Speaker 1: Four doors, four belts.
Speaker 2: That was only three clicks? Where's the last click?
Speaker 3: Someone isn't wearing their seat belt?
Speaker 2: I need to ask them to put it on. But
Speaker 2: what if you laughs at me? What if the others
Speaker 2: take off their belts in solidarity? What if I don't ask?
Speaker 2: However bad you think asking will be, it's nothing compared
Speaker 2: to what could happen if you don't.
Speaker 4: Would you mind wearing your seat belt?
Speaker 2: No problem? Asking your mates to wear seat belt won't
Speaker 2: kill you every time, every trip?
Speaker 1: Everybody belt up.
Speaker 2: A message from the Road Safety Authority.
Speaker 5: Welcome to a GAST Classics twenty twenty six, four exceptional
Speaker 5: limited series hand picked for their journalism, craft and storytelling,
Speaker 5: including Sweet Bobby had quote him red handed west Core.
Speaker 6: The trial turned on a single witnesses testimony.
Speaker 5: The witness as, I didn't do it, so that's why
Speaker 5: I'm standing here. Carrie Jay does not exist.
Speaker 7: She offered them exactly that, and then just bails.
Speaker 5: To find out more. Head to ACAST dot com. Forward
Speaker 5: Slash Classics.
Speaker 8: Welcome to Where Did the Road Go? Be sure to
Speaker 8: check us out online at www dot Where did the
Speaker 8: Road Go dot com. Now enjoy this edition of the
Speaker 8: Midweek podcast.
Speaker 7: Yes, welcome to Where Did the Road Goes? Midweek podcast.
Speaker 7: I have a few of these an't going to be
Speaker 7: putting up for one reason or another that don't fit
Speaker 7: into the main show. This you can actually watch the
Speaker 7: video of if you go to our YouTube channel oder
Speaker 7: the video section of Where didthroadgo dot com. However, if
Speaker 7: you prefer to just listen to the interview, we have
Speaker 7: here a conversation with Lard Scranton and John Anthony West.
Speaker 7: And John was kind enough to invite us out to
Speaker 7: his home and you can see that on the video,
Speaker 7: and he was just such an amazing person to be
Speaker 7: able to sit and talk to laired as well. The
Speaker 7: conversations that happened off the off camera were just as
Speaker 7: fascinating as the camera the conversation on camera. Lair drops
Speaker 7: some big bombshells here near the end of this one too,
Speaker 7: and we get into a little bit of what may
Speaker 7: be coming up in alternative archaeology. So I hope you
Speaker 7: enjoy this, and I do have some other midweeks I'm
Speaker 7: going to be putting up at some point, dealing with
Speaker 7: stuff that may be a little bit outside the typical
Speaker 7: subject matter of Where did the Road Go. For instance,
Speaker 7: the next one will probably be the one with Aaron
Speaker 7: Gullias and Devo Spice talking about Doctor Who. I know
Speaker 7: there's probably a lot of Doctor Who fans and the
Speaker 7: where at the Road Go audience, But I'm not going
Speaker 7: to air it as a regular show. It was actually
Speaker 7: done for our last eggsit for the Lost Music Show,
Speaker 7: but I think it would. It deserves, you know, an
Speaker 7: airing here and if you don't want to hear it,
Speaker 7: you just don't bother. So yeah, we'll see what else
Speaker 7: I end up putting up in the midweek spot now
Speaker 7: and again, all right, without any further ado, here's Lad
Speaker 7: Scranton and John Anthony West. All right, so we are
Speaker 7: here with mister John Anthony West and Laird Scranton, and
Speaker 7: we're in John's home at the moment.
Speaker 2: This is your home, right, Yes, this is my home
Speaker 2: all right, some soon to become a museum.
Speaker 7: And your large selection of books behind you. Yes, now,
Speaker 7: I guess let's let's start with this. I mentioned this
Speaker 7: to you already. Graham Hancock just recently posted a video
Speaker 7: with Zahid Hawass kind of blowing up. What were your
Speaker 7: thoughts on all that?
Speaker 2: Well, there are a lot of long to try and
Speaker 2: keep them a bit briefer. Graham is a good friend, actually,
Speaker 2: and I am, miraculously, given the history of the liaison,
Speaker 2: actually pretty very good terms with Zahi. Doesn't understand how
Speaker 2: good our evidence is. But we're cordial. We have drinks
Speaker 2: together and sometimes the dinner together when I'm over in Egypt.
Speaker 2: And I could see that this was not going to
Speaker 2: be a successful venue. No matter what, nobody was going
Speaker 2: to come out smelling of roses in principle, and mainly,
Speaker 2: I should say, because in a real debate, Graham would
Speaker 2: have made mincemeat out of Zahi. He wouldn't have had
Speaker 2: a leg to stand on, and Zai would not have
Speaker 2: liked that. And the press, if there was going to
Speaker 2: be any particularly it was the academic or as I
Speaker 2: call it, the quackademic press, would rally behind Zahi, even
Speaker 2: though they really don't have a lot of respect for him.
Speaker 2: So I could see that this was no good. But
Speaker 2: Graham said, well, he'd already committed to it and he
Speaker 2: had to go through with it. And I'm not so
Speaker 2: sure Zai was too anxious about it either, because my
Speaker 2: great friend who organizes my trips for me, Mohammad Nasmi
Speaker 2: who runs Quest Travel. There's all my Egypt trips. He's
Speaker 2: a good friend of Zahi's too, And we know, we
Speaker 2: saw that nothing good was going to come of it,
Speaker 2: but we none of us had any idea that it
Speaker 2: would be this kind of a crazy thing to happen.
Speaker 2: Because Belval showed up in a slide for as Orion theory,
Speaker 2: which is central to the whole lost civilization ancient you know,
Speaker 2: lost civilization, very ancient Egypt scenario was on the was
Speaker 2: on one of Graham's slides for opening the show, and
Speaker 2: Zai has an absolute loathing for Boval, and this is mutual.
Speaker 2: But Zai, I mean, there was absolutely no reason for
Speaker 2: him to explode the way he did and turn this
Speaker 2: whole thing into, you know, something like I didn't know
Speaker 2: a cross between Full Metal Jacket and the Marx Brothers
Speaker 2: the others. And so whether or not there's going to
Speaker 2: be any any repercussions, I'm still waiting. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is only a few days ago. I hope not, because
Speaker 2: this could have it could have, it could reverberate and
Speaker 2: make it more difficult for us to get certain kinds
Speaker 2: of work done in Egypt than it already is. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, there might be a way too, There
Speaker 2: might be a way to use it for our own
Speaker 2: benefit and for the benefit of the whole actually, for
Speaker 2: the whole, the whole research project, if we can turn
Speaker 2: it around in some way or another. I'll be talking
Speaker 2: with Mohammed and see if we can somehow or another
Speaker 2: make some that makes something constructive out of it. It
Speaker 2: doesn't look very possible given those Facebook postings and the
Speaker 2: nature of the Zai's blow up. But Graham, as Graham
Speaker 2: comported himself, I thought very brilliantly. He was absolutely calm
Speaker 2: and cool and collected. And we'll see where are any
Speaker 2: thoughts on it.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, this is a field where tempers sometimes flare,
Speaker 1: and tantrums are not uncommon. I've seen a few myself
Speaker 1: over the years. Zahi and Robert will have a long
Speaker 1: sad history back and forth on issues between the two
Speaker 1: of them, and cross accusations and cross you know, blowing
Speaker 1: up with each other in print and so forth. It
Speaker 1: seems like a convenient excuse to bow out of a
Speaker 1: debate that Zahi might not have wanted to participate in.
Speaker 7: H That's a good point, all right. So we could
Speaker 7: start with either of you, how did you get let's
Speaker 7: start with Lair. How did you get interested in researching
Speaker 7: Egypt and the Dogon?
Speaker 1: It was actually by accident. My wife, Reesa, who happens
Speaker 1: to be here today, had read a book called Unexplained
Speaker 1: by Jerome Clark, where each chapter of the book involved
Speaker 1: some unresolved mystery, and one of the chapters was about
Speaker 1: the Dogan and about knowledge they seemed to have about
Speaker 1: astronomy that they there wasn't appropriate to their status as
Speaker 1: a modern primitive African tribe. They shouldn't know and be
Speaker 1: able to detect without telescopes, that there are two stars
Speaker 1: in that system, that bright star like the Sun, and
Speaker 1: a small dark star that's a dwarf star, but that
Speaker 1: orbits so closely to the bright star that you can't
Speaker 1: see it because of the glare of the bright star.
Speaker 1: And they knew things like the correct or period for
Speaker 1: the stars, and they knew they had other other opinions
Speaker 1: about aspects of that system that even astronomers today haven't
Speaker 1: able to necessarily verify. They have hints of, but haven't verified.
Speaker 1: So I thought that that would make an interesting research
Speaker 1: project for myself, just for fun, and that took me
Speaker 1: down a long path that has led to comparative cosmology
Speaker 1: studies between cultures.
Speaker 7: And John how long ago did you get interested in Egypt?
Speaker 7: Has it been a lifelong thing?
Speaker 2: No? No, it started in the middle sixties or so.
Speaker 2: And I'll go back a bit further than that. At
Speaker 2: a very early age, I was never a boy genius.
Speaker 2: You know, they turn on your television every week there's
Speaker 2: some eight year old kid playing they told him violins
Speaker 2: and not an upside down while standing on his head
Speaker 2: and eating ice peaking. It really makes you feel stupid.
Speaker 2: I was never one of those. But what a way
Speaker 2: was I was? I was psychologically precocious. I knew at
Speaker 2: the age of thirteen that I had been born into
Speaker 2: a lunatic asylum. And everybody else thought it was just
Speaker 2: great and called it progress and all of that, but
Speaker 2: I knew it was a madhouse. And by the time
Speaker 2: I was nineteen, I knew what I wanted to do,
Speaker 2: which was to be a writer, and I wanted to
Speaker 2: be the little boy who said the Emperor has no clothes.
Speaker 2: And I started but I had no thought ever of scholarship,
Speaker 2: and basically my modus operandi was with satire. And I
Speaker 2: started writing. I started getting published plays and novel, novel,
Speaker 2: book of short stories, and then I moved when when
Speaker 2: my first short story was published or accepted, I was
Speaker 2: wildly and I was working on Madison Avenue. I was
Speaker 2: twenty five, wildly enough, with a woman who, thank God
Speaker 2: wouldn't have me, and otherwise I had stayed there and
Speaker 2: gotten around to writing the Man in the dark gray
Speaker 2: blinds suit, and the one and the Men in the
Speaker 2: double breasted dark gray flannel suit, and so on, and anyway,
Speaker 2: I've been in Europe a year and a half in
Speaker 2: the Army of fifty three to fifty five, and so
Speaker 2: I wanted to go back to Europe where they named
Speaker 2: streets after poets, to get my writing done. And again,
Speaker 2: more long story that I found my way to this
Speaker 2: magical island of Abisa, which became the party capital of
Speaker 2: the world. Then it wasn't the party capital of the world.
Speaker 2: It was this essentially medieval island, but with a burgeoning
Speaker 2: and interesting art colony. Most everyone were, as art colonies
Speaker 2: tend to be drunks or junkies, but a few of
Speaker 2: us actually managed to get some work done, even though
Speaker 2: we didn't drink any less than the other guys. But
Speaker 2: over the course of being an avisa. More long story, Well,
Speaker 2: I'll cut a charge. A good friend of mine who's
Speaker 2: a Dutch novelist, a very good one. Actually, I went
Speaker 2: to borrow some paper. My friend is. Remember this is
Speaker 2: a medieval island. There's only one place that sells paper.
Speaker 2: And it was a Sunday and I ran out of paper.
Speaker 2: So I went to his place. Just we lived on
Speaker 2: the beach right right on the Mediterranean Sea, a little adobe.
Speaker 2: I had a little adobe and sort of like this,
Speaker 2: except with that with the Mediterranean in front instead of
Speaker 2: the waterfalls. And the rule was if you were actually
Speaker 2: trying to get some work done that you didn't barge you.
Speaker 2: And nobody had telephones. It was no communication. You didn't
Speaker 2: just because you were feeling bored or depressed, you had
Speaker 2: writer's block, knock on somebody's door and expect them to
Speaker 2: treat you to know, another gallon of wine, and so
Speaker 2: very apologetically, you know, yeah, and I really need some patents, okay, okay.
Speaker 2: And he went and he got some paper for me,
Speaker 2: and I noticed on his desk he had something going
Speaker 2: on in his desk at all of these little pie
Speaker 2: charts divided into parts. When he came out, he said,
Speaker 2: I said, what's that young and he said he said, oh,
Speaker 2: he said, you caught me. I don't tell people about this,
Speaker 2: but I'm an astrologer and I do this. I do
Speaker 2: people's charts of celebrities in Holland to make some extra money.
Speaker 2: And I knew John Well. We were good friends for
Speaker 2: a couple of years. He was a generation older than
Speaker 2: I was. He's been a war hero in the in
Speaker 2: the resistance press during during the Second World War. And
Speaker 2: I said astrology. I said, oh, there's a bunch of bullshit,
Speaker 2: isn't it. And he looked at me square in the eye, big, tall, straight,
Speaker 2: looked like a retired British colonel, and he said do
Speaker 2: you think I meant do you think I'm a fool?
