Exploring the mysteries of our past, civilizations, cataclysms, and what it all means for us today
New Video: The Curious Connection between the Great Pyramid and the Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings
An investigation into a high-technology connection between the Great Pyramid of Giza and the mystery of the maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. Studying the dimensions of the Great Pyramid will reveal that it is chock-full of significant relationships to sacred geometry, fundamental principles of nature, and a connection to the shape and size of the Earth itself. In these aspects of it’s construction it seems to share an awareness of some of these principles with accurate segments of ancient maps, like the Piri Reis map of 1513, long considered a mystery by scholars. These maps were compiled from more ancient source maps, and not only show continents that were supposedly not discovered yet, but in their accuracy also show evidence for high technology and mathematics in the distant past, at a level well beyond the capability of ancient civilizations.
21 thoughts on “New Video: The Curious Connection between the Great Pyramid and the Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings”
Ben,
Hello, and thanks for the very interesting content. I have just become a patron and I hope this patronage is very beneficial to both of us. So far I have enjoyed all of your content you seem to connect to these places upon entering them.
I have a question: Several years ago, my interest was piqued by a series of videos I stumbled across on YouTube, they were produced by a fellow named Carl Munck. Is there any validity to his statements about “the Code”. I have read Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Randall Carlson, et al. but find no mention of this Munck. Could you take a look and give us your thoughts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVejksVkqkk
In your latest tube I hear you talking about Robert Bauval and Orion, and how the shaft is position to Orion out from the big pyramid.
Orion is not a star as it is a constellation. ( Just mention that )
Well, I’m a armature astronomer so it’s no news we go around both yearly, monthly and by the day and hours and also minutes and seconds in way vary locations from that shaft.
One can’t say this shaft is position to Orion…
If Bauval said anything on the day its supposed be ?
No Ben, this is not hard evidence, just like to tell you.
I’ll just saw the documentary I mentioned. ( I guess a BBC production etc. )
Oh my, it’s so much crazy things I don’t know what to say.
They started it out Leher was a ’new age’ but convert as he got more logical when he came to Giza.
I guess it’s on that level
with this people.
Maybe carrier, money or they simply don’t like open the eyes.
One is ashame se it behalf of what is told.
-Again flash news here on SVT.
We are a long way from what we is talking about to general public., that’s for shore.
I didn’t specifically say the shafts point to Orion, just that they (as claimed by Bauval) point to ‘significant stars.’
The layout of the pyramids matches the layout of Orions Belt (yes I know it’s a constellation) as it appears in the sky. Hancock shows the evidence for this in several of his lectures online.
Hi Ben,
Looking to get in touch about doing high-definition lidar drone 3-D maps of ancient sites. Maybe collaborate with several researchers (Brian etc)
Cheers,
Marcus
P.s. I think I might live just to the north over the border..
I’m a big fan, and I tell everybody who’s interested in such things about your new channel. We are in sore need of precisely this sort of comprehensive analysis. There’s a veritable wilderness of mis-information, both in official circles, and in independent circles. Also, there is a lot of incongruous statements and theories among alternative thinkers. Hopefully your new brave effort will significantly help to clear the fog.
Having been reading Hancock since the 90’s, I too bought into the whole “the pyramid is a scale model of the northern hemisphere” bit. Randall Carlson, my hero, also carries this forward. I can’t believe he never did the math, but just trusted Graham! (I assume Hancock was the originator?)
The edge angle of the pyramid is just under 42 degrees. So, is the equatorial bulge anywhere at all, in any way shape or form, anywhere even remotely close to being enough to shift a line from equator to pole by 3 full huge massive degrees? I think not. Not by a long shot. I don’t need to do the math to convince myself, but here are the figures:
6378 km – equatorial radius.
6356 km – polar radius.
Using a triangle calculator, the angle is 44.901 degrees. (essentially 45 degrees)
Edge angle of great pyramid = 41 degrees and 59’15”
(essentially 42 degrees)
Nowhere near to matching!
Not even close!
Not even in the ball park!
Not gonna happen!
Nope.
Sorry.
End of story.
the edge angle of the GP is roughly 51 degrees (51 mins) not 42.
The ‘scale model of the hemisphere’ has to do with the ratio between the base and the socle matching the ratio of latitude and longitude on the planet, and its geometric relationship to both the polar radius and the circumference of the earth at a scale of 1:43,200 as explained in my video.
It has nothing to do with the slope angle fitting into the shape of the earth which is what I think you were getting at, and I don’t think I’ve heard anyone claim that it does?
Also, Randall does the math. Right there in his lecture on sacred geometry on youtube.
I paid the 40 bucks for Randall’s wonderful cosmic cycles series, and then he put it out for free! 🙁 I’ve watched it several times, so I’m aware of all the facts and figures about the eeeequator. Not being able to measure the pyramid myself, but just double-checking, in Google, the figures presented, everything seems kosher (mathematically).
But:
The edge angle of the pyramid is not to be confused with the angle of face.
Angle of face = 51 + 50′ 40”
Angle of edge = 42 degrees (41 + 59′ 15″)
At the 18:22 mark in your otherwise excellent production, the pyramid is clearly being physically overlaid ontop of the northern hemisphere, with the narration clearly stating: “The Great Pyramid is effectively a scale model of one hemisphere of the earth, at a ratio of 1:43,200”. This sequence, (at least taken on its own, if my computer were to blow up after this sequence), does not convey a correct graphical sense of the reality of the situation. “Scale Model” has a specific meaning, and does not imply that the notion is based on the Socle-to-Base ratio, especially with the graphics and music conveying a specific geometrical relationship. It is extremely confusing, and is a longstanding mistake, which has persisted, for a quarter century now. This is an abominable state of affairs, in dire needs of immediate remedy. I plead and beg and implore you to help mend the situation before Hawass and Lehner get hold of this and throw it back in our faces.
You write:
“It has nothing to do with the slope angle fitting into the shape of the earth which is what I think you were getting at, and I don’t think I’ve heard anyone claim that it does?”
On page 356 of (the indispensable and timely) Magicians of the Gods, sir Graham perpetuates this perennial misconception with the very same exact diagram you present – fitting and smooshing and squeezing our poor ol’ great pyramid, which has already suffered enough trauma from earthquake, vandalism, looting, and stone quarrying; this poor tired old pyramid is being shoved and molded forcefully, to fit the northern hemisphere, in a ghastly exercise in dis-figuration bordering on mutilation. It is portrayed in figure 59 of Magicians, the caption of which reads:
“The great pyramid encodes the dimensions of our planet on the precessional scale of 1:43,200. The height of the Great Pyramid multiplied by 43,200 gives us the polar radius of the earth and the base perimeter of the Great pyramid multiplied by 43,200 gives us the equatorial circumference of the earth with only minor errors in both cases.”
