classic 'signature'. Rarely has so much ineptitude been packed
into so few sentences. That paragraph alone is an act of such
consummate, monumental, moronic chutzpah that it is quite unnecessary
to look at anything else in their 600+ page book to dismiss
it ... and them without further consideration.
Nevertheless,
a new millennium has dawned: and I cannot help but be caught
up in its spirit of charity and compassion. So, let me give
them the benefit of the doubt and consider further anyhow.
Frank
Domingo, (unlike the Pope) is not infallible. He may well make
mistakes. But for two forensic greenhorns to make a case for
fallibility their own opinion is worthless. What they should
have done is to first get in touch with Frank Domingo, or me,
and procure a copy of the detailed report Domingo prepared explaining
how and why he came to his conclusion. There they would have
learned why it is that the profile, rather than the frontal
view is telling and most important. (It is for the same reason
that the ancient Egyptians themselves, in their reliefs, always
used a profile view.) It is more individualized, and, in forensic
work, shows differences between faces much more clearly than
the frontal view Had they taken the trouble to do this they
might perhaps have been a bit more circumspect in putting forward
their ludicrous screed in defense of a mortally compromised
hypothesis. Alternatively, or in tandem, they might have consulted
another forensic artist for a possible second expert opinion,
which, had it differed from Domingo's, might have been the basis
of a reasoned argument. They did not. They did not, because,
no matter what they may say, a book that merely defended a complex
but extremely popular heretical view developed by others, coming
from two unknown authors far less credentialed even than the
heretics (all of us, at the very least, have relevant journalistic,
engineering, technical or publishing track records) would have
little appeal.
It
is this sort of thing that I try to do myself when taking on
the Egyptological establishment without the relevant credentials.
A says this, B says that, C says something else; these explanations
are in conflict with each other, none explains the data to hand,
here is an alternative that better explains the data, etc. Whenever
possible I try to consult someone with the relevant credentials
for a more informed opinion. In the past, this often proved
impossible. The 'experts' refused to involve themselves, and
I was obliged to use my own judgment -- which ultimately turned
out to be largely accurate. If my opposition happens to be a
personal friend, then, before trashing his or her read on the
matter, I would consult him or her (this PC gender stuff is
a nuisance!) to see if my objections might be met and overturned.
Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton do not extend this courtesy, not even
to (ex)friends.
2.
How the Pyramids Were Built.
Should
readers object that I have chosen a single unfortunate misstep
(everyone makes mistakes) out of 600+ pages of otherwise careful
analysis to prove a point, similar strictures apply to the Ogilvie-Herald/Lawton
'analysis' of pyramid building. Now, this is not quite the same
situation as Domingo's forensic work, which is the result of
a carefully developed methodology that commonly works in practice.
Here, Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton do not incriminate themselves
in a single glorious paragraph, but rather over the space of
some 60 diffuse, ultimately self-contradictory pages.
This
comes from their entry in the Daily
Grail website but it is a resume of their treatment
of the subject in their book:
Our
readers will be aware that our research for Giza: The Truth
led us t o come out in favour of the orthodox explanations as
to when the Giza pyramids were built (c. 2500 BC) and why (primarily
as funerary edifices, but accepting that there was a great deal
of esoteric symbolism and ritual involved). As to how they were
built , we feel that there is no conclusive evidence in the
pyramids themselves which requires us to look outside of essentially
orthodox explanations, even in the "worst" case of the 70-tonne
granite blocks which had to be dragged up (in our view via a
spiral ramp) to between one third and one half of the height
of the Great Pyramid to form the ceilings/floors of the King's
and Relieving Chambers. Nor do we feel that the logistics of
Khufu building the Great Pyramid in something like 20 years
- or even his father Sneferu's achievement of erecting three
sizeable pyramids in a similar period - were impossible, or
required anything other than massive commitment and dedication
to a national cause, and superb project management skills. This
is notwithstanding our boundless admiration for the quality
of the workmanship, and our acceptance that, for example, tube
drills were used with great skill - albeit that we do not believe
at this stage that these tools were powered by anything other
than human or animal labour; (for more on the "advanced technology"
issues refer to our ongoing debate with Chris Dunn which will
be posted on both our web sites shortly).
Readers
will also be aware that we have provided a thorough analysis
of the issues relating to many of the other "alternative" theories,
such as the redating of the Sphinx and the Orion correlation,
and ultimately we believe these too to be fatally flawed - not
from any ideological perspective, merely because we do not believe
that the evidence in these cases supports the hypothesis.
