The How To Of Pyramids

By Author: Robert Bruce Baird
Total Articles: 190
Comment this article

GEOPOLYMERIZATION:

I just watched a show dealing with the Incan Andean cosmology that said they believed in 'As Above, So Below'. This is one of the three laws of the Magi and the Dictum of Hermes that our secret agent of British Intelligence has on the back cover of his book Secret Societies.

Dr. Davidovits is the modern patent holder of many geopolymeric rock-making or concrete processes and I talked at length with his co-author Marjorie Morris in 1993-4 about a variety of things related to their book 'The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved'. In the interest of brevity I'll leave out how they were back-stabbed in a media hatchet-job by WGBH Boston who produced what the BBC takes to schools all around the world. It is a video called 'This Old Pyramid' and it was shown on U.S. National TV as well as 'The Nature of Things' with David Suzuki. I saw his letter saying he didn't know they had used fork-lift trucks and modern tools to build this small pyramid that shifted in the sand after a few weeks and didn't have the 'fit' anyway.

The recent April issue of Scientific American deals with this in ...
... a somewhat tangential manner as it mentions the Miller-Urey Chicago creation of life experiment that was taught as creation of animate from inanimate for many years although it actually isn't creation, of much more than a few basic proteins. However, that start which became a dead end in some people's minds has continued to produce valuable insights. This particular article helps one see how the attunement may have been initiated by the collective consciousnesses within inanimate matter or mountains that the natives of the world revere. It may be a bit of a stretch but the nanotube article and other science from solid state chemistry as well as the work of Drs. Robins and Tiller would support it as well.

"Carbon-based molecules needed protection and assistance to enact this drama {The beginning of life, which NASA now knows is everywhere.}. It turns out that minerals could have served at least five significant functions, from passive props to active players, in life-inducing chemical reactions. Tiny compartments {What Robins calls 'energy wells'.} in mineral structures can shelter simple molecules, while mineral surfaces can provide the scaffolding on which those molecules assemble and grow. Beyond these sheltering and supportive functions, crystal faces of certain minerals can actually select particular molecules resembling those that were destined to become biologically important. The metallic ions in other minerals can jump-start meaningful reactions like those that must have converted simple molecules into self-replicating entities. Most surprisingly, perhaps, are the recent indications that elements of dissolved minerals can be incorporated into biological molecules. In other words, minerals may not have merely helped biological molecules come together, they might have become part of life itself!" (11)

Geopolymers are revolutionary for the concrete industry {He is a member of the Board of Portland Cement and a Director of a French concrete development consortium or research entity. His Doctorate in chemistry began his journey.}. Any type of rock aggregate can be used, and concrete made with the geopolymeric binder is practically indistinguishable from natural stone. Geologists unfamiliar with the technical possibilities afforded by geopolymerization have scrutinized geopolymeric concrete and have mistaken it for natural stone. This is unprecedented technology; no tremendous heat or pressure is required... sets rapidly at room temperatures to form synthetic stone...

To develop a new branch of chemistry is one thing, but to apply that chemistry to ancient history is quite another. How did I learn that the pyramid stone is also geopolymeric? Any theory must be feasible; then, there must be evidence; and ultimately, hard scientific proof is required. All mysteries associated with pyramid construction must be resolved. {The pyramid rock weighs 20-25% less than quarried stone and the same as geopolymeric rock. This does not mean that Christopher Dunn's finishing engineering doesn't apply and that molds were used when obelisks or special rocks were required either. He doesn't deal with the healing or other energy in some of these surrounding structures either.} A description is found in the ancient science encyclopedia written by Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79), the Roman naturalist. Pliny's account is not legendary or written esoterically; it clearly describes the salient features of the technology. But Pliny's description has not been understood by modern science, because to recognize what is written, one must have the appropriate knowledge {Or at least enough to actually hear what is being said.}

To date, the passages related to alchemical stonemaking confuse scholars, resulting in gross errors of translation on Pliny's work. Worse, the salient principles and characteristics of the ancient science being unknown, the translators dismissed Pliny's account as erroneous. De Roziere commented on the problems of translation:

'M. Grosse, author of a German translation of Pliny, highly esteemed by learned people, points out that in the whole of this description the Roman naturalist seems to have done his best to make himself obscure. 'Despite my familiarity,' he said, 'both with Pliny's style and the meaning he gives to terms, it has been difficult, sometimes even impossible, to translate the passages clearly and exactly.' The reason was certainly that he was unfamiliar with the substance that Pliny was describing...

A passage from Book 31 of Pliny's encyclopedia made no sense to the French scholars. But the passage is compelling in its support of the existence of alchemical stonemaking. The passage appears in Latin as follows:

Nitrariae Aegypti circa Naucratim et Memphim tantum solebant esse, circa Memphim deteriores. Nam et lapidescit ibi in ascervis: multique sunt cumuli ea de causa saxei. Faciunt ex his vasa

Translated into English this passage reads:

In previous times, Egypt had no outcrops of natron except for those near Naucratus {Where the Milesian consortium set up their trading city around the 6th century BCE.} and Memphis, the products of Memphis being reputedly inferior. It is a fact that in accumulation of materials it (natron) petrifies (minerals). In this way occurs a multitude of heaps (of minerals) which became transformed into real rocks. The Egyptians made rocks of it.

This particular passage is simple and straitforward, so there is no error of translation." (12)

The next quote from him should be read in light of the recent archaeological finds that show agriculture and an alphabet (Flinders Petrie knew of a much more ancient alphabet of a non-hieroglyphic nature in Egypt in the early 20th century as did MacDari. Grant notes a pre-existing Canaanite alphabet. Gimbutas has shown a lot that relates to this as well as to the Tartessus written history Strabo said recorded 7,000 years before Christ, etc. etc.) from a thousand years before the Nile had these things. There is evidence of an advanced agriculture in the Nile that existed while the Sphinx was built and then left the area during the wet phases of the last Ice Age around 7,000 BC as well.

