IMPORTANT FOREW0RD
Around 200,000 years ago, the hominid known as Homo erectus suddenly transformed itself into Homo Sapien with a
50 per cent increase in brain size, together with language capability and a modern anatomy. How could this have
happened so suddenly after 1.2 million years of no progress at all? It is anomalies such as these that have caused
considerable discomfort to highly respected evolutionary scientists such as Noam Chomsky and Roger Penrose. When
state-of the-art evolutionary principles are applied to Homo sapiens, the logical conclusion is that we should not be here!
The religious view of Divine Creation suffers from equal scepticism. Who can take the Garden of Eden story seriously?
Science and Religion are driving round in circles in a cul-de-sac. But mankind is here, and that fact needs to be explained.
The evolution of mankind is only one of the many mysteries that conventional science cannot explain. In recent years,
the best seller lists have featured an increasing number of popular books which have dealt with these mysteries. One of
the factors behind this trend has been the series of discoveries coming out of Egypt. The discovery of a secret doorway
inside the Great Pyramid and the independent dating of the Giza Pyramids and Sphinx to the era 10500-8000 BC have
captured the public\u2019s imagination. But these historical anomalies are not just confined to Egypt. All over the world we
find sites such as Stonehenge, Tiwanaku, Nazca and Baalbek that do nor fit the historical paradigm. A shadowy prehistory
seems to exist as a legacy in the form of stone, maps and mythology, which our twentieth century technology has only
just allowed us to recognise.
Against this background. many writers have grasped at the straw of Atlantis, and can be excused for doing so. But in fact
the advanced knowledge of the Maya and the Egyptians can be traced back to the first civilisation of the Sumerians
which suddenly and mysteriously emerged 6,000 years ago. The Sumerians claimed that their culture was a gift not from
Atlantis but from the gods! In view of the physical evidence all around us, can we afford to dismiss what the Sumerians
said?
The scientific establishment has an in-built aversion to the idea of \u201cgods\u201d, but this is simply a problem of terminology and
religious conditioning. The fact is that man now possesses the genetic technology to create \u201cin his own image\u201d. The
beings we created might well call us \u201cgods\u201d. The Sumerian and Mesopotamian texts, discovered and translated only in
the last one hundred years do indeed credit flesh-and-blood gods with the creation of man. These texts parallel the
Biblical account of Genesis, although the latter has been towards a monotheistic interpretation.
Gods of the New Millennium is literally about the gods who created us; thus in complete contrast to other books which
embellish their titles with the \u201cgods\u201d, whilst continuing to treat those gods as mythology. Those others have often been
researched and written in less than a year by authors with experience in the field. It is not surprising that such \u201cbandwagon\u201d
authors simply rehashed existing material and offered only superficial explanations of high technology which was used in
ancient times.
This book, in contrast, is the product of a ten year personal quest, to motivate a pursuit of truth rather than a pursuit of
short-term gain. During this time, I personally visited the many anomalous places described in this book, rather than
relying on second-hand reports, as many other authors have done. I have also time to carry out a thorough review of
existing literature myself, as compare others who have had to use research assistants to meet tight publishing deadlines
The result is a book which at last provides some answers to the questions everyone is asking.
Scientific progress is rarely possible without building upon the previous words other scholars, and Gods of the New
Millennium is no exception. In particular, I am indebted to an American scholar, Zechariah Sitchin whose first book, The
Twelfth Planet, I happened to discover in 1989. Sitchin\u2019s contribution to proving intervention of flesh-and-blood gods in
the creation of mankind cannot be overstated. His first book, the culmination of thirty years\u2019 research, not only explained
who these gods were, but where they came from and why. Sitchin amassed so much supporting evidence that much of it
had to be held back, subsequently published in four further books, referred to collectively as \u201cThe I Chronicles\u201d
Why have Zechariah Sitchin\u2019s books had such limited impact? The first reason his overwhelming attention to detail,
which can be off-putting to many readers. The second reason is the immense scope of his research which has created a
virtuous monopoly of knowledge. Put simply, Sitchin is a difficult act to follow. By leaving so few stones unturned, he
has placed other writers in a quandary. If they recognise his contribution, there is little they can add or amend, but if they
ignore his theory! they are guilty of intellectual neglect at best, a betrayal of truth at worst. Sadly few of the recent best
sellers have made more than a passing mention of Sitchin and some would appear to have gone to extreme lengths not
to mention him, ever to the point of crediting his ideas to someone else!
