EGYPNEWS Digest No.11

(4 May 1999)

[Note: To EGYPTNEWS Readers. The following posting is from John Anthony
West, which EGYPTNEWS received on 20 April 1999. We apologise for not being
able to post this message at an earlier date due to our computer problems
over the last few weeks. Essentially, John's posting applies to a series of
controversial emails and points of view that were posted over EGYPTNEWS
during January 1999, about two months prior to this present posting.
Understandably it is difficult for new subscribers to follow the meaning of
this posting and what it relates too. So for the sake of continuity and to
assist new and current readers to grasp its content in relation to prior
postings, please visit:
http://sphinxtemple.virtualave.net/egyptnews/EgyptNewsArchive.html and read
EGYPTNEWS archives 9 and 10.] 

Re: A response from Ralph Ellis in support of Rudolf Gantenbrink. A reply
from John Anthony West.

I was not impugning Gantenbrink's credentials; only his 'authority' to
pronounce upon what constitutes 'serious' science.  It was the tone of his
posting that I found objectionable. 

Robert Bauval has never voiced misgivings about the weathering theory to
me.  I will be happy to address them if Ellis has reproduced them
accurately, and if Robert would like to elaborate. Yes, sure I would be
equally suspicious of Robert's (or anyone else's) pronouncements on
'serious' science.  Dismissing the research of others as 'not serious
science'  is like dismissing everyone else's religion as a 'cult'.  Well,
there ARE cults, and there is plenty of research that is not 'serious
science' that's sure; but Gantenbrink is hardly the arbiter of such matters
because he knows how to build a robot.    

Robert,  are you reading this exchange? 

The Orion correlation was a fait accompli --powerfully supported by the
much earlier work of Badaway and Trimble-- long before Gantenbrink sent
UPUAT up the shaft.   So Bauval did not need Gantenbrink to make his case,
though it certainly added to the excitement.  (This was written,
incidentally, before Adrian Gilbert's  response, so I am happy to see the
situation explained in detail.)  

Ellis seems to be taking me personally to task for acknowledging honestly,
in responding to Gantenbrink, that I only know Bauval's side of the story.
I find this odd!  (Since he seems to be taking Gantenbrink's side without
knowing Bauval's role in the story.)   But I think it worth repeating that,
as I understand it, without Bauval's intercession, none of us would know to
this day that a robot had been sent up the shaft and come to a stop at a
limestone block that seems to have handles attached to it.  If this
assumption is incorrect, however, I'll be happy to stand corrected.
(Again, Adrian Gilbert powerfully corroborates my own understanding of the
situation.) 

Ellis sems to infer that if it were not for Bauval's meddling,  there would
be robots going up and down the shafts on a daily basis, all of it duly
reported in Egyptological journals and publicly on network television; and
everyone would be living happily ever after in serious science heaven...in
other words, that by making it public, Bauval stopped the 'serious' science
from happening.  But it's self evident from a wad of correspondence and the
innumerable phone calls between Bauval and Gantenbrink that up until very
recently Gantenbrick had no such objections to making his discovery public
through unorthodox channels. (Again, see A. Gilbert and  --this wasn't sent
when I first wrote it-- Gantenbrink's own recent post notwithstanding.
Funny time to get vindictive and vituperative!  Five years after the story
breaks!  Why were all these objections not made public years ago?

So, I don't see what Gantenbrink is so pissed about.   

Ellis in turn seems pissed about a putative incipient orthodoxy of heretics
--which he sees as threatening.    He writes:  'Following this, the upper
echelons of the new institution do everything in their power to promote the
new creed and they are equally strident in preventing dissenters and
ordinary folks from voicing their objections. Is this what we are seeing?'
(This is appalling writing, incidentally!) 

What Ellis is actually pissed about is that I, certainly (and, I think,
Bauval and Hancock -- but I'm not sure, we've never discussed it) find very
little merit in Ellis's own theories.  I made this clear to him personally
(as gently as as possible) on our recent joint Egypt trip in November of
1998.  Nobody is trying to 'prevent dissenters and ordinary folks'
(presumably he places himself in this unglamourous category) from 'voicing
their objections'. There is no orthodoxy-in-waiting, at least not at the
moment. Even if we wanted to establish such an institution (we emphatically
do not!)  none of us have that kind of clout.   