So then, this graphical error has indeed been made by others. Please do review Graham’s figures on page 356. These are physical impossibilities.
Think of it like this: imagine a teenage student watching this and trying to wrap their heads around these intricate and tedious bits of geometry and logic. It becomes absolutely incomprehensible. The tip of the great pyramid would not hit the pole, if its corners touch the equator!
Socle or No Socle.
The graphical sequence, and the use of the term “Scale Model” are at issue here and not necessarily the logic in the claims made using geometry and maths. Both in your video, Graham’s books, and if I remember his masterpiece video from the 90’s, the same graphic was used then.
Hopefully we can all come to our senses and climb out of this vast morass of entangled, convoluted, and often incongruous notions and theories that have been festering and now are being carried over as solid fact, among alternative ancient historians. Although I have great respect and admiration for these intrepid pioneers, (which, if they did not do their work, I probably would not be writing here right now about this stuff), the fact remains that they are only human, have very limited time, are bombarded with public inquiries, and smoke a lot of pot (not judging, just saying that fact-checking takes time, and pot takes all that time away…. :)))
If we want to be taken seriously, as alternative investigators, we should actively double-check and examine the assumptions, notions, and graphical representations, from the giants upon whose shoulders we climb and bruise and stand upon.
Concerning the “air” shafts, Rudolf Gatenbrink, the fellow who sent the brave little Upuaut robot up the shafts, demonstrates, clearly, that the shafts are significantly bent, are not at all straight, and therefore don’t point to anything. (Maybe we can blame earthquakes?)
To claim, as Bauval and others do, that these are spirit shafts to send the spirit to Orion, is to revert back to a “pyramid as mortuary service center” theory – pretty much the tired old mainstream story. This reinforces the assumption that these structures did not have any real-world function. This also reinforces our Judeo-Christian perspective – our skewed interpretation of what others believed. There are 37 words in the Egyptian language that we have translated as”Heaven” (for an example of this projection of our beliefs onto these people). I doubt the Book of the Dead is understood by a single living soul today. It’s not even called “The Book of the Dead”. I would put money on this. It could very well be about living underground during disasters, like at Cappadocia. Who knows.
To claim that a shaft, which did not connect to the chambers of the pyramid (they were later broken open), and which don’t open up to the exterior; and which start horizontal and end up as a curved line pointing up, after a sharp climb; and which, allegedly were hearkening back to an age when Orion was (allegedly) being targeted by the shafts, is, honestly, good enough reason for Hawass to deny access (that’s right, I just said that, I just went there, Ohhhhhh snap! 🙂
Also, this business of building in 2650 BC, to hearken back to the age of Leo during the Younger Dryas, when the Orion alignment matches, is honestly, a pretty tired and limiting narrative. I’m done with it, after 25 years of re-reading these (excellent) authors, this hasn’t really gone anywhere, and is pretty ridiculous, once you set your imagination on it. As if they were trying to send such an opaque message (using shafts that are not visible or accessible without tapping on the wall for weaknesses). I owe a lot to Hancock and Bauval. Their book Talisman is one of my favorite historical works. But, it’s time to move on from this unworkable narrative. I now understand Hawass much better than before.
Also, the Orion’s-belt-on-the-ground claim (which I used to love), turns out to not be accurate. I have not done this work myself. It was, apparently, arrived at by a colleague of Andrew Collins (and, no, I’m not buying his Cygnus connection either!). That 3rd offset star is just a little too offset. (Maybe stars move! Eh? (Siriusly, maybe this is true!))
I never claimed the shafts point to Orions belt in my work, however I find Bauval and Hancocks work on the alignments of the shafts to be quite thorough and convincing. They account for the bends in the shafts, and they and I am well aware that not every shaft has a known exit point on the pyramid, yet for all that their angles and where they point can and have been calculated.
I agree the evidence in the orion connection is elaborate, it’s why I only very briefly mentioned it, and I didn’t say anything about the shafts pointing to any stars in particular. Also, some of the shafts were not open, and some of them were, but in any case I don’t think we’ve found the real purpose or design of these shafts yet. Personally I think Chris Dunn has the best theory for the purpose/function of the pyramid, and even then I think it’s still reaching for a solution from within our technological perspective and capability, and I suspect the real solution lies currently outside of it.
– the layout at Giza does match the appearance of Orions belt in the sky. I’ve seen the evidence for it myself in several forms, and discussed it with Hancock. The Nile also fits into the picture as a symbolic representation of the Milky Way. This may all be co-incidence, but I doubt it. I also don’t think that it’s particularly significant relevant to the other aspects of the great pyramid. I’m aware it’s not precise (and the 3rd pyramid is a little offset) but it’s remarkable nonetheless.
I also don’t buy into the ‘stairway to heaven’ idea. I believe they were functional originally, and re purposed / claimed symbolically by the dynastic Egyptians.
“Now this is quite controversial. Now, um, Robert Bauval is a friend and colleague of mine, um, but we have a bit of a running debate over the Orion correlation theory, something that is quite public, so it’s no secret, because a few years ago, a friend of mine, an engineer by the name of Rodney Hale, who was very enamored by the Orion correlation, decided that he would attempt to overlay the actual stars upon the pyramids, because this is actually not done in the book The Orion Mystery. So, he took photographs of the stars of Orion and got those from star-programs, and overlayed them, and was extremely disappointed with what he found. Because, obviously, if you’ve got three stars over three pyramids, you can overlay two perfectly all the time. But, he found that the 3rd pyramid, and the 3rd being the marker for the third… … one… if you put all the offset of one particular pyramid, the star doesn’t even hit the pyramid. What he felt was that, if the ancient Egyptians wanted to align the pyramids so accurately to north and south, you know, to within, you know, a degree or just a few minutes of north, then surely they might have got this right.”
I love the videos! I used to watch ancient aliens just sit and answer the questions they posed. The what if? They had one which you have touched on; Why did the ancients move such massive stones? Because it must of been easy (posed and answered by wild hair guy). Consider the Brazilian Anomaly as these anomalies could of been around in those locations allowing for easy movement of the mega stones? Also there’s the assumption the terrain has always been at at x height, what if it wasn’t and was lower altitude? Allowing tree line to be closer to site use as rollers? Keep up the exploration but always ask the question was the earth always like this in this lace?
