Setting the Record Straight
This time readers found plenty to complain about, polititions, revisionists, the ignorant and even Atlantis Rising.
Thanks for sharing Washington's view of UFOs. What an arrogant bunch of idiots. It certainly does affect the voters! Nearly everything government does is so corrupt, inept and clandestine that the voters, increasingly, ignore them completely. People don't vote. How does the government explain the fact that only 49% of the people voted (in November)? If Washington thinks that we believe there are two different parties (the reason to vote) they're nuts too. It is us and them, from both parties! 51% of the people know it and they had better learn we know it!
The people chalk up government silence about UFOs as just another cover-up (ho hum). Get with it, Washington or you're all candidates for early retirement!
Donald W. Jones
Scottsdale, AZ
As you know, the categories of knowledge are never absolute.
Common Sense dictates that responsible researchers do not verify nonsense.
We have placed our faith in subjective reality, and have forgotten the wisdom of the ancients, that: In dreams we pass into the greater truth; free from the shackles of ego...
Unfortunately, civilized man continues to suffer from an age-old misoneism, a fear of the new and the unknown.
But ignorance has never been a guarantee of security, and in fact only makes our insecurity still worse.
Over forty years ago, Dr. Carl Jung, and Prof. W. Pauli (Nobel Prize-physics) theorized that: our primary mathematical intuitions are sometimes arranged before we become conscious of them.
Jung indicated (in Aion) the new aeon based on Ptolemy's Catalogue of Stars. He suggests 1997 as a starting point.
The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, that is understood, it happens outside as fate'.
Dr. Todd DeLaurence
Bronx, NY
In issue #9 we learn that John White believes that Charles Hapgood's conclusions about ancient Antarctic maps were effectively demolished by an article in The Skeptical Inquirer (Fall 1986) by David Jolly.
The central thesis of Hapgood's ancient map work is the fact that they depict accurate longitude at a time in European history when the technology required (marine chronometers) did not exist. The mystery is: how did people in the sixteenth century possess maps that could only be drawn using eighteenth-century technology? But nowhere in Jolly's article is the word longitude even mentioned. Hapgood's central claim is completely ignored.
Jolly ignores the real issue and instead resorts to personal attack quoting an anonymous expert who labels Hapgood goofy. Jolly pursues his argument with the following questionable logic:
To gauge his influence on mainstream science, I scanned Science Citation Index from 1961 through 1983 for references to Hapgood. I found eight works citing Hapgood. One was a popular article, one a book review, two were unrefereed comments or letters, and the remaining four made passing references to Hapgood, mostly of the some even claim variety.
So what exactly is this supposed to prove? Because scientists ignore Hapgood he must be wrong? Mr. Jolly reveals his complete ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Because Mendel's theory of genetics was ignored didn't make it wrong. Babbages work on computers lay dormant for nearly a century and of course we all know how Wegener was ridiculed by his contemporaries. Jolly seems to think that if no academic is taking Hapgood seriously then neither should the rest of us.
As a Librarian I must point out that Jolly should have extended his search for relevant articles to include the Social Science Citation Index. Cartography is, after all, sometimes considered a social science. I happen to know that there is a publication listed in this index which treats Hapgood's ideas seriously because I wrote it. A Global Model for the Origins of Agriculture appeared in the Fall of 1981 issue of The anthropological Journal of Canada (and is reprinted in our book When the sky Fell: In Search of Atlantis). Why didn't Jolly mention it? Is he a sloppy researcher or did he just decide not to include it? To keep Hapgood isolated, Jolly misrepresents the scientific literature.
He writes: Hapgood convinced himself that a portion of the South American coast was really a misplaced section of Antarctica, shown without ice.
Hapgood didn't convince himself. He was convinced by the evidence. And that evidence was examined and confirmed by experts in the field. In 1954, the Hydrographic Office of the US Navy confirmed Captain Arlington Mallery's conclusion that parts of the Piri Re'is Map accurately depicted sub-glacial features of Antarctica. Hapgood confirmed the Navy's results in 1960 with the help of cartography experts working for the U.S. Air Force.
Jolly also tries to diminish Albert Einstein's important support of Hapgood:
In Earth's Shifting Crust and its revised edition, The Path of the Pole, he (Hapgood) argued that the ice ages are an artifact of rigid slippage on the earth's crust. Albert Einstein supplied a foreword to this work and appeared to take a courteous and relatively favorable attitude toward Hapgood's work without explicitly endorsing it.
This attempt to belittle Einstein's role doesn't cut it. Albert Einstein wrote that Hapgood's idea electrified me;" Does this reflect simply a courteous and relatively favorable attitude? On the eighth of May, 1953, the great scientist wrote to Charles Hapgood:
I find your arguments very impressive and have the impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the crust of the earth have taken place repeatedly and within a short time.