There are (for the record) many other dissenting, just plain folks whose
ideas I find on target or at least intensely interesting and challenging
and I do what I can to help them find an audience.  Since Ellis is not one
of these, and I see no reason to come to his aid.   He seems to regard such
lack of support as conspiratorial;  an exercise in strident dissent
prevention (neat trick that! --see his quote above)  In reality, Ellis is
at liberty to voice all the objections he likes,  no one is trying to
prevent him --stridently or otherwise-- but it is up to him to find his own
audience as we have all been forced to do -- in the teeth of  massed
opposition.  To compound the problem for poor Ellis, now there's our
Heretic's Union as well, not just academic Egyptology.  

Like most financially unsuccessful authors, Ellis bitterly takes to task
those who happen to have made money out of their books.  They are just in
it for the money, of course.  While serious scientists such as himself are
doomed to fester away in obscurity. He writes:  'It is revealing in this
respect, that Rudolph has not attempted to cash in on his well-known name,
with best-selling books or conferences - whereas others have not been so
reticent'   

Well, there you have it.  But Gantenbrink's 'well-known name' is well known
ONLY because Robert Bauval has made it well known. Were it not for Bauval,
he would be well known only to a tiny fraternity of robot engineers. (It
may be that, seen in retrospect, a lower profile approach --vis-a-vis
further scientific exploration-- might well have been preferable to the
approach actually taken, but Gantenbrink obviously made no objections at
the time, and is hardly in a position to bellyache about it ex post facto.
 And that is not the issue here, anyhow.) 

No one can 'cash in' on a 'well known name' with a best-selling book,  just
like that.  Besides,  you first have to acquire that 'well-known name'

You have to WRITE the book which then becomes the bestseller that
establishes that 'well-known name' (unless you happen to have Robert Bauval
out there establishing a well known name for you -- then you don't have to
write anything.)  But then, even with a 'well known name', who is to say
you will automatically produce a bestseller to cash in on?  Things click or
they don't click.  The actual value of the given work has next to nothing
to do with its ultimate financial return. 

I'm in a particularly good position to talk about  this situation since I
have intimate personal knowledge of its various aspects.  On the basis of
my books and videos,  I have a 'well-known name'. My video, MYSTERY OF THE
SPHINX in its several incarnations, has been seen by probably half a
billion people around the world.  On the other hand, I have not been able
to 'cash in'.  It has generated virtually no money for me and my ex-partner
stole over $100,000 out of the till (I have a judgment against him, but it
might as well be in rubles.)   My book SERPENT IN THE SKY has been in print
for 20 years.  Yet its total sales in half a dozen languages over 20 years
don't equal a week of sales of Hancock's FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS in Japan
alone. (Sometimes --not that often actually, but sometimes-- even good
books sell.)  In other words, I have a 'well-known name' but have yet to
figure out a way to 'cash in' on it.  

On the other hand, there's THE CELESTINE PROPHECY.   But even that dreadful
tract was well-intentioned, self-published, self-promoted, and then,
miraculously, it caught hold.  It was not written to 'cash in' on anything.
 If it were possible to just 'write for money' on cue, on the basis of a
'well-known name' everyone would do it (me included!).  

Bauval did not write THE ORION MYSTERY in order to 'cash in' on
Gantenbrink's discovery.  He just wrote his book --based on years of
original research-- incorporating Gantenbrink's fortuitous discovery, and
it just happened to sell.  I wrote SERPENT IN THE SKY --also based on years
of original research-- and it just happened not to sell.  And if Ellis's
own book had sold a couple of million copies, (and why not? given the
example of THE CELESTINE PROPHECY) well then, there would be some other
invidious wannabe  whimpering in turn that Ellis had just done it to 'cash
in'.  It's not so easy.  The gods have their own peculiar agenda.  

