Subject: What Sitchin Says About The Space People. Part 3.
Now let pick up our discussion of what Sitchen says Egyptologist
have to say about the Great Pyramid;... The suggestion that the
Giza pyramids were built at such an early time, and by extra-
terrestrials to boot, is - to put it mildly - not what Egyptologists
have been saying and teaching.
Open any textbok on the subject, and you will read that all of
Egypt's pyramids - some 20-odd main ones-were built by a succession
of pharaohs as glorified tombs for themselves. The first, you will
read, was built by a king called Zoser, the second of the pharaohs of
the Third Dynasty, circa 2650 B.C. The practice, we are told, was
continued by the three renowned pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty:
Khufu (Cheops in Greek) built the Great Pyramid; Chefra (Chefren)
the second pyramid; and their successor Menkara (Mycerinus) the
third one-all in less than a century, circa 2500 B.C. It was Chefren
who had carved out e Sphinx, according to the textbooks. Then subse-
quent pharaohs raised their own pyramid-tombs, at various other
How do Egyptologists know all that? In the various pyramids other
than at Giza, hieroglyphic inscriptions name the pharoohs by or
for whom they were built. They are profusely decorated, and the
walls are covered with verses from the Book of the Dead, in which
the pharaoh's name has been inscribed as the one to be welcomed by
the Gods in his afterlife. The three pyramids of Giza are different;
not only in the immense size of two of them, and their incredible
durability, or inner complexity (especially the Great Pyramid). They
are different also in that they are totally devoid of any decoration,
any inscription, any quotation. So, how do Egyptologists know who
had built them and the Sphinx?
First, simple by saying that if successive pharaohs built pyramids,
those of Giza ought to have "belonged" to the three of the Fourth
Dynasty (most other pyramids are from the Sixth Dynasty). Second,
because at one time archacologists had identified within the smaller
pyramid a wooden coffin with some skeletal remains, and on the
coffin the pharaoh's name, Men-Ka-Ra, was spelled out. Third, because
in some narrow spaces called relieving chambers within the Great
Pyramid, the name of Khufu (Cheops) was found painted in red by the
ancient stone masons.
So, by a process of elimination, the Second pyramid has to be built
by the pharaoh who reigned between them, i.e., Chefra (Chefren).
And since the Sphinx is connected by a causeway to his his pyramid, he
must have been the builder of te Sphinx, carving on its face his own
royal image. Since Hierodotus appears to suggest same attributions in
his descriptions of Egypt, Egyptologists have adhered to these
identifications as gospel.
The problems begin.
Sumerian texts, about whose antiquity and authenticity there is no
question, relate not only the events of the Deluge but also what ensued.
In those text (from sources simply listed in my books) the mounting
conflicts among the leaders of the Anunnaki are recorded. Several
times the conflicts erupted into full scale warfare; I have dubbed
the bitterest ones (in my third book, The Wars of Gods and Men) "The
Pyramid Wars" because they involved the Giza pyramids. As the epithet
suggests, the pyramids of Giza had already existed when these conflicts
were occurring-millennia before there were pharaonic rulers in Egypt.
Indeed, one long text (well known to Orientalists) describes how the
victorious leader of the Mesopotamian clan, having vanquished the
African clan, entered the Great Pyramid and destroyed or removed its
pulsating crystals and humming instruments, also toppling its apex
stone (which has been missing since). And that, by my calculations,
happened 6,000 years befor Khufu's time!
If Sumerian sources conflicted with Egyptological dogma, what about
ancient Egyptian sources? Examining them, I also found problems with
current views. There is, for example, a famous stela (on exhibit in
the Cairo Museum). Know as the Inventory Stela, it is inscribed by the
very Khufu (Cheops) to whom the Great Pyamid is attributed. The
inscription commemorates the completion of a temple to the goddess
Isis that Khufu had built. He calls Isis "Mistress of the Pyramid" and
states that he built the temple "beside the House of the Sphinx."