Speaker 2: And I said, well, no, you're drunk, but you've got
Speaker 2: a fool. And he said, I've been studying this for
Speaker 2: about twenty years, and I tell you there's something to it.
Speaker 2: And my next question, of course, was well would you
Speaker 2: do my horoscope? And he said no, get stuffed to
Speaker 2: your own. Made a bunch of books, and since anything
Speaker 2: is easier than writing, I took them home back to
Speaker 2: my place and I spent the weekend trying to craft
Speaker 2: my own horoscope and ended up with something that was botched,
Speaker 2: But there was enough in it. I was not very
Speaker 2: interested in the predicting, prediction, predictive side of astrology. I
Speaker 2: was interested in it for its number symbolism, and for
Speaker 2: its symbolism in general, and for the insistence by the
Speaker 2: astrologers that it was a sacred science that went much
Speaker 2: further back than it is credited with going back to.
Speaker 2: In other words, you go to a modern science class,
Speaker 2: or you're a history class and the subject of astrology
Speaker 2: comes up, of course your professor will sneer, and he
Speaker 2: will say, well, this is a Babylonian superstition that was
Speaker 2: made rational by the Greeks, but of course we know
Speaker 2: better and it's all nonsense. I was intrigued by the
Speaker 2: notion that maybe it wasn't all nonsense. And then over
Speaker 2: the course, so with my big mouth, my Palion had
Speaker 2: managed to keep the secret for the years, but this
Speaker 2: time we had been four or five years in the
Speaker 2: visa and he had not told people about this, but me,
Speaker 2: with my big mouth, I had to tell everybody. And
Speaker 2: then I got turned off the predictive side of it
Speaker 2: when it turned out because everybody wanted their horoscope done,
Speaker 2: so this was good practice to do all of these things.
Speaker 2: The women all wanted to be told that they were
Speaker 2: going to meet the toll dark, handsome stranger, and the
Speaker 2: men all wanted to be told that they were geniuses
Speaker 2: and was soon going to come into a million dollars.
Speaker 2: And I realized that that's all they wanted to hear,
Speaker 2: and I said, I had no real talent for the
Speaker 2: predicted side of it. Anyway. Anyway, one of the people
Speaker 2: on a visa not a close friend, but a friend
Speaker 2: who was a cafe society at some point seeing my
Speaker 2: interest vocal interest in astrology, is that I think there's
Speaker 2: a book that you ought to read. And he gave
Speaker 2: you a book called A Theory of Celestial Influence who
Speaker 2: was written by a man named Rodney Collin. And this
Speaker 2: was really fascinating. This was exactly was a theory of
Speaker 2: why astrology could, should, and would work again, not necessarily
Speaker 2: as a predictive tool, but as a let's say, as
Speaker 2: a factor within the cosmos, within the cosmology. And it
Speaker 2: turned out that Colin was a pupil of ger Jeff,
Speaker 2: of gi Gerjeff, and gradually, gradually my friend led me
Speaker 2: into the Gerd Jeff work, and which I've been in
Speaker 2: since that time, as a lot of years have gone
Speaker 2: into the Gerjeff work and out of Gerdjeff. Gerjeff is
Speaker 2: I don't know if you're how many people in your
Speaker 2: audience will know about him. You don't want to read
Speaker 2: Gerdjeff for yourself right off, it's like taking your first
Speaker 2: driving lesson in a Ferrari. But anybody who's interested. As
Speaker 2: a book by one of his most gifted students named p.
Speaker 2: D Uspensky o U spe n Sky called In Search
Speaker 2: of the Miraculous, which is a good introduction to Gerjeff's
Speaker 2: system and effectively what Gerjeff. What attracted me about ger
Speaker 2: Jeff initially was that he was the only human being
Speaker 2: I'd ever read or encountered posthumously he died in forty
Speaker 2: nine who was as contemptuous of Western civilization as I was.
Speaker 2: The difference was that he who had to live in
Speaker 2: it and I didn't, and it it became it was
Speaker 2: very clear to me that I had to learn how
Speaker 2: to live in it, which I do now with relatives
Speaker 2: relatively successfully. But anyhow so that led me to the
Speaker 2: ger Jeff work. Gerd Jeff was talking all along about
Speaker 2: ancient Egypt and ancient civilizations in general being at a
Speaker 2: much higher and much more conscious level than our own.
Speaker 2: That fascinated me. And then we moved from My first
Speaker 2: wife was an actress, Welsh actress of one eighth Irish
Speaker 2: and it was named Katie Dolan. And I'd been in
Speaker 2: the v some of nine years and it was time
Speaker 2: to get out. It was getting full of tourists and
Speaker 2: it was time to go anyway, and I wanted to
Speaker 2: get in with one of the groups that was practicing
Speaker 2: this Gird Jeff system. And meanwhile I got I had
Speaker 2: my novel published at a novel published called Osborne's Army,
Speaker 2: which one of these days I will republish. Self republished.
Speaker 2: It was almost a movie on several occasions. England almost
Speaker 2: didn't anyway. The the editor of my novel was a
Speaker 2: d Cambridge trained mathematician rat very opposite me in a
Speaker 2: philosophically atheist rationalist, but we were nevertheless good friends. And
Speaker 2: one day the subject of astrology came up. We are
Speaker 2: having a jar in a pub one day one night,
Speaker 2: and subject came up and he said, well, that's a
Speaker 2: bunch of Cottswalop, and I said, well, actually it isn't
Speaker 2: the subject I know a lot about and I could
Speaker 2: give you if I bring in some documentation. I said,
Speaker 2: you you could make there's a lot of evidence, some
Speaker 2: of it a little of it direct, but a lot
Speaker 2: of it indirect, and you could build a case for astrology.
Speaker 2: And he said, well, I'd like to see that. So
Speaker 2: I brought in the documentation and he said, well, he said,
Speaker 2: I'm not convinced that this is definitely interesting. Would you
Speaker 2: do a book on it? And my answer is a
Speaker 2: standard answer to a question like that, as yell do
Speaker 2: a book on anything if you'll pay me some money.
Speaker 2: But it's not quite like that, but close. And so
Speaker 2: all of a sudden there I was having to do
Speaker 2: scholarship with a book called The Case for Astrology, and
Speaker 2: in doing I was now in a Gerdjeff group. In
Speaker 2: doing the research for the astrology book, somebody directed me
Speaker 2: to a novel in two parts, two volume novel called
Speaker 2: harbach aht rb Ak. I bought two parts to it
Speaker 2: and by a woman named Isha Schwalla Dulubitch, and so
Speaker 2: I got this book out. It had been translated from
Speaker 2: the French. In the one Essotery bookstore in England at
Speaker 2: that time still there called Watkins, and started reading it
Speaker 2: and it was horrible as a novel, but the portrait
Speaker 2: of Egypt that it painted. I don't know why people
Speaker 2: think it's easy to write a novel just because you're
Speaker 2: smart and have some good ideas. That easy. Anyhow, kept
Speaker 2: referring back to the footnotes. Its strange they have footnotes
Speaker 2: in a novel, but lots and lots of footnotes referring
Speaker 2: to a book called the Tampa de Lum the Temple
Speaker 2: of Man, written by her husband r Aischwallee de Lubique's
Speaker 2: the Genius with the unpronounceable name. And finally I couldn't
Speaker 2: find this book. Of course I went to the British
Speaker 2: Museum and sure enough they had a copy which had
Speaker 2: never been read. Because in those days, I think it's
Speaker 2: different now. French books don't have the signatures cut. So
Speaker 2: you get a French book, you had to cut the
Speaker 2: signatures yourself, which is sort of a rite of passage.
Speaker 2: It was sort of something viscerally satisfying about cutting the
Speaker 2: pages of a French book and it was your book.
Speaker 2: There's Shawl right behind me. There somewhere and anyway before
Speaker 2: we were talking about this informed intuition. Once I had
Speaker 2: those pages cut, I just sort of riffled through like
Speaker 2: this and realized that the sky had done something absolutely amazing.
Speaker 2: He had reformulated the sacred science of the ancients that
Speaker 2: everybody since the ancient Greeks had been talking about. And
Speaker 2: it's complicated subject with bits and pieces, came down to
Speaker 2: us through alchemy and astrology and number symbolism and neoplatonism
Speaker 2: and all of these other disciplines. They're always called the Hermetic,
Speaker 2: the Hermetic sciences or the Hermetic medic sciences. They call
Speaker 2: they're the Hermetic sciences through sciences, but they would they've
Speaker 2: never been put together in a manner that is, let's say,
Speaker 2: accessible to our twenty first center of the twentieth century
Speaker 2: Western intellects. So I just dropt on my friendship. This
Speaker 2: time was through the entry level, but I just down
Speaker 2: tools and it was all the way the other side
Speaker 2: of London from where we lived, and every morning i'd
Speaker 2: go to the library, we get there at opening time
Speaker 2: and stay there with the dictionary by my side, fighting
Speaker 2: my way through this impenetrable book, you know, learning French
Speaker 2: along the seem like madness in retrospect. By the time
Speaker 2: I was done, I really understood Schwaler pretty well. And
Speaker 2: I included in the astrology book called The Case for Astrology,
Speaker 2: which were about to republish, as well, a long chapter
Speaker 2: devoted to Schwaler, which really didn't belong. I just felt
Speaker 2: this was so important and it was not in English anyway.
Speaker 2: Astrology book came out. Publishers came to me and said,
Speaker 2: would you do a book on Schwaler, And I said, yeah,
Speaker 2: you bet this because this interested me more than the
Speaker 2: astrology actually, which is I'm fascinating. But I was not
Speaker 2: a practicing astrologer, and I didn't see it was not
Speaker 2: a discipline. You couldn't use it anyhow, or you couldn't
Speaker 2: use it for your own inner work, let's say. And
Speaker 2: so in doing the research for The Serpent in the Sky,
Speaker 2: that book on Schwaler on Symbolist Egypt, I ran across.
Speaker 2: There was one long chapter where Schwalla's talking about the
Speaker 2: Egyptian in the Egyptian of insistence that their own civilization
Speaker 2: went thousands and thousands of years back further into the past.
Speaker 2: And Schwoller put together this scholarly argument, which was very
Speaker 2: well done, but it's not science. And at the end
Speaker 2: of this long chapter came out with a single line
Speaker 2: that was, oh, yes, and of course the Great Sphinx
Speaker 2: of Giza shows unmistakable signs of aquatic erosion. And I
Speaker 2: realized the penny dropped in the slot, and I realized
Speaker 2: that that was science, or that should be science. That's geology.
Speaker 2: Either it's water weather or it's not water weather. And
Speaker 2: I knew a little bit about it. I'm not a geologist,
Speaker 2: but I knew a little bit about geology, Egyptian geology,
Speaker 2: and I knew that the Sahara was a relatively new
Speaker 2: desert ten thousand ye or so, and that if the
Speaker 2: Sphinx was really weathered by water, it had to have
Speaker 2: been carved at a time when there was a lot
Speaker 2: there in one way or another. All of this is
Speaker 2: a lot more complicated than I'm being able to get to,
Speaker 2: but anyway, you get the general drift of it. And
Speaker 2: so that started another long quest in which I had
Speaker 2: to track down I mean, I had to do a
Speaker 2: lot of geological research, and there were enough signs along
Speaker 2: the way. I went to see certain geologists and played
Speaker 2: a little trick on one of them of that's in
Speaker 2: the Mystery of the Shinx, that Charlton Heston video that
Speaker 2: we did. Anyway, there was enough evidence there, so I
Speaker 2: was sure I was on the right track. And so
Speaker 2: when the book came out seventy nine, I guess it
Speaker 2: was basically ignored and attempts to get geologists to verify
Speaker 2: my own research, they didn't want to talk to me.
Speaker 2: And eventually, through another weird set of circumstances, I got
Speaker 2: in touch with my colleague Robert Schalk. Was it about
Speaker 2: as highly credentialed a young geologist as the geologist could
Speaker 2: be more long story got him over to Egypt. He
Speaker 2: the most cautious man in the world that getting a
Speaker 2: declarative sentence out of him was like pulling teeth with
Speaker 2: no novacane. And finally he said, well yeah, he said,
Speaker 2: I can't refute this. Let's go for it. And we
Speaker 2: did a presentation at the GSA, that's the Geological Society
Speaker 2: of America annual meeting back in ninety one. I guess
Speaker 2: it was and we would have I mean that the
Speaker 2: Geological the GSA realized that this was a hot button issue,
Speaker 2: so there were there were we had press conferences, and
Speaker 2: all of a sudden this was really front front page, frontline, gee,
Speaker 2: scientific thing all over the world. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: a big deal. And when side note here is worth
Speaker 2: telling Shock that used to not like me telling this,
Speaker 2: but I will tell it. And since he now doesn't care.