In contrast, my own research has been aimed purely at establishing the truth for my own personal curiosity. There was
therefore no temptation for me to ignore Zechariah Sitchin; on the contrary, I embarked upon an exhaustive, perhaps
unprecedented, critique of his theory. It quickly became apparent that there were several areas where his ideas needed to
be revised. In addition, I began to examine how Sitchin\u2019s chronology – a central plank of his theory – could be reconciled
to the Biblical time scales of the patriarchs. This was the \u201choly grail\u201d that would, to my mind, offer irrefutable proof that
Sitchin was right. To my great disappointment, however, I was unable to reconcile his time scales to the Bible, no matter
how I tried… It was then that I discovered the simple mathematical key which solved the problem, and forced me to
completely revise Zechariah Sitchin\u2019s chronology. As a result of my breakthrough, we now have for the first time a
chronology which:
\u00b7 matches the creation of mankind with the most recent scientific estimates;
\u00b7 reconciles the arrival of the gods and the creation of mankind with the independently verifiable date of the Flood
\u00b7 reconciles the dates of the Biblical patriarchs from Adam to Noah;
\u00b7 reconciles the dates of the later patriarchs from Noah to Abraham; and
\u00b7 reconciles with the infamous Sumerian Kings Lists of pre-Flood rulers.
This breakthrough forced me to tackle head-on the rather unsettling question of the legendary life spans of the patriarchs
(numbering hundreds of years each), and the Sumerian kings (numbering thousands of years each!). Fortunately, my
research coincided with some equally dramatic breakthroughs in the field of genetic science, which enabled me to
explain the longevity of the patriarchs, and indeed the gods themselves, scientifically. It was becoming apparent that I
had some important new material, which ought to be published.
Because my new chronology is such a vital part of the argument (and indeed central to any historical analysis), I
decided to set out Gods of the New Millennium as a one-volume scientific proof of the ancient flesh-and-blood gods.
The discipline of writing down such a proof, without leaving any loose ends whatsoever, led me into a number of areas
where I surprised myself by being able to throw new light on ancient mysteries. I am delighted to share with my readers
my explanations of the Nazca Lines, Easter Island and the lost city of Petra, and most importantly the Great Pyramid.
My study of the Pyramid, contained herein, is aimed at validating what the ancient texts said about it – that it was
designed by the gods as a multi-functional device. My analysis offers the first ever convincing explanation of its passages,
chambers and shafts from a purely functional perspective, and thus represents a major scientific breakthrough.
At the heart of this book is a new theory on the importance of the 25,920-year precessional cycle. Other writers have
touched on the possible links between the Sphinx and the precessional era of Leo 13,000 years ago, but the full significance
of these links runs far deeper than the Sphinx. During the writing of this book, the British authorities released new
information on the dating of Stonehenge, and this proved to be highly significant. I am now able to offer a comprehensive
solution to the Stonehenge mystery, tackling the fundamental question of why its design was so complicated if it was
\u201csimply\u201d a solar and lunar calendar, as is generally claimed. Armed with this new insight, I made a visit to Machu Picchu
in Peru, and was able to confirm that this sacred site was used for exactly the same purpose as Stonehenge, both sites
being connected to the precessional change from the era of Taurus to Aries over 4,000 years ago!
The conclusions of this book will undoubtedly prove controversial, since they challenge the established views of
science. Cynics will ask how hundreds of years of establishment thinking can possibly be wrong. I need only point out
that Ptolemy located Earth at the centre of the Solar System for 1,300 years before Copernicus corrected him.
Unfortunately, one of our greatest weaknesses as a species is our tendency to rush into the construction of paradigms
which are then defended at all costs.
The evidence contained in this book comprises scientifically verifiable facts. The scope of this evidence is world-wide
(and indeed Solar System wide) and the science is multi-disciplined, covering fields as diverse as, Geology, geography,
astronomy, mathematics, anthropology and genetics. I have linked together all of the mysterious places in the world as
part of one integrated approach. There are no loose ends and no contradictory facts that are swept under the carpet.
As I mentioned earlier, my study of the gods indicates that the precessional cycle was symbolically important to them.
One of the implications of this conclusion is that present millenarian expectations (in their many varied forms) may, for
once, have some scientific basis, since the imminent arrival of the new millennium coincides approximately with a change
to the precessional era of Aquarius. I am sure my readers will be as fascinated as I am by the prospect of major changes
being directed on Earth at that time.
So much for science, but what about our established religious institutions? Western religions may well be somewhat
sensitive to my conclusion that the Hebrew \u201cGod\u201d of the Bible was a flesh-and-blood god, but in firmly identifying this.
As to the question of a Supreme Being, it is not my intention that intervention by flesh-and-blood gods should detract
from anyone\u2019s belief in a supernatural divinity whom we might call God with a capital \u201cG\u201d. The creation of the Universe
is still shrouded in mystery, and the question of the creation of man needs to be redirected to the seed of the gods
themselves. These mysteries, along with paranormal matters such as reincarnation and UFOs, are outside the realm of
this book, which deals with the knowable, not the unknowable. Nevertheless, I believe that, by stripping away the
prevailing myths of science and religion, we will all benefit from a clearer perspective on the yet greater mysteries of our
existence.