However
there are two areas in which we might be said to depart from
the orthodox line. The first is that of acoustics, where ongoing
work by researchers such as John Reid is suggesting that the
ancient Egyptians had a highly advanced understanding of acoustic
properties and design - although we feel it is critical that
such theories be evaluated in the context of, for example, other
4th Dynasty pyramids such as those at Dashur, as opposed to
concentrating exclusively on the Great Pyramid and to a lesser
extent its counterparts at Giza. And the second is that of sonic
levitation - which is clearly not entirely unrelated.
To
elaborate further, many of the huge limestone monoliths which
form the core of the walls of the surviving mortuary and valley
temples on the Giza Plateau are acknowledged by Egyptologists
to weigh as much as 200 tonnes. This is a different order of
magnitude again from the largest 70-tonne blocks in the Great
Pyramid (or any other). Although the orthodox school has been
happy to deliberate at length on the use of ramps etc. to erect
the pyramids, these larger temple monoliths have tended to be
swept under the carpet by them. (For example, in the otherwise
excellent reference works such as Edwards' The Pyramids of Egypt'
and Lehner's 'The Complete Pyramids', whole chapters are devoted
to construction methods but the temples are ignored.) If we
are to be totally honest and unbiased in our analysis, this
is not acceptable just because it raises uncomfortable questions.
We
are not qualified engineers. However, within the constraints
of the tight time limits imposed when we were writing and researching
the book - and despite our reasonable satisfaction with the
logistics etc. of pyramid construction - we were unable to rationally
explain the use of such massive blocks in the temples. Remember
that the layout of these edifices is completely different. Suppose
you could erect a presumably straight ramp of sufficiently dense
material - and we have heard it suggested that once we are dealing
with these kind of weights, only a ramp made of solid stone
itself would not collapse - in order to drag these blocks up
to the second and third courses of the temples. You need at
a conservative estimate something like 600 men to drag a 200-tonne
block (this estimate of a third of a tonne per man seems reasonably
sound from experiments when slopes are involved). Irrespective
of how many columns they are arranged in, where do they go when
they get to the top of the ramp? There is no huge flat platform
awaiting them as there is in a pyramid. So perhaps after each
pull the lead line jumps down the other side, although this
is hardly an ideal situation for pulling one's weight effectively!
But what about once the opposite wall, or an intermediate partition
wall, is in place? The size of these edifices is simply not
sufficient, at least in some cases, for such obstructions not
to be encountered well before the column of men had completed
their hauling. So then we might suggest that the interiors were
completely filled in with sand or whatever in order to provide
a flat platform for the men to continue their hauling. But it
seemed to us when we were researching this topic, and it still
does, that once you get to this stage you are clutching at straws
in your attempts to provide an "orthodox" explanation. Occams
Razor is certainly no longer at work. Accordingly we felt that
the question posed correctly and legitimately by the alternative
school had not been satisfactorily answered - that is that even
if you can come up with an orthodox solution as to how these
blocks were erected, it would be so convoluted and difficult
that the further question remains: why on earth would the builders
make life SO difficult for themselves?
Here
again, as non-engineers and non-movers-of-stone, they beg to
differ with the engineers, quarrymen and crane drivers familiar
with moving huge chunks of heavy matter. These acknowledged
experts in various relevant fields assert that their own level
of expertise is insufficient to account for the very large FACT
of carefully fitted 200 ton blocks in the Sphinx and Valley
temples and 70 ton blocks in the Kings chamber halfway up the
pyramid. After concerted studies of the problems involved in
pyramid building, they maintain that no known simple method
of ramps, levers and sledges (which was apparently all the ancient
Egyptians had at their disposal) explains their ability to move
the stones into place.
In
and of itself, that expert opinion does NOT mean that the Egyptians
COULDN'T have done it that way. What it does mean is that Ogilvie-Herald
and Lawton's characteristically uninformed conviction that that
is how they did do it is as arrogant as it is uninformed.
To
support that conviction there are only the opinions of non-engineer
Egyptologists, which are by definition suspect, and a single
clever but manifestly inappropriate ramp-and-rope experiment
by Mark Lehner in which average size 1/2 - 2 ton blocks blocks,
similar to those in the core masonry of the Great Pyramid were
successfully but roughly wrestled more or less into place up
mud-slicked rubble ramps to the height of twenty feet . (Note:
When the cameras weren't trained on the action, a bulldozer
was pushing the recalcitrant blocks into easy striking distance.