Speaker 2: But we were being interviewed by the science press, by
Speaker 2: the mainstream press. The guy Shot teaches geology at at
Speaker 2: Boston University still does, and the the science editor of
Speaker 2: the of the Boss and Globe called me, called called
Speaker 2: us up and wanted to interview us. And so Shot
Speaker 2: this his usual polite academic self. And when he got
Speaker 2: me on the on the on the phone, he said, well,
Speaker 2: you know, why is it that the geologists seemed very
Speaker 2: happy with this theory and the egyptologists and the archaeologists
Speaker 2: are are you know, hurling abuse at you? And I said, well,
Speaker 2: you know this is this is a theory that's about
Speaker 2: weathering patterns in rocks, and when it comes to weathering
Speaker 2: patterns in rocks, an archaeologists or an egyptologist's opinion is
Speaker 2: no better than a proctologist. And they published that did
Speaker 2: not put Shock in great thing with his colleagues, and
Speaker 2: one of a woman who is will go nameless here
Speaker 2: one of his woman archaeologists, Egyptologists. I think, well maybe
Speaker 2: both Cholics Egyptology wrote this scathing personal character assassination of
Speaker 2: shock in the local Boston paper, Boston Journal, you know,
Speaker 2: the THEU Journal. And I said, you know you can't
Speaker 2: take this stuff. I mean, he said, no, let it
Speaker 2: be it's I said, well, I said, do you mind
Speaker 2: if I writer a letter where you know why? You
Speaker 2: go ahead? So I did, and I said, look, I
Speaker 2: understand your archaeology department is upset about this proctologist comparison.
Speaker 2: And they said, you should know. The proctologists didn't like
Speaker 2: it either, They said there they said, their job was
Speaker 2: to cure sick asshold they didn't like being compared to them.
Speaker 2: So this did not win me any friends in the
Speaker 2: Boston University Archaeology department. And so it stands twenty what
Speaker 2: is this now, must be ninety or ninety one, So
Speaker 2: that's twenty five years ago. Anyway, one thing led to
Speaker 2: the other, and all of a sudden, there we had
Speaker 2: again all of this is a long story, but a
Speaker 2: very interesting one. All of a sudden, there we had
Speaker 2: Charlton Heston as our host in the Mystery of the Sphinx,
Speaker 2: which was this huge, international, immense success that we managed
Speaker 2: to make no money out of, believe it or not,
Speaker 2: partly because my partner in it was this wild man.
Speaker 2: Without him, it never would have happened, so I don't
Speaker 2: even hold it against him. But he stole one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty thousand dollars from the Tilt, which did not
Speaker 2: help with our investors. And then we had to cut
Speaker 2: a contract with the TV company with the distributors, which
Speaker 2: are in those days with Trimark, who are now incorporated
Speaker 2: into Lionsgate, and the contract was written, we knew that
Speaker 2: no matter how big a success it was, we'd never
Speaker 2: see a penny of it, which we didn't. But it
Speaker 2: put us all, all of us, It put us on
Speaker 2: the map. And so now we're all set to go
Speaker 2: because we've been accumulating evidence ever since then. This is
Speaker 2: twenty five years and we now have loads of further
Speaker 2: evidence and we're looking to do a major follow up upgrade.
Speaker 2: Those aren't really the right words. It's a total It's
Speaker 2: the original theory but transformed into something much bigger, with
Speaker 2: the philosophy behind it, and Syblest Egypt behind it and
Speaker 2: all sorts of other things. So if anybody really rich
Speaker 2: is listening in and wants to support something that's actually
Speaker 2: going to change history around, because it will. The first
Speaker 2: one is still people remember it. All those years. We
Speaker 2: estimate that about probably at least a couple of hundred
Speaker 2: million people saw that original Mystery of the Sphinx, and
Speaker 2: I believe that's.
Speaker 8: What we know.
Speaker 2: Sound.
Speaker 7: I believe it's on YouTube now, Yeah, I think people
Speaker 7: you just look it up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, on Netflix too, so you can actually pay
Speaker 2: a couple of dollars for it. When we get three cents.
Speaker 7: Three more sensitive thing get it?
Speaker 1: And they didn't, right, Actually, yeah you what he had
Speaker 1: to say, please, Like a lot of people in this field,
Speaker 1: and the separating the sky was an entry point for
Speaker 1: me into into studies about Egypt. What I didn't realize
Speaker 1: at the point that I read it was that it
Speaker 1: would come back around now to being having cutting edge
Speaker 1: significance to the work that i'd been doing. That one
Speaker 1: of the key links between new regions that I've been
Speaker 1: exploring and ancient Egypt in Africa lies with the idea
Speaker 1: of a building a house. The form of a house
Speaker 1: in Neolithic times around thirty two hundred BC, where the
Speaker 1: symbolism of the house relates to cosmology and is a
Speaker 1: central piece in linking the traditions together. This is like
Speaker 1: point A to what the Temple of Man would be
Speaker 1: Point Z far less sophisticated, but it ties back to
Speaker 1: ancient mythology, ancient myths in India, ancient myths in Egypt
Speaker 1: where cosmological symbolism has played out relation to houses. There's
Speaker 1: a myth in India of about a goddess named Debbie
Speaker 1: who visits seven houses, and if you explore the plot
Speaker 1: line of the myth, as she arrives at each house,
Speaker 1: she finds a housewife in the house who's performing a
Speaker 1: particular act. And those acts if you look up the
Speaker 1: ancient Egyptian word for what it is the housewife does,
Speaker 1: it's a homonym for a cosmological term. Each of these
Speaker 1: these actions represent a stage of cosmology. There are seven
Speaker 1: houses that relate to seven stages of creation of matter,
Speaker 1: and the actions also relate to the personal needs of
Speaker 1: a person. If you have any familiarity with psychology, there
Speaker 1: are theories maslow I think theory of levels of personal
Speaker 1: need that had to be satisfied in a particular sequence.
Speaker 1: While this cosmology plays in terms of those levels of need,
Speaker 1: but it also plays out in relation to phonetics that
Speaker 1: relate to the goddess Neath. And so in the end
Speaker 1: you see Neath as being a counterpart to this goddess
Speaker 1: DEBI who visits the houses, and you understand that the
Speaker 1: symbolism of Neath relates to these levels of need. It's
Speaker 1: as if you were a household goddess. I haven't read
Speaker 1: anything that really explores origins for the goddess Neath, but
Speaker 1: this approach into it gives you a foot out of
Speaker 1: toe hold into the possibility of explaining where Neath might
Speaker 1: have come from. You go to an Egyptian myth that's
Speaker 1: actually related in the Book of the Dead, about a
Speaker 1: dead spirit who visits seven houses, and you get into
Speaker 1: all sorts of very detailed information about cosmology. The spirit,
Speaker 1: instead of finding a housewife at each house, discovers three
Speaker 1: gods at each house, and those gods are performing certain
Speaker 1: actions and are in certain relationship to one another, and
Speaker 1: those relationships define cosmological concepts. So this is this from
Speaker 1: my perspective, the concept of the Temple of Man is
Speaker 1: an evolved version of this very central symbolism that relates
Speaker 1: to the cosmology.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, you know that's really interesting because in
Speaker 2: the gurdjeff work the symbols. The central symbol of the
Speaker 2: gurdjet work is called the aneogram, which is which is
Speaker 2: a seven, which combines the seven and the three right,
Speaker 2: actually the three of the principles of positive, negative and
Speaker 2: reconciling principles, and the seven the thing and action in between,
Speaker 2: basically the seventh stages of process, which find expression again
Speaker 2: in the seven days of creation, and seven is always
Speaker 2: a number that is associated with process or growth. So
Speaker 2: all of this stuff comes back to us now, and
Speaker 2: it's even. It's even by the standards of contemporary science apropos,
Speaker 2: except that it's much more complete because the contemporary scientists
Speaker 2: are cosmologists, although most part, not all of them, some
Speaker 2: of them have a bit of a mystical sense to them.
Speaker 2: But for the most part, we mean consciousness out of
Speaker 2: the equation, right, and in the ancient myths, all of
Speaker 2: this is the result of consciousness deciding for reasons of
Speaker 2: its own to manifest.
Speaker 1: Right that there are parallels, but in the processes of
Speaker 1: creation that include how consciousness emerges and the idea that
Speaker 1: matter is multiple divisions of multiplicity that emerge from unity.
Speaker 1: Consciousness plays the same way that consciousness are multiple divisions.
Speaker 1: Each individual is a division of unified consciousness.
Speaker 7: Okay, so basically you're saying that that matter arises from consciousness,
Speaker 7: not to feel the way around.
Speaker 1: We're saying that the processes that create one are parallel
Speaker 1: to the processes that creed together and maybe intertwined with
Speaker 1: the processes that creed together.
Speaker 2: And Set in Egyptian sets the bad guy. They sometimes
Speaker 2: call him the god of evil. There's no such thing
Speaker 2: as a god of evil. If there's a god of evil,
Speaker 2: his name is Dick Cheney. But set Set, according to Schwaler,
Speaker 2: Set is a great god who has to be worshiped
Speaker 2: as well. And Set is he who imprisons spirit in matter. So,
Speaker 2: in other words, spirit is essential to matter. But our
Speaker 2: job as human beings, and this here comes in Gerdja
Speaker 2: and all of the esoteric traditions that ever were, Our
Speaker 2: job is to throw our own inner work, to free
Speaker 2: the spirit from the matter and make it no longer
Speaker 2: a slave to it. This is a very difficult thing
Speaker 2: to do, but that's the essence of it. So it's
Speaker 2: very useful, particularly when you study when you go into
Speaker 2: the mythologies, and various of them in lads have done this,
Speaker 2: you know, in very very sophisticated fashion, to realize that
Speaker 2: all of them are talking. All of them are talking
Speaker 2: about a certain kind of variations of the same inner discipline.
Speaker 2: In other words, what all of them are saying is
Speaker 2: that we're here for a reason. It's not that that
Speaker 2: reason isn't accident or natural selection. It's that we're created
Speaker 2: with a job to do, which is to free the
Speaker 2: spirit from the matter.
Speaker 7: Okay, all right, so let me through an easy question.
Speaker 7: How would you define reality?
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, the traditions I have studied define reality as
Speaker 1: being an illusion. That reality is a reflected image. It's
Speaker 1: a shadow or a reflection of a reality that exists
Speaker 1: at a more fundamental level in the form of waves.
Speaker 1: According to the Dogan, our material reality is a correct
Speaker 1: reflection of that underlying reality. Some of the traditions don't
Speaker 1: think so. If you talk to an astrophysicist, there are
Speaker 1: random processes involved that that mean that what we see
Speaker 1: might not look like what the underlying reality would be.
Speaker 7: But in my traditions it is okay, what about you,
Speaker 7: how would you define reality?
Speaker 2: Well, it depends what you mean by reality. So in
Speaker 2: other words, yes, that the material, material reality that we
Speaker 2: tend to accept as the only reality is like Plato's
Speaker 2: the myth of the Cave, a reflection of the real reality,
Speaker 2: which is metaphysical. It is back to set again. It's
Speaker 2: it's reality is spirit, Spirit is consciousness. That's the ultimate reality.
Speaker 2: And then it takes all of these myriad forms in
Speaker 2: its its myriad manifestations. But it's certainly not what generally speaking,
Speaker 2: the Wall three Journal called reality.
Speaker 7: All right, all right, if we were to go back
Speaker 7: in time, how far back do you think advanced human cultures.
Speaker 2: Go depends what you mean by advance only the what's advanced.
Speaker 7: Well, not necessarily advanced like us, but knowledge, knowledgeable as
Speaker 7: opposed to.
Speaker 2: Well, look we we now have. I mean, we've been
Speaker 2: talking about this for a long time and everybody's been saying, oll,
Speaker 2: it's all hunt the gatherers back then for the sphinx.
Speaker 2: We don't know when the sphinx was built. Car ages
Speaker 2: Ago Quebec we Tepe is really important because it is
Speaker 2: the smoking gun they the archaeologists dated to ten thousand
Speaker 2: at least, and as they keep on excavating which is
Speaker 2: a very slow process keeps it keeps getting older rather
Speaker 2: than newer. I think they started excavating low and probably
Speaker 2: when they keep going higher up this hill, they'll be
Speaker 2: getting older and still older. Dates Laird I think has
Speaker 2: done a really good job because everybody's been talking about
Speaker 2: the relief work on it, the Holy carbon, and I
Speaker 2: think lad has done a really solid job showing that
Speaker 2: this is reflecting the same cosmological symbolism that they had
Speaker 2: in Egypt. But now we're talking about ten thousand eleven
Speaker 2: thousand BC, so it's in place then. And this whole
Speaker 2: thing about hunter gatherers is another kind of a barrel
Speaker 2: of red herrings because the understand that, or the let's say,
Speaker 2: the party line, is that hunter gatherers are more primitive
Speaker 2: than farmers. Well, this is really stupid. I mean, if
Speaker 2: you can get your food, it's a lot more fun
Speaker 2: to go hunt and fish for your food than it
Speaker 2: is to hold the earth and so on. Farming is
Speaker 2: really a step down. And in fact, you don't even
Speaker 2: need go Beckley Tepe. You have to go back to
Speaker 2: the Paleolithic caves. Now we're talking about thirty thousand BC
Speaker 2: in Chauvet. This is genius work. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: how they did it is unbelievable, presumably with their hands.