Since Gantenbrink made his original (seemingly unwarranted) abusive
posting,  I'd like to hear his side of the story, and with it, perhaps, his
views on what constitutes 'serious' science and what does not.  That's all.
 But if he starts out with an attack, then he (and Ellis) should hardly be
surprised if the response --at least from me-- is counter-attack. 

John Anthony West

(6 May 1999)
Secrets of the Sphinx
EGYPTNEWS readers maybe interested to note an update on the website of Dr
Zahi Hawass. In this posting Zahi Hawass and Dr Mark Lehner refute Dr
Robert Schoch and John Anthony West's theory for an older Sphinx. The
update appears to be a reprint of an article from a booklet entitled
"Secrets of the Sphinx Restoration - past and present" by Zahi Hawass.
http://guardians.net/hawass/remnants.htm

(6 May 1999)
WEB SITE UPDATE - by Mark Foster

I have just added an article to my Rostau website detailing a possible link
between the Mounds of Creation of Egypt's Mythology and stone circles,
henges and other structures in Europe.

Is there evidence for these Mounds actually existing in Ancient Egypt?  I
examine the evidence.

Rostau - http://members.aol.com/hatshep100/index.shtml

Mark J Foster

(7 May 1999)
Gilgamesh the Hunter -  by Ralph Ellis

Dear EGYPTNEWS

The Gantenbrink e-mails.

(Re: A response from Ralph Ellis in support of Rudolf Gantenbrink. A reply
from John Anthony West.)

I do wonder what Mr West wishes to achieve in re-igniting this debate in
public some three months after it was laid to rest. As I have no intention
in perpetuating this saga, there is only one point to make in return:

In my previous posting on this subject, I was merely trying to indicate
that the 'three musketeers', as Robert describes the trio, are unable to
deal with criticism. It would seem that each and every time there is a
threat to their position or the orthodoxy of their concepts, there is no
reasoned debate of the issues raised, just a tirade of abuse in return.
 
I think that Mr West's latest posting has proved my point quite adequately.
  
Thank You

Dear READER

As EGYPTNEWS likes to deal more with new ideas, discoveries and facts, I
thought that a small snippet of my latest work may elicit some good
discussion points. This small section comes from that sister civilisation
to Egypt - Sumer, and the epic tale of Gilgamesh.  

As a quick introduction to the subject, please remember that the 'ruling'
constellation of each era changes slowly with time. The most ancient era of
Egypt was ruled by the constellation of Leo, nowadays the dominant sign is
Pisces - the symbol of Jesus. At the time of Gilgamesh, however, the age
was turning from Taurus to Aries, and therein lies the whole of this story.
Apologies that the e-mail will not reproduce the diagrams, but a
planisphere and little imagination will suffice to see the story of
Gilgamesh as it was intended by the ancient scribes. 

                                           Gilgamesh the Hunter


Gilgamesh is the ancient Sumerian epic, written some 4,000 years ago and
rediscovered only in the nineteenth century. It is a story that has echoes
of the biblical Old Testament, with its graphic details of the flood and
the formation of mankind from the dust of the earth. The bulk of the story
is devoted to the king of Sumer known as Gilgamesh and his epic quest into
the mystical forests of cedar where he performs many heroic deeds. The epic
of Gilgamesh is thought to be the earliest heroic story ever written in the
world, but the historians may be up to 600 years adrift in this
calculation, as their chronology is founded on a misinterpretation of what
the story is really about. Historians have generally translated the tale as
being a literal epic of this Sumerian king making his mark on the world,
but I think that they may be in error here.

I have been working on the theory that the bulk of the biblical Old
Testament is, in fact, a story of the constellations. It is an epic tale of
a battle between Taurus and Aries - between the biblical patriarchs, (who
were known as shepherds - Arians) and the Apis Bull worshippers (Taureans)
that so plagued Moses. It is my belief that the Gilgamesh epic is
essentially the same as the Bible, it describes a battle between the
stellar constellations of Taurus and Aries. The first clue to this cosmic
clash is that Gilgamesh¹s companion, Enkidu, is described as being a meteor:

    This star of heaven which descended like a meteor from the sky; 
    which you tried to lift, but found too heavy ... This is the 
    strong comrade, the one who brings help to his friend in need. 