Shortage of time was the reason given.)
This
admittedly interesting little exercise was then cited by Lehner
et al as 'proof' of how the ancients must have done it, and
Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton agree. They decide, meticulous scholars
that they are, that they (like Lehner) will ignore for the moment,
the problems involved in getting 70 ton granite blocks up ramps
200 feet high to roof over the King's Chamber.
This
is roughly equivalent to me deciding to get into body building.
I start off maybe able to press 100 lbs. After six months of
hard work say I can press 200 pounds and I then claim that at
that rate, doubling my prowess every six months, in five years
I can press five tons.
Technology
doesn't work that way. Most technological methods, like the
human body, tend to have inherent, self-imposed limits. What
works with a ton does not, in and of itself, mean that it will
work with 70 or 200 tons.
But
now, having thrown their joint inexpertise in behind orthodoxy
--while ignoring all those informed contrary opinions, along
with the 70 ton blocks-- they reverse themselves and decide
that ramps/levers/unlimited manpower will not suffice, after
all, to explain the 200 tons blocks in the Sphinx and Valley
Temples. What will? Well, acoustic levitation maybe? And off
they go on another diffuse ramble into the resonant properties
of the King's Chamber and 'burial' chambers of the Red Pyramid
(Dahshur), citing various sound experiments done there and then
off into the sound levitation experiments that we, in our Mystery
of the Sphinx video, cited as a possibility in principle. In
principle because, at present an elaborate space age machine
is capable only of levitating a pea-size pebble. They speculate
that, hey! if the resonant properties of the chambers cited
above are deliberately 'tuned' to specific frequencies (I think
they are, too) then maybe that knowledge combined with some
(totally unidentified and undemonstrable) ancient Egyptian gravity-reversing
technology was what put the 200 ton blocks into place after
all.
But
of course, if they had such a technology in place for 200 ton
blocks, then why go to the prodigious trouble of building gigantic
building ramps to put the smaller stones of the pyramids into
place? (It should be noted that engineers have calculated that
the ramps --nearly a mile long-- necessary to haul the blocks
into place would take up several times more material than the
pyramid itself. Moreover, the ramps would have to be added to
continually as the levels went up.) The point is that orthodox
explanations for how the pyramids were built, do NOT --except
in principle-- suffice to explain how they were built, while
the speculation about acoustic levitation is no better, actually
worse, since we DO know the Egyptians had ramps, ropes and plenty
of manpower, while they do not appear to have had anything resembling
an acoustic technology.
It
is a non-argument, circular, vulnerable, silly and as always,
selective. Yet for those without detailed knowledge of the vast
body of work done on these problems, and a grasp of the numerous
pros and cons, it looks like scholarship -- hence those favorable
reviews proudly posted by them on various websites. Some respondents
to these Giza: The (Half) Truth posts have expressed quite different
opinions. Here's one that I suspect will not find its way onto
their website, though I hereby give permission to use it.
Nigel
Fox, who owns an advertising agency in South Africa and who
is widely read on these matters, writes:
'The
mind picture it evoked was of a rooster scratching over an old
manure heap, keeping a beady eye cocked for any palatable morsels
and passing over those not to its taste. Just a tad selective
in the choice of facts and very liberal with the - "It didn't
convince us, so it must be wrong" - opinionated judgements.
Some of the language was disparaging to the point of being slanderous
and delivered from the high and mighty throne of the supreme
pontiffs of Egyptology. As an apologia for the Establishment,
I'm sure it does a job for the hidebound, added an extra skin
to the already thick coat they wear. But for anyone with an
open mind, the odour of bigotry and the careful selectivity
of the material screamed bias loud and clear. Peck, peck goes
the rooster's beak, another nugget that sits well in my crop.
Ptooi ! That bit stuck in the craw, so we'd best get rid of
it before anybody notices.'
Even
Zahi Hawass, as orthodox an Egyptologist as any, acknowledges
that no one REALLY knows how the pyramids were built, (though
he, too, ascribes to the ramp theory in one form or another).
The credentialed engineers, quarrymen and crane drivers, on
the other hand, tend to believe that since they can't figure
out how the task was accomplished with simple technology, it
couldn't have been done that way. But this is erring in the
other direction. In other words, the field is open. Pyramid
building is a game without agreed-upon rules and anyone can
play.