Speaker 2: The fabulous artwork on the walls of these caves use
Speaker 2: how what for? But the people primitive do not produce masterpieces.
Speaker 2: And that's all there is to it. So the notion
Speaker 2: that these people before were primitive comes from a peculiar position.
Speaker 2: Actually it comes from people who only know how to
Speaker 2: use their heads, and not very well at that. These
Speaker 2: are basically uncreative people who have never written an advertising jingle,
Speaker 2: much less a sonnet, and they certainly not painted a
Speaker 2: picture or designed a cathedral. And they're telling us that
Speaker 2: these past people who produced this genius work are primitive,
Speaker 2: and we're we with our hydrogen bombs in our strike
Speaker 2: toothpaste and our bubble head dolls, we're progressive. It's exactly wrong.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I always love the argument we're the coke bottles.
Speaker 7: If there was an advanced civilization as well, maybe they
Speaker 7: were more advanced than us.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Actually this is the exact line people, Mark Lane
Speaker 2: or the loyal opposition who when we had our thing
Speaker 2: after the the GSA meeting and there was a debate
Speaker 2: of a so called at the Triple as that's the
Speaker 2: American Association for the Advancement of Science. And he was
Speaker 2: arguing from the you know, from the hunter gatherer point
Speaker 2: of view, and said, show me a pot yard. And
Speaker 2: my response was, well, it was such an advanced civilization
Speaker 2: they used paper cups, so you wouldn't see a pot yard.
Speaker 2: So that they in other words, they don't understand what
Speaker 2: makes a civilization a civilization. For example, if if the
Speaker 2: the objective is to release, is to release the spirit
Speaker 2: from its prison of matter, then it doesn't matter if
Speaker 2: it's it doesn't matter if it's hunter gatherers or whatever
Speaker 2: it is. For example, you can postulate, as I mean,
Speaker 2: sacred dances around the world everybody has. All the old
Speaker 2: civilizations are sacred dance. You could have a civilization of
Speaker 2: enlightened beings who expressed themselves through dance and you'd never
Speaker 2: know a single thing about them. But it's that practice
Speaker 2: that determines where they are within themselves and how they
Speaker 2: pass their day. So they have to rethink the whole thing.
Speaker 2: And basically everything that you've ever learned in school is
Speaker 2: probably wrong, actually sometimes right maybe, but it's it's trivial.
Speaker 2: Almost all of it is absolutely trivial. And in order
Speaker 2: to get to anywhere I was lucky. I realized there
Speaker 2: was a bunch of bullshit from the very beginning. So
Speaker 2: I didn't learn too much, not at school. I didn't
Speaker 2: accept what they taught me of. But so you have to,
Speaker 2: you have to rethink all of all of these things.
Speaker 2: And now there are enough of us. It's the whole
Speaker 2: cottage industry or Schlaird is coming at it from the
Speaker 2: cosmological point of view. I come up from the symbolists,
Speaker 2: from the the the esoteric side of things. Shack is
Speaker 2: coming at it from a scientific point of view. But
Speaker 2: there are quite another of us now, and we unless
Speaker 2: it explodes before we get a chance to get our
Speaker 2: own numbers up to the state where we actually make
Speaker 2: a difference At the moment, we don't wear a side issue,
Speaker 2: but you know, never to know the material is there
Speaker 2: to actually turn the whole thing around in principle, right.
Speaker 7: Any thoughts on that?
Speaker 8: All?
Speaker 1: Right? Well, one of the things John has pointed out
Speaker 1: before is you know that a lot of researchers come
Speaker 1: to these questions from a point of view of engineering.
Speaker 1: How did they lift the blocks into a pyramid, or
Speaker 1: why did they build with larger blocks as opposed to
Speaker 1: smaller blocks. You know, from an engineering standpoint, you can
Speaker 1: answer those questions in certain ways. But John points out
Speaker 1: what a markedly different effect it has on a person
Speaker 1: to be standing in a temple that's built from seven
Speaker 1: hundred and ton blocks, that to be standing in a
Speaker 1: building that was built from bricks. And so the question,
Speaker 1: the framework, the point of view from which you frame
Speaker 1: the questions makes a difference on what kind of an
Speaker 1: answer you come to about it. As far as technology,
Speaker 1: as we understand it being progress, you know, being able
Speaker 1: to create flying machines and so forth, it only took
Speaker 1: a few thousand years for us to develop those. Mankind
Speaker 1: has been around long enough that that could have happened many, many, many,
Speaker 1: many many times, and after five thousand years we wouldn't
Speaker 1: have a trace of it. So it's hard to argue
Speaker 1: that it hasn't happened.
Speaker 7: Before I found it interesting they had done the show
Speaker 7: I want to say. It was called Life After People,
Speaker 7: and it had people. If everyone has disappeared from the
Speaker 7: earth at a certain point, what would be left in
Speaker 7: subsequent centuries? And pretty much by ten thousand years, everything
Speaker 7: was gone right aside from like the Big Dam we
Speaker 7: built in the Midwest. That was the only thing that
Speaker 7: would remain if it.
Speaker 1: Wasn't carved in stone. We don't know about.
Speaker 7: It right exactly. And they even mentioned that on that
Speaker 7: day is a stellar a cosmic map to tell us
Speaker 7: what it was built.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but again, see they're looking at it from a
Speaker 2: they're looking at it from a materialist point of view.
Speaker 2: As I just said, you could have the highest civilization
Speaker 2: in the world doing nothing but gathering nuts and you know,
Speaker 2: and hunting hunt, running down deer, but practicing dances that
Speaker 2: put them in touch that freed the spirit. That basically
Speaker 2: it's freed the spirit. I mean, in the Gurdja work,
Speaker 2: we have certain what they call movements which are unbelievably
Speaker 2: difficult to do, and I must say I'm pretty terrible
Speaker 2: at them. But every once in a while you get
Speaker 2: it right, even if it's just momentarily, and suddenly you
Speaker 2: realize what it's like to free the spirit from the body,
Speaker 2: even if it's just momentary, And by extrapolating, you realize
Speaker 2: that people who can do that at a much higher
Speaker 2: level than ourselves are there all the time. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think some of the Tibetan Lamas and the Indian
Speaker 2: and the Indian gurus and people that the saints of
Speaker 2: Christianity got there through their own inner work, and it's
Speaker 2: very difficult to do that in this corrupted society of ours.
Speaker 7: What do you think about the concept of golden ages
Speaker 7: and such being related to levels of consciousness that we're in.
Speaker 2: I absolutely believe in it, but the specifics are very
Speaker 2: mysterious and everybody has a different view of it. When
Speaker 2: you go to Egypt, I mean I do these Egypt
Speaker 2: trips all the time. Four of them are over a year,
Speaker 2: and at the end of those two weeks Egypt scene
Speaker 2: through symbolist eyes, you really understand that. I often start
Speaker 2: lectures out by saying Egypt is like sex, and that
Speaker 2: gets everyone's attention. But it really is because in the
Speaker 2: sense that you can read about it, and that's intellectually
Speaker 2: invigorating perhaps, and then you can look the picture. Isn't
Speaker 2: thatsn't the kind of invigoration, But you don't actually understand
Speaker 2: it until you've experienced it, not at all. So when
Speaker 2: you spend a couple of weeks in Egypt with one
Speaker 2: masterpiece after another, day after day after day, at the
Speaker 2: end of a couple of weeks, you understand the difference
Speaker 2: between what was actually civilization and what we call progress.
Speaker 2: And when you get that, when that lesson sinks in,
Speaker 2: then the Yogas come into play, because you see that
Speaker 2: these unbelievable ones only in Egypt, that there's so much
Speaker 2: left that you can experience it. Other places have a
Speaker 2: bit of an air, a bit of it there, but
Speaker 2: Egypt has lots of it. Then you see if you
Speaker 2: try to extrapolate that we with our with our mindset,
Speaker 2: couldn't produce one of these temples. We couldn't produce the
Speaker 2: least of those temples. I mean, it's so alien to
Speaker 2: our way of thinking. We couldn't do it. We wouldn't
Speaker 2: know how to do it. And yet when you go
Speaker 2: into them, even if in ruins, I mean, people break
Speaker 2: down and cry. They they have these profound emotional experiences.
Speaker 2: We can get this to a certain extent. Still in
Speaker 2: certain classical Bach gets there, and Monteverdi gets there, and
Speaker 2: Beethoven gets there. We have we have pieces of it
Speaker 2: that take us there, But in Egypt you don't. You don't.
Speaker 2: We don't have any buildings that take us there. We
Speaker 2: are actually immersed in the midst of the symphony, and
Speaker 2: so this is the and and you can't convey that.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, we got a video going here,
Speaker 2: but it's not going to it's it's not gonna produce
Speaker 2: the effect of the Temple of Luxor or the Pit
Speaker 2: Temple or anything of the sort. But it it's there,
Speaker 2: and when you you can get us some of it
Speaker 2: from as I said, from reading, and some of it
Speaker 2: from good videos. There were good shows out there, which
Speaker 2: but it's not the same as being there.
Speaker 7: Okay, hey, folks, what he said. How did you feel
Speaker 7: when Gobecay Teppek came out?
Speaker 2: I said, oh, well, I guess this is it that
Speaker 2: makes me feel when it comes to my colleagues. From
Speaker 2: the most part, Laird doesn't feel the same way that
Speaker 2: I did. Graham Hancock of the others. They're not really
Speaker 2: out to murder the opposition. The skeptics often say, they're
Speaker 2: not skeptics, they're debunkers. If you want to if you
Speaker 2: want to convince skeptics. I don't want to convince skeptics.
Speaker 2: I want to destroy them. So when Gobecley Teppe came
Speaker 2: out put it this way, it made me feel the
Speaker 2: way I imagine a cannibal chieftain must feel watching a
Speaker 2: boatload of missionaries approach this was. This was is the
Speaker 2: smoking gun because they dated to that day. And once
Speaker 2: they've done that, they can no longer say that anything
Speaker 2: is possible, that any of these amazing things, you know,
Speaker 2: can't be older than they say they are, because there
Speaker 2: they have it. And then there's a ton of ancillary evidence.
Speaker 2: If you go to Egypt and you see the so
Speaker 2: called solar boat, this is the best boat up to
Speaker 2: the clipper ships. They could have gone anywhere with that boat, Australia,
Speaker 2: New Zealand, Antarctica. They could go anywhere with this fantastic boat.
Speaker 2: So there's no reason why they couldn't much earlier, being
Speaker 2: that's this twenty five hundred BC that you see pre
Speaker 2: dynastic pictures of boats that look like the same form
Speaker 2: of boat. They can go anywhere with these, With these boats,
Speaker 2: and if they know how to navigate, and since they
Speaker 2: hadn't advanced ustrapas astronomy, they could navigate. So all of
Speaker 2: these things are not necessarily answered by go Beckley tepe,
Speaker 2: but it means that they can't use they can no
Speaker 2: longer use the bullshit rationalizations as they have been using
Speaker 2: for all of these years to shoot the theories down.
Speaker 7: Okay, it is sort of the Pottery Shards.
Speaker 2: Yep, it is big pottery shart Twelvettery Shards.
Speaker 5: Welcome to a gast Classics twenty twenty six four exceptional
Speaker 5: limited series hand picked for their journalism, craft and storytelling,
Speaker 5: including Sweet Bobby at Quote Him Retounded west Core.
Speaker 9: The trial turned on a single witnesses testimony.
Speaker 5: The witness as I didn't do it, so that's why
Speaker 5: I'm standing here. Carrie Jay does not exist.
Speaker 7: She offers them exactly that, and then just.
Speaker 5: Bails to find out more. Head to ACAST dot com
Speaker 5: Forward Slash Classics.
Speaker 7: And your thoughts on it.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that farther back in time you go.
Speaker 1: The trick here it gets to try to do what
Speaker 1: I call anchoring interpretation. One of the standards I have
Speaker 1: for myself is that I try to base interpretations on
Speaker 1: flat statements by the cultures i'm studying. In other words,
Speaker 1: it's not that I think it means such and such.
Speaker 1: It's that the Egyptians say here in this text it
Speaker 1: means such and such. And find other cultures that have
Speaker 1: the same practice or the same symbol, who saw it
Speaker 1: the same way, and now you have a place to
Speaker 1: start from that's solid. If you go back before three
Speaker 1: thousand BC, you lose written texts, and without the written
Speaker 1: text it becomes a much more interesting process to try
Speaker 1: to anchor an interpretation. Go back to the Tepic gives
Speaker 1: us lots of really interesting structure to work with, and
Speaker 1: the carvings to work with and symbolism to work with,
Speaker 1: but in a context where there are not traditional ways
Speaker 1: to anchor it. And so part of my work has
Speaker 1: been trying to make linkage in ways that seems sensible
Speaker 1: to people. Language, as it turns out, in the absence
Speaker 1: of writing, is a very useful tool for being able
Speaker 1: to do that because words evolved in particular ways with
Speaker 1: particular cultures, and important words tend to stay in the
Speaker 1: language of a culture for a very long time. And
Speaker 1: so if you can demonstrate what a word means for
Speaker 1: various cultures, you can infer what the word meant for
Speaker 1: another culture. That has been one of my approaches.