Jolly's prejudiced attempt to diminish Einstein's support by trying to paint him as just a nice guy who threw a bone to Hapgood is just plain wrong. Einstein wrote ten letters to Hapgood and, indeed, directed much of the research.
Mr. Jolly attacks the man, ignores the very real scientific problem of accurate longitude depicted in the ancient maps and misrepresents history. Is this John White's idea of a demolishing argument?
Rand Flem-Ath
Ladysmith, B.C.
In his article, Pole Shift Revisited, Len Kasten quotes John White: It is undeniable that almost all of the cataclysm dates pinpointed by Cayce have come and gone without incident. Unfortunately, the evidence points to a different conclusion. Either White is not familiar with the Edgar Cayce readings, or he is simply parroting the policy of revisionism implemented in recent years by the Association for Research and Enlightenment (ARE) with respect to Cayce's Earth Changes prophecies.
One of the cataclysmic dates claimed to have come and gone without incident is 1936. But it is important to emphasize that when Cayce spoke of Earth Changes, he was not only referring to earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc. For example, in 1932, Cayce was asked to: ...forecast the principal events for the next fifty years affecting the welfare of the human race. He answered: This had best be cast after the great catastrophe that's coming to the world in '36 (thirty-six), in the form of the breaking up of many powers that now exist as factors in the world affairs...Then, with the breaking up in '36 will be the changes that will make the different maps of the world.
In 1936 Adolph Hitler violated the Treaty of Locarno by invading the Rhineland. The Italian dictator Mussolini conquered Ethiopia in the same year. In Spain civil war erupted between the Fascists and Communists. In Japan an uprising by the military known as the February 26th Incident brought about a martial government. In the same year, a book, When We Fight, by popular naval author Shinsaku Hirata, was published in Japan that delineated the blueprint for a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that became a reality in 1941. Finally, Chiang Kai-Shek, the leader of China, declared war on Japan in 1936.
There are other readings that refer to the year 1936 as an important one. Yet concerning the predicted physical changes, years earlier Cayce told a businessman ...though the period as is mostly given, '36, as we find, begins then and goes on rather than being the period of the greater change. And in two separate readings for his stenographer, Gladys Davis, (1923 and 1932), she was told that ...the greater period of the physical change... would not begin to occur until after her death! Gladys died in 1986.
Cayce pointed to the next few years as the significant period with respect to spiritual, mental, and physical Earth Changes. He predicted a pole shift on numerous occasions, and was asked What change...if any, is to take place in the earth in the year 2,000 to 2,001 A.D.? He answered: When there is a shifting of the poles. Or a new cycle begins. He also said a previous pole shift occurred in 50,772 B.C. In 1944 he volunteered (there were)... enormous animals which overran the earth, but ice....nature, God, changed the poles and the animals were destroyed... This statement may explain the Berezovka mammoth discovered fast-frozen in Siberia in 1901.
With respect to his prophecies, Cayce said: That some are due and will occur is written, as it were... And years later he made a prediction that may soon clear up any controversy concerning all of the Millennium prophecies: As has been indicated, we will begin to understand fully in 1998.
Thomas C. Kay
author of When the Comet Runs: Prophecies for the New Milennium
Virginia Beach, VA
The review of The Scars of Evolution was well done but misses on a few points. Contrary to the statement that the book offers a new hypothesis concerning human evolution, the aquatic ape theory is quite old. Author Morgan addressed the subject previously in her earlier book The Aquatic Ape. Morgan also notes in her current book (p. 161 of the paperback edition) that AAT was originated by Alister Hardy in 1930 and has popped up occasionally since then. While Morgan is certainly to be commended for pursuing the theory, she did not originate it. Furthermore, the AAT does not, as stated in the review, require that a severe geological phenomenon must have occurred in northeast Africa. That is simply a possible scenario.
I greatly appreciated the review of Bauer's book on scientific literacy and the extensive comments. The book raises issues that are consistently ignored by mainstream scientists.
Jim Castanea
APO San Francisco, CA
I am writing in regard to the article title How Old Are the Pyramids? which was authored by Mr. Jochmans and published in issue No. 8 of Atlantis Rising. The magazine claims copyright to this material and so additionally, does Mr. Jochmans.
In fact, the article, without acknowledging the fact, utilizes my research and writings, especially in my 1980 book The Stairway to Heaven and in particular its chapters XII (The Pyramids of Gods and Kings) and XIII("Forging the Pharaoh's Name), infringes on my copyright, and moreover by claiming copyright for itself substitutes the magazine's and Mr. Jochmans copyright for mine.