The texts go on to describe the Enkidu in great detail. The allusion is
quite obvious: Enkidu is a stellar object. Gilgamesh himself, in turn, is
described as arming himself for the coming quest and battle in the
following fashion:

    Gilgamesh took the axe, he slung the quiver from his shoulder, 
    and the bow of Anshan, and buckled the sword to his belt; 
    and so they were armed and ready for the journey. (my italics.)

In stellar terms, the allusion is again quite plain: the axe in the right
hand, the bow in the left hand, the sword hanging from his belt ­ Gilgamesh
is simply the Sumerian term for the constellation of Orion. Take a look at
Orion, this constellation has all the attributes ascribed to Gilgamesh.
This is an epic of the skies, an impending battle of the constellations and
the greatest of all the constellations, Orion, is arming himself to do
battle with the cosmos. But Gilgamesh (Orion) does not know the way, so it
is only fitting that he needs Enkidu (the meteor) to lead him:

    Let Enkidu lead the way, he knows the road to the forest 
    [of stars] ... the mountain of cedars, the dwelling place of 
    the gods. 

The purpose of Gilgamesh¹s (Orion¹s) quest is to slay the constellation of
Taurus the Bull and see in the era of the new constellation of Aries the
Ram. In stellar terms, it is the constellation of Orion who is armed with
the axe, the bow and has a sword hanging from his belt. It is Orion who had
drawn his bow and has aimed it at the adjacent constellation of Taurus.
This change in the heavens, that is also alluded to in the biblical texts,
is about to unfold once more. But here in Sumer it is the hero Gilgamesh,
in the guise of Orion, who is reported as killing the 'Bull of Heaven' -
the constellation of Taurus. But first Gilgamesh has to seek out the
watcher of the forest [the stars], a fearsome beast called the Humbaba:

    At the third blow Humbaba fell ... Now the mountains were moved and 
    all the hills, for the guardian of the forest was killed ... the seven 
    splendours of Humbaba were extinguished. 

For a 4,000 year old story, the prose is still as clear today as when it
was written, if you know the subject matter. There is only one guardian of
Taurus and that is the Pleiades, the constellation known as the Œseven
sisters¹, a small group of seven stars that are visible to the naked eye
and resides on the back of Taurus. From this elevated position, the Humbaba
(Pleiades) could watch over the constellation of Taurus and protect it.
Thus, if Taurus were to be attacked, the Humbaba had to be dealt with
first. With the Humbaba Œextinguished¹, Taurus¹s back was exposed and
vulnerable; here was the weak-spot for the hero, Gilgamesh (Orion) could
close in for the kill.
 
    ŒNow thrust in your sword between the nape and the horns.¹ 
    So Gilgamesh followed the Bull, he seized the thick of its tail, 
    he thrust the sword between the nape and the horns and slew the 
    Bull. When they had killed the Bull of Heaven they cut out its 
    heart and gave it to Shamash (the Sun), and the brothers rested.  

Thus Gilgamesh had slain the constellation of Taurus, and the era of Aries
the Ram could now begin. This is confirmed by the king lists of Sumer, who
show the successor to Gilgamesh as being the king Lugulbanda. But Gilgamesh
was somehow related to King Lugulbanda. With the identification of
Gilgamesh as Orion the nature of this relationship becomes more clear, it
was a union between god and king. 

In Egypt the kings were born of the gods, on occasions they even became
manifestations of the gods, especially of Osiris. In Egyptian mythology the
constellation of Orion was described as being the 'soul of Osiris', so in
death the pharaohs became one with Osiris - manifestations of the
constellation of Orion. In Sumer it would appear that the same process was
at work and Lugulbanda was a manifestation of Gilgamesh (Orion). Taurus was
now dead and so accordingly King Lugulbanda became known as a 'Shepherd
King' - a follower of the new ruling constellation of Aries.

To take the similarities with Egypt one stage further, several dynasties of
Egyptian pharaohs were also known as 'Shepherd Kings', the Hyksos kings of
the northern Delta. The Bible, of course, records the patriarch Abraham as
being a shepherd, and also that he was a king (even if the inference is
made to a minor Asiatic king). The allusion is obvious, Abraham was no
minor tribal leader - instead, like Lugulbanda of Sumer, Abraham was a
Hyksos pharaoh of Egypt - a Shepherd King. 