Speaker 7: So let's talk about some of the new evidence coming
Speaker 7: to light. Places like Gadam put on Am I saying
Speaker 7: that right, yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Think, I mean my Endonesia is rather weak, but I
Speaker 2: have a Southern accent.
Speaker 7: You know, so you haven't been there yet, No, the
Speaker 7: shock has Okay, what are your thoughts on the place?
Speaker 2: Well, I mirror shock. I mean, left to my own devices,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't know what to make of it. But he is,
Speaker 2: as we know, both very expert in these matters and
Speaker 2: very cautious, and he is cautiously convinced that it is indeed,
Speaker 2: that it is indeed an artificial structure, even though you
Speaker 2: can't determine the structure has something to do with these
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if they're basal formations that should be
Speaker 2: vertical and that are horizontal. And if they're horizontal, it
Speaker 2: means that they've been put there, whereas if they're vertical
Speaker 2: the way they extrude from the earth, this could be
Speaker 2: I mean I may only be ten percent correct, but
Speaker 2: this is important. And so Shak has spent a few
Speaker 2: days there with the guy who's the Indonesian geologist who's
Speaker 2: been battling his own quacademic colleagues to get them to
Speaker 2: acknowledge that this thing really is a lot older than
Speaker 2: when it's supposed to.
Speaker 7: Be I don't know, which is only like two thousand years.
Speaker 2: Or something or something like that that it has to
Speaker 2: be much much older than that, and shock things again
Speaker 2: to being a very clarsees guy that's talking about twenty
Speaker 2: thousand or more years BC. So yeah, but you know,
Speaker 2: I can't speak from experience, but I'll take his words
Speaker 2: as let's say, the most authoritative that we have to date.
Speaker 7: That whole area would have been one large continent back
Speaker 7: twenty thousand years ago. So yeah, do you have any
Speaker 7: thoughts on it?
Speaker 1: I have a study that the traditions that I go
Speaker 1: back to tepping forward through exerted influences all through Southeast
Speaker 1: Asia as far as Australia. They're traditionally understood to have
Speaker 1: exerted influences that far. So my expectation is that anywhere
Speaker 1: in there we're going to find things to connect to
Speaker 1: what I'm looking into. I don't have an opinion as
Speaker 1: to that site or how old it might actually be. There,
Speaker 1: there are symbolic indications along the way from if we
Speaker 1: starting from ten thousand BC and moving forward, there are
Speaker 1: I have enough of an overview of enough different cultures
Speaker 1: to realize that certain elements fit in certain places in
Speaker 1: that timeline, and so if I were more familiar familiar
Speaker 1: with it, I could probably place certain things in broad
Speaker 1: strokes if they know if it was matriarchal or patriarchal culture,
Speaker 1: you can you can pinpoint time frames based just on that. Okay,
Speaker 1: how because there are cross cross cultural reverses that happen.
Speaker 1: Around three thousand BC, the matriarchal became patriarchally and if
Speaker 1: the now we show it perfectly that there's a perfect
Speaker 1: flip of and you can show it through the language
Speaker 1: that words that in the culture. The earlier cultures were
Speaker 1: for to matriarchal. Things that God Pnu becomes tained in
Speaker 1: in the Manic culture, things they're assigned to ta Peinu
Speaker 1: in the matriarchan culture, going assigned to pain in the later.
Speaker 2: O.
Speaker 1: Cyrus' is myth, the myth of the this member of
Speaker 1: Cyrus is a story that's told about Sati, a goddess
Speaker 1: in India. She was dismembered and her her body parts
Speaker 1: felt earth as pithas standing stones that defined the ritual centers. Really, yeah,
Speaker 1: so the so part of the way I judge is
Speaker 1: is a matriarchy of patriarchal. It's matriarchas after three thousand
Speaker 1: m Z.
Speaker 7: Why do you think there was a sudden shifter on
Speaker 7: that time period everywhere.
Speaker 1: It's not just that. There are all sorts of other
Speaker 1: reversals that happen in the cosmology. To Ganesha is a
Speaker 1: good example that their mythical and that's his head, a
Speaker 1: white elephant was not his original head.
Speaker 7: Oh right, yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: Now there are not surviving us to tell you what
Speaker 1: the original head was, but the language points to it
Speaker 1: having getten out of a mouse. And in Egypt there's
Speaker 1: an archaic true mouse god whose symbolism connects in certain ways.
Speaker 1: The problem is that from a cosmological standpoint, you have
Speaker 1: the symbolism relating to an astronomic structure, which is a
Speaker 1: macrocosmic structure that intuitively should be associated with a large animal,
Speaker 1: not a small one. The reversal accomplishes that, and you
Speaker 1: see that happening again and again, where there are little
Speaker 1: tweaks and little adjustments to the system of cosmology to
Speaker 1: put the symbols in line with the things they represent,
Speaker 1: to make it more intuitive. Now, as far as the
Speaker 1: matriarchy patriarchy goes, my feeling is this connects to things
Speaker 1: like ccision. Circumcision is, in my estimation, is a perfect
Speaker 1: way to get the people who were influenced by the
Speaker 1: tradition to tag themselves. If you come across the culture
Speaker 1: that circumcises, that's a signature of the tradition. I'm chasing
Speaker 1: you can you can tell immediately there was an influence there.
Speaker 1: The matriarchy patriarchy distinguishes what looks to me to have
Speaker 1: been an instruction at ten thousand BC is given in
Speaker 1: relation to the matriarchy. Later instruction was given in relation
Speaker 1: to the patriarchy. If you were trying to If you
Speaker 1: were if you had developed a plan of study and
Speaker 1: you wanted to know, now, which course did I teach
Speaker 1: had had the beneficial effect on the students, which one succeeded,
Speaker 1: you'd want ways to be able to track that, and
Speaker 1: the matriarchy patriarchy flip allows you to do that.
Speaker 7: Wow, Okay. My next question to you, I think, is
Speaker 7: how old are the pyramids?
Speaker 2: Impossible to say what we see now is probably mostly
Speaker 2: accurate twenty five hundred BCS, But demonstrably, without any question
Speaker 2: they are. They are built upon, or superimposed or replace
Speaker 2: structures that were there before. Even the academics believe later
Speaker 2: principally that the whole Giza plateau is the one of
Speaker 2: unified the old pyramid plan, so everything was planned. Nothing
Speaker 2: was wasn't a Kufu did this, and then Confro came
Speaker 2: around and said, well, line mine up so that goes
Speaker 2: straight through. And then their diamond kra comes along and says, oh,
Speaker 2: I don't have them much money as those guys, so
Speaker 2: I'm gonna put mine a little way off to the
Speaker 2: side so they don't think I'm trying to compete. No,
Speaker 2: it's it's all of a piece. And the Kafro pyramid,
Speaker 2: particularly the Kara Pyramid, to a certain extent, the Red
Speaker 2: Pyramid and dashare definitely have elements within them visible that
Speaker 2: have to date from another period. Because whenever you see
Speaker 2: whenever you see two different architectural styles incorporated in the
Speaker 2: same structure, you know you're talking about two different time periods.
Speaker 2: If you go to your friend's house and he's got
Speaker 2: this beautiful Victorian house, but it's got an Ikea designed bathroom,
Speaker 2: you know that that suddenly bought it was a smart
Speaker 2: Victorian architecture figured out that I have this Aikea design bathroom.
Speaker 2: No medieval. Let's say you have a Georgian Palladian house
Speaker 2: or in England eighteenth century, and it's got a medieval
Speaker 2: and turret incorporated in it. It's not that this guy said, well,
Speaker 2: who I like medieval though it put a turret and
Speaker 2: I think no, it's that it was a turret on
Speaker 2: his property and he said, oh, well, it's some fun.
Speaker 2: We'll build our manor house around it. So this is
Speaker 2: absolutely clear, unmistakable. In the Kafra Pyramid slightly less unmistakable,
Speaker 2: and the Mankara Pyramid the smallest one. The Great Pyramid
Speaker 2: more difficult, but Chalk and I are working on this.
Speaker 2: We think we can put forward a good argument that
Speaker 2: even that, though it seems to be of a piece
Speaker 2: from the outside, is incorporating still earlier stages in it.
Speaker 2: The Red Pyramid at Dashur is unmistakably built over and
Speaker 2: incorporating an earlier and weathered megalithic construction of some sort.
Speaker 2: So answer to question, what we see is old Kingdom Egypt,
Speaker 2: but incorporated within it are at least a stage, but
Speaker 2: probably stages of earlier earlier It's lucky.
Speaker 7: Okay, what do you think the pyramids were for?
Speaker 2: I don't know any more than anyone else, but I
Speaker 2: know they weren't for tombs.
Speaker 7: Okay, any thoughts on that layer.
Speaker 1: There are as many theories about what they're for as
Speaker 1: there are books out there. Pretty much that's anybody's guess
Speaker 1: about that. But it's more certain the kinds of things
Speaker 1: that they symbolize and what they relate to. They relate
Speaker 1: to aligned ritual shrines that they back a very long way,
Speaker 1: starting with cairns stone Cairns have the same symbolism. You
Speaker 1: see the same symbolism and a hoopah for from a
Speaker 1: Jewish wedding ceremony. You see the same symbolism associated with
Speaker 1: a soukka in Judaism. You see the same thing in
Speaker 1: a yurt in Siberia. You see the same thing in
Speaker 1: a roundhouse for the Navajo. The symbolism relates to the structure.
Speaker 1: So whether the pyramids had more sophisticated technological purposes or
Speaker 1: not is in the base.
Speaker 7: Gas Okay, all right.
Speaker 2: Actually one thing in here. There was a typically dismissive
Speaker 2: video program a few years back. I don't know it's
Speaker 2: Discover or National Pornographic or one of those guys, And anyway,
Speaker 2: they were talking about the pyramids and they were calling
Speaker 2: them wink wink, not not immortality machines. And I think
Speaker 2: that's exactly right, except you have to take out the
Speaker 2: wink wink, No not. Egypt is a one issue of civilization,
Speaker 2: very easy to understand in that sense. It manifests itself
Speaker 2: with extreme complexity, but it has one focus, and that
Speaker 2: is the quest for immortality. That's what every religious anything
Speaker 2: in Egypt is about in one way or another. And
Speaker 2: of course, in quackademia, you never ever hear other than saying, well,
Speaker 2: the Egyptians knew how to move two hundred sunstones around
Speaker 2: it easily, But you never ever hear them say the
Speaker 2: Egyptians knew. It's always the Egyptians believe the Egyptians believe
Speaker 2: that the Egyptians believed that this doesn't agree with us,
Speaker 2: and we know better, but maybe they actually knew, since
Speaker 2: they built these things that we couldn't possibly emulate today.
Speaker 2: And it's a pretty safe guess that whatever their function was,
Speaker 2: it was in order to further this idea or this concept,
Speaker 2: or this decision to become immortal, which does not mean
Speaker 2: that the body lives forever. It means that a level
Speaker 2: of consciousness is attained that is not subject to or
Speaker 2: that outlived forever. The the you know, the corruptible flesh
Speaker 2: of the body.
Speaker 7: And how come they have such a fascination with mummification
Speaker 7: if the goal was to leave the material world.
Speaker 2: Very good question. The only thing I've ever made, I've
Speaker 2: ever read that makes any sense, because there's something pretty
Speaker 2: repugnant about that. According to Schwaler, Egypt was the Egyptian
Speaker 2: doctrine intertwined the let's say, the path of Horace, which
Speaker 2: becomes Christianity salvation within a single lifetime, with the path
Speaker 2: of Osiris, which is that of successive reincarnations, similar to
Speaker 2: Buddhism and Hinduism, and it's very difficult to try to
Speaker 2: disassociate one from the other. According to Manly Hall, and
Speaker 2: I don't know where he gets it from, but he
Speaker 2: was quite a brilliant guy. He said that the understanding
Speaker 2: was again academics would say, you know, they believed, I
Speaker 2: don't know what life forget what language manly All used,
Speaker 2: but that the reason for going to that incredible amount
Speaker 2: of trouble to mummify a body so that it would
Speaker 2: never decay was that as long as the physical body remained,
Speaker 2: the disembodied k or you might say, soul of the
Speaker 2: deceased would not be obliged to reincarnate. In other ways,
Speaker 2: you could take his time about it, you know. I
Speaker 2: mean the Tibetans, for example, have that idea with their
Speaker 2: Book of the Dead, where the forty nine days, the
Speaker 2: Lama goes through this long rituals, I don't know if
Speaker 2: you're already, bro, we have starts out, it's all like paradise,
Speaker 2: and it gets worse and worse and worse than the
Speaker 2: Lama keeps saying, well, don't be afraid. That is just
Speaker 2: your mind projecting this kind of stuff, and keeps getting
Speaker 2: worse and worse and worse, and finally the Lama says, well,
Speaker 2: the whole idea is not to come back. And the
Speaker 2: Lama says, well, you know, you goofed it up. You're
Speaker 2: going to have to come back better luck next time.