CHAPTER ONE
BELIEVING THE UNBELIEVABLE
Mountains of Knowledge
Where did we come from and why are we here? What is the nature of the path we tread and where does it lead? We
entrust these deep questions to Religion and Science, the mainstays of modern society, but do they really offer us a path
to the truth? Are we the product of a Divine Creation, did we evolve through natural selection, or is there another
possible answer?
The evolutionary progress of an organism is sometimes compared to the perilous ascent of a mountain. Random
genetic mutations cause the weakest individuals to fall to their deaths, while the strongest continue onwards and upwards.
There is no turning back, no undoing of the evolutionary moves that eventually carry the organism to the mountain peak.
Human knowledge works in the same way. How can science proceed other than to build on what has gone before?
Theology – the study of religion – is no different. As the scientists ascend one peak of knowledge, the religious philosophers
ascend another. In modern times, the ascent of Religion seems to have been stalled by dogma, whilst Science, in
contrast, continues to race forever upwards towards higher peaks. The eagerness of the scientists is such that no time is
allowed and no points awarded for an inspection of the mountain\u2019s foundations.
Five hundred years ago Nicolaus Copernicus was virtually lynched when he dared to suggest that the Earth revolved
around the Sun. If Religion and Science were to one day find someone like Copernicus waving from a higher mountain,
a higher form of truth, they would hardly give a friendly wave back. The Mountain of Truth would be dismissed as the
Mountain of Myth, or perhaps the Mountain of Fantasy. This brings us to the crux of so-called myths and so-called
truths, which can best be illustrated by playing a simple game. Which of the following is the myth and which is the truth?
\u00b7 The Biblical account of Divine Creation.
\u00b7 Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution by natural selection, as it applies to mankind.
\u00b7 The Andean account of the creation of mankind by the gods at Lake Titicaca in Bolivia.
The scientist would say that only Darwinism can be scientifically proven, so the others are myths. The theologians would
say that Andean creation was obviously a myth, that Darwinism was probably a lie, a mistake or at best only a theory,
and that the only truth was the divine revelation.
Wrong and wrong again. All of the above statements are myths! Although the word \u201cmyth\u201d is synonymous with \u201clie\u201d,
the dictionary definition is actually \u201ca fictitious or unproven person or thing\u201d. But in whose view does it need to be
fictitious or unproven? Truth is thus totally in the mind of the beholder, and it all depends on the paradigm, or frame of
reference, of the beholder. Let us briefly examine those paradigms. If you have been brought up in a religious environment,
your paradigm – or belief set – will strongly prejudice you against accepting anything that contradicts the firmly implanted
notion that there is One Almighty God who created us from dust. If you have undergone a scientific training and are
encouraged to seek a rational explanation for everything, then a Divine Creation simply does not fit your preconceptions
of a logical, comprehensible world. Perhaps Darwinism as a general principle does, but as we shall see later, it remains
very controversial when applied to mankind. If, on the other hand, you are a Peruvian who has never read the Bible or
the theory of evolution, then the Andean legend is your supreme belief.
When we use the term \u201cmyth\u201d we must also remember that perspectives change with time. Atheism is a good example.
Today the word \u201catheism\u201d means a belief that there is no God. But in ancient times it had very different connotations. To
the Greeks who lived c. 400-200 BC, the atheists were the Jews who believed in only one God! Similarly, the first
Muslims, who believed only in Allah, were labelled atheists. Their fellow-citizens, like the Greeks: had always sought the
patronage of many different deities. The definition of atheism thus changes in time according to historical perspective.
No-one believes in a myth as the truth – by definition! If we classify ancient civilisations as \u201cbelieving in myths\u201d, we are
thus doing them a great injustice. The beliefs of these ancient people were founded on perceptions that had proper
substance in their historical context.
Here is another dictionary definition of \u201cmyth\u201d
\u201cA story about superhuman beings of an earlier age taken by preliterate society to be a true account, usually of how
natural phenomena, social customs etc came into existence.\u201d
In common parlance we do call these traditions of superhuman beings (or gods) \u201cmyth\u201d, but to do so actually exposes
our terrible prejudice. As we have seen, myths and truths are really in the mind of the beholder, dependent on his
perspectives and historical context. What was the perspective of the Sumerians, the advanced city-dwellers who worshipped
and wrote about their pantheon of gods 6,000 years ago? Did they invent all their tales to \u201cexplain natural phenomena\u201d?
