• Where beliefs come from
• A New Renaisance
• The Basis of Truth
• The rights and duties of Independence.
• The Pyramid Discoveries
• Errors in the Most Basic Beliefs

Where beliefs come from

Our belief structure is based mostly on stories and articles of faith from centuries of religious indoctrination. It seems unlikely after so many centuries that solid evidence could ever be found in support of what appear to be just stories. However, if someone wanted to pass a message down across the millennia to a new rennaisance, what better way to do it than wrap it up in a story? A story whose message would be recognised in a new age of enlightenment. There is also a case to be made that the story of the 'creation' of Mankind is one of many in the bible that appear to be hiding a cryptic message.

According to a logical analysis of our culture, it seems (that) the convictions of millions, if not billions of people (including scientists) are all based on the highly egotistical belief that Mankind (as a species) is either the highest intelligence in the universe, or is immediately below, as second only to the one and only 'Almighty God of all Creation' (as acknowledged by western religions).

In denying multiple gods, the possibility that this should be seen as totally irrational and simplistic nonsense simply doesn't register. Logically, there must be hundreds of other species in our neck of the universe who are more intelligent than us but are not in any way gods, although they might well claim to be so for commercial advantage but generally even the concept just doesn't seem to register. To top

The majority still hold to the idea that the "god" who "created" Mankind, is inevitably the same individual as the "God" who created the universe and any one who says differently is a heretic. This is not rational nor is it supported by the evidence.  The two "creation" events are separated by BILLIONS of years and they are NOT (necessarily) synonomous.

The Almighty (assuming there is one) may have overseen both of these events but it doesn't make him/her necessarily responsible for them both any more than the Almighty is directly responsible for Dolly the sheep, in whose 'creation' mere mortals most certainly had a hand. To top

A New Renaisance

Religions inevitably gain much of their power from an ideology that is essentially based on beliefs or 'divine revelation' rather than actual facts. Their major weapon is their unchallenged and apparently unchallengable authority, plus the threat of the unknown. How can the average man challenge divine revelation or what is claimed as the word of God?

Once the truth about our past is known, the power of the Church will inevitably be diminished with consequences, both good and bad that continue to be the subject of heated debate.

Whatever the truth that science reveals in its 'truth-at-all-costs', 'publish and be damned', approach, religions will be affected, largely detrimentally. If there is a God, the priesthood must presumably defer to his/her power, with who knows what consequences. If there is NO God, then the priesthood is likewise left high and dry and their pontifications are revealed for what they truly are, little more than a method of controlling the masses. To top

Religious doctrines are a form of brain washing, an attempt to influence and control the minds of others and, however well intentioned, are necessarily based on manipulative practices. In the past, they have certainly inspired the distortion and even the destruction of scientific fact and objectivity, supposedly in the name of truth but often at the cost of millions of lives.

Our exponential growth in knowledge is bringing us ever closer to revelations about the great mysteries, especially about the existence and/or nature of God. With so many pieces of the puzzle now in our possession, many wonder how the answer has eluded us thus far, asking why we have not found the answers? The reason why, at least in part becomes obvious when we return to basics in a study of our earliest history.

In fact our whole planet is so littered with anomalous artifacts that simple human nature seems more to blame for them being passed over or ignored, rather than any sort of conspiracy. It takes a positive effort to follow these things up. However, quite clearly many artifacts, known about for centuries (but largely ignored), can now be shown to hold the key to a major and incredible chapter, missing from our earliest human history. Now that the missing technology has been rediscovered, it is so much easier to put the pieces together. To top

The Basis of Truth

Science is the only reliable means of establishing the practical "techno-logical" answers behind the presently unexplainable apparent magic of mystical events.

We know that mobile phones and television are the result of advanced or better technology but imagine how they must appear to less well-informed people. It all comes down to the basis of our understanding.