Speaker 2: So something of that nature. I mean, the whole doesn't
Speaker 2: use that kind of language, but that to me made
Speaker 2: sense because otherwise it doesn't make sense. And I'm inclined
Speaker 2: to believe that whatever the Egyptians did, they're doing for
Speaker 2: some good reason, just like everything that we do has
Speaker 2: a good reason. But most of the good reason is
Speaker 2: to kill people or make money. So this what's the
Speaker 2: different focus upon the entire civilization.
Speaker 1: Thoughts from a cosmological perspective, When you're creating the fundamental
Speaker 1: unit of matter, according to the traditions I'm studying, what
Speaker 1: you're doing is you're creating a wrapped up bundle that's
Speaker 1: akin to wrapping cloth around a mummy, and the final
Speaker 1: stage of it is that it started. To explain this,
Speaker 1: another way of looking at the structure is as seven
Speaker 1: rays of a star of increasing length inside of a bubble,
Speaker 1: and the seventh ray grows long enough that the very
Speaker 1: final thing that happens to that bubble is that the
Speaker 1: final ray grows long enough to pop it, to burst it,
Speaker 1: and that initiates the next bubble. Now, if you momify
Speaker 1: somebody by wrapping them up in that way and the
Speaker 1: final stage is to open the mouth, it's repeating a
Speaker 1: sequence that looks cosmological to me. And the product of
Speaker 1: doing that is you've completed the previous bubble and you're
Speaker 1: initiating the next one. So there could be easily be
Speaker 1: a connection to the idea of completion of the previous
Speaker 1: life and the start initiating the action that starts the
Speaker 1: next one.
Speaker 7: Isn't it also possible that some of this stuff was lost,
Speaker 7: like they started doing it for one reason, and overtime
Speaker 7: just we're doing it for the sake of doing it,
Speaker 7: because they lost the theme.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think that except very very
Speaker 1: late in Egypt, there there's some signs that the reasons
Speaker 1: for doing things might have started to be lost. But
Speaker 1: for the most part, I think they knew exactly what
Speaker 1: they were doing.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, I'm not so sure because in the texts themselves,
Speaker 2: of the of the New Kingdom Pyramid texts, the scribes
Speaker 2: who are putting them down are copying older texts and
Speaker 2: they're saying we effectively they're saying, well, we don't know
Speaker 2: exactly that.
Speaker 1: Could be true, but by the time the New Kingdom might,
Speaker 1: I'd say, you're right back. It's you know, that's not
Speaker 1: that's not that's not that.
Speaker 2: But actually what you were saying, that's very interesting because
Speaker 2: it's it's not contradictory. But Untraller talks about mummification as
Speaker 2: I mean, the the mummified body looks is a cocoon, right,
Speaker 2: and it looks exactly like the cocoon of a of
Speaker 2: a scarab beetle. So but it's the same thing I
Speaker 2: mean on the human level, as you were talking about cosmologically,
Speaker 2: that it goes through all of these stages exactly like
Speaker 2: fertile is like that which your butterfly goes through, or
Speaker 2: even a human fetus. It gets quickened and it goes
Speaker 2: through the stage and the next stage, and then it's born.
Speaker 2: So the whole idea is, particularly if it's a reincarnational thing,
Speaker 2: is that it's get it, it's reborn, but through that metamorpho,
Speaker 2: that that process of metamorphosis. So it's really the same
Speaker 2: except yours as your description cosmology in mine.
Speaker 1: Is right, and if we understand that those processes were
Speaker 1: thought of as being parallel, then yeah, then it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it makes absolutely.
Speaker 7: And how can we never hear about what's inside the
Speaker 7: smaller two pyramids and the Giza plateau. Everyone focuses on
Speaker 7: the Great Pyramid.
Speaker 2: Well, they do, but one of the reasons is that
Speaker 2: there's nothing inside except the couple of chambers that nobody understands.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it's true, and in fact I don't know either,
Speaker 2: but both of the interior chambers of both of those
Speaker 2: pyramids is a good argument for being built in several
Speaker 2: stages because there are certain blind alleys and strange shifts
Speaker 2: of where the passages are going that absolutely don't make
Speaker 2: any sense. I mean, they certainly don't make any sense
Speaker 2: as tombs, but they also don't make any sense architecturally,
Speaker 2: and they feel it's hard to explain. If we're there,
Speaker 2: you know, we can go in and you can see, well,
Speaker 2: why the devil are they doing this this way when
Speaker 2: they've got this passage over here, so and they don't
Speaker 2: then it's really my own conviction is that if anyone
Speaker 2: ever really figures out what the pyramids are for, it's
Speaker 2: going to be because the Great Pyramid takes ninety five
Speaker 2: percent of the attention. And in fact, I think there's
Speaker 2: a grand pyramid plan that they all fit into, and
Speaker 2: that to understand any one of them, you have to
Speaker 2: understand what all of them do. Cosmological, astronomical, astrological. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure, but my sense of it is that it
Speaker 2: has something to do with that. So far, no one's
Speaker 2: come up with anything that I know of that's convincing
Speaker 2: for all of them.
Speaker 7: Okay, anything on one level.
Speaker 1: There are multiple levels of symbolism involved. On one level,
Speaker 1: a very simple level, they represent stars, the Dogan place
Speaker 1: large stones on a plateau represents stars that are important
Speaker 1: in their cosmology and including the belt stars of Orion.
Speaker 1: And the reason they place the stones that relate to
Speaker 1: the belt stars of Orion, they say, is to point
Speaker 1: us to an astronomic structure called Bernard's loop. There's a
Speaker 1: birthplace of stars. It's a spiral in the macrocosm that
Speaker 1: centers on the belt stars of Orion. You can't see
Speaker 1: it with the naked eye, but you can image it
Speaker 1: with time lapse photography. And the Dogans say, the reason
Speaker 1: why that's important is because it's the macrocosmic correlate to
Speaker 1: the little leg of the world I was talking about.
Speaker 1: That's the spiral of matter, the structure that's the basic
Speaker 1: structure of matter. And if you think of the hermetic
Speaker 1: theme of as above so below, these are the structures
Speaker 1: that you can correlate as above, the processes above to
Speaker 1: the processes below with That's why the Dogans say it's important.
Speaker 1: So on that level, the pyramids represents stars. But the
Speaker 1: levels of symbolism in Dogan cosmology are described like layers
Speaker 1: of skin on an onion. You feel one back and
Speaker 1: you find another one. So you can't just say it
Speaker 1: represents one thing. From this perspective, it represents the stark Yeah.
Speaker 2: So far I think that too, But so far nobody's
Speaker 2: nothing obvious, is well. I mean at first I used
Speaker 2: to think that it was the planetary system, but that
Speaker 2: doesn't seem to apply.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are reasons why they're why the pyramids
Speaker 1: are as massive as they are, and that may and
Speaker 1: there are reasons why they were made out of often
Speaker 1: made out of materials that canduct electricity.
Speaker 2: Anyway, the interior is yeah, oh yeah, and there.
Speaker 1: Are reason why they have acoustic properties, but what those are?
Speaker 2: Yeah, they knew more about certain things than us, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, they didn't have smartphones or McDonald's or no
Speaker 2: bubble at dollds.
Speaker 1: And ancient Actually, there is a theory that says there
Speaker 1: was a McDonald inside the King's chamber.
Speaker 7: What are your thoughts There could be a consciousness altering machine.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yeah, that's what I was talking before, but that
Speaker 2: they are immortality machines, and immortality what a whole notion
Speaker 2: of immortality is a higher level of consciousness that you
Speaker 2: have to work to get through.
Speaker 1: One of the key differences in the philosophy's idea with
Speaker 1: between the non material, and the material has to do
Speaker 1: with with massiveness. Differences in massiveness and Einstein's his formula
Speaker 1: equals mc squared has to do with it explains why
Speaker 1: the speed of live is a constant. And basically what
Speaker 1: it boils down to is that as something, because the
Speaker 1: body becomes more massive, it's time for down and so
Speaker 1: the speed of live remains the same in relation to it.
Speaker 1: Massiveness and acceleration are equivalent. So when you get down
Speaker 1: to the matter at the level of waves, where it's
Speaker 1: virtually massless, you've got to believe that the time frame
Speaker 1: is almost instantaneous. So mass, the relative mass of something
Speaker 1: has a connection to connecting on materialism to materialism, and
Speaker 1: so my guess is that's part of why they went
Speaker 1: to such trouble to use such massive blocks to build
Speaker 1: like the Great Pyramid.
Speaker 7: Okay, what other evidence has popped up recently that supports
Speaker 7: the idea that supports the basic sphinx idea that that's
Speaker 7: an ancient structure.
Speaker 2: Well, we have a ton of it. Actually, sorry, We
Speaker 2: presented this in fact a second time at a GSA
Speaker 2: and Reno in two thousand with a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: the packed houses of geologists all but two of whom
Speaker 2: agreed with us, and unfortunately we didn't realize this at
Speaker 2: the time. The first time we had a poster presentation
Speaker 2: so everybody could come around and schmooze and discuss things
Speaker 2: and all of that. And this one was an oral presentation,
Speaker 2: which shockgame because I don't have the letters after my name,
Speaker 2: so I can't do these things. But it was short
Speaker 2: minutes or so, which there's not enough time, as you say,
Speaker 2: to get into these things, but basically successful. There's a
Speaker 2: ton of other evidence that we have all collected of
Speaker 2: other instances of water weathering, of other things that are anomalous,
Speaker 2: of other kinds of structures in Egypt itself, and that's
Speaker 2: not taking in go Beckley tape. Or there are other
Speaker 2: places also that we think have been wrongly dated. At Sardinia,
Speaker 2: for example, which is absolute one of the world's best
Speaker 2: kept megalithic secrets and unbelievable Sardinia Sardinia Gninue off the
Speaker 2: coast of Italy, which everyone thinks is where they invented sardines,
Speaker 2: but nothing to do with sardines' what's there these extraordinary
Speaker 2: things that look like gigantic they're not pyramids, but they're
Speaker 2: they're megalithic, built of rough stones, like huge beehives six
Speaker 2: eight stories high. Shock thinks we are thinking that these
Speaker 2: the shok is really into this whole theory of CMEs,
Speaker 2: you know, coronary massive tection as being the reason that
Speaker 2: the whole thing fell apart around nine thousand, seven hundred BC.
Speaker 2: And he's been working with the petroglyphs and you know,
Speaker 2: if you've interviewed me with yeah, a lot of information
Speaker 2: on that. And we think that these Sardinian things he
Speaker 2: hasn't seen them yet that I have could be built
Speaker 2: as structures to protect you from one of these cmesy later.
Speaker 7: On, I don't know, like some of the underground cities
Speaker 7: in Turkey.
Speaker 2: Well maybe Yeah, there's a lot of stuff out there.
Speaker 2: This is a very interesting field to get to get
Speaker 2: into as long as you don't have a PhD in it.
Speaker 1: Let me threw this questions can I address?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Well if you believe that the three Pyramids
Speaker 1: point to the belt star of Orion at ten thousand BC,
Speaker 1: and the Sphinx points was meant to point to Leo,
Speaker 1: the constellation of Leo at around ten thousand BC, then
Speaker 1: you really do only have two choices. One is that
Speaker 1: the at least the alignments for those structures were done
Speaker 1: at ten thousand BC. If you don't buy that, then
Speaker 1: you have to buy that some later culture had the
Speaker 1: ability to retrospectively calculate what the alignment should have been,
Speaker 1: So that's the start. The second thing is that the
Speaker 1: sphinx is carved from a natural outcropping of stone. It's
Speaker 1: an animal figure carved from a natural outcropping of stone.
Speaker 1: That's one of the signatures of the Archaic cult that
Speaker 1: I connect back to Tepe. That's something they did. They
Speaker 1: carved things, made statues out of natural outcroppings. So stylistically
Speaker 1: it's a ten thousand BC era structure, so that doesn't
Speaker 1: say that it was built then. But as John was
Speaker 1: saying about styles of architecture, we have something stylistically here
Speaker 1: that looks like it connects, and symbolically it could connect.
Speaker 1: So just a consideration.
Speaker 2: Actually, I think I'm not happy with that ten thousand,
Speaker 2: five hundred date, in part because it's in the middle
Speaker 2: of these two gigantic the younger, dryest, the thing that happens,
Speaker 2: whatever it is ten thousand, eight hundred probably a comet thing,
Speaker 2: and the ninety seven hundred coronary mass ejection. I'm more
Speaker 2: inclined to think that Shuck is now getting around to
Speaker 2: this point too. The Egyptians themselves and the Palermo Stone
Speaker 2: and turned Perop Papyrus are giving the regnal reign, the
Speaker 2: regnal years of these divine and semi divine rulers, and
Speaker 2: this is pushing it back to around thirty four to
Speaker 2: thirty six thousand BC. And that's in other words, that
Speaker 2: the Sphinx is meant as a Leo marker. And there's
Speaker 2: plenty of evidence that the Zodi that was known this
Speaker 2: is what's his name, the Santiana and von Deck and
Speaker 2: her Hamlet's milk. I'm more inclined to think it's an
Speaker 2: earlier processional age rather than the ten thousand, five hundred one.