© 1998, 1999
R. Ellis has asserted his rights, in accordance with the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.

Ralph Ellis
All comments on the ideas above would be gratefully received and
considered.  Please address to Ralph at; Edfu.books@virgin.net

(7 May 1999)
Pyramid Construction

EGYPTNEWS readers may be interested in the most recent update on Dr Zahi
Hawass' website relating to "Pyramid Construction". The pages include the
following points:

I. Evidence of pyramid base construction found to the East of Khufu's
pyramid. 
II. A quarry location. 
III. The discovery of the ramp of Khufu's pyramid. 
IV. The discovery of the harbors of Khufu and Khafre. 
V. The discovery of the workmen's community at Giza. 

Bullet point V covers the following information:

There are four archaeological discoveries at Giza connected with the
pyramid builders. 
1. The institution area. 
2. The workmen's camp (a settlement). 
3. The lower cemetery.
4. The upper cemetery. 

See http://guardians.net/hawass/pbuildrs.htm for further information.

(9 May 1999)
Zahi Hawass Update

EGYPTNEWS readers maybe interested in the latest update from Zahi Hawass'
website. In the form of a press release the article includes, the opening
of the Great Pyramid (although no date has been set), the completion of the
restoration project on the Sphinx Temple and the opening of the tomb of
Seshemnefer to the public. Moving swiftly past the report of meetings with
royalty - the article ends with Zahi Hawass promising to publish material
on the so-called Tomb of Osiris in a future update.
http://guardians.net/hawass/release.htm

(10 May 1999)
"Water Shaft" Update

Readers interested in the saga of the "Water Shaft" beneath Khafre's
Causeway should visit Nigel Skinner-Simpson's website - The Shaft, The
Subway and The Causeway. An index of articles can be found at:
http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/nigelss/pages/shaftidx.htm

The site has recently been updated with three new pages which analyse the
recent FOX TV Special, in which the "Water Shaft", or so-called "Tomb of
Osiris" was shown.
http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/nigelss/pages/shaftos1.htm 

The first of these new pages summarise the programs main points concerning
the shafts location and suggests some conflict with other information
already in the public domain. It also provides some references to other
'tombs of osiris'. The following page claims that the graphics screened,
showing the layout of the shafts and chambers, are actually incorrect and
attempts to explain their true layout. The final page provides an annotated
transcript of this part of the FOX TV programme for the benefit of those
who have not seen it.

Chris Ogilvie-Herald.

(12 May 1999)
THE UPUAUT WEBSITE by Rudolf Gantenbrink

Dear Egyptnews Readers

Just last week John Anthony West reminded you - via Egyptnews - of a
discussion that began early this year.
(http://enterprise.powerup.com.au/~glt/grail/misc/pr170199.html) West is
obviously heating it up again now just for the sake of public relations.

But it was the original discussion that finally moved me to take a long
overdue step: finding a way to make all data relating to the Upuaut Project
accessible for the general public.

For six years now, the Upuaut Project has faced a vexing problem: repeated
misuse of partial information and selected data for the publication
purposes of project outsiders. Political interests within the scientific
community ensured that, contrary to usual practice, our research findings
were never adequately published. 

As a result, our work has continually fallen victim to polemics, propaganda
and "New Age" marketing interests.

Some of the blame for this can certainly be laid at the doorstep of a few
academic scientists whose envy motivated them to create a climate in which
such a passionate but wholly unscientific "war of faith" could be waged.

For New Age author Robert Bauval and his group, the deliberately selective
depiction of my work and the total appropriation of the name Gantenbrink
have obviously become a matter of journalistic survival. The few statements
I have made so far in Egyptnews have already served to question the alleged
store of knowledge with which Bauval and Co. consistently hoodwink their
readers and Internet users.

Just one current example:

"I suggest to those interested that you read my forthcoming book to get the
facts straight re: Gantenbrink and much more." (Robert Bauval on "The Daily
Grail", 6th May 1999.
http://enterprise.powerup.com.au/~glt/grail/misc/rgb060599.html).