Before we dismiss the Sumerians as a bunch of ignorant primitives, we should consider for a moment that their culture
and institutions were so similar to those of the western world today that we would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
It was the Sumerians who first used the wheel and, far from being \u201cpreliterate\u201d, it was they who invented writing on clay
tablets. I will have much, much more to say about the Sumerians in due course. As for their gods, the Sumerians believed
they were real, not myth. Their paradigm was simply different from ours today. How arrogant it would be for us to
automatically assume that the Sumerians were misguided.
Biblical Myths
\u201cIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the
surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.\u201d
How much truth and how much myth is there in the above statement? In a recent survey, 48 per cent of American
respondents considered the Book of Genesis to be literally true and thought that mankind was created by God. But what
does it mean to say that Genesis is \u201cliterally true\u201d? There are several modern versions, so which one is true? There are
also progressive versions, catering for special interest groups, which often distort the literal meaning. And, more
fundamentally, even the most conservative English Bible is a translation from Hebrew, and how many of us have read it
in the original language? We are all therefore at the mercy of the translators !
Furthermore, even if we could read the Bible in Hebrew, we would still be reading a highly selective and edited version
of events. It is not disputed that the bishops in the earliest Christian councils decided which texts should be included and
which not. Texts which were considered unacceptable then, for whatever reasons, have always been regarded as outside
the canon and therefore \u201capocryphal\u201d rather than the canonised \u201choly\u201d books.\u2019 There is little doubt that the 39 books of
the Old Testament were the result of a protracted process of editing and collation. The religions deny this of course, but
the first five books, known as the Pentateuch represent a collation of heavily edited material.
In the nineteenth century, a group of German scholars, studying various Biblical inconsistencies, came to the conclusion
that there were four sources behind the Pentateuch, and their explanation is regarded by many as the best available. The
word of Moses, which was supposedly written in the Sinai desert in the fourteenth or fifteenth century BC, was thus
being edited hundreds of years later, whilst the Book of Genesis was almost certainly an edited account of much earlier
material. This comes as a rude shock to those who believe that the Bible is a pure revelation of God, for in reality it has
been edited by man. If there is any doubt about this, it should be obvious from the numerous contradictory statements
and different accounts of key Biblical events such as the Creation and the Flood. The first myth of the Bible, then, is that
it is a revelation of God. The second myth is that the Bible is about One Spiritual God. On the contrary, the kind and
forgiving God of the New Testament is in complete contrast to the Old Testament\u2019s God of Wrath, an inconsistency that
has caused many sleepless nights for the Christians. Consider the following episode which precedes the account of the
Flood
\u201cThe Lord saw how great man\u2019s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of
his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was
filled with pain. So the Lord said \u2018I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth.., for I am
grieved that I have made them.\u201d
Here we see a supposedly Supernatural God who is angry and ruthless, and there are literally dozens of further examples,
particularly in the Book of Exodus, where the Lord shows an angry and vicious streak. But more importantly, if this God
is all-powerful and omniscient, what is he doing making mistakes?
There are numerous examples in the Old Testament where the Lord makes appearances at a physical rather than a
spiritual level. In the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord needs to physically go down to the cities to ascertain the
facts of the situation. Then, instead of vaporising the people with a sweep of His Divine Hand, the Lord uses physical
means (as evidenced by burning sulphur and smoke) to destroy not only the people but also the vegetation of the land.
This is a God who, according to the Bible, personally helped the Israelites to conquer lands and destroy their enemies
after the Exodus. It is thus a complete myth that the Old Testament God is the same as the kind, forgiving God described
in the New Testament. Why has this myth arisen? Simply because there can be only One Spiritual God according to this
religion. The truth, however, is an Old Testament God that sometimes acts like a man – he feels jealousy, anger and
pleasure; he walks and talks? he wrestles;\u2019\u2019 he is imperfect, not omniscient; he is harsh, cruel and intolerant;\u201d and he
exercises his power with physical manifestations. But the myth also hides a more fundamental truth – for within the Old
Testament the Lord is not the only God. Drawing on the Bible and other sources,
Karen Armstrong has clearly demonstrated that the early Hebrews were pagans who also worshipped other gods:
\u201cThe idea of the covenant [with Moses] tells us that the Israelites were not yet monotheists, since it only made sense
in a polytheistic setting. The Israelites did not believe that Yahweh, the God of Sinai, was the only God but promised,
in their covenant, that they would ignore all the other deities and worship him alone. It is very difficult to find a
single monotheistic statement in the whole of the Pentateuch The prophets would urge the Israelites to remain
true to the covenant but the majority would continue to worship Baal, Asherah and Anat in the traditional way.\u201d
Karen Armstrong points out that the Hebrew term Yahweh ehad meant \u201cYahweh alone\u201d – the only deity it was permitted
to worship.\u201d The clear implication is that these other gods must have existed as dangerous rivals to Yahweh. Were these
other \u201cgods\u201d simply idols and images, as Armstrong seems to think, based on her particular preconceptions, or were
they \u201cwalking, talking\u201d rivals to the Old Testament God?
