As
you are all no doubt aware, the controversy swirling about the
age of the Sphinx, the Orion correlation and other related issues
peaked some years back, though it has by no means disappeared.
The presentation given by Robert Schoch at the Geological Society
of America's Annual Meeting in Reno NV in Novermber 2000 was
attended by a packed house of some 500 geologists. Schoch's
talk was devoted to new supporting evidence mostly gathered
by myself over the past decade (some of it supplied by sharp-eyed
grockles on my trips, pointing out to me important details that
had escaped my own notice, even after having visited the sites
dozens of times! Science goes like that.) The attending geologists,
with two easily answered exceptions, were overwhelmingly receptive
and supportive. But because the presentation was followed by
a total and disappointing silence from the media, the controversy
was not in any way re-stimulated.
However,
for at least seven or eight years, I have been trying to put
together a project designed to answer the single valid objection/reservation
raised so far by our academic opposition. Initially, this took
the form of: 'Schoch is the only geologist in the world who
supports this theory.' This was, of course, perfectly irrelevant.
Back in 1600 Galileo was the only astronomer who supported the
Copernican heliocentric theory. Galileo was right, and the massed
opposition was wrong. But when the overwhelming support of geologists
at the GSA meetings was cited in response, the answer was: 'These
geologists have never studied the evidence on site.' Then in
the late 90's, two English geologists, David Coxill and Colin
Reader, independent of each other and of ourselves, went to
Egypt separately to study the water weathering hypothesis in
situ.
Both
without reservation supported the basic hypothesis, though there
was (and is) no agreement as to the dating. The Sphinx had been
weathered by water, specifically by rain, and by water runoff
from the Giza Plateau, and therefore the attribution to Khafre
(Chephren) was incorrect. We now had two formal allies. But
this support also gave rise to no press coverage to speak of;
the opposition tune did not change.
There
was, however, a kernel of validity to the charge that the bulk
of our support did in fact come from geologists impressed by
our photographic evidence but who had not actually visited the
site. Though this may sound like sheer obduracy, Schoch's and
my own experience several years back, scuba diving the impressive
underwater formation on the little Japanese island of Yonaguni,
forced us to concede that the reservation (hardly a rebuttal!)
required a response. Judging from clear photographs it did not
seem to us possible that this amazing wall of sheer, geometric-looking
steps and terraces could be anything but artificial, i.e., man-made.
But a week of diving (and two subsequent investigations by Schoch)
convinced us that despite the photographs it was indeed a natural
formation and we believed we could account for the geological/tidal
factors responsible for producing it.. So if this held true
for Yonaguni, might it not also apply to the Sphinx?
There was only one way to counter the argument.. And that was
to put together a panel of uncommitted geologists with credentials
in the relevant areas, bring them to Egypt, have them study
the matter on site, and write formal papers on their conclusions.
As
I said above, this idea was formulated years ago, but the hostility
then prevailing between ourselves and the Egyptian Antiquities
authorities made it futile even to try to put forward a proposal.
The matter lay dormant. However, with the personal detente established
back in 1998, specifically with Dr. Zahi Hawass, the idea for
a Geologists Panel became feasible, at least in principle. Dr.
Hawass expressed on several occasions his willingness to support
such an investigation; it was up to us to organize it. But organization
is hardly my forte; there was no money available to finance
the project; gathering the geologists together involved time,
much correspondence...in other words a lot of work and neither
Schoch nor I could see our way to putting it together. In the
meanwhile, however, I did set up our Ancient Wisdom Foundation
to act as a potential funding source for this and other still
more ambitious future projects.
Enter Philip La Porta: In November 2001, a curious set of serendipitous
circumstances put me in touch with Philip LaPorta, a geologist
specializing in geo-archaeology, formerly head of the geology
Department at Hunter College in New York, and now in the private
sector, working mainly with archeological teams studying the
geology of sites under investigation. LaPorta was familiar with
our work (in fact had been at Schoch's GSA presentation in Reno
in November 2000) and felt it deserved the kind of detailed
investigation we were proposing with our Panel. (See LaPorta's
web site).
To add to the interest, we've also recently become aware of
the work of physicist/archeoastronomer Thomas Brophy. Brophy
has written a fascinating preliminary study of the sophisticated
astronomy involved in the recently discovered (1997 or so) megalithic
stone circle at Nabta (currently dated to ca. 4500 BC! And therefore
the oldest known stone circle in the world) deep in the Southern
Sahara, west of Abu Simbel. We hope to include Brophy in our
team to look into various astronomical elements of the Giza
controversy, and, with luck, get down to Nabta ourselves to
do the kind of detailed investigation needed for him to carry
out his own studies.
And, (in the works) we've recently also become aware of the
work of forensic engineer James O'Kon. (see the article The
Meso American Mystery by Will Hart in the current #24 Mar/Apr
2002 Atlantis Rising.) O'Kon's input could be invaluable in
addressing some of the technical mysteries involved in the pyramids,
Sphinx temples, the Oseirion, the 'megalithic' so-called burial
chamber of the Red Pyramid, and other sites. O'Kon could be
another member of our prospective team.
So I'm pleased to report that the first steps to implementing
this crucial project to decisively validate (or rebut) the water
weathering hypothesis is now finally under way. Schoch and LaPorta
are putting together a panel of credentialed, uncommitted geologists
and working out a preliminary proposal to present to Dr. Hawass
when I go to Egypt on March 9. We shall invite Dr. Hawass to
add geologists of his own choosing to the panel as well.
And
it is our hope, funding and permissions forthcoming, to get
over to Egypt in the not-too-distant future to carry out our
investigation. Gottesmuhle mahlen langsam, aber mahlen trefflich
klein - The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly
small. Much too slowly to suit me, actually... but they do grind.
It
is my belief that an unequivocal endorsement from the Panel
could prove to be the battering ram that blows open the portcullis
to the Ivory Tower; the decisive act that finally routs the
Paradigm Police and forces not just the necessary rewrite of
history, but the reconsideration of the ancient doctrine of
Return to the Source, the Science of Immortality, without which
no civilization in the true meaning of that word, is even possible.
It goes without saying that we would like to hear from anyone
interested in helping fund our panel.
P.S.
And The Band Played On
A friend recently furnished me with the following quote from
Egyptologist Miroslav Verner's new book: THE PYRAMIDS. 'Discussion
of the Sphinx Age has recently been encouraged for commercial
reasons, especially by certain American private organizations.
However, suggestions that it was created between 7000 and 5000
BCE, and possibly even earlier, are so incompatible with the
specific archeological and general historical context that they
need not be taken seriously.' It was, I think, Theodore Roosevelt
who said, 'There is nothing more irritating than the smugness
of the ignorant.' --jaw