Mystics use knowledge often gained (let's say) intuitively, that may or may not be correct. Their beliefs can often be physically demonstrated by miraculous events that can possibly be interpretted one way or another (as the individual wishes) but the explanation cannot be said to be even remotely scientific.

Science is based on provable, physical, reproducible phenomena that anyone, anywhere can reproduce, given the appropriate equipment,. In contrast and by definition, miracles are events beyond our present understanding and most certainly cannot be reproduced at will. Once the basic mechanics are physically proven (no matter how bizzarre) miracles tend to simply dissolve away. By its very definition, mystical knowledge cannot be fully accepted as scientific fact and vice versa, scientifically proven facts can no longer be considered miraculous. To top

The rights and duties of Independence.

Science might reasonably be said to be in the business of destroying beliefs based on miracles. This puts it in conflict with those whose power relies on a belief by others in such (miraculous) events. Ironically, although there can only be one absolute truth, it is truth that becomes the victim. If both sides relied only on provable fact (rather than on an interpretation) and did not dictate or try to control what others must believe there simply would be no basis for conflict.

This implies that all involved are independent, self-aware individuals, fit and able to make their own choices which of course is not always the case as those who seek power are all too aware. The real basis of the conflict lies in the immense power implicitly granted by interpretation, when what one person accepts as truth is used to control the actions of others. To top

This power of manipulation may well be destroyed or be greatly diminish when the real, provable truth becomes more widely known as when people are educated. Hopefully, education can help roll away the depths of (often) enforced ignorance.

The less scrupulous and those who hold these positions of power will inevitably make every effort to prevent this occurring, even at the cost of keeping people in ignorance or abandoning all reason and denying physically proven fact. Unfortunately, since we are all subject of human failings, this denial of facts also applies to many who would declare themselves as scientists.

Where is reason and logic? When a religion based on love, tolerance and compassion, enthusiastically promotes a solution based on fear, terror, hatred and war, then reason has obviously left the room. The real motivation behind the apparent madness lies in the power wielded by unscrupulous power-mongers in using fear to control the minds of the ignorant and ill-informed. To top

The only possible solution lies in educating people, to develop their independence and their ability to make choices on the basis of sound, scientific principles. This must be backed by globally accessible peer review as critical tools in establishing the basic truths.

This is all now (potentially) possible through the medium of the Internet. Because everyone has the right to their individual beliefs and no one can possibly have perfect knowledge, critical analysis and intelligence (the tools of science) are the only possible unifying factor for rationality. It doesn't mean that everyone will agree but they do have the opportunity to study both sides and so reach a position of informed understanding.

Science is totally awash with hypotheses, many of them at the extremes of human imagination but to be accepted for further consideration every new theory must have a rational basis, built on established fact. Unfortunately, as my research has revealed, even accepted beliefs are not always based on properly established proof but at least science has the potential to allow these errors to be rectified. To top

Science does not necessarily say that certain events beyond our present understanding did not or could not occur. Science simply insists that any explanation produced is soundly based on the strict, logically established dictates of science.

Personally, I am convinced that greater intelligencies than ours may well have the means to influence the events taking place on our world. However, I do not pretend to fully understand their methods or their motives beyond the evidence of past events. I may make assumptions and/or interpretations but that is all they are. There must remain a firm and distinct line between what is proven and what is assumed.

When new facts are properly established, major problems may be created both for science and for religion. However, it is only in science that there is any properly established means to determine the real, basic truth. That truth is determined, not by any one group or individual but by the globally accessible and well-tried methodology of peer review. Peer review will ultimately determine what is accepted as truth (like, for example, whether the Earth is round or flat). To top

My research findings fly totally in the face of the "accepted" beliefs of most scientists but my findings are based on the strongest of scientific principles. They reveal established errors in the basic knowledge upon which presently accepted theories are based and enormous (religiously inspired) bias in past interpretations and analysis

The errors that fully confirm my early hyopothesis, were first discovered 120 years ago by Sir Flinders Petrie, a man now promoted as "the father of science in archaeology". Unfortunately, as a young man, Petrie's early work, "The Pyramids and Temples at Giza" (published in 1883) did not carry sufficient weight to displace a powerful opposition led by his parents' closest personal friend, Charles Piazzi Smyth.