Your investigations pose serious questions on historical facts that need illumination.
I am looking for the whereabouts of the missing stones from Stonehenge. Easily half of the original structure is not visible anywhere on the landscape for at least several kilometers. Who or what would have re-moved these great stones?
I am interested in any information on this subject.
The shafts to Orion is wrong and obvisly Hancock is not into astronomy at all.
For me its stupied and very strange it went so far but if someone is not into astronomy it is just words that ’’might’ be correct but no one ever check..
Personally I think he played out his role in this matters.
To much new age nonsens and make money of his books.
I never has been into his ideas.
He is also Is not into maching, as one of the FEW things we really can start with – if we like to get real some day here.
Also the idea that shaft was a intake port to feed the system that Dunn is into make no sene at, all atleast for me.
Why go upp that edge/height for a feeder ?
I personally think we overthink all this and need to get back to how human thinks.
We was as clever back in the days and add upp thousends of years of evolution in thoose time before a catalyt, but we still was ’humans’ and we simply thought about life and dead no matter how deep we did try to understand cosmos and nature/force.
If we like get a step further here we need to stop this 90’s new age ideas Now.
I’m certain some of this people are here for trick’s both of their own money/ego and hidden hand behind.
-So my advice is watch upp and think.
Here you do a great jobb Ben.
( I did try to post on my phone, but it did not came on, so if , delite the other.
It’s hard to see any evidence in the Orion theory.
And where/when and to what stars ?
The shafts to Orion is a mistake and obvisly Hancock is not into astronomy at all.
For me its feel strange all this still hang in, but if someone is not into astronomy it is just words that ’might’ be correct, but few will ever check.
Personally I think Hancock played out his role in this matters.
To much new age nonsense and make money of books, and I never has been into this ideas.
He is also not into machining, as one of the few things we really can start with – if we like to get real here on evidence.
Also the idea that shaft was a intake port to feed the ‘system’/factory that Dunn is into make no sense at, all at least for me.
Why go up that flat edge at ( is it 58 degree ? ) for a feeder ?
I personally think we over-think all this and need to get back to how human thinks.
We was as clever back in the days and add up thousands of years evolution in those to before a catalyt, but we still was humans and we simply thought about life and dead no matter how deep we did try to understand cosmos and nature.
If we like get a step further we need to stop this 90’s new age idea’s this guy’s posted.
I’m certain some of this people are here for trick’s, for both of their own money/ego and maybe to confuse aswell.
The most pernicious and corrupting of the various hypotheses being blindly carried forward from alternative ancient historians such as Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, is:
* Not the fact that the pyramid is not at all a “Scale Model” of one hemisphere, as clearly drawn in Magicians of the Gods, and clearly rendered and clearly stated in the current video being discussed.
* Not the fact that Orion’s belt is offset from the arrangement of the 3 biggest pyramids at Giza.
* Not the fact that the Sphinx’s construction is proposed as separate from pyramid construction at Giza; while the causeway from Valley-Temple to Middle-Pyramid is set at the precisely same angle as that of the adjacent Sphinx-Enclosure, implying a coherent singular design, executed all at once.
* Not the fact that the shafts in the pyramid are bent, and that the stars that they allegedly point to, were only pointed to 10,500 years ago, which is a pretty convoluted message to be sending down the ages, with hidden shafts with sharp turns and significant bending.
* Not the fact that shafts of the pyramid are seen as spirit portals (a theory which you do, honourably, say you have distanced yourself from).
* Not the fact that the Book of the Dead, and other works, are interpreted through our modern Judeo-Christian notions of the travels of our distinct souls through Hades/Sheol once we bite the dust.
* Not the fact that Bauval has unquestioningly adopted modern theoretical cosmology, like theoretical quantum physics principles, bending and twisting common-sense notions of reality to fit a twisted modern official Big-Bang Creationist philosophy.
No, none of these come even close, to comparing to the corrosive and pernicious damage done by the claim that the Ark of the Covenant is to be found in a real-world chapel, in Ethiopia, today, right now, for real.
This, is orders of magnitude more damaging to the reputation of alternative ancient history, damaging to the development of the age of enlightenment (if there ever really was such as thing in the first place), damaging to the effort to re-interpret these structures as tombs-only, damaging in terms of trying to get people to believe in the factuality of Atlantis for example, damaging to our efforts to secure access to sites to do experiments, and damaging in the court case of public opinion among educated intellectuals who may only come across Hancock’s work, and possibly nothing else, as an alternative source.
Ben, in our private conversation, you assert:
“If you have evidence for what is in that church you should share it, I’m sure Hancock and many people across the world would be interested, I’d certainly share it. I have also never mentioned the Ark in my work, I don’t know why you’re arguing Hancock’s work with me, but with all due respect I’ll take the years of dedicated first-hand research and the book he wrote on the topic over you stating ‘Nope,’ which again isn’t evidence of anything nor an argument. I’ve read his book, I’ve seen his lecture on it several times, and I’ve discussed it at length with him. He is onto something, in my opinion.”
OK, one reason I think this is incredibly important, in terms of your efforts, is because you seem to, in this particular video, be carrying over concepts from Hancock and Bauval, which, as I detailed above, are in sore need of re-examination. I hope this is evident now.
Now.
I do not have to disprove Santa Claus.
Have you read the Bible?
I mean, like, cover to cover?
The fact that I have to sit here, roll up my sleeves, taking up a perfectly good evening, where I could be eating pizza and drinking beer and watching re-runs of Matlock; instead I have to sit here and detail why Moses’ magical stone tablets inscribed by fire from our sky god on mount Sinai, after conversing with a burning bush, and after having parted “waters” to free the multitudes of his people; is really a Testament – to my patience. But, I will suffer your request, and lay out why the entire book The Sign and Seal, and the claim by the Ethiopic Church, is a wild goose chase, underpinned by a severely egregious error: the literal reading of Semitic scripture.
(All this vitriol is written with great respect for the dedicated work of pre-eminent archaeologists Marion Ravenwood, and her colleague Mr. I. Jones, without whose tireless work, perseverance, and financial investment, the current essay would not be possible.)