Robert Bauval doesn't have the faintest idea what the facts of the Upuaut
Project are. He was neither a member of our team nor did he ever have
extended access to our research findings. His "knowledge" is restricted to
a few bits of information which he received from me in telephone calls and
conversations. And he has consistently quoted even those bits incorrectly,
e.g., the angles of the pyramid shafts. Nonetheless, he seems to believe he
is the only one to whom the general public can turn "to get the facts
straight."

As a result, the public image of myself and my work continues to suffer the
worst kind of distortion. The latest "highlight" in this propaganda and
promotion campaign is offered by John Anthony West in his last contribution
to Egyptnews:

"But Gantenbrink is hardly the arbiter of such matters because he knows how
to build a robot."

The best response to disinformation of this kind is acccess to the original
sources. And the best answer to polemics by pseudo-scientists is a complete
presentation of the facts and original findings of the Upuaut Project. I
can now provide the general public a complete and factual account via the
Internet.
I would like to thank my sponsor Mäuer and Wirz, whose financial support
has made it possible to eliminate a major information deficit.

Visit THE UPUAUT WEBSITE at: http://www.cheops.org/  

Sincerely yours,

Rudolf Gantenbrink
Munich 12th May 1999

PS: My English has not improved overnight. This letter was translated from
German. (Thanks Stephen)


(12 May 1999)
Open Letter by Robert G. Bauval in reply to Rudolf Gantenbrink.

I have been reading with interest the statements made on EGYPTNEWS by Ralph
(Roger) Ellis and Rudolf Gantenbrink himself, regarding my role in the
affair of the 'door' in the Great Pyramid discovered by Gantenbrink in
March 1993. As I said to the 'Daily Grail', I invite the readers of
Egyptnews and wherever such matters are dished out, to read my forthcoming
book, Secret Chamber,  out in November 1999. Gantenbtink takes this (yet
again!) as a blatant attempt to commercialise him and his discovery.
Honestly, such accusations coming from him, Ellis and others only reflect a
deep frustration as well as a sad need for intellectual martyrdom which, I
don't know about you all out there, frankly is getting really boring. And
out of hand.

I discount Ellis on this particular matter for he came into the picture
only recently,  and also because his comments are hearsay from
God-knows-where. Gantenbrink, however, is another matter. We've met on the
6th of March 1993 and, since then, this gentleman has been to me -and a
host of others, I am sure-  a source of constant bickering, to put it as
mildly as I can. The man is convinced that without him Adrian Gilbert and
myself would never have been able to write a No.1 best-seller with The
Orion Mystery, and that our continual success and public attention is, by
in large, due to using him and his pleonastic robot for promoting our
otherwise deflated selves and work. Perhaps Rudy (as we affectionately know
him) ought to be reminded -or told, as the case may be- that Adrian Gilbert
wrote several best-sellers without mentioning him, his machine or his
'discovery', and that I have co-written two other books, both No. 1
best-sellers in this country, with the last not mentioning a word about him
or his 'discovery'. It has been the way of Rudy to blame me in particular
for the way he was shunned by the Egyptians and the scientific community
-the crux of his argument being that his unblemished scientific reputation
and standing was tarnished by being associated to 'New Age' authors etc.,
etc. 

Well, Gantenbrink may think what he likes, and he may want others to think
the same. But facts are facts, and I now intend to put the record straight.
He now claims that I know nothing or very little about the events
concerning the Upuaut project and that the scant information he has
provided me with was misinterpreted or misconstrued. I never claimed to be
with his 'team', nor that I was privy to the daily logs of the expedition
--if there were any. In as far as the 'politics' and events that concerns
the public, however, he should know better. All is documented, recorded and
filed. And it is about time that this story is told according to the facts,
and I intend to do so, backed by such factual evidence. It is not a pretty
story, but the public has a right to know the weird and behind-the-scene
activities that were the true cause of many of the problems inherent in
this affair and, ultimately, the underlying reason for the frustrated
exploration in the Queen's Chamber shafts. 