As a consequence, although Petrie's findings are recorded and fully accepted as meticulously accurate, the obvious implications of his discoveries were ignored in a period of history dominated not by true science but by the doctrines of the Church and by the impirical ambitions of senior figures in 19th century, Victorian society. To top

The Pyramid Discoveries

"Pyramids" is about solving the deepest and most ancient mysteries of human history, based on solid, proven, physical evidence. However, if it fails to physically prove rational answers or fails to give logical explainplations for stories found globally in ancient legends, then it could not be said to have properly succeeded.

However, allowances must be made for the fact that, largely due to ignorance or lack of education, the old explanations have taken on an understandably mystical or magical quality after being repeated a thousand times . The basic stories of the past are almost certainly based on facts but on facts often distorted by an acceptance of magic as a reasonable explanation.

We now know that magic is based simply on a poor understanding of something for which there is a more rational explanation, possibly of a technology as yet not fully known. It may well include apparently ethereal dimensions beyond our present understanding (like quantum physics) but we are aware there must be an explanation that fits within a scientific understanding.

For our basic beliefs, as children, we initially relied on the supposed wisdom of respected elders but ultimately, if we are ever to grow up, we must make our own decisions. Are we then to still trust what we have been told and continue to believe in Santa Claus? Hopefully not. However, if we are afraid of the truth, it is far easier to accept what we have been told in the past and trust in our Faith. To top

Who knows, maybe there is someone out there who is interested and concerned about our welfare but if so, I am sufficiently self-assertive to want them to prove their motives. I totally refuse to believe, simply because someone tells me I should nor will I ever be prepared to worship them.

Science is about discarding blind faith and seeking the truth, based on fact. For this, science demands solid evidence, something in the form of physical, defensible, reproducible proof. It may be a slow way to make progress but it avoids the pitfalls of accepting some terrible evil, simply out of blind faith as has happened so often in our human past. I suspect more people have died in the name of other peoples' religions than for all other reasons combined and the potential for such disasters was never greater in all of human history.

Whatever our past may prove to have been, we have never been in a better position to prove it than we are now. If we have the courage to face the truth, my evidence suggests the truth will prove to be far less fearful than we might have believed in the past but to reach that point, we must have faith in our own judgment. To top

So what has this got to do with pyramids?

Everything! Because beliefs, and the denial of evidence, is at the very heart of why a wider knowledge of these discoveries has been delayed so long. Truth must ultimately be based on knowledge but only when that knowledge is combined with wisdom can it provide the understanding necessary to make further progress.

Enlightenment is of no value unless something is lit up. It is not the light that is important but that which it enables one to see when suitably placed. However, if you refuse to open your eyes or only worship the light at its source, you will of course be effectively blinded.

Like sunlight, a brilliant light above us can lift the spirits and make the road seem easier to follow. However, to make any judgement at all, it is essential to look outwards. Then, when we chose, we must also remember that the easiest road runs downwards but will ultimately lead us away from the light above.

With others around us it is sometimes far easier to follow the herd rather than stand our ground but something being swept along is inevitably going to be swept downwards. Initially, it is the hardest thing to stand your ground and choose your own path but ultimately it is the only way to reach your own truth. To top

The shape of a pyramid has long been used as a symbol, the 'three-in-one' of enlightenment, knowledge and wisdom. The coalescence of selected knowledge is well represented by the ancient Egyptian symbol of the Ankh, with the light shining down a beam of power and enlightenment To top

Ankh

It appears that, over the course of centuries, the symbolism has actually hidden the basic knowledge that was the true purpose of the pyramids though it seems unlikely this was ever the intention.
Being self-righteous, certain historical figures have disguised the truth, always, they say, in the cause of goodness and right and the Christian way. Then, despite being grossly and demonstrably wrong, these false assumptions have been fostered as the basic truth ever since. To top