Speaker 1: And there's nothing that I that I know about that
Speaker 1: precludes that from being that could be true.
Speaker 2: And actually, again this thing we're talking about before of
Speaker 2: informed intuition, when Shock first went into Firs days now
Speaker 2: it's okay, but when we first got permission and I
Speaker 2: don't even remember if we actually had permission or we
Speaker 2: bribed our way into the Sphinx and clothure I hope
Speaker 2: that we bribed our way into the better story. But
Speaker 2: we went in there and you know, Shock really didn't
Speaker 2: know anything about this. He'd read by own evidence and
Speaker 2: things like that. But we walked in early in the morning,
Speaker 2: nobody was there, and he just looked. Everybody else's, you know, gobsmacked,
Speaker 2: as they say in England by the sphinx itself. Shak
Speaker 2: is looking at rocks, he said, and he's looking at
Speaker 2: the enclosure wall with this fifteen feet of weathering in it.
Speaker 2: And he looked at him and he said, wow. He said,
Speaker 2: these rocks look like they're hundreds of thousands of years old.
Speaker 2: And he said, don't quote me on that, which I
Speaker 2: didn't do. But really, when we were talking about informed intuition,
Speaker 2: he's a geologist. My informed intuition on geology is nil.
Speaker 2: I couldn't put a date to it, or even a
Speaker 2: provisional date to it. But his informed intuition is very interesting.
Speaker 2: It might be even a lot older than that ten
Speaker 2: thousand days, right, And then of course, no further along ago,
Speaker 2: the war destroyed everything gets and that's.
Speaker 1: Right, and the ice age presents an obstacle to evidence
Speaker 1: that's hard to get past.
Speaker 7: Yeah, And so you were mentioning the end of the
Speaker 7: ice age. You think a comet created the younger giis.
Speaker 2: Well, the ice of the younger dryer intensifies the ice age. Well,
Speaker 2: this is this is the theory. It is not my theory,
Speaker 2: but it's it seems Shock is into this. There's a
Speaker 2: fair amount of I don't have it in my head
Speaker 2: at the moment. There seems to be the fair amount
Speaker 2: of substantiated evidence. And I think the evidence that that
Speaker 2: it's a coronary mass ejection at around ninety seven hundred BC.
Speaker 2: That puts an end to the ice age. That looks
Speaker 2: pretty good to me. And Shock and I were in
Speaker 2: Norway last year around when summer you never know summer
Speaker 2: in Norway. It could have been February here, and we
Speaker 2: went looking at these extraordinary petroglyphs where they have you
Speaker 2: know about the Shock talk about those.
Speaker 7: I have a program.
Speaker 2: So the petroglyphs, which are all over the world, are
Speaker 2: the same, the same weird figures that come out of that.
Speaker 2: People see when there's a mass, these plasma structures, whereas
Speaker 2: everything else is quite recognizable, and it's reindeer, and you
Speaker 2: know it's reindeer, and Norway and it's giraffes in Africa.
Speaker 2: But wherever the Patrick Lips are they have these bizarre.
Speaker 7: Yeah, the plasma discharge. I've had Wallace Thornhill I'm talking
Speaker 7: about it before and he said that the only ones
Speaker 7: that don't show up are the ones that would have
Speaker 7: killed somebody. You know, if you see them, you're dead. Well,
Speaker 7: but they think it was actually venus using Velakowski's theory.
Speaker 7: They think that maybe Venus came through much earlier and
Speaker 7: that's what ended the iation. That was the plasma discharges.
Speaker 7: Venus came close.
Speaker 1: I don't have anything to say that that would be true,
Speaker 1: but that's that's Talbot and and I.
Speaker 7: Think it's mostly Yeah, Talbot and Thorn. I think it's
Speaker 7: more David Talbot who thinks that.
Speaker 2: But would that give you? Such a thing? Would that
Speaker 2: give you?
Speaker 7: According to their theory, it was really yeah, because the
Speaker 7: planets wouldn't actually collide, they would exchange what they call
Speaker 7: thunderbolts of the gods, which are giant plasma discharges.
Speaker 2: I never heard that, but that's bullparking it. That doesn't
Speaker 2: sound illogical to me.
Speaker 7: And I mean, you've done the work on Velakowski's theory
Speaker 7: to say that Venus definitely seemed to be a common
Speaker 7: at some point in its history.
Speaker 1: Right right. And actually they have examples and exo solar
Speaker 1: systems of planets that have common staales that start out
Speaker 1: as comments, so they know it can happen for sure.
Speaker 7: I didn't realize that interesting.
Speaker 1: So also they have examples of large gas planets producing
Speaker 1: rocky more Earthlake planets, although larger, but they have one
Speaker 1: case where two large rocky planets. The official theory is
Speaker 1: was formed by it from a gas giant, so we
Speaker 1: know we could.
Speaker 7: Do that also, So again Velakowski gets right some validation.
Speaker 1: Right As far as the covering over of go back
Speaker 1: to Tepe when it happened. I now have things to
Speaker 1: compare that to that event to because I have a
Speaker 1: second site that was deliberately covered, but when they covered it,
Speaker 1: they left symbolic messages as to why they covered it.
Speaker 7: What side is that this is.
Speaker 1: A site in northern Scotland. I have a book coming
Speaker 1: out that's at the pump store right now, I'm calling
Speaker 1: the Overthrown Boat. And when the site was covered, there
Speaker 1: was a huge feast just before the site was deliberately abandoned,
Speaker 1: ostensibly to kill the domesticated animals they had there rather
Speaker 1: than leaving them to starve, and after the feast was
Speaker 1: over there were probably a thousand animals killed at this feast.
Speaker 1: They left only shin bones all around the feast site,
Speaker 1: covered it over with an intact deer carcass, and placed
Speaker 1: the head of a bull on top of a cow
Speaker 1: on top of it. Now, the act of covering it over, Okay,
Speaker 1: The series of megalithic sites in northern Scotland that I'm
Speaker 1: exploring are progressive stages of how matter is created. You
Speaker 1: have a series of sights that reflect progressive stages of
Speaker 1: how matter is created. And the Doven word for that
Speaker 1: is arc, and there's an equivalent Egyptian word that means
Speaker 1: spiral that is pronounced arc. But the word arc also
Speaker 1: means to cover over, and so by covering over the site,
Speaker 1: what they've done is named it. The shin bones are
Speaker 1: pronounced like a word that means to leave under duress
Speaker 1: or under distress. There are other word examples that connect
Speaker 1: to the symbols they left that explain why they covered
Speaker 1: it over. Now, in Judaism, what happens is every every day,
Speaker 1: every temple in the world, every Jewish temple in the
Speaker 1: world reads the same portion of a tourist squirrel. And
Speaker 1: when they're done, it's structional session. And when they're done,
Speaker 1: they roll up the scroll, carefully covered over and place
Speaker 1: it back in its cabinet, which is called an arc.
Speaker 1: It looks to me as if the process of covering
Speaker 1: over these sites was that kind of a ritual that
Speaker 1: was saying, here, we have a site that had an
Speaker 1: instructional purpose. When its purpose was complete, we covered it
Speaker 1: and we placed it back and named it as an arc.
Speaker 7: Hm.
Speaker 1: Now what's also interesting is the site in northern Scotland.
Speaker 1: The archaic name for it was our gat r. R
Speaker 1: is a phonetic value that means ascending stages, and gat
Speaker 1: is a word that means gates at go backlely Tepe.
Speaker 1: You have an arc that was covered over. R. If
Speaker 1: you again assume means ascending stages of matter, there's another
Speaker 1: Egyptian word that refers to the individual stages of that,
Speaker 1: the gates of that. It's pronounced erit, and so you
Speaker 1: have a word are a rete or error rat as
Speaker 1: the name and go back to that is located very
Speaker 1: short distance from era hmm. So the naming of the
Speaker 1: site implies ascending stages of manner.
Speaker 7: Okay, wow, your your next book is going to be something,
Speaker 7: isn't it.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, next one coming on. I'm I'm happy with
Speaker 1: the next one. The one about Northern Scotland took me
Speaker 1: places I didn't expect it to go, and that a
Speaker 1: lot of people won't be very happy about pretty much anybody, okay, okay,
Speaker 1: the uh. The book started with a single question from
Speaker 1: a Facebook friend who was in Australia wondering if there
Speaker 1: could have been Egyptian influences on Orkney Island in in
Speaker 1: Northern Scotland, and I knew nothing about it, so I
Speaker 1: explored the idea and there's very little evidence there. It's
Speaker 1: all structural and symbolic, but it's performardten language. It's thirty
Speaker 1: two hundred BC, but I knew that at thirty two
Speaker 1: hundred BC. I considered the Dogan, who have been Egyptian
Speaker 1: at that time. The evidence points to close involvement between
Speaker 1: the two in that era. So since the Dogan I've
Speaker 1: done such a good job of preserving their culture, I
Speaker 1: thought I might be able to find commonalities between Orkney
Speaker 1: Island and the Dogan, expecting that the influences went from
Speaker 1: Egypt or Africa to Orkney Island. When I got to
Speaker 1: the Orkney Island site examining the things there, one of
Speaker 1: the things is a structure of a house that was
Speaker 1: repeatedly built on Orkney Island. There are eight houses built
Speaker 1: to the same original plant, and that structure has a
Speaker 1: unique feature. For what the researchers in Scotland are calling
Speaker 1: a unique feature, it's a beehive shaped room. It's a
Speaker 1: round room attached to some other rooms that are rectangular
Speaker 1: in size, and a doorway at the far end. Well.
Speaker 1: It turns out the plan of the house is a
Speaker 1: match for the typical plan of a Dogan house stone house,
Speaker 1: but the Dogan plan has cosmology associated with it. This
Speaker 1: is the shape of a woman's body. The round room
Speaker 1: is her head, two long rectangular rooms are her arms,
Speaker 1: the central cavity is their body cavity in the center
Speaker 1: as a hearth, and down at the end are her
Speaker 1: sexual parts, which is the doorway. Now, in the Dogan
Speaker 1: version of the house it's the same plan. The problem
Speaker 1: is there's no hearth, and so I thought it's very
Speaker 1: interesting that on Orkney Island, when they implemented the plan
Speaker 1: and they added the hearth. They did it in a
Speaker 1: way that was cosmologically sound. They added the hearth where
Speaker 1: the heart should be. It was a while before I
Speaker 1: realized that I had it backwards, that the Orkney Island
Speaker 1: house was the original house and the Dogan when they
Speaker 1: took it, the desert didn't need a hearth, and they
Speaker 1: removed the hearth. Now you go to ancient Egypt, and
Speaker 1: the earliest burial chambers in Egypt take the same shape.
Speaker 1: I have an example of a burial chamber in Egypt.
Speaker 1: Now it's understood that mastabas and things like that we're
Speaker 1: supposed to represent houses. This early burial chamber takes the
Speaker 1: same plan as the Dogan and the Orkney Island house,
Speaker 1: so the presumption is the same symbolism. It looks to
Speaker 1: me as if what we have on Orkney Island is
Speaker 1: a life sized in structural sanction sanctuary that a person
Speaker 1: could walk through the stages of matter to learn about them,
Speaker 1: and the stages culminate or seem to culminate with eight
Speaker 1: chambered houses at Scarabray on Orkney Island, which is a
Speaker 1: little farming village, which represent this cluster of chambers that
Speaker 1: are the egg of the world, the fundamental structure of matter.
Speaker 1: Turns out, Dogan cosmology takes up one stage further there
Speaker 1: is the next stage involves an agricultural field that was
Speaker 1: used to represent what in science is called the background field,
Speaker 1: the particle's form against and every year the Dogan create
Speaker 1: a drawing in the field of their high priests called
Speaker 1: the priest of Arau that represents these fundamental particles and
Speaker 1: the fundamental vibrations of matter. The Egyptians have a similar
Speaker 1: concept called okay. The word Egyptian one a different word
Speaker 1: for field is second and their term is pronounced second eru,
Speaker 1: but it's interpreted in Egypt as being the field of reeds.
Speaker 1: But the term field of reeds is an alternate term
Speaker 1: for what by ancient Greek times was called the Alysian fields.
Speaker 1: You go to ancient Greece and the Greek writers write
Speaker 1: about the Allsian fields the same way the Dogan talk
Speaker 1: about this field that they that is cosmological meaning for them,
Speaker 1: it's an actual agricultural field in real life that the
Speaker 1: Nogan use and cultivate, but it also is a cosmological concept,
Speaker 1: so it exists on two levels at once. You go
Speaker 1: to Greece. You have writings about the Allegian Fields as
Speaker 1: if it were a real geographic place, and all the
Speaker 1: geography they describe describes Orkney Island. It's right, it's the
Speaker 1: right location, it's the right climate described, it's the right
Speaker 1: circumstance for the island described. It's ostensibly a place where
Speaker 1: agriculture happened. So what you've got is a link, a
Speaker 1: potential link to this concept of the field the Second Arrow,
Speaker 1: or the field of Errow, that links back to Orkney
Speaker 1: Island that has symbolicized ancient Egypt in the earliest dynastic times.