Then God [Elohim] said
\u201cLet us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.\u201d
The question of whether there exists a kernel of truth in the above passage is the 64 million dollar question. But for the
moment, I wish only to strip away what I call the \u201cMyth of the Elohim\u201d. It might seem odd that God refers to \u201cus\u201d and
\u201cour likeness\u201d, but most people have ignored this as the \u201croyal we\u201d or a mundane quirk of the translation from Hebrew.
There is indeed a quirk with the translation of the above passage, but it is not what most people think. It is an established
fact that the Hebrew word \u201cElohim\u201d is the plural of El, the Lord! This is well known in theological circles, but the
general church-going public remains quite ignorant of this amazing little fact.
Further study of the Old Testament reveals a widespread use of the plural term Elohim, which is used on more than one
hundred occasions when the Lord is not specifically named as Yahweh. In the vast majority of cases, the term appears in
the Bible as a single God. How and where did the concept of Elohim emerge, and what was the meaning of its obvious
pluralism? According to Armstrong, it was during the exile of the Jews in Babylon in the sixth century BC that the
concept of monotheism based on Yahweh was enlarged to incorporate the God who had created heaven, Earth and
mankind.\u201d The resulting deity was known as Elohim.
God or Gods?
What is the truth behind the identity of Elohim? And who was he talking to when he said \u201cLet us make man in our image,
in our likeness\u201d Could there have been more than one god present at the creation? And who were those other \u201cgods\u201d
whom the Israelites were forbidden to worship?
During the last one hundred years, tens of thousands of clay tablets have been excavated in ancient Mesopotamia
(modern day Iraq) dating back to 6,000 years ago. These clay tablets contain a wealth of information from the earliest
civilisations, all of which believed in a bewildering variety of different gods. As a result of linguistic studies, it is now
widely recognised that the original source of these ancient tablets (which I will call texts ) were the Sumerian accounts,
dating from the beginning of that civilisation in approximately 3800 BC. The existence of that civilisation, the existence
of thousands of clay tablets and their translation is not in dispute. Thanks to these archaeological and linguistic studies.
the origin of the Elohim concept can now clearly be traced to a Babylonian epic text, known as the Enuma Elish. This
epic, a tablet of which can be seen in (Figure 1) deals with the creation of the heavens and Earth by a Babylonian, God
named Marduk. The amazing similarity between Genesis and the Enuma Elish is that one credits
the creation of heavens and Earth to God, whilst the other makes exactly the same claim on behalf
of Marduk.?\u2019 Both are thus attempts to promote the achievements of an all powerful god. It is
almost as if one text is competing with the other. And there is no doubt at all that the Hebrews,
having been exiled in Babylon, would surely have come into contact with, and been influenced by,
the Enuma Elish, which had been the most sacred Babylonian ritual text for over a thousand years.
We should not be amazed to find that the Biblical account of the creation of mankind also has close
parallels in the ancient texts. One Mesopotamian text describes the instructions given by the god in
charge of the creation:
\u201cMix to a core the clay
from the Basement of Earth,
just above the Abzu –
and shape it into the form of a core.
I shall provide good, knowing young gods
who will bring that clay to the right condition.\u201d
What is the significance of the \u201cclay\u201d from which man was created? The Bible makes a similar claim that man was formed
\u201cfrom the dust of the ground\u201d.\u201d An outrageous claim from a scientific viewpoint, but was it really \u201cdust\u201d or \u201cclay\u201d from
which we were created? An internationally renowned scholar has pointed out that the Hebrew term used in Genesis is tit,
which is derived from the earliest known language of the Sumerians. In the Sumerian language, the term TI.IT meant
\u201cthat which is with life\u201d.\u2019\u201d Was Adam created from already living matter? What happened after the creation of the first
man, Adam? The Bible states that God created \u201cman\u201d first, followed by \u201cmale and female\u201d, and suggests that a physical
operation was carried out:
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man\u2019s ribs
and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man…
\u2018\u201c
But was it really a \u201crib\u201d? In the Sumerian language the word TI stood for both \u201crib\u201d and \u201clife\u201d.\u2019\u201d Thus it would seem that
it was Adam\u2019s life essence that was removed to create the first woman. Today we would recognise that life essence as the
DNA in the human cell. An ancient text commonly known by the name of its hero, Atra-Hasis, devotes one hundred
lines to the creation of mankind, providing far more details than Genesis.\u201d Instead of one god, however, we find various
gods playing different roles. According to the Atra-Hasis, a god named Enki gives the instructions, assisted by a goddess
whose name, Ninti, means \u201cLady of the Rib\u201d or \u201cLady Life\u201d in Sumerian!