Meanwhile you will all excuse me, but I have a book to deliver soon, and I
must leave the public arena until my work is done (end July I hope). Just
on another note, however, before I go off the air: I await with great
interest the new book, The Stargate Conspiracy, by Lynn Picknett and Clive
Prince due out, I think, in early June 1999. Allegedly they have
'uncovered' some global, inter-galactic, UFO, FBI and what-not conspiracy
involving, inter alia, Giza and that (I only have this on hearsay, I must
confess) Graham Hancock and myself are somehow a part of it. It should be
interesting to see how my alter ego has been up to without me knowing, eh ?
Really, whatever next..?..

Keep well you all and, oh,  may the force be with you.
 
Robert G. Bauval

(16 May 1999)
Re: Ellis/Gantebrink/Bauval/Gilbert - from John Anthony West

I would like to offer a conditional or quasi-apology for re-roiling the
surface of this particular teapot.  It was quite unintentional. 

When the tempest first blew up in January I wrote that recently posted
reply.  But after quick responses by Bauval, Hancock and Gilbert, it seemed
to me the major issues had all been satisfactorily addressed and I decided
not to send my own response.  I did, however, file it away in the 'Mail
Waiting to Be Sent' folder -- thinking that perhaps I might want to use
bits and pieces somewhere along the line in the book I'm working on.  

A few weeks ago, seeing it sitting there all this time, I reread it, and
decided it would serve no purpose and THOUGHT  I had hit the "Delete'
button to put it to its final rest.  Evidently, I inadvertently hit the
'Send Now' button and it was duly posted ... provoking the current spate of
new postings.  

This was not my intention ... but since some valuable new angles on the
affair have appeared, my apologies are, as stated above, conditional and
quasi.  

Apropos Gantenbrink's post, I would like to inform readers of the article
published in the English Egyptological magazine InScription (#2) published
by English geologist David Coxill.  

Intrigued by our geological studies, Coxhill (without ever contacting
Schoch or me) went to Egypt to check them out for himself, and corroborated
the water-weathering and re-dating hypothesis in its entirety.  Coxhill,
who was at, and survived the massacre at Hatshepsut's temple, also relates
(in a separate article) sitting on the plane to Aswan next to an (alas,
anonymous) Egyptian geologist and lecturer at Cairo University who also
felt certain the water-weathering hypothesis was correct.  And then there
is Dr. Edmund Meltzer, a highly regarded Egyptologist, and specialist in
the hieroglyphs, who, on the basis of many references in Egyptian texts,
finds nothing intrinsically untenable in the notion of a much older stage
to Egypt's civilization.  He was to read a paper to that effect at the
Cairo Debate scheduled for May 8-16th, but again postponed (to September
23-Oct 1, 1999).  

Presumably, these solidly credentialed gentlemen now also merit inclusion
in Rudy Gantenbrink's increasingly voluminous directory of
pseudo-scientists and New Agers?  

Finally, re: Ellis's accusing us (Bauval/Hancock/myself) of an inability to
respond to criticism, he would do well to consult the pages of KMT,
Archaeology, the New Yorker, Discussions In Egyptology and a spate of other
journals and newspapers over the course of the past 20 years. In these,
I/we have gone to great pains to respond to criticism, much of it no less
ill-informed and invalid than his own, but because directed at substantial
or professional audiences, potentially dangerous.  Since in my opinion
Ellis's criticisms neither add anything new to the controversy, nor meet
this (admittedly arbitrary) 'danger' criterion,  I make no apology for a
failure to address them. 

John Anthony West

(16 May 1999)
Latest from Robert Bauval.