I read and re-read the inscription. Did I really understand what it
implied? The textbooks say that it was Chefren, who had reigned after
Khufu, who had built (or carved out) the Sphinx, with his image as its
face. So how could his predecessor build a temple to Isis beside the
Sphinx, if it was not yet carved out?
Also, surprisingly, Khufu went to great lengths to commemrorate the
building of a small temple, but left no similar or even lesser
commemorative evidence in the much greater achievement attributed to
him (the pyramid itself). Why? And what did he imply by calling Isis
"Mistress of the Pyramid?" Does it mean that not only the Sphinx, but
also the Great Pyramid, had already existed in Khufu's time?
JW The plot thickens.
Source Of Information: FATE.
trSubject: Did The Space People Build The Great Pyramid. Part 4.
It seems that Sitchin was sucessful in finding something rotten
in Demark in relation to the Great Pyramid. Here's how he found it.
.....It was obviously necessary to verify the two concrete pieces of
evidence in the hands of Egyptologists: the coffin lid inscribed
Men-Ka-Ra from the Third Pyramid, and the red paint markings spelling
out Khufu's name in the Great Pyramid.
Tracing the informtion from one textbook to an earlier one, which
relied on previous textbooks and so on backward, I came across an
interesting puzzle; at some point, the initial references to the
coffin lid evidence some how began to disappear from the later
With considerable effort, I found out why. Using modern dating
methods, subsequent research established that the coffin lid was
from a much later dynasty, which also had a ruler named Menkara -
and the skeletal bones were from millennia later, from a Christian
In other words, someone had perpetrated a deliberate archaeological
fraud, bringing a piece of wooden coffin from another tomb and bones
from a Christian-era grave into the pyramid and saying: Hey, look
what I had found. And so, realizing the fraud, Egyptologists finaly
dropped the claim to proof of the third pyramid builder's identity.
Who had perpetrated this fraud? He was a British Colonel by name
of Howard Vyse, a black sheep of a prominent family who was sent
away to cruise the Mediterranean and ended up infatuated with Egyptian
antiquities. The year was 1835, and it was the time when new finds in
Egypt made their discoverers world famous. Enlisting some dubious
assistants, including a Mr. Hill, Vyse embarked on searches within
the Giza pyramids. Hungry for some memorable achievement, he engi-
neered (or acquiesed in) the third pyramid fraud.
The great discovery
But the pretended search within the smaller pyramid was only a side
show. Vyse's main work, lasting into mid-1837, was inside the Great
Pyramid. He described his day-by-day efforts, problems and frustrations
in a journal that he kept.
Unable to find anything of significance, he resorted to the use
of gunpowder inside the ancient and unique monument, to force his way
into unknown parts above the socalled King's Chamber. Above a then-known
space called Davision's Chamber, he found other spaces that are now
called relieving chambers. He named the first one after Lord Wellington,
and had his assistant Mr Hill inscribe the namee inside the narrow
chamber with red paint.
Additional chambers were then entered, without anything to cheer about.
But, on re-entries, interesting discoveries were made. Inscribed in red
paint were "quarry marks," as well as cartouches spelling out royal names.
In his journal, Vyse provided a drawing showing a shematic of the
various chambers and where the inscribed markings were found.
The news was rushed to Cairo, and the British and Austrian consuls were
invited to witness the finds. Mr. Hill made a facsimile of the cartouches
on cloth-lined paper, and all present authenticated it . The document
was then sent to the British Museum in London, and the event made great
news, because the discovered cartouches spelled out the name of Khufu-in
chambers that have been sealed since the pyramid had been built.
Khufu was thos certified-in writing-to have been the builder of the
Great Pyramid; and so it has remained stated in all the textbooks.
The great fraud
But researching the reports from that time, 150 years ago, I found
that several leading Egyptologists of the time, including the curator
at the British Museum, had doubts regarding the cartouches. The writing
and the spellings seemed wrong.