It
seems to me that the best way to approach this game is VERY
gingerly ... and systematically. And to this end I offer my
own contribution -- the result of vast (non-expert) reading
of the various experts who've played this game. Unlike Ogilvie-Herald
and Lawton, given the data to hand, I prefer to avoid conclusions
of any sort, but at least I like to think that by categorizing
the problems a more fruitful approach to them may be opened.
There
are, it seems to me, but four possible explanations for building
the pyramids, none of them necessarily mutually exclusive.
1.
A simple technology (ramps/levers/sledges) brilliantly applied.
This
is of course the only solution allowed by Egyptologists, even
though we cannot reproduce such results today. On the other
hand, despite what the starry-eyed New Agers (and indeed, the
hard-nosed engineers) may say, this cannot be dis-allowed. Put
a violin in my hands and I will quickly prove to you that music
cannot be wrung from this intractable device. But give the violin
to a virtuoso and out comes Bach's Partita or the Paganini Violin
Concerto . Just because we can't move 200 ton blocks up a ramp,
doesn't mean they couldn't. To use another analogy: did the
Kitty Hawk prefigure the space shuttle and 'prove' that soon
there would be space travel? The first generation of aeronautic
engineers might well have scoffed at such a notion, (this was
the stuff of science fiction) yet there is the space shuttle.
But it is not even an exponential extension of existing Kitty
Hawk technologies that make the space shuttle possible; rather
it is the simultaneous application of a spectrum of new techologies
undreamed-of a century ago: plastics, computers, rocketry, lasers
and so on...
Our
present-day engineers scoff at the ramp/rope/ manpower hypothesis,
yet there are the pyramids. Does this mean that's how they must
have been built? To Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton that's what it
means, but it doesn't mean that to anyone who can think straight,
or think at all. It means that in a best case scenario, given
the evidence to hand, perhaps it should be given precedence
over other explanations, all of them hypothetical (including
this one!) and that is all that it means.
2.
A hard technology for which there is no evidence.
This
sounds on the surface outrageous, but who knows what ancient
technology may have looked like. Suppose, 5000 years from now,
a computer is found, and technology at that time does not use
electricity or microchips and there is no record of such instruments.
Computers turn up in archeological digs but they are mute bits
of plastic with no moving parts. They might be fobbed off as
ceremonial/religious artifacts (with some justification perhaps.)
Who could guess that the Library of Congress could be stored
on a few internal chips, or that prodigious mathematical calculations
could be performed on them with the touch of a few keys? Maybe
certain familiar but mysterious symbols of Egypt --the djed
column for instance-- were actually technological devices, and
we just don't know how to use them? Who knows? Graham Hancock,
in his book The Sign and the Seal makes what I think is a pretty
good case for the Ark of the Covenant as just such a technological
device. Given the Old Testament evidence to hand (for whatever
that may be worth) it sure doesn't sound like a purely 'religious'
symbol. (Acoustic levitation might fit in here, or in '3' following,
or possibly in both.)
3.
A soft technology -- mind power-- for which, by definition,
there can be no evidence, and the knowledge was a priestly secret
and/or references in the texts have been mis-translated.
The
Egyptians were very good at keeping secrets; the texts refer
to secret knowledge over and over again. It was the garrulous
Greeks, Pythagorean defectors, who let the secrets outs of the
bag. Ancient Egyptian, unlike Sanskrit, is not a living tradition
and has had to be re-constructed from scratch mainly by scholars
hostile to a mystical and esoteric tradition. Thus, possible
references to such a soft technology may have been misunderstood
or ignored. Yogis, Zen masters, advanced martial artists, and
shamans can routinely perform physical feats that to the rest
of us look and are impossible. But there is a volume of evidence
to prove they can do it. There are recorded cases where a woman,
with her child trapped beneath a car, lifts up the car to get
the child out, something she could not even imagine doing in
a normal state of consciousness. Maybe the pyramids were massive
group consciousness-raising exercises, in and of themselves,
or in conjunction with a simple or even a hard technology? Or
both?
4.
Aliens dunnit.
