THE GREAT PYRAMID WEAPON HYPOTHESIS: A RESPONSE TO SESH HERISeptember 8, 2009
In Babylon's Banksters I spend a great deal of time exploring the suppression of alternative physics both in ancient and in modern times, by the financial elites of the respective eras. As with so much of this research, my aim has been to damped the enthusiasm of the "jonquils and daisies" community within the alternative research community, many of whom continue to recoil from my weapons function hypothesis for the Great Pyramid, advanced in my Giza Death Star trilogy. Herewith is an excerpt from Babylon's Banksters, concerning one such individual, and his arguments:
Such, alas, is the case with the recent appearance of the work of a friend of mine, Sesh Heri, and his Handprint of Atlas. Heri indeed advances and argues a novel and intriguing hypothesis, namely, that the entire topography and geomorphology of land features and even the continents themselves are results of such standing waves in the earth. And in a brilliant insight, he couples this idea with the whole idea of the layout of certain artificial monuments and constructions around significant naturally occurring geomorphologies. These brilliant insights remain worthy of consideration, despite my following critique of his misunderstandings.
Heri states in his book the following in reference to my weapon hypothesis for the Great Pyramid as outlined in my Giza Death Star Trilogy:
“Such a thesis as Farrell develops in his Giza Death Star trilogy is compelling, breathtaking, chilling, and scientifically convincing in its details, and yet….
“The same critique that I would apply to Dunn’s electrical power plant thesis, I would also apply in a variant form to Farrell’s weapon thesis as well. While the Great Pyramid, as a transmitter of longitudinal electric waves, could certainly be deployed as a weapon, why would it have been built specifically for the purpose of being used as a weapon? Is a ground based longitudinal electrical wave transmitter the ideal way to configure a massively destructive scalar beam weapon – especially a scalar beam weapon designed for interplanetary war? I would think that a mobile position in space would be the strategically ideal location for a scalar beam weapon…. A civilization that could build the Great Pyramid could also build a giant space platform and mount upon it a longitudinal electric wave transmitter that could propagate massively powerful scalar beams capable of splitting a planet apart. Such a space platform would also be capable at an instant’s notice of moving from its position in space at superluminal speed….
“So why would an advanced civilization build a weapon that was a “sitting duck”? Much more likely, a facility such as the Great Pyramid would be an object to be protected by a space platform, not primarily a weapon. Certainly, the Great Pyramid would have been capable of propagating scalar beams in defense if it was attacked. But a true predatory weapon would have to be able to move – and move very quickly.”
Before proceeding with the rest of Heri’s critique of my weapon hypothesis for the Great Pyramid, these critiques must be addressed. As already noted in the main text, the best natural oscillators of these “scalar” resonances are large masses such as planets and stars. To miss this point is to miss entirely the point of the physics involved. Thus, if one were to build mobile space platform for Heri’s version of such a weapon, one might accordingly have to do so on almost planetary scale. Not that it could not be done, of course, for the types of civilizations as he, and I, are positing might be capable of doing so, but the purpose of doing so is not cost effective, for it is entirely unnecessary for such a weapon system to be able to move in order to target a specific object, no matter how far distant. The targeting is by resonance and interferometry. The “point-aim-and-shoot” model he is implying is not necessary and indeed in a certain sense almost counter to the whole nature of the system. Similarly, such a system would be defensible precisely on the same basis of exploiting the base planetary system’s geometry and local resonance. In short, it is not necessary for it to move in order to be either offensively “predatory” or “defensible” in either case.
Heri’s second critique is far more telling, but suffers from its own shortcomings:
“But this strategic flaw is not the most compelling argument against Farrell’s view that the Great Pyramid was originally destined to be a weapon; rather, it is Farrell’s own repeated emphasis that the Great Pyramid is too “over-engineered” to be anything other than a weapon that draws my attention. Farrell makes the point several times in his Giza trilogy that the evidence indicates that the Great Pyramid was able to transmit energy to “Any Possible Receiver in local space” without requiring a complex receiving apparatus at the load end. And he presents some very good evidence and arguments that this indeed was the case. But from this he extrapolates that such a sophisticated device could only be constructed for one purpose and one purpose only – to be used as a weapon of mass destruction – to decimate cities and continents – or to blow up planets. But while such a sophisticated device certainly could be used as a weapon, there is no logical reason that it could only be used as a weapon. Indeed, the very kind of highly sophisticated and sensitive tuning characteristics of such a device suggest to me a more likely constructive use than a destructive one. Sensitive, precise focusing and tuning are the characteristics of careful, constructive manipulation of material substance, not a sledge-hammer disintegration of it. A device that could send energy to “Any Possible Receiver” could send much more than destructive waves – it would have the capacity to send carefully modulated waves of energy that could communicate, nourish, build, and grow. The extreme precision evinced by the Great Pyramid strongly suggests that it was designed to be used as a scalpel, not a sword.”
While I am grateful to Heri that he has indeed perceived my arguments accurately and outlined them fairly to a certain extent, and has not resorted to the dismissive tactic of some in the alternative community who simply dismiss the whole hypothesis out of wishful thinking or appeals to “mentors” and “authorities” with access to a presumed millennia-old unwritten tradition, again Heri fails to see the nature of the physics involved, for precision tuning of the very finest surgical precision would indeed be needed – as evidenced by Tesla’s own remarks - especially if it were deployed as a weapon, precisely in order to avoid the feedback resonance effects noted by Bearden. So this cannot be used as an argument against the weapon hypothesis.
Similarly, the reverse argument that Heri implies – that all its scalpel-like precision and fine tuning evince a constructive purpose for its construction and primary use also fails, for as the copious citations of Tesla in the main text I hope make clear, one and the very same physics and technology can be used for either purpose, that is to say, anyone building any such device would know as an inevitable implication of the physics employed and involved, that one was building both a “power plant” and a weapon. It is impossible to disentangle the two, and in Tesla’s own words, in such a system it is necessary to “grip the earth.” I have merely stated the case in the Giza Death Star Trilogy for the weapon hypothesis as being the ultimate purpose of the Pyramid’s construction simply because so many wish or choose to ignore this implication of the physics involved. But it is clearly evident in the physics. The true purposes of building such a system would, needless to say, probably be kept secret from the general public at any time, just as Tesla kept the true purpose of Wardenclyffe hidden from J.P. Morgan, and even after revealing it to him, only later and in desperation publicly disclosed its weaponization potential. But that potential was clearly present from the beginning as a logical entailment of the physics, and anyone building such a system would know that. Therefore to exclude the possibility of an intentional construction of a weapon from the motivation or purpose in building such systems is a logical impossibility. In short, at one and the same time as one is building a system for all Heri’s wonderful constructive purposes, one is building by the nature of the case, a weapon, whether one builds it in space or not, and at the very moment that system becomes operational for all those wonderful and constructive purposes, it also becomes operational as a weapon.
(Quotations from Sesh Heri, The Handprint of Atlas: The Artifical Axis of the Earth and How it Shaped Human Destiny (Highland, California: Corvos Books, Lost Continent Library Publishing Co., 2008) pp. 240-241.)