first, a little word re: John West's latest comments, and how he pushed the
wrong button on his email screen. Meg Ryan and Tom Hank would love it. But
as I'm a great believer that nothing happens without a reason, John's
unintentional email provoked Gantenbrink to supply us with 'official' data
of the shafts etc.. It also burst the bubble in a very long feud that
started when Gantenbrink took the BBC to court in February 1994 over
alleged copyright infringements. I have been privy to all the ins and outs
of this amazing battle which lasted well-over a year, which ended with
myself and a BBC lawyer paying a visit to Dr. Hawass in Cairo to sort out
the incredible mess that was created over the permits, filming licenses,
police clearances and other details of the aborted expedition and the
discovery of the 'door'. My involvement and assistance to the BBC
displeased Rudy, who, ever since, has taken every opportunity to attempt to
discredit the star-correlation theory and all the scholarly work that
surrounded it. One of his constant criticism is that I used the 'wrong'
angles for the calculations in The Orion Mystery. The saga of trying to
obtain the 'correct' angles from him is well documented in my files, and
this will be narrated for the benefit of our readers in my forthcoming
book. Suffice to say here that Adrian Gilbert and I did not use the 'wrong'
angles, nor did we fudge them, as people like Alan Alford have insinuated
(see The Phoenix Solution, Chapter One, note 37). Alford apparently asked
Gantenbrink about the 'true' value of the angle of the southern shaft of
the Queen's Chamber, and was told, apparently in writing, that it was
around 32 degrees, thus some 7 degrees less than the one we had used. On
the basis of this email, Alford went ahead and published the 'error' we
supposedly made in his book The Phoenix conspiracy. When I saw this, I
contacted Alford and asked him if he had checked the various published
articles in academic journals and in which Rudy Gantenbrink confirms that
it was 39.36 degrees. Alford apparently had not bothered. He then
re-checked with Rudy who appologised, claiming he had made a typing error
in his email. Let me repeat what Adrian Gilbert so-well explained: the
angles we have used were the best estimates obtained between Petrie's
measurements, Gantenbrink's measurements, and also those taken in 1986 by a
French team. The discrepency between what we used and those now claimed to
be 'correct' by Gantenbrink is almost negligeable, some 0.1 degree in
variance. Not worth splitting hairs or causing such a rumpus now, does it ?

John West rightly pointed out that we --West, Hancock and myself-- have
never avoided criticism. When The Orion Mystery was published and the BBC
film based on it was broadcasted in February 1994, the whole of academia
and the Egyptological establishement descended on us like the proverbial
ton of bricks. Adrian and I, and then joined by Hancock and West, stood
firm and faced the onslaught with courage and fairness. We were criticised
in hundreds of articles, dozens of TV interviews and countless conferences
around the world, including attacks from astronomers such as E.C. Krupp,
Chadwick et al. We have faced the music, given our reply to the specific
criticism, and I am glad to report that in spite of Dr. Hawass's continuous
statement that the Orion Theory 'will go with the wind', well it hasn't,
not yet. In fact it is gaining support from many quarters and, like West
noted, from eminent astronomers like Dr. Archie Roy, Professor Emeritus at
glasgow, and Egyptologists such as Edmund Melzer. When Ralph Ellis has gone
through this intense baptism of fire, then he can legitimately stand up and
claim whatever he's been claiming so far about West, Hancock and myself. 

Excuse me now, but I must go back to the writing of my manuscript of Secret
Chamber. I'm working on a chapter on Gnosticism and how it florished in my
native city of Alexandria. Great stuff, but what's it got to do with a
secret chamber at Giza, you may ask ? Stay tuned.

God bless and, yes why not, may the force be with you.

Robert G. Bauval

(16 May 1999)
Giza Catacombs – from Keith Grenville (Thanks Keith)

It was reported from Cairo on 13th May that " ... a network of giant
catacombs carved out of stone was unearthed beneath a block of flats in
Giza.  Dr. Gaballah Ali Gaballah, secretary general of the Supreme
Antiquities Council, said in a statement, that the 17-metre long, two-metre
high burial gallery runs under a number of adjacent buildings.  According
to Dr. Zahi Hawass, director of Giza monuments, the catacombs date back to
ancient Roman times as indicated by distinctive pieces of pottery found at
the site.  He said the underground tombs were most likely used during early
Islamic times in view of the presence of glazed pottery." (Source: Cairo
Press review from Egyptian Press Office South Africa.)

Keith Grenville
The Egyptian Society of South Africa
Society Web Site - http://users.iafrica.com/g/gr/grenvill/
grenvill@iafrica.com
Johannesburg - Gauteng Branch:  erics@acenet.co.za