In the late 1800’s, the father of modern history, Leopold Van Ranke, attempted to write a Universal History, starting with the generations of Adam in Genesis. When you take a history course, in high-school or even university, our history begins 6000 years ago, between the two rivers mentioned in the garden of “delights” – the Tigris and Euphrates. Why?
Is 6000 years ago important?
First city? Nope.
First writing? Nope.
Our modern textbooks start history at precisely the date that archbishop James Ussher calculated for the creation of the universe – 4004 BC. On the 22nd October. At precisely 6:00 pm. From his work on compiling and “dating” the generations, from Adam onwards, in the Bible.
So, let me get this straight.
I have to argue, at length, with professional academic historians, that kings David and Solomon were not actual historical figures; and then, when I want to relax, and read the alternative view of history, I have to sit down, and also argue, at length, with non-professional historians, that the Bible is not factual history.
Oy!
The book of Exodus, the provenance of the story of the Ark, follows immediately after Genesis, in book order.
Randall Carlson insists that there was one single big huge global flood. He says that the Pacific Northwest Scablands indicate this. OK, so is that the single flood in the Bible? Is that the only flood in the last 6000 years? Was this the single Birkle crater-induced flood? So then, the Younger Dryas flood is not detailed in the Biblical text then? And no other flood occurred in the interim?
There are at least 40 high-water marks in the Pasco Basin. At least. Some could have been eroded over others, previous. Other formations show 80+ events. Do you find 80+ events in the Bible?
Randall Carlson insists, likewise, that Revelations details one big huge conflagration. So, that’s just one single event – does this mean, as a historical source, the Bible claims that only one single big flood and one single big fire have ever visited the Earth???
Really?
Instead, what the Bible offers is a detailed and thorough symbolic/allegorical treatise on significant RECURRING processes that happen on earth and in the sky. Noah’s flood is not an historical account – it details the recurrence of significant floods. John’s apocalyptic vision is not a factual tale of angels and trumpets and an actual fire – but of the details of recurring great fires.
That’s a mega-difference in interpretation of mega-floods and mega-fires, within Semitic scripture, for historical purposes.
(this is the central point in this essay)
(if there’s no “a-ha” moment for you here, then I have already failed, and you don’t need to waste your time reading on)
Chapter 22 of the book of Numbers, the events of which occur after the Exodus and the Ark’s construction:
“And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.”
“And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?”
“And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.”
“And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.”
“Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.”
Asses, speaking in Hebrew, getting into petty arguments with kings?
What???
Why am I sitting here, sending letters and words over the microwaves, to try to disprove Santa Claus!?!?!
I do not have to disprove the occurrence of events, or the existence of characters, or the existence of objects, whose provenance is a children’s narrative with talking serpents, in the vein of Lord of the Rings or The Jungle Book.
The fact that I have to write this sentence, in 2019, says a lot about where we are at, both in Science and in culture.
I will let Matt Sibson, from Ancient Architects, an excellent channel on the youtube, in his piece on the church of St. George, at Lalibela, in Ethiopia, finish up this brief summary of why the Ark does not exist:
“Many of you many know, that the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church, doesn’t just claim to have a replica of the ark of the covenant (like at Lalibella), but they actually claim to have the real thing, kept inside The Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, which is located in the town of Aksum. Also, the claim shouldn’t be taken too light-heartedly, and Graham Hancock’s 1992 book, The Sign and the Seal, explores the Ark’s connection to Ethiopia in great detail, showing that there is some merit to the legend. Or is there?!
… The Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, […] was a structure that was destroyed and rebuilt at least twice in history, in both the 900’s and 1500’s. It was then further enlarged in the 1600’s. As well as being home to the Ark of the Covenant, as the Ethiopian Christians believe, it is also the building where Ethiopian emperors are crowned. And, like the churches at Lalibela, it has always been a site of pilgrimage.
Local legend said that the Ark of the Covenant was moved from its original chapel, to the one they call The Chapel of the Tablet. This is apparently because of a divine heat from the tablets, that cracked the stones of its previous sanctum. Only the Guardian Monk is allowed to see the Ark, and this is one of the many reasons why many question the validity of the claim that the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia. The Guardian Monk is appointed for life by his predecessor, before the predecessor dies.
So nobody – no civilian, scientist, historian, or independent researcher, ever gets to see the Ark. But, thankfully, there is one person who actually has! British scholar and historian Edward Ullendorff, claimed he did go inside the church during world war 2. He told fellow professor, Tudor Parfitt, all about it, and he also gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times, in 1992, and revealed exactly what was there.
Ullendorff went to the church and spoke to the monks, asking to see the Ark. Obviously, they refused him entry, but, being accompanied by armed soldiers, the monks could not stop him from entering the chapel. According to Parfitt, in the L.A. Times articles, what [Ullendorff] saw is what you find in any other Ethiopian church: a model of the Ark of the Covenant, and it did not differ in any way, from the many Arks he had already seen, in other churches throughout Ethiopia.
He said it wasn’t ancient, and certainly wasn’t the original Ark. It was apparently of middle to late medieval construction. In his interview, Ullendorff challenged the arguments put forward by Graham Hancock in his book The Sign and the Seal. As well as giving an eye-witness account, of what is clearly a replica of the Ark inside the church, he also offers further information that makes it highly unlikely that the Ark, if it ever existed in the first place, is anywhere in the land of Ethiopia.”
– Matt Sibson
– The 8th Wonder of the World + Is the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia_ _ Ancient Architects
Well reading the bible is my see it as read Hanckock, a waste of time.
We don’t get further on and it’s merely speculations.
I admit as you say Earth has gone thru allot of drastic catastrophes but something happens to Egypt etc, and that is a fact as I seen the damage.
My idea is we over think allot of things here in to wild speculations.
Let’s instead see what there is to se, what we can understand and not.
We see this stone works and the scale out of it and the ideas the mayor pyramids was build just in some generation.
We has ‘boxes’ all over and from smaller to deep underground and ex Serapeum.
For me here it leads to several big questions.
I do see this civilisations is close to water and this cultures had the same basics as we do for build up a civilisation and they did live and died and wonder of nature & cosmos.
If we like to see what has going on here my beliefs we must start with what we has here as we can see or trace.
I’m a machinist and I can tell of feedings something went on here, and when I see quarries as marks this really should open peoples eyes.
But if we give a civilisations thousands of year develop techniques I think it could be able do strange things out of our minds today.
Ben,
Hello, and thanks for the very interesting content. I have just become a patron and I hope this patronage is very beneficial to both of us. So far I have enjoyed all of your content you seem to connect to these places upon entering them.