"The Great Pyramid in front of Khafra's pyramid has become more controversial than ever in light of recent geological studies. Based on the severe manner in which blocks covering the lower layers of the body and paws are eroded, the age of the Sphinx has, once again, come into serious question.

Today, the Sphinx is attributed to Khafra (Chephre in another language). Earlier Egyptologists believed it was erected a great deal earlier than his reign, perhaps at the end of the archaic period. The Sphinx looks much older than the Pyramids.

No inscriptions connect the sacred monument to Khafra (except reconstruction gangs graffiti), but in the Valley Temple, a dozen statues of Khafra, one in the form of a Sphinx, were uncovered in the 1950's. Some Egyptologists claim a resemblance between these statues and the face of the Sphinx.

A document which indicates greater antiquity, however, was found on the Giza Plateau by French Egyptologists during the nineteenth century. The text, called the 'Inventory Stele', bears inscriptions relating events during the reign of Khafra's father, Khufu. The text says that Khufu instructed that a temple be erected alongside the Sphinx, meaning that the Sphinx already existed before Khafra's time. The accuracy of the stele has been questioned because it dates from the Twenty-first Dynasty (1070-945 BC.), long after the Pyramid Age, but because the Egyptians took great pride in precise record keeping {Well, let's say they were well aware of glory and posterity; they would also have known what happened in a time closer to their period of history, than Egyptologists today.} and the careful copying of documents, no authoritative reason exists to discount the text as inaccurate.

Fragments of early papyruses and tablets, as well as the later writings of the third century B.C. Greco-Egyptian historian {A priest} Manetho, claim that Egypt was ruled for thousands of years before the First Dynasty, some texts claim as much as 36,000 years earlier. {A deep mine in Egypt is reported to have been dated to 35,000 BC. that came to light in the last year or so.} This history is dismissed by Egyptologists as legend {Even though they use Manetho's kings list extensively in their own fabrication.}. However, ancient Egyptian history is viewed by scholars mostly from a New Kingdom perspective because numerous documents have survived from Thebes. The capital of Memphis, founded during prehistoric times, was a vitally important religious, commercial, cultural and administrative center with a life span of thousands of years, but unfortunately, it has not been effectively excavated.

{Britannica tells us: "the excavations of Thomas W. Jacobsen at the Franchithi Cave on the Bay of Argos... by 13,000 - 11,000 B.C. and that the cultivation of hybrid grains, the domestication of animals, and organized community tuna hunts had already begun. (13) This is in Crete where another major Keltic administrative colony existed, to go along with Malta and probably Byblos if not what is known as Harappa, and also Finias.}

The recent geological studies of the Sphinx have kindled more than debate over the attribution and age. The established history of the evolution of civilization is being challenged.

A study of the severe body erosion of the Sphinx and the hollow in which it is situated indicates that the damaging agent was water. A slow erosion occurs in limestone when water is absorbed and reacts with salts in the stone. The controversy arises over the vast amounts of water responsible.

Two theories are popular. One is that groundwater slowly rose into the body of the Sphinx. This theory produces irreconcilable problems: A recent survey carried out by the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) determined that three distinctly separate repair operations were completed on the Sphinx between the New Kingdom and the Ptolemaic rule, that is, during a period of roughly 700 to 1,000 years. The study also indicates that the Sphinx was already in its current state of erosion when the early repairs were made. No appreciable erosion has occurred since the original damage, nor is there further damage on the bedrock of the surrounding hollow, an area that never underwent repair.

Knowing this, one must consider that the inundating Nile slowly built up levels of silt over millenia, and this was accompanied by a gradual rise in the water. During Khafra's time the water table was about thirty feet lower than it is today. For the rising groundwater theory to hold, an unbelievable geological scenario would have to have taken place. It would mean that from thirty feet lower than today's water table, water rose to about two feet into the body of the Sphinx and the surrounding hollow, where it caused erosion for roughly 600 years, and then stopped its damaging effects.

Historians find the second theory that is offered more unthinkable. It suggests that the source of water stemmed from the wet phases of the last ice age--c.15,000 to 10,000 B.C.- when Egypt underwent periods of severe flooding. This hypothesis advocates that the Sphinx necessarily existed before the floods. If it could be proven, well-established theories about prehistory would be radically shaken. The world's most mysterious sculpture would date to a time when historians place humanity in a neolithic setting, living in open camps and depending largely on hunting and foraging." (14)

Thus the Egyptians would have to give up their claim to having built it. This is their pride and joy and it is difficult to admit such a lie. The truth when one looks at all the facts; is that there is no way the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid. If it was not the Phoenicians then it was African cultures such as Timbuktu, who we know even less about. It is likely they and other people around the world merely imitated it and its capstone which is older than its base (ARCE carbon, AMS, dating). The capstone may have been used as a model to demonstrate the effects of two perfect tetrahedra in a perfect pyramid that generates 'phi' and the kind of design that the nautilus deep sea shell contains. These are not co-incidences and reflect on knowledge gained through attunements with spiritual things or 'direct cognition'. The only other possible explanation is the alien theory or an advanced hominid that rose to our current level of technical understanding that went into space or somehow disappeared. Would they have gone to space like we can, and return for appropriate or unique resources needed from their evolutionary home? We must keep an open mind and not try to make facts force-fit easy theories. That approach is common in science and goes by names like 'reductivism', 'gradualism', and 'direct inference'.


About the Author Author of Diverse Druids,
Columnist for The ES Press Magazine,
Guest 'expert' at World-Mysteries.com