After great efforts and initial claims by the officials in the Museum
that no such document existed, they found and let me examine the "Hill
Facsimile." As I unrolled the sheets, I at once knew that it was all
a fraud, a forgery. Whoever had written the royal name had misspelled it.
Instead of writing Kh-u-fu he used the hieroglyphic symbols spelling
Since Ra was the name of the supreme god of ancient Egypt, the
improper use of his name was blasphemy. No ancient scribe would have
dared do it.
Source Of Information. FATE.
Subject: Eye Witness To The Fraud. Part 5.
Now on to the end of the discussion by Sitchin about his idea
that the space people built the Great Pyramid. Here we go with his
last thoughts on the subject;...It could have been done only by
someone not fully cognizant with ancient Egyptian writing.
In The Stairway to Heaven, I identified the culprit as Mr. Hill,
suggesting the night of May 28, 1837, as the time when he had
entered the pyramid with brush and red paint and simulated the royal
The Great Pyramid discovery was only a great fraud, I concluded.
There has been no real evidence for identifying the Giza pyramids
with any pharaoh as their builders. And therefore, the other Sumerian
and Egyptian evidence was valid: the Anunnaki were their builders-
millennia before Cheops, Chefren and Mycerinus.
An unexpected eyewitness
Three years after The Stairway to Heaven was published, in May
1983, I found in the mail a letter from a Mr. Walter M. Allen of
Pittsburgh. "I have read your book," he wrote. "What you say about
the forgery in the Cheops Pyramid was not new to me." His great-
grandfather, he wrote, was an eyewitness to the forgery.
"I have your letter of May 7th and am literally flabbergasted."
I wrote him back. "That my conclusion could be supported by a
virtual eye-witness was beyond my wildest expectations!"
As the story unfolded, with some family documents shown to me,
it turned out that Mr. Allen's great-grandfather was the very
stonemason from England whom Col. Vyse engaged to use gunpowder
inside the pyramid. On that particular night, he had witnessed
Mr. Hill go into the pyramid with red paint and brush, supposedly
to paint over ancient markings but actually to paint new ones.
When the great-grandfather objected, he was fired and banned from
the site. He reported all that in letters regularly written to his
father in Box, Wilshire, in England. When the family moved to the
United States, the family records were brought over. Mr. Allen
became aware of it all when he began to write down the family's
history by interviewing the still-living relatives.
The names, the circumstances, the dates - all that I had surmised,
was exactly corroborated by the Allen family records.
The Sphinx speaks up
There the matter rested until late in 1991, when a scientific
paper presented at the convention of the Geological Society of
America, held in San Diego, made worldwide headlines such as this
one in the October 23rd Los Angeles Times: Sphinx New Riddle - Is
It Older Than Experts Say?
The headlines referred to a report by Dr. Robert M. Schoch, a
gelolgist at Boston University, and Dr. Thomas L. Dobecki, a Houston-
based geophysist, that patterns of water erosion on the Sphinx and
other meterorological data indicate "that the Sphinx has been
standing since before the Giza plateau became desert, 7,000 B.C
"I am trying to be conservative," Dr. Dobecki said about the Sphinx's
age in an interview with the L.A. Time's science editor.
In March of 1992, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science devoted a session to the subject "How old is the Sphinx?"
at its annual meeting in Chicago.
The presentaion by Dobecki and Schoch was vehementy objected to
by certain Egyptologists. "You don't overthrow Egyptian history
based on one phenomenon, like a weathering profile," one objector
In June of 1992 The New York Times published an op-ed article by
Anthony West, who started meteorological research, which presented
forensic evidence that the face of the Sphinx in no way showed the
features of the Pharaoh Chefren, as Egyptologists have been asserting.
I took the opportunity to point out in a letter to the editor that
my own estimate for the age of the Sphinx (about 9,00 B.C.) was
presented in my 1976 and 1980 books more than a decade ago.
And there the matter still rests.
JW Don't tell anybody but I think the Great Pyramid is even older than
what they say.
Part 5. The End.
Source Of Information: FATE Magazine/July 1993 by Zecharia Sitchin.