Reply To Joseph P. Farrell

Some time ago Dr. Joseph P. Farrell responded in a blog to some of the ideas in my book The Handprint of Atlas. More recently he has restated his response in an extensive footnote within his recent book Babylon’s Banksters. Here, for the benefit of the reading public, I continue the dialogue with Dr. Farrell.

As I stated in the first edition of The Handprint of Atlas (2006, revised 2010), when I first came upon Dr. Farrell’s The Giza Death Star a number of years ago, I was stunned because his ideas were so close to my own. Like Christopher Dunn, I had already recognized that the Great Pyramid possessed the characteristics of a coupled oscillator. This along with my own, original research into geomorphology and the work of Nikola Tesla led me to speculate that the Great Pyramid was a scalar wave generator. I had concluded this before I ever learned of Dunn’s or Farrell’s work.

I knew that a scalar wave generator the size of the Great Pyramid would have tremendous power, a power literally capable of splitting a planet apart or sending a sun into a supernova. So, immediately, I recognized that such a device would, by its very nature, intrinsically, be a weapon. And I was fully aware of the ancient texts, especially the Sumerian, that described an apocalyptic war of the gods fought with weapons of great power. So I had no argument with Dr. Farrell’s book-- as far as it went. And by that I mean that I agreed with the idea that the Great Pyramid had been built as a weapon, but I did not agree that it had been built exclusively as a weapon.

It was my view then, and even more so now, that the Great Pyramid was a multi-functional esoteric machine, i.e. that it was a technological device built by an extremely advanced civilization for the purpose of manipulating and processing reality in a number of ways. The civilization that built the Great Pyramid was highly integrated, and therefore did not operate on an exclusionary basis or a serial basis, but rather on an inclusive, integrated basis. By this I mean that it did a great multitude of things by packaging them altogether so that this multiplicity was integrated into a single, harmonious unity. It was a way of thinking that impacted the civilization’s way of acting-- and of building. Since war is a fundamental of this physical universe, this “eating” universe, war would be one of the operational modes integrated into the totality of the Great Pyramid’s functions. We can see this in nature. All life forms have a method of attack and defense. But that is not all that there is to any life form. Living entities do many other things, and these other things are integrated into their total being along with their ability to attack and defend. In this same way, the builders of the Great Pyramid made it an integrated entity. In a real sense, when it was operating in a fully functioning mode, it was almost like a living thing. When we consider the operator of the Great Pyramid as being integrated with it, then the Great Pyramid was like an extension of the operator or part of a larger organism that included the operator.

Exactly what the builders and users of the Great Pyramid were doing with it, I don’t think any of us fully understand at present (unless some secret society possesses some ancient knowledge about this). Today we can only make educated guesses and informed speculations, much as Christopher Dunn, Joseph Farrell and I have done, each in our own way. I think Mr. Dunn and Dr. Farrell have some extremely valuable insights to offer. For myself, I have enjoyed being educated by them. On the other hand, I have some thoughts of my own as well. They don’t contradict the ideas of these learned gentlemen, but they certainly add to them, I think. It is my hope here that I will be able to clear up some confusion that has arisen in regard to my ideas about the Great Pyramid as they relate to Dr. Farrell’s ideas. I feel this confusion is unfortunate, since I believe we are in fundamental agreement about the Great Pyramid.

In the text of the first edition of my book The Handprint of Atlas I stated that I did not believe that the Great Pyramid started out as a weapon. Dr. Farrell pointed out in his internet blog that anyone building a massive scalar device such as the Great Pyramid appears to be would be fully aware of its weapons capability, and therefore I was wrong to think that the Great Pyramid did not start out as a weapon, or was not built for the purpose of being used as a weapon.

When I stated in the first edition of The Handprint of Atlas that the Great Pyramid did not start out as a weapon, I meant to express the idea that it was not initially deployed as a weapon. In my view, when the Great Pyramid was deployed as a weapon, none of its physical plant was altered in any way, only the information entered into it-- its programming-- was changed, changed from one set of topologies to another. I did not mean to imply that I thought the builders were unaware of the Great Pyramid’s weapons capabilities. Quite the contrary, and as Dr. Farrell made clear in his blog, the builders of the Great Pyramid would have had to have known necessarily by the nature of the technology involved that the Great Pyramid could be deployed as a weapon, and, knowing this, the Great Pyramid would have had to have been built with the intention of being used as a weapon. While I agree with this line of argument as far as it goes, I draw a line at the inference that the Great Pyramid could therefore have been built to be only used as a weapon.

In order to illustrate the idea that the Great Pyramid could have had uses other than that of a weapon, I attempted in The Handprint of Atlas to identify some of the limitations of the Great Pyramid as a weapon. These limitations, which I’ll address in a moment, are not the only or best reasons why I think the Great Pyramid had other functions besides that of being a weapon. The Great Pyramid has a number of characteristics that relate it to ancient texts and modern science that point to non-weapon uses. I will not address those characteristics here, but I touch upon them in The Handprint of Atlas. I direct the reader to that book to learn more about my ideas regarding non-weapon uses of the Great Pyramid.