The article's recitation of the enigmas concerning the construction of the Egyptian pyramids and especially of the Giza ones, including the inconsistencies surrounding the red-paint markings discovered in narrow chambers in the Cheops (Khufu) pyramid quotes none of my writings as a source, but does tip the hat at the end to William R. Fix in Pyramid Odyssey. A paragraph by paragraph analysis reveals how my writings, rather than that of Mr. Fix, was used in the article even in this introductory part. As an example, one confounding aspect of the markings was the use of a hieroglyph as a numeral. Mr. Fix (p.82) stated among them is a mason's mark one Egyptologist has translated as reading year 17'. I stated (p.266). The hieroglyphic symbol for good, gracious was used as a numeral, a usage never discovered before or since. These unusually numerals were assumed to mean eighteenth year'. The article states the hieroglyph for good, gracious was used as the number 18, a usage found nowhere else. Such smoking guns abound.
The central and key innovative point, embraced and recited by the article, made by me after years of exhaustive research was that these markings were a forgery, an archeological fraud perpetrated by Col. Richard Howard Vyse in 1837. This original analysis and conclusion is mine and mine alone. Mr. Jochmans states (p.23) in this regard that a number of modern researchers now suspect that, in the battle for archeological one-upmanship... Col. Vyse resorted to forgery. In fact, there have been no number of modern researchers and Mr. Jochmans, for reasons which are beyond me, has chosen to circumvent the truth and not mention the one and only source of the forgery conclusion: Zecharia Sitchin.
The use of my original and meticulous research by other authors is, in fact, encouraged by me, providing due credit is given and permission to use copyrighted material is obtained. I would have certainly granted such courtesies to Mr. Jochmans, were he to ask. The way the article was written and published, you have a problem that needs amends.
Zecharia Sitchin
New York, NY
Atlantis Rising published the article mentioned in good faith with no intent to infringe on Mr. Sitchin's rights, and, if any harm resulted, we certainly apologize. Unfortunately, the demands of meeting deadlines sometimes lead to such inadvertent oversights. In Mr. Sitchin's case, we happily acknowledge his special role in exposing the probable Howard-Vyse forgery and are on record, to that effect. Our interview with Mr. Sitchin Visitors from Beyond, published in issue #5 clearly states his investigative accomplishment in this area and provides additional details which were not included in his book. We respectfully suggest that Mr. Sitchin, we believe, would be hard pressed to find a publication more determined to credit the pioneering efforts of independent researchers like himself than Atlantis Rising. As to Mr. Jochmans position, he was unable to respond in time for this issue but has assured us that he will do so in a forthcoming issue. ED
In recent issues you have been making a point to present the research and books prepared by Robert Bauval, Graham Hancock, John Anthony West, Rand Flem-Ath and others, who are attempting to certify a date in history for the beginning of Egypt and the carving of the sphinx. The answer to the date of the Giza pyramid complex is clearly written in the pyramids. Bauval and Hancock attempted to date the complex to 10,500 B.C. using the three small pyramids to the south-southwest of the complex. Their theory was that these pyramids locate the setting of Orion in that epoch. On this I have no argument. However, there are three pyramids to the east of the complex, which they bury in some meaningless geometry.
It would seem appropriate that the three east pyramids are more important date markers than the three south-southwest pyramids, for all necropolises of Egypt are dedicated to the rising sun in the east. After all, their Bible was a book they called The Chapters of Coming Forth by Day. And what date do these pyramids mark? They mark the year 1996!! That's right, Orion rises in the east in 1996. Why is it the date 1996 and not 24,000 B.C., 2380 A.D. or some other date which sees Orion rising in the east? To understand that, you have to know that the religion of Egypt was a futuristic cosmic religion. As a cosmic religion, the galaxy is the most important object in the cosmos. In 1996, it can be safely argued that the vernal equinox passed through the bottom of its ecliptic path under the Milky Way. If we were talking about the seasons, this would represent the winter solstice. This is where a seed begins the cycle of germination, and the sun begins to rise.
Around 10,500 B.C. the vernal equinox passed through the top of the path through the galaxy, and Orion set to the south-southwest. Now as Orion rises in the east, we are celebrating the birth of a new cosmic age. Our solar system has passed through another Platonic year. It is time to bring out the champagne and celebrate. As we begin a new decade, a new century, a new millennium, all of which are rationalizations of men, we are also commencing a new cosmic year.
Since this only happens once every 26,000 years, our celebration should include remembrance of those dedicated souls who established the kingdom along the Nile, and set Western Civilization on its journey to eternity. They recognized this date, and they recorded it into the design of the Giza pyramid complex.
Bauval, Hancock, West, Flem-Ath, et cetera are mouthpieces of Osiris. They shine the light on his empty tomb to indicate that he has arisen again, to be reincarnated in a world desperately in need of recovering its lost heritage. This is one objective of Atlantis Rising, and you and your readers need to celebrate the event with a party worth 26,000 years of triumph. Happy New Year, AR!!
Rush E. Allen
Villa Park, CA
Address your comments to:
ATLANTIS RISING
P.O. Box #441
Livingston, MT 59047