I have a question: Several years ago, my interest was piqued by a series of videos I stumbled across on YouTube, they were produced by a fellow named Carl Munck. Is there any validity to his statements about “the Code”. I have read Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Randall Carlson, et al. but find no mention of this Munck. Could you take a look and give us your thoughts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVejksVkqkk
Thanks Bryce!
I’ll try to take a look and let you know what I think…
Ben,
Case is solved now !
Swedish TV show now a documentary ( flash news ) that they find papyrus paper as a proof of the builded lakes into the pyramids from the Nile as a hydraulic force…
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/uraldriga-papyrusdokument-visar-sa-byggdes-pyramiderna
It’s Mark Lehner talking.
In your latest tube I hear you talking about Robert Bauval and Orion, and how the shaft is position to Orion out from the big pyramid.
Orion is not a star as it is a constellation. ( Just mention that )
Well, I’m a armature astronomer so it’s no news we go around both yearly, monthly and by the day and hours and also minutes and seconds in way vary locations from that shaft.
One can’t say this shaft is position to Orion…
If Bauval said anything on the day its supposed be ?
No Ben, this is not hard evidence, just like to tell you.
I’ll just saw the documentary I mentioned. ( I guess a BBC production etc. )
Oh my, it’s so much crazy things I don’t know what to say.
They started it out Leher was a ’new age’ but convert as he got more logical when he came to Giza.
I guess it’s on that level
with this people.
Maybe carrier, money or they simply don’t like open the eyes.
One is ashame se it behalf of what is told.
-Again flash news here on SVT.
We are a long way from what we is talking about to general public., that’s for shore.
Hi Hank,
I didn’t specifically say the shafts point to Orion, just that they (as claimed by Bauval) point to ‘significant stars.’
The layout of the pyramids matches the layout of Orions Belt (yes I know it’s a constellation) as it appears in the sky. Hancock shows the evidence for this in several of his lectures online.
Hi Ben,
Looking to get in touch about doing high-definition lidar drone 3-D maps of ancient sites. Maybe collaborate with several researchers (Brian etc)
Cheers,
Marcus
P.s. I think I might live just to the north over the border..
Hi Marcus,
sounds interesting! My email is info@unchartedx.com
Dear Ben,
I’m a big fan, and I tell everybody who’s interested in such things about your new channel. We are in sore need of precisely this sort of comprehensive analysis. There’s a veritable wilderness of mis-information, both in official circles, and in independent circles. Also, there is a lot of incongruous statements and theories among alternative thinkers. Hopefully your new brave effort will significantly help to clear the fog.
Having been reading Hancock since the 90’s, I too bought into the whole “the pyramid is a scale model of the northern hemisphere” bit. Randall Carlson, my hero, also carries this forward. I can’t believe he never did the math, but just trusted Graham! (I assume Hancock was the originator?)
The edge angle of the pyramid is just under 42 degrees. So, is the equatorial bulge anywhere at all, in any way shape or form, anywhere even remotely close to being enough to shift a line from equator to pole by 3 full huge massive degrees? I think not. Not by a long shot. I don’t need to do the math to convince myself, but here are the figures:
6378 km – equatorial radius.
6356 km – polar radius.
Using a triangle calculator, the angle is 44.901 degrees. (essentially 45 degrees)
Edge angle of great pyramid = 41 degrees and 59’15”
(essentially 42 degrees)
Nowhere near to matching!
Not even close!
Not even in the ball park!
Not gonna happen!
Nope.
Sorry.
End of story.
(mic drop 🙂
Hi Dominic,
the edge angle of the GP is roughly 51 degrees (51 mins) not 42.
The ‘scale model of the hemisphere’ has to do with the ratio between the base and the socle matching the ratio of latitude and longitude on the planet, and its geometric relationship to both the polar radius and the circumference of the earth at a scale of 1:43,200 as explained in my video.
It has nothing to do with the slope angle fitting into the shape of the earth which is what I think you were getting at, and I don’t think I’ve heard anyone claim that it does?
Also, Randall does the math. Right there in his lecture on sacred geometry on youtube.
Hi Ben,
I paid the 40 bucks for Randall’s wonderful cosmic cycles series, and then he put it out for free! 🙁 I’ve watched it several times, so I’m aware of all the facts and figures about the eeeequator. Not being able to measure the pyramid myself, but just double-checking, in Google, the figures presented, everything seems kosher (mathematically).
But:
The edge angle of the pyramid is not to be confused with the angle of face.
Angle of face = 51 + 50′ 40”
Angle of edge = 42 degrees (41 + 59′ 15″)
At the 18:22 mark in your otherwise excellent production, the pyramid is clearly being physically overlaid ontop of the northern hemisphere, with the narration clearly stating: “The Great Pyramid is effectively a scale model of one hemisphere of the earth, at a ratio of 1:43,200”. This sequence, (at least taken on its own, if my computer were to blow up after this sequence), does not convey a correct graphical sense of the reality of the situation. “Scale Model” has a specific meaning, and does not imply that the notion is based on the Socle-to-Base ratio, especially with the graphics and music conveying a specific geometrical relationship. It is extremely confusing, and is a longstanding mistake, which has persisted, for a quarter century now. This is an abominable state of affairs, in dire needs of immediate remedy. I plead and beg and implore you to help mend the situation before Hawass and Lehner get hold of this and throw it back in our faces.
You write:
“It has nothing to do with the slope angle fitting into the shape of the earth which is what I think you were getting at, and I don’t think I’ve heard anyone claim that it does?”
On page 356 of (the indispensable and timely) Magicians of the Gods, sir Graham perpetuates this perennial misconception with the very same exact diagram you present – fitting and smooshing and squeezing our poor ol’ great pyramid, which has already suffered enough trauma from earthquake, vandalism, looting, and stone quarrying; this poor tired old pyramid is being shoved and molded forcefully, to fit the northern hemisphere, in a ghastly exercise in dis-figuration bordering on mutilation. It is portrayed in figure 59 of Magicians, the caption of which reads:
“The great pyramid encodes the dimensions of our planet on the precessional scale of 1:43,200. The height of the Great Pyramid multiplied by 43,200 gives us the polar radius of the earth and the base perimeter of the Great pyramid multiplied by 43,200 gives us the equatorial circumference of the earth with only minor errors in both cases.”
So then, this graphical error has indeed been made by others. Please do review Graham’s figures on page 356. These are physical impossibilities.