Errors in the Most Basic Beliefs

There can be absolutely no question there are an incredible number of pyramids all around the world that range in age from 1000-5000 years old. By my count, made from the records of (local) Archaeological Societies around the world, I have discovered at least 10 ‘Great’ pyramids (equal to or larger than the two major pyramids at Giza), well over 1500 other major pyramids and over well over 42,000 much smaller mastaba/pyramids of significant size (over 6m tall).
The vast majority of these pyramids are outside of Egypt. They are in North, South and Central America, in China, Europe, Africa and Asia and on islands all around the globe, like a chain of pearls encircling the whole planet.

When pyramids half a world apart can be shown to have all-but identical features, it is obvious to everyone but archaeologists there must be some connection between them. The similarities exist in the ratios of their sizes, numbers and distribution, in their dimensions, shape, alignment and a dozen other features .If you don't see them it can only be because your eyes or your mind are closed to the possibility. To top

More than this, archaeologists vehemently attack any who would claim differently, particularly if any attempt is made to associate stepped pyramids (the vast majority) with those iconic structures found only in Egypt, the Great Pyramids of Giza.
What is tacitly ignored is that, even in Egypt, the major, ”true” pyramids represent only a small minority of the pyramids across the region. As recorded by Lehner,* the first 11 pyramids in Egypt all began as stepped pyramids. One (and possibly more) was converted, years later, into a true pyramid. This being so, how then can archaeologists possibly claim there is no connection between them?

The greatest problem faced in extending these findings came from there being a major lack of recent, reliable data. I could find no comprehensive, global catalogue of pyramids from any acknowledged academic source*. In fact, as far as I am aware, except about Egypt, there is none.

[*“The Complete Pyramids”(by Mark Lehner, Hudson Press, 1997)is a truly excellent and widely referenced source of information, but is not what it's title suggests. It has no information at all about the 95% of all pyramids that are outside Egypt.] To top

Once the obvious fictions were abandoned at the start of my investigations, it was relatively easy to deduce the true purpose the pyramids were built to serve. Reverse engineering really left few alternatives.
However, I needed a data base to confirm my findings and for this I was amazed to find no reliable, accepted source within the general field in archaeology. I had instead to rely significantly on sources outside mainstream archaeology, mainly from the promoters of what are seen as extremist, New Age theories. [Fully realising that this information would be seen by archaeologists as being of the dubious credibility, the data was then cross-checked back to resources within local archaeological societies wherever possible.]  To top

From this ommission, it seems reasonably proven that, archaeology, based on British Imperial ambitions of the 19th century, is still in denial about many facets of this debate but is as yet, unwilling to bite the bullet. The evidence of supreme accuracy and skill and speed of construction at Giza is absolute and undeniable proof that the "Ancient" beings we generally call gods had access to and used, extremely advanced technology. This is fully suppported by evidence from Teotihuacan and many other sites around the world.

If this is so, then Archaeology must ultimately be held accountable for more than a century of delays in revealing this knowledge to the wider public. They have essentially thwarted (and continue to thwart) all attempts to discover or reveal the true purpose of the pyramids. By obscuring and avoiding the truth, deliberately or otherwise, Archaeology has essentially encouraged a century of misguided developments in other areas that now have the horrendous potential to destroy our whole civilisation.  To top

The truth is that Smyth, followed by Petrie, both acknowledged that the Great Pyramid was closely associated with the Sun worship, the sun god, and with reflecting sunlight. As recorded earlier, by ancient Greek historian Herodotus (c440BC), the Great Pyramid, when built circa 2500BC, was a massive reflector, capable of reflecting a beam of sunlight for a hundred miles, to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea at the mouth of the Nile Delta.

What none of them deduced, though the implications are now clear, is precisely how and why that sunlight was used.

To top