Speaker 1: It looks to me as if what might have been
Speaker 1: happening on Orkney Island was they were training people to
Speaker 1: established kingships based on agriculture. Well, all right, okay, nobody's
Speaker 1: gonna like that, but that's where they don't mind.
Speaker 7: Well, I think it's fascinating. I mean, that's what are
Speaker 7: your thoughts on it?
Speaker 2: I don't have any. Actually, it's just strange. In fact,
Speaker 2: guys you're talking. I remember I was at a conference
Speaker 2: in Italy somewhere with Graham and Shock and I think
Speaker 2: Bobo was there, and there was an Italian guy talking
Speaker 2: about about the Odyssey and saying that this is taking
Speaker 2: place in Norway or because because because the topography was
Speaker 2: completely inconsistent with Mediterranean, but it seemed to fit rather
Speaker 2: well in that northern you know that those northern areas,
Speaker 2: and I thought I was pretty impressed by by it.
Speaker 2: I thought, I thought that was really very very interesting.
Speaker 2: And as we know, I mean, there's enough stuff around
Speaker 2: now that you don't dismiss things because the dating seems
Speaker 2: to be incompatible with standard dating, since they got it
Speaker 2: all wrong. Anyhow, it could be, it could be the
Speaker 2: whole thing has to be rethought in terms of its
Speaker 2: not so much it's symbolic value, but it's it's it's
Speaker 2: physical value. I mean, the Orkney Islands is really interesting.
Speaker 2: Not exactly mean I haven't been there, but I mean.
Speaker 1: It's really interesting now another you went there. No, I
Speaker 1: haven't been there, but it's an interesting thing that at
Speaker 1: ten thousand BC, at places like a Beckley Tepe, you
Speaker 1: have high mountaintop sanctuaries that served that. If you imagine
Speaker 1: there was someone who knew science, who as the Dogan
Speaker 1: and the Buddhists are claiming, pass instruction to humanity about
Speaker 1: civilizing skills. In those days. The high mountains atop sanctuary
Speaker 1: provides safe haven for the teachers. It's high enough up
Speaker 1: that we couldn't as hunter galers couldn't get to have them.
Speaker 1: So the first thing I asked myself about the Orkney
Speaker 1: Island side is if there were teachers there, and the
Speaker 1: linguistics makes it look like there are there were, Where
Speaker 1: was there safe haven? Orkney Island is a very approachable place,
Speaker 1: with easy harbors and natural ocean currents that lead right
Speaker 1: to it. There's no safe place for the teachers. However,
Speaker 1: if you go just across the waters from Orkney Island
Speaker 1: you reach a group of islands called the Faroe Islands.
Speaker 1: Now the Pharaoh Islands have all sorts of built in
Speaker 1: protections in them. They've got The islands are characterized by
Speaker 1: high sheer cliffs that you can't climb up. There are
Speaker 1: narrow waterways between the islands that are that daily. There
Speaker 1: are like small taine of tornado type storms that pass
Speaker 1: through there. There are var texas water vortexes that protect
Speaker 1: against ships coming in. There are narrow shoals to the
Speaker 1: edges of the islands that a ship might run aground on.
Speaker 1: There are all sorts of natural protections there to keep
Speaker 1: a person who shouldn't be there from coming there. And
Speaker 1: up on the islands you have structures that for all
Speaker 1: the world look like pyramids, including one that's a pretty
Speaker 1: good match for the Bent Pyramid in Egypt. How do
Speaker 1: you get there, just right across the water from from
Speaker 1: Orkney Island, But how do you get up? Well, they
Speaker 1: have to lower boats down by rope, and they had
Speaker 1: a person can climb up, you know, like with a
Speaker 1: rock climber, can climb up. Really yeah, really for a
Speaker 1: long time, that's what happened. There were periods of time
Speaker 1: when in ancient times when sailors would be unable to
Speaker 1: cross one island to the next island for periods of
Speaker 1: months because of weather. That pretty similar, because there's nothing
Speaker 1: like that in the med that I know, no, but
Speaker 1: it's certainly there. And the islands have not been excavated,
Speaker 1: they've not been explored. Nobody who knows what was there
Speaker 1: before the first Vikings visited.
Speaker 2: There are a few people who are living there now, yeah,
Speaker 2: but they they are of very odd habits and.
Speaker 1: They it's nobody knows for sure what happens there. You
Speaker 1: get to Orkney Island, the first reports of people being
Speaker 1: found in the first scan. They visitors found two groups there.
Speaker 1: One a group of pygmies of very odd habits. Now
Speaker 1: the Dogan refer to their teachers as Numho. The Egyptian
Speaker 1: word for pygmy is nim, so we have some phonetic
Speaker 1: connection there. But these pigmies were associated with a group
Speaker 1: of people who were described as clerics, which is a
Speaker 1: good description of the Dogum themselves. And the Scandinavians were
Speaker 1: very conservative about how they described things, but they said
Speaker 1: that these clerics were so different from the Scandinavians that
Speaker 1: they might have been considered a different race as opposed
Speaker 1: to a different profession. In places like Caithness, they're outwardly
Speaker 1: described as black. There are DNA studies done on the
Speaker 1: islands that show DNA connections to Egypt and to North Africa.
Speaker 1: There's lots of lots of stuff. Actually, Orkney Island is
Speaker 1: probably one of the most genetically diverse places in the world,
Speaker 1: really really, And they aren't sure why they're attributing the
Speaker 1: North African DNA to pirate contact with pirates in the
Speaker 1: you know, in historical times. Yeah, but I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any way of knowing that from the DNA, So
Speaker 1: there's all sorts of different things connected with that that
Speaker 1: that could potentially be right. But the book it will
Speaker 1: be controversial.
Speaker 7: Well that's good, all right, let's uh, I guess let's
Speaker 7: cover what you guys coming up. You obviously have this
Speaker 7: book coming up, but you're already writing another one on
Speaker 7: top of that.
Speaker 1: That book is submitted. I expect it'll be on twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: I haven't actually signed a contract on it yet, but
Speaker 1: it's there and accepted.
Speaker 7: So they've gone through in the tradition to go through
Speaker 7: in the traditions.
Speaker 1: Right. Then there's a follow on to that about the
Speaker 1: Mallori in New Zealand. That's about half it. But the
Speaker 1: Mallory have memories of of Oorkeley Island really and they
Speaker 1: actually establish schools for their priests where the same things
Speaker 1: that I say we're taught on Orkanland, we're being taught
Speaker 1: in these schools. There are lots of Leagueesta connections there also,
Speaker 1: it's hard to get into without them, a lot of
Speaker 1: detail that I probably am not prepared to provide, but basically,
Speaker 1: the in the Maori in New Zealand have connections back
Speaker 1: to go back to Tepe to the thirty era stuff
Speaker 1: that I talk about in Orkney Island, to the shock
Speaker 1: de cult that I connect to go back to the tape,
Speaker 1: to ancient Egypt and to things down the line. From
Speaker 1: ancient Egypt, things play out in terms of rituals and
Speaker 1: in terms of words and practices, in terms of myths
Speaker 1: of where they came from and how they got there.
Speaker 7: Okay, and John, you do trips to Egypt still?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah, of course, And now it's a great time
Speaker 2: to go because the prostitutes of the media have published
Speaker 2: all of this stuff and make it sound I mean,
Speaker 2: there's stuff going on there, but it's mostly it's strictly political.
Speaker 2: So far, nobody's after the tourists, but they make it
Speaker 2: sound as though it's an open civil war, so that
Speaker 2: tourism is way way down, which is calamitous for the
Speaker 2: poor Egyptians, but fantastic for us, because to visit Egypt
Speaker 2: when it's still pretty empty is I mean, it's a
Speaker 2: tremendous advantage. And so yes, I'm still doing my trips.
Speaker 2: Of course, as long as I can keep climbing up
Speaker 2: the pyramid, I'll keep doing the the trips.
Speaker 7: I'm sure climbing up I'm sure, climbing up the pyramid
Speaker 7: keeps you in shape to keep climbing.
Speaker 2: Up the pur age. Yeah, I know that.
Speaker 1: The last time there was upheaval in Egypt, John was
Speaker 1: out of contact for a few days and people started
Speaker 1: to be concerned, and so I started trying to track
Speaker 1: him down, and he assured me by sending me a
Speaker 1: photo of himself and a beautiful young companion sitting on
Speaker 1: a private cruise ship sipping alcoholic beverage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was the revolution. We were there for the
Speaker 2: whole revolution. And then we're trying to get together this,
Speaker 2: you know, major follow up for the Mystery of the Sphinx,
Speaker 2: and then Shaka and I. I've got a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of projects that and I'm one of these rare people
Speaker 2: born with two Achilles heels, and both of them are organization.
Speaker 2: So for me to get anything done, I sometimes wonder,
Speaker 2: you know, how I ever got anything done at all,
Speaker 2: because I'm so hopelessly disorganized. But somewhere along the line,
Speaker 2: things do get done. So I've got all of these
Speaker 2: different related projects, and in fact, some of the others
Speaker 2: of me wearing my Bohemian bera instead of my Egyptological
Speaker 2: pith helmet of stuff going on and people interested in,
Speaker 2: you know, some of the other creative things that I've done.
Speaker 2: We'll say, I'm still here.
Speaker 7: Good, you want to talk about it? Do you want
Speaker 7: to mention the book you might be doing with shock
Speaker 7: at some point?
Speaker 2: Well? What the first one will be called Dancing down
Speaker 2: the Bridge of Sirah. This is a Sufi image bridge
Speaker 2: of Sirah, which is described as and it's this bridge
Speaker 2: that you have to cross to get to, let's say,
Speaker 2: to the truth or to enlightenment. And it's described as
Speaker 2: narrow as the Rage's edge, and on one side is
Speaker 2: the chasm of credulity, and then the other the abyss
Speaker 2: of skepticism. So this is the quackademics on one side
Speaker 2: and the unicorns on the other. And basically the story
Speaker 2: of the whole, this whole, the long Sphinx Quest. It's
Speaker 2: basically the Swinx Quest, which is now going on since
Speaker 2: I first encountered that one line of shroller back in
Speaker 2: sixty well, no, seven, seventy three, so it's forty years
Speaker 2: it's been going. So there's a lot of story and
Speaker 2: as you gather, we've talked about some of it, this
Speaker 2: is really sort of real life Indiana Jones, because it's
Speaker 2: a you know, with a lot of interesting characters. It's
Speaker 2: called duggery and people don't attacking other people out. Yeah,
Speaker 2: there's a whole, big, long story there. So that's that's
Speaker 2: the that's the first book, and then the second one
Speaker 2: we haven't get around to. It is, I hope the
Speaker 2: definitive destruction of the Darwinian delusion. We'll see about.
Speaker 7: That sounds interesting.
Speaker 1: One last thing I have to say is that over
Speaker 1: the years, there have been a number of occasions where
Speaker 1: John has one opinion about what a symbol or a
Speaker 1: ritual means, and my sources point to a different meaning,
Speaker 1: and so there's a difference of opinion between us as
Speaker 1: to what the thing actually means. What I've learned in
Speaker 1: those cases is that it means that I need to
Speaker 1: find some additional sources.
Speaker 2: No, not necessarily. Sometimes they're complimentary.
Speaker 1: Actually they typically typically they resolve because when I do
Speaker 1: find those other sources, it serves as an umbrella over
Speaker 1: both points of view, and we end up realizing that
Speaker 1: you can look at it too weight. But what I'm
Speaker 1: saying is it has not been my experience that John's
Speaker 1: wrong about something that that he holds a strong opinion.
Speaker 2: Gotcha, Well, I'm able to defend myself even if it's wrong.
Speaker 6: So hold the darkness. It's so cold, thought sprison longer
Speaker 6: Shi in my life, so faixture light in my.
Speaker 4: I mean not eat, won't she guy? Or that I'm
Speaker 4: a suit?
Speaker 6: They want me out doors?
Speaker 10: She time moving his man shun? What's I dose? Man
Speaker 10: b shun to mold the concious to be free fine
Speaker 10: lition sight of me? And I say in the sun.
Speaker 11: But I don't know how to say.
Speaker 3: With aunts to.
Speaker 9: But I'll be blessed by the light of it. It's
Speaker 9: so cold, so cold.
Speaker 4: She stun, don't come.
Speaker 10: Try day.
Speaker 4: Told my she stopping Shu.
Speaker 10: Mean that the body national it's so cold? Back so go.
Speaker 3: You say it's no say.
Speaker 10: That you weel loves how to hi.
Speaker 7: Like a.
Speaker 3: With new say.
Speaker 11: B thing fright, sup, it's so cold? Bring the sun
Speaker 11: has so cold?
Speaker 3: Burn the go shut.
Speaker 10: Her tire sa.
Speaker 3: Samo lest not bring the sun smolt. But the guys
Speaker 3: shut
Speaker 9: So scroll not bring the bol