Think of it like this: imagine a teenage student watching this and trying to wrap their heads around these intricate and tedious bits of geometry and logic. It becomes absolutely incomprehensible. The tip of the great pyramid would not hit the pole, if its corners touch the equator!
Socle or No Socle.
The graphical sequence, and the use of the term “Scale Model” are at issue here and not necessarily the logic in the claims made using geometry and maths. Both in your video, Graham’s books, and if I remember his masterpiece video from the 90’s, the same graphic was used then.
Hopefully we can all come to our senses and climb out of this vast morass of entangled, convoluted, and often incongruous notions and theories that have been festering and now are being carried over as solid fact, among alternative ancient historians. Although I have great respect and admiration for these intrepid pioneers, (which, if they did not do their work, I probably would not be writing here right now about this stuff), the fact remains that they are only human, have very limited time, are bombarded with public inquiries, and smoke a lot of pot (not judging, just saying that fact-checking takes time, and pot takes all that time away…. :)))
If we want to be taken seriously, as alternative investigators, we should actively double-check and examine the assumptions, notions, and graphical representations, from the giants upon whose shoulders we climb and bruise and stand upon.
Shalom
Concerning the “air” shafts, Rudolf Gatenbrink, the fellow who sent the brave little Upuaut robot up the shafts, demonstrates, clearly, that the shafts are significantly bent, are not at all straight, and therefore don’t point to anything. (Maybe we can blame earthquakes?)
To claim, as Bauval and others do, that these are spirit shafts to send the spirit to Orion, is to revert back to a “pyramid as mortuary service center” theory – pretty much the tired old mainstream story. This reinforces the assumption that these structures did not have any real-world function. This also reinforces our Judeo-Christian perspective – our skewed interpretation of what others believed. There are 37 words in the Egyptian language that we have translated as”Heaven” (for an example of this projection of our beliefs onto these people). I doubt the Book of the Dead is understood by a single living soul today. It’s not even called “The Book of the Dead”. I would put money on this. It could very well be about living underground during disasters, like at Cappadocia. Who knows.
To claim that a shaft, which did not connect to the chambers of the pyramid (they were later broken open), and which don’t open up to the exterior; and which start horizontal and end up as a curved line pointing up, after a sharp climb; and which, allegedly were hearkening back to an age when Orion was (allegedly) being targeted by the shafts, is, honestly, good enough reason for Hawass to deny access (that’s right, I just said that, I just went there, Ohhhhhh snap! 🙂
Also, this business of building in 2650 BC, to hearken back to the age of Leo during the Younger Dryas, when the Orion alignment matches, is honestly, a pretty tired and limiting narrative. I’m done with it, after 25 years of re-reading these (excellent) authors, this hasn’t really gone anywhere, and is pretty ridiculous, once you set your imagination on it. As if they were trying to send such an opaque message (using shafts that are not visible or accessible without tapping on the wall for weaknesses). I owe a lot to Hancock and Bauval. Their book Talisman is one of my favorite historical works. But, it’s time to move on from this unworkable narrative. I now understand Hawass much better than before.
Also, the Orion’s-belt-on-the-ground claim (which I used to love), turns out to not be accurate. I have not done this work myself. It was, apparently, arrived at by a colleague of Andrew Collins (and, no, I’m not buying his Cygnus connection either!). That 3rd offset star is just a little too offset. (Maybe stars move! Eh? (Siriusly, maybe this is true!))
I never claimed the shafts point to Orions belt in my work, however I find Bauval and Hancocks work on the alignments of the shafts to be quite thorough and convincing. They account for the bends in the shafts, and they and I am well aware that not every shaft has a known exit point on the pyramid, yet for all that their angles and where they point can and have been calculated.
I agree the evidence in the orion connection is elaborate, it’s why I only very briefly mentioned it, and I didn’t say anything about the shafts pointing to any stars in particular. Also, some of the shafts were not open, and some of them were, but in any case I don’t think we’ve found the real purpose or design of these shafts yet. Personally I think Chris Dunn has the best theory for the purpose/function of the pyramid, and even then I think it’s still reaching for a solution from within our technological perspective and capability, and I suspect the real solution lies currently outside of it.
– the layout at Giza does match the appearance of Orions belt in the sky. I’ve seen the evidence for it myself in several forms, and discussed it with Hancock. The Nile also fits into the picture as a symbolic representation of the Milky Way. This may all be co-incidence, but I doubt it. I also don’t think that it’s particularly significant relevant to the other aspects of the great pyramid. I’m aware it’s not precise (and the 3rd pyramid is a little offset) but it’s remarkable nonetheless.
I also don’t buy into the ‘stairway to heaven’ idea. I believe they were functional originally, and re purposed / claimed symbolically by the dynastic Egyptians.
Concerning the Orion correlation, I was referring to the examination by Rodney Hale, whom Andrew Collins mentions starting at the 15:06 mark, in:
Andrew_Collins__Giza_s_Cave_Underworld_-_FULL_LECTURE
On the youtube.
Andrew Collins explains:
“Now this is quite controversial. Now, um, Robert Bauval is a friend and colleague of mine, um, but we have a bit of a running debate over the Orion correlation theory, something that is quite public, so it’s no secret, because a few years ago, a friend of mine, an engineer by the name of Rodney Hale, who was very enamored by the Orion correlation, decided that he would attempt to overlay the actual stars upon the pyramids, because this is actually not done in the book The Orion Mystery. So, he took photographs of the stars of Orion and got those from star-programs, and overlayed them, and was extremely disappointed with what he found. Because, obviously, if you’ve got three stars over three pyramids, you can overlay two perfectly all the time. But, he found that the 3rd pyramid, and the 3rd being the marker for the third… … one… if you put all the offset of one particular pyramid, the star doesn’t even hit the pyramid. What he felt was that, if the ancient Egyptians wanted to align the pyramids so accurately to north and south, you know, to within, you know, a degree or just a few minutes of north, then surely they might have got this right.”
I love the videos! I used to watch ancient aliens just sit and answer the questions they posed. The what if? They had one which you have touched on; Why did the ancients move such massive stones? Because it must of been easy (posed and answered by wild hair guy). Consider the Brazilian Anomaly as these anomalies could of been around in those locations allowing for easy movement of the mega stones? Also there’s the assumption the terrain has always been at at x height, what if it wasn’t and was lower altitude? Allowing tree line to be closer to site use as rollers? Keep up the exploration but always ask the question was the earth always like this in this lace?