As to the limitations of the Great Pyramid as a weapon, I attempted to identify these to make the point that a device that was meant to be exclusively a weapon would have been designed in a radical mode of strategic predation. If the Great Pyramid had been exclusively a weapon, anything that would encumber that function in the least would have been eliminated. Also, other things or characteristics would have been added.

An example of this that I gave in The Handprint of Atlas was the idea that if the Great Pyramid had been designed to exclusively function as a weapon, it would have been built on a space platform and be capable of motion-- superluminal motion-- the Great Pyramid would have been a spaceship. In his blog and in his book Babylon’s Banksters Dr. Farrell met this idea of mine with the assertion that I did not understand scalar technology, and explained that
The Great Pyramid would have been capable of projecting superluminal waves and so would not need to be able to move or to “point and shoot.” Well, I never said that the Great Pyramid would need to be able to “point and shoot,” but I can understand how Dr. Farrell might conclude that I thought that. But I did (and do) think that it would be a strategic advantage for a scalar weapon to be able to move out of the way of oncoming superluminal destructive waves. Dr. Farrell’s argument about superluminal weapons capability assumes that the other side in the conflict does not possess weapons with equal superluminal velocity. In a technological balance of power where both sides possessed scalar beam weapons capable of exceeding the speed of light, the ability for a weapons installation to be able to move faster than the enemy’s destructive waves becomes important. A fixed-in-position scalar weapon could propagate a protective force-field shield, but any such shield would have its limits as to strength. Therefore, the tactic of moving instantaneously at a superluminal speed to avoid a destructive superluminal beam would be, militarily, a desirable strategic function. It was not my intent to argue that such a space platform actually existed in ancient times, but rather that the possibility of it must be kept in mind when thinking about the Great Pyramid as a weapon.

In Babylon’s Banksters Dr. Farrell claims that a space-based scalar beam weapon would not be cost-effective, that it would be cheaper and therefore more practical to build a scalar weapon on a planet. Dr. Farrell goes on to assert that such a scalar weapon would have to be built on a planet in order for it to generate sufficient energy through coupled oscillation of great mass. In his internet blog, Dr. Farrell wrote:

“...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 so on an 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....”

However, Dr. Farrell in his own book Babylon’s Banksters (pp. 112 and 113) contradicts himself on these points. Dr. Farrell writes:

“This already gives one an appreciation of the significance of Global Scaling Theory, for in a certain sense, Einstein’s theory is not engineerable, for if one wished to warp space-time within the constraints of General Relativity, a large mass as a star or planet would have to be present to do so. But the converse is true with Global Scaling Theory, for one would not need the presence of a large mass to warp space-time, since that warped structure itself is a longitudinal pressure wave in the medium. One could, by warping space-time, create a ‘virtual mass,’ or conversely, ‘an antigravity hill.’”

And this is exactly my argument in favor of the possibility of a space-based scalar weapon. One doesn’t need a planet-sized body with which to “grip the earth” because local space-- especially outer space-- is engineerable through torsion. However, if one is already on a planet-sized body, one may use it, as Tesla did. As far as such a space-based scalar weapon not being cost-effective, I think that this just simply is not true. The whole idea of “cost effectiveness” is premised upon the assumption of finite energy, i.e. since one has only x amount of energy, one must choose process y if one is to make the most “cost effective” use of the limited energy. In a system of over-unity energy there is no cost, only ever-expanding profit. Given all the unknown factors, we can’t accurately calculate the costs of such a space-based scalar weapon, but we can know a few important things. If such a weapon was built today using our present public oil-based action-reaction technology, it would be prohibitively expensive to build. But-- and a very BIG BUT-- if a space-based scalar weapon was built using the principle of torsion-- the spin and electro-pulse stressing of high-density materials-- and coupling this with electro-gravity over-unity energy generation-- then such a space-based scalar weapon could be built at virtually no cost. Over-unity technologies by their very nature turn closed-systems economies on their heads. The Great Pyramid itself evinces characteristics suggestive of the use of torsion and over-unity in its building and use, further suggesting that, despite its immensity and complexity, the Great Pyramid may very well have been a very inexpensive building project.

Dr. Farrell in his blog misconstrued the phrase “sledgehammer destruction” that I used in The Handprint of Atlas. I did not mean that the Great Pyramid’s actions were imprecise. On the contrary, I know the Great Pyramid had to project scalar beams with surgical precision for it to have functioned as a weapon at all. I was referring to the results produced by such a very precise beam: a sledgehammer type of destruction. Indeed, the asteroid belt, which very well may have once been a planet destroyed by a scalar weapon, was called by the ancients “the hammered-out bracelet.” In this passage in The Handprint of Atlas where I use the term “sledgehammer destruction” I was not arguing against Dr. Farrell’s weapons hypothesis, but only the idea that the Great Pyramid was exclusively a weapon. Here is an analogy: Does an opera singer train just to be able to break a glass by singing a note? Of course not. The opera singer trains to sing operas-- but a sung note can break a glass. Such breakage is precise in process but the result is the same as if one had applied a sledgehammer-- the result is a shattered glass. I was only arguing that the Great Pyramid was like the opera singer, capable of doing a lot more than destroying things.

It is not the case that I don’t understand scalar technology, rather it is Dr. Farrell who doesn’t understand what I’m saying. Hopefully this will clarify my thoughts-- for everyone.