Ninti nipped off fourteen pieces of clay;
seven she deposited on the right,
seven she deposited on the left.
Between them she placed the mould. …
the hair she…..
. the cutter of the umbilical cord.
The wise and learned,
double-seven birth goddesses had assembled;
seven brought forth males,
seven brought forth females.
The Birth Goddess brought forth
the Wind of the Breath of Life.
In pairs were they completed, in pairs were they completed in her presence.
The creatures were People creatures of the Mother Goddess.\u2019\u201d
Only in the late twentieth century can we recognise the possibility that the production of males and females described in
the ancient texts was achieved by the scientific process of cloning (see chapter 2). The new creature was referred to in
Sumerian texts by the name LU.LU literally meaning \u201cthe mixed one\u201d. The earlier reference to the clay from the Earth,
brought to the right condition by \u201cknowing young gods\u201d, suggests that mankind was created as a hybrid mixture of god
and primitive hominid. Why was mankind created? The Bible states only that \u201cthere was no man to work the ground\u201d
prior to the creation.\u201d But the Atra-Hasis gives additional detail:
When the gods, as men,
bore the work and suffered the toil
the toil of the gods was great,
the work was heavy,
the distress was much.
The Atra-Hasis describes how the gods rebelled against their leader, Enlil. The father of the gods, Anu, was then called
down from \u201cheaven\u201d to attend a council of the gods. It was then that the god Enki (also known as Ea), provided the
solution:
While the Birth Goddess is present,
let her create a Primitive Worker,
let him bear the yoke,
let him carry the toil of the gods !\u201d
The ancient versions of the Flood story similarly provide more detail than the
Bible and place the event in a multi-god context. One such text is The Epic of
Gilgamesh, a fragment of which is shown in (Figure 2). In this text, the
Flood hero is called Utnapishtim rather than Noah, but the basic story is the
same, The only difference is that one god, Enlil, wishes to destroy man, whilst
another, Enki, decides to save man. Scholars of these ancient texts do not
dispute the roles of these gods, who are widely and consistently referred to, but
it is difficult to find a single publication that does not implicitly or explicitly
categorise these tales as mythology.
Are some of us guilty of bias when we treat 5,000-year old clay tablets as myth,
but the 2,500-year old Genesis text as fact? After all, the subject matter is
similar and the basic points are the same. The differences are purely theological –
in the ancient texts mankind was \u201ccreated in the image and likeness\u201d not
of God, but of gods. What factors drove rational and civilised ancient people to
believe in plural gods? What kernel of truth might lie behind these Biblical and
Mesopotamian myths? Our twentieth century paradigms make it difficult to ask, much less answer, these questions.
Monotheistic Conditioning
Why do we find the concept of \u201cgods\u201d a difficult one? The problem lies in our perception and our terminology, the
legacy from two thousand years of monotheism. The move to a belief in One God has not only distorted the original
meaning of the Old Testament, but more importantly it has veiled our way of thinking. The same problem exists with the
Islamic religion, which is even more rigid. The God of the Muslims is known by the name Allah rather than the abstract
notion of God that we have in the West. The Muslim holy book, the Koran, claims to be the word of God, spoken in
divine revelation by Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. However, the early history of Islam was far from straightforward.
To our surprise, we find that it was not only in the West that monotheistic religion fought an uphill battle for acceptance.
Karen Armstrong states that:
\u201cFor the first three years of his mission it seems that Muhammad did not emphasise the monotheistic content of his
message and people probably imagined that they could go on worshipping the traditional deities of Arabia alongside
Allah, the High God, as they always had. But when he condemned these ancient cults as idolatrous, he lost most of
his followers overnight and Islam became a despised and persecuted minority.\u201d
We in the West are all conditioned from early childhood to believe in One God. Through Bible studies at school and, for
many, the ritual of prayers at home or Church on Sundays, the idea of a single all-powerful God is drilled into us. The
mind of the child is enquiring, eager to learn, eager to please and therefore highly impressionable. Sociologists estimate
that we absorb most of our cultural etiquette and moral values before the age of ten. And we are hardly encouraged, as
children, to question what we are told. In our mid-teens we begin to acquire scientific knowledge, which in some cases
seems to conflict with our religious education. Sadly, however, this contradiction is explored by very few. After all, who
can spare the time for philosophising when exhausted by the pressures of work, family and the trivia of everyday life? It
is thus inevitable that the question of God is swept to one side. Most of us therefore take into our adulthood a firm idea
of Jesus as the son of the One God, with in most cases only a vague notion of the Old Testament God. The paradigm of
One God is therefore accepted by default and perpetuated through the generations. This is in stark contrast to other
countries, where religions such as Hinduism continue to recognise a wide variety of different gods. Against this background,
it is hardly surprising that our preconceptions cause us to resist the suggestion that we were created by plural gods. It is
a concept that seems alien and meaningless. But the problem is really one of terminology. Our dictionaries carry two
main definitions of \u201cGod\u201d. The first is the Supreme Eternal Spiritual God, which we all perceive in subtly different but
basically similar ways. The second, written with a small \u201cg\u201d is seen as a \u201csupernatural being\u201d or an image or idol thereof.