Hello Ben.
Your investigations pose serious questions on historical facts that need illumination.
I am looking for the whereabouts of the missing stones from Stonehenge. Easily half of the original structure is not visible anywhere on the landscape for at least several kilometers. Who or what would have re-moved these great stones?
I am interested in any information on this subject.
Hi Legatus,
Good question, I don’t know anything about it… something to look into in the future.
Ben
Ben, evidence ?
And where and to what stars ?
The shafts to Orion is wrong and obvisly Hancock is not into astronomy at all.
For me its stupied and very strange it went so far but if someone is not into astronomy it is just words that ’’might’ be correct but no one ever check..
Personally I think he played out his role in this matters.
To much new age nonsens and make money of his books.
I never has been into his ideas.
He is also Is not into maching, as one of the FEW things we really can start with – if we like to get real some day here.
Also the idea that shaft was a intake port to feed the system that Dunn is into make no sene at, all atleast for me.
Why go upp that edge/height for a feeder ?
I personally think we overthink all this and need to get back to how human thinks.
We was as clever back in the days and add upp thousends of years of evolution in thoose time before a catalyt, but we still was ’humans’ and we simply thought about life and dead no matter how deep we did try to understand cosmos and nature/force.
If we like get a step further here we need to stop this 90’s new age ideas Now.
I’m certain some of this people are here for trick’s both of their own money/ego and hidden hand behind.
-So my advice is watch upp and think.
Here you do a great jobb Ben.
Keep up.
Ben !
( I did try to post on my phone, but it did not came on, so if , delite the other.
It’s hard to see any evidence in the Orion theory.
And where/when and to what stars ?
The shafts to Orion is a mistake and obvisly Hancock is not into astronomy at all.
For me its feel strange all this still hang in, but if someone is not into astronomy it is just words that ’might’ be correct, but few will ever check.
Personally I think Hancock played out his role in this matters.
To much new age nonsense and make money of books, and I never has been into this ideas.
He is also not into machining, as one of the few things we really can start with – if we like to get real here on evidence.
Also the idea that shaft was a intake port to feed the ‘system’/factory that Dunn is into make no sense at, all at least for me.
Why go up that flat edge at ( is it 58 degree ? ) for a feeder ?
I personally think we over-think all this and need to get back to how human thinks.
We was as clever back in the days and add up thousands of years evolution in those to before a catalyt, but we still was humans and we simply thought about life and dead no matter how deep we did try to understand cosmos and nature.
If we like get a step further we need to stop this 90’s new age idea’s this guy’s posted.
I’m certain some of this people are here for trick’s, for both of their own money/ego and maybe to confuse aswell.
The most pernicious and corrupting of the various hypotheses being blindly carried forward from alternative ancient historians such as Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, is:
* Not the fact that the pyramid is not at all a “Scale Model” of one hemisphere, as clearly drawn in Magicians of the Gods, and clearly rendered and clearly stated in the current video being discussed.
* Not the fact that Orion’s belt is offset from the arrangement of the 3 biggest pyramids at Giza.
* Not the fact that the Sphinx’s construction is proposed as separate from pyramid construction at Giza; while the causeway from Valley-Temple to Middle-Pyramid is set at the precisely same angle as that of the adjacent Sphinx-Enclosure, implying a coherent singular design, executed all at once.
* Not the fact that the shafts in the pyramid are bent, and that the stars that they allegedly point to, were only pointed to 10,500 years ago, which is a pretty convoluted message to be sending down the ages, with hidden shafts with sharp turns and significant bending.
* Not the fact that shafts of the pyramid are seen as spirit portals (a theory which you do, honourably, say you have distanced yourself from).
* Not the fact that the Book of the Dead, and other works, are interpreted through our modern Judeo-Christian notions of the travels of our distinct souls through Hades/Sheol once we bite the dust.
* Not the fact that Bauval has unquestioningly adopted modern theoretical cosmology, like theoretical quantum physics principles, bending and twisting common-sense notions of reality to fit a twisted modern official Big-Bang Creationist philosophy.
No, none of these come even close, to comparing to the corrosive and pernicious damage done by the claim that the Ark of the Covenant is to be found in a real-world chapel, in Ethiopia, today, right now, for real.
This, is orders of magnitude more damaging to the reputation of alternative ancient history, damaging to the development of the age of enlightenment (if there ever really was such as thing in the first place), damaging to the effort to re-interpret these structures as tombs-only, damaging in terms of trying to get people to believe in the factuality of Atlantis for example, damaging to our efforts to secure access to sites to do experiments, and damaging in the court case of public opinion among educated intellectuals who may only come across Hancock’s work, and possibly nothing else, as an alternative source.
Ben, in our private conversation, you assert:
“If you have evidence for what is in that church you should share it, I’m sure Hancock and many people across the world would be interested, I’d certainly share it. I have also never mentioned the Ark in my work, I don’t know why you’re arguing Hancock’s work with me, but with all due respect I’ll take the years of dedicated first-hand research and the book he wrote on the topic over you stating ‘Nope,’ which again isn’t evidence of anything nor an argument. I’ve read his book, I’ve seen his lecture on it several times, and I’ve discussed it at length with him. He is onto something, in my opinion.”
OK, one reason I think this is incredibly important, in terms of your efforts, is because you seem to, in this particular video, be carrying over concepts from Hancock and Bauval, which, as I detailed above, are in sore need of re-examination. I hope this is evident now.
Now.
I do not have to disprove Santa Claus.
Have you read the Bible?
I mean, like, cover to cover?
The fact that I have to sit here, roll up my sleeves, taking up a perfectly good evening, where I could be eating pizza and drinking beer and watching re-runs of Matlock; instead I have to sit here and detail why Moses’ magical stone tablets inscribed by fire from our sky god on mount Sinai, after conversing with a burning bush, and after having parted “waters” to free the multitudes of his people; is really a Testament – to my patience. But, I will suffer your request, and lay out why the entire book The Sign and Seal, and the claim by the Ethiopic Church, is a wild goose chase, underpinned by a severely egregious error: the literal reading of Semitic scripture.
(All this vitriol is written with great respect for the dedicated work of pre-eminent archaeologists Marion Ravenwood, and her colleague Mr. I. Jones, without whose tireless work, perseverance, and financial investment, the current essay would not be possible.)