I
personally like this explanation less than the others. I prefer
to think that people rather like ourselves, but unencumbered
with our stultifying and banal rationalist/materialist baggage,
did it. Still, anyone who looks seriously into UFO literature,
has to acknowledge that something is going on out there and
they (whoever 'they' may be) are periodically coming here. Why
I cannot imagine. But who knows? We go up there, why shouldn't
they come down here -- and once here, for alien reasons of their
own, build pyramids? Alien builders perhaps should not be dismissed
out of hand. And since no one to date can adequately explain
how they did it with simple ramps, levers and sledges either,
or any other way, this explanation is hardly goofier than those.
The
point is that the facile assurances given by Ogilvie-Herald/Lawton
endorsing the orthodox viewpoint are illegitimate, their exclusion
of contrary, genuinely informed opinion is typical of their
selective bogus sch olarship, and their long-winded acoustic
levitation hypothesis is pure speculation and self-contradictory
besides. We still don't know how the pyramids were built. Period.
Full stop. Over to you...
3.
L'affaire Bauval/Gantenbrink....
This
is a political rather than a technological or Egyptological
problem. Ogilvie-Herald's explanation ('As for contacting Robert
Bauval re Rudolf Gantenbrink, it was clear to me that Robert
was researching and writing his own book on Giza and we therefore
had a conf lict of interest. He also made it known that his
account of the Gantenbrink affair would form part of that very
same book.') hardly excuses their handling of this tangled web
of accusations and counter-accusations. Since their book is
called Giza: The Truth it behooves the authors at the very least
to provide a summary of Bauval's version of The Truth, and not
wholly endorse Gantenbrink's. Failing that, then perhaps include
a couple of sentences telling readers that Bauval will be publishing
his own dissenting account of the proceedings; which unlike
Gantenbrink, he supports with massive documentation -- which
in turn strongly suggests that Gantenbrink is either lying,
or stricken with a severe case of premature Alzheimer's Disease
(unless, of course, Bauval has forged all his documentation).
Whatever the case, Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton's handling of the
affair is as inexcusable as it is selective.
Conclusion:
I
have cited three 'signature' bits of Ogilvie-Herald/Lawton scholarship/analysis,
which I believe capture the essence of their work. Does anyone
need to know more? ('Yes, but I didn't inhale.') By scanning
through in haste, have I traduced Giza: The (Half) Truth? Perhaps,
buried within these 600+ pages of lurching, club-footed prose
and personal attack,* there may just be passages of lucid cerebration
and legitimate analysis? (As Gurdjieff used to say, 'All things
possible in this world!') But they certainly have not made themselves
apparent to my professional eye, sharpened by forty-five years
of practice ... I make no apologies for this lack of detailed
attention. A pro-ballplayer only has to watch a stranger take
a couple of swings of the bat, or a few shots at a basket to
know if the man knows the simple basics of the game. Ogilvie-Herald
and Ian Lawton do not.
*
This is mainly directed at Bauval and Hancock -- the virulence
of attack seems to be directly proportional to the amount of
money made by the attackees. Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton know
I've made very little money from my work, despite its wide public
dissemination, so --up until these posts began-- I was spared
the full impact of their self-evident spite and contumely.
Unfortunately,
most readers will not be of my generation, and therefore will
be unfamiliar with the old, once-well-known Aldous Huxley novel
Eyeless in Gaza. Were that title still familiar, Ogilvie-Herald
and Lawton might have more accurately entitled their book: Clueless
in Giza -- which would, indeed, have been The Truth.
END
(?)
PS.
Robert Schoch and I will be preparing in due course our response
to the Ogilvie-Herald/Lawton critique of the water weathering
to the Sphinx. Stay tuned for Giza: The (Half) Truth IV
PPS.
I owe an apology to my friend Ray Grasse, cited in my second
post, who provided me with that fortuitous (and fatuous) explanation
by Ogilvie-Herald, purporting to explain why the enclosure wall
of the Sphinx is weathered the way it is. I had quite forgotten
that shortly after Ray provided me with that document, he'd
called to ask me to keep it confidential. I cannot for the life
me see why Ogilvie-Herald should have required confidentiality.
But he did. Ray called me to relay that request. And I agreed,
but forgot. Sorry Ray!
Comments
by Robert
M. Schoch on the Geological Analysis of Ian Lawton and
Chris Ogilvie-HeraldPreceded by: Dumb & Dumber: Boy Geologists,
(introductory remarks about this and that by John Anthony West):
In which our young heroes, those intrepid questors, Chris Ogilvie-Herald
and Ian Lawton (AKA D&D), having solved all problems relating
to pyramid building that have baffled engineering experts, builders
and architects all over the world for two centu