The very word \u201csupernatural\u201d suggests something unscientific and unreal. If we try to conceive of \u201cgods\u201d being present
at the scene of the Creation or the Flood, our minds automatically reject the idea. In order to overcome the terminology
barrier, let us briefly consider a myth of the gods from modern times – the amazing but true story of the \u201cCargo Cult\u201d.\u201d
At various times in the 1930s, American and Australian servicemen landed in remote parts of the island of New Guinea,
coming into contact with primitive local people who had been totally isolated from the outside world. Cargo supplies
were dropped off in the jungle for the advancing troops. From these cargoes, the visiting servicemen were able to bestow
gifts of chewing gum, Coca-Cola and other trappings of modern day society on the local inhabitants. This generosity left
an indelible mark on the people, who believed that \u201cbig birds\u201d would continue to deliver \u201ccargo\u201d (manufactured items)
to them. When the visitors departed, the locals tried to lure them back by building rough airstrips. Amazing as it may
seem, the people constructed imitation radio transmitters out of bamboo, and crude model aircraft out of wood !
These people from New Guinea told legends of their \u201cgods\u201d who came down from the sky bearing gifts and then
departed. Beliefs akin to religious beliefs then developed, and the various \u201cgods\u201d coalesced into a single deity called
\u201cJohn Frum\u201d. This is true! It would appear that the name of the deity was based on the names of the visitors who
introduced themselves as \u201cJohn from Boston\u201d. \u201cJohn from New York\u201d and so on. Despite having come into regular
contact with western cultures in recent years, many of these people in New Guinea continue to believe in their god,
\u201cJohn Frum\u201d. Many more, however, have recognised the connection between their model aircraft cult and the real
aircraft in the outside world, and thus realised that their \u201cgod\u201d or \u201cgods\u201d were simply men. What lessons can we learn
from this strange but true case of the Cargo Cult? Perhaps that idols, myths and legends can represent the traces of a very
real phenomenon and that flesh-and-blood men can be seen as gods by their less sophisticated fellow men. Indeed the
Hebrew word for its unified godhead, Elohim, was derived from the Akkadian word llu , which meant \u201cLofty Ones\u201d The
terminology barrier has obscured whatever the ancients might have been trying to tell us. From here on, all of my
references to \u201cgods\u201d should be taken to mean flesh-and blood beings like ourselves, who simply have a technological
advantage. After all, if we were to send some astronauts to a backward culture on another planet, who would doubt that
they would be revered as \u201cgods\u201d?
Ancient Myths
At this point a short detour around some ancient myths of the gods is in good order. Most of us are familiar with the
highly embellished tales of the Greek and Roman pantheons, but their origins lie in earlier, more comprehensible versions
from Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian accounts will be fully dealt with later in this book, so let us focus here
on the Egyptians. It is fair to say that the pharaohs of ancient Egypt were obsessed with a belief in the afterlife. This
belief was inspired by their gods such as Ra and Horus, whom they seriously considered to be immortal. This seems very
strange to us today, but it was their strongly held perception, which we must respect. Of course, they could not have
lived long enough to establish the truth of whether the gods really were immortal, so we can safely call it a myth. Perhaps
it contained a kernel of truth, perhaps not.
The Egyptian pharaoh- kings believed in a journey to a
place called \u201cthe Duat\u201d, a journey which took them across
water and between two mountains to a place which they
described as the \u201cStairway to Heaven\u201d. It was believed that,
by reaching the heavens, they could achieve immortality like
their gods. Now what could possibly have given the
pharaohs such ideas? Most of our knowledge of the
ancient Egyptian afterlife cult comes from hieroglyphic
picture-writing. and in particular the so-called Pyramid
Texts.\u201d One of the most famous images is that of the Ani –
Papyrus (the Book of the Dead), where the dead pharaoh is
being prepared for his journey alongside a rocket-type
vehicle (Figure 3).