In the late 1800’s, the father of modern history, Leopold Van Ranke, attempted to write a Universal History, starting with the generations of Adam in Genesis. When you take a history course, in high-school or even university, our history begins 6000 years ago, between the two rivers mentioned in the garden of “delights” – the Tigris and Euphrates. Why?
Is 6000 years ago important?
First city? Nope.
First writing? Nope.
Our modern textbooks start history at precisely the date that archbishop James Ussher calculated for the creation of the universe – 4004 BC. On the 22nd October. At precisely 6:00 pm. From his work on compiling and “dating” the generations, from Adam onwards, in the Bible.
So, let me get this straight.
I have to argue, at length, with professional academic historians, that kings David and Solomon were not actual historical figures; and then, when I want to relax, and read the alternative view of history, I have to sit down, and also argue, at length, with non-professional historians, that the Bible is not factual history.
Oy!
The book of Exodus, the provenance of the story of the Ark, follows immediately after Genesis, in book order.
Randall Carlson insists that there was one single big huge global flood. He says that the Pacific Northwest Scablands indicate this. OK, so is that the single flood in the Bible? Is that the only flood in the last 6000 years? Was this the single Birkle crater-induced flood? So then, the Younger Dryas flood is not detailed in the Biblical text then? And no other flood occurred in the interim?
There are at least 40 high-water marks in the Pasco Basin. At least. Some could have been eroded over others, previous. Other formations show 80+ events. Do you find 80+ events in the Bible?
Randall Carlson insists, likewise, that Revelations details one big huge conflagration. So, that’s just one single event – does this mean, as a historical source, the Bible claims that only one single big flood and one single big fire have ever visited the Earth???
Really?
Instead, what the Bible offers is a detailed and thorough symbolic/allegorical treatise on significant RECURRING processes that happen on earth and in the sky. Noah’s flood is not an historical account – it details the recurrence of significant floods. John’s apocalyptic vision is not a factual tale of angels and trumpets and an actual fire – but of the details of recurring great fires.
That’s a mega-difference in interpretation of mega-floods and mega-fires, within Semitic scripture, for historical purposes.
(this is the central point in this essay)
(if there’s no “a-ha” moment for you here, then I have already failed, and you don’t need to waste your time reading on)
Chapter 22 of the book of Numbers, the events of which occur after the Exodus and the Ark’s construction:
“And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.”
“And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?”
“And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.”
“And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.”
“Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.”
Asses, speaking in Hebrew, getting into petty arguments with kings?
What???
Why am I sitting here, sending letters and words over the microwaves, to try to disprove Santa Claus!?!?!
I do not have to disprove the occurrence of events, or the existence of characters, or the existence of objects, whose provenance is a children’s narrative with talking serpents, in the vein of Lord of the Rings or The Jungle Book.
The fact that I have to write this sentence, in 2019, says a lot about where we are at, both in Science and in culture.
I will let Matt Sibson, from Ancient Architects, an excellent channel on the youtube, in his piece on the church of St. George, at Lalibela, in Ethiopia, finish up this brief summary of why the Ark does not exist:
“Many of you many know, that the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church, doesn’t just claim to have a replica of the ark of the covenant (like at Lalibella), but they actually claim to have the real thing, kept inside The Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, which is located in the town of Aksum. Also, the claim shouldn’t be taken too light-heartedly, and Graham Hancock’s 1992 book, The Sign and the Seal, explores the Ark’s connection to Ethiopia in great detail, showing that there is some merit to the legend. Or is there?!
… The Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, […] was a structure that was destroyed and rebuilt at least twice in history, in both the 900’s and 1500’s. It was then further enlarged in the 1600’s. As well as being home to the Ark of the Covenant, as the Ethiopian Christians believe, it is also the building where Ethiopian emperors are crowned. And, like the churches at Lalibela, it has always been a site of pilgrimage.
Local legend said that the Ark of the Covenant was moved from its original chapel, to the one they call The Chapel of the Tablet. This is apparently because of a divine heat from the tablets, that cracked the stones of its previous sanctum. Only the Guardian Monk is allowed to see the Ark, and this is one of the many reasons why many question the validity of the claim that the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia. The Guardian Monk is appointed for life by his predecessor, before the predecessor dies.
So nobody – no civilian, scientist, historian, or independent researcher, ever gets to see the Ark. But, thankfully, there is one person who actually has! British scholar and historian Edward Ullendorff, claimed he did go inside the church during world war 2. He told fellow professor, Tudor Parfitt, all about it, and he also gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times, in 1992, and revealed exactly what was there.
Ullendorff went to the church and spoke to the monks, asking to see the Ark. Obviously, they refused him entry, but, being accompanied by armed soldiers, the monks could not stop him from entering the chapel. According to Parfitt, in the L.A. Times articles, what [Ullendorff] saw is what you find in any other Ethiopian church: a model of the Ark of the Covenant, and it did not differ in any way, from the many Arks he had already seen, in other churches throughout Ethiopia.
He said it wasn’t ancient, and certainly wasn’t the original Ark. It was apparently of middle to late medieval construction. In his interview, Ullendorff challenged the arguments put forward by Graham Hancock in his book The Sign and the Seal. As well as giving an eye-witness account, of what is clearly a replica of the Ark inside the church, he also offers further information that makes it highly unlikely that the Ark, if it ever existed in the first place, is anywhere in the land of Ethiopia.”
– Matt Sibson
– The 8th Wonder of the World + Is the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia_ _ Ancient Architects
Ben, Dominic,
Well reading the bible is my see it as read Hanckock, a waste of time.
We don’t get further on and it’s merely speculations.
I admit as you say Earth has gone thru allot of drastic catastrophes but something happens to Egypt etc, and that is a fact as I seen the damage.
My idea is we over think allot of things here in to wild speculations.
Let’s instead see what there is to se, what we can understand and not.
We see this stone works and the scale out of it and the ideas the mayor pyramids was build just in some generation.
We has ‘boxes’ all over and from smaller to deep underground and ex Serapeum.
For me here it leads to several big questions.
I do see this civilisations is close to water and this cultures had the same basics as we do for build up a civilisation and they did live and died and wonder of nature & cosmos.
If we like to see what has going on here my beliefs we must start with what we has here as we can see or trace.
I’m a machinist and I can tell of feedings something went on here, and when I see quarries as marks this really should open peoples eyes.
But if we give a civilisations thousands of year develop techniques I think it could be able do strange things out of our minds today.
Congrats on your new site, get it listed here for free and we’ll start sending people to your site https://bit.ly/submit_site_23EGTc7oZMux