The Pyramid Texts describe a series of underground chambers in the Duat, through which the pharaoh travels, prior to
his ascent to heaven. In one of these underground chambers he hears \u201ca mighty noise, like that heard in the heights of
heaven when they are disturbed by a storm\u201d. In another instance he encounters doors which open by themselves and
\u201cgods\u201d, \u201chumming as bees\u201d, in cubicles. Sometimes the pharaoh encounters gods who keep their faces hidden, but on
one occasion he sees the face (only) of a goddess. Next, the pharaoh sees gods whose task is to provide \u201cflame and fire\u201d
to Ra\u2019s \u201ccelestial boat of millions of years\u201d, and other gods who \u201corder the course of the stars\u201d.
The pharaoh then approaches his final destination, where he is required to shed his garments and dress in divine clothing.
The \u201cShem-priests\u201d, those who perform the mysterious \u201copening of the mouth\u201d ceremony, are now present. The text
goes on to describe a long tunnel called \u201cDawn at the End\u201d and a cavern \u201cwherein the wind is brought\u201d. The pharaoh
reaches a point called the \u201cMountain of the Ascent of Ra\u201d, where he sees an object called \u201cthe Ascender to the Sky\u201d. He
steps into a \u201cboat\u201d described as 770 cubits long (about 1,000 feet) and seats himself in a \u201cperch\u201d.\u2019\u201d After various further
technical sounding procedures, the \u201cmouth\u201d of the mountain is opened and the Boat ascends:
The Door to Heaven is open!
The Door of Earth is open !
The aperture of the celestial windows is open !
The Stairway to Heaven is open;
the Steps of Light are revealed…
The double Doors to Heaven are open:
the double doors of Khebhu are open
for Horns of the east, at daybreak.
The Heaven speaks;
the Earth quakes;
the Earth trembles:
the two districts of the gods shout:
the ground is come apart…
when the king ascends to Heaven,
when he ferries over the vault [to Heaven.?\u2019\u2019
Could this journey be the product of imagination? The description contains clues which have only become meaningful in
the twentieth century. It is not difficult for us to visualise a modern-day NASA mission control centre, with computers
humming and video-entry control systems. The rest of the details speak for themselves. When we read texts like this one
on the walls of pyramids more than four thousand years old, it is rather challenging to our paradigms. We could conveniently
dismiss it if it was an isolated case, but it isn\u2019t. Consider the following account, from a different culture, of an event
which took place not far to the east of Egypt:
\u201cOn the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very
loud trumpet blast… Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. And the glory
of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai. For six days the cloud covered the mountain… To the Israelites the glory of the
Lord looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain.\u201d
Is this simply the case of an over-active imagination\u2019! Hardly. After one of his meetings with the Lord on Mount Sinai,
Moses returns to the Israelites with a \u201cradiant face\u2019\u2019 which frightens them.\u201d How did this happen? A clue lies in Exodus
33:21-23:
Then the Lord said,
\u201cThere is a place near me, where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the
rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but
my face must not be seen.\u201d
The tale is accompanied by explicit instructions from Yahweh to Moses, warning of the potential danger to anyone
coming up on the mountain. There is another intriguing aspect of the Exodus which cannot be ignored, and that is the
Ark of the Covenant. The Lord tells Moses:
\u201cThen have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings
exactly like the pattern I will show you.\u201d
There then follow clear and explicit instructions. The cover for the Ark is to have two \u201ccherubim\u201d, made out of hardened
gold, one at each end of the cover, with their wings extended towards each other:
\u201cThere, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and
give you all my commands for the Israelites.\u201d
Why is it necessary to \u201cmeet\u201d at an appointed time in this way? The Lord explains that he cannot accompany the
Israelites to the promised land in person;\u201d instead he will use the Ark to communicate his commands. Surely this is
twentieth century technology, there must be some mistake! But we also read that the Ark must be handled by priests
equipped with \u201csacred garments\u201d and with a \u201cshielding curtain\u201d,\u201d and when the proper instructions were not followed,
the effects were potentially fatal.\u2019\u201d Is it thus a coincidence that the chest of the Ark was to be made with gold inside and
outside, representing two electricity-conducting surfaces, insulated by wood between? Similarly, was it a coincidence
that it had to be moved using wooden staffs which would insulate those who carried it? To find such references in the
Book of Exodus, written around 2,500 years ago, describing events a thousand years earlier, staggers the imagination.\u2019\u201d
How can one dismiss the obvious references to aircraft and radiation on Mount Sinai, when there is an equally amazing
description of an advanced communications device, operated by a powerful electrical system? It is difficult to comprehend
how detailed technological descriptions such as these could have been dreamt up by the Israelites.
In this section I have illustrated my point with only two examples – from the Bible and ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts
– but I could have chosen from many more similar legends from cultures all around the world. A common thread seems
to run through all these myths and legends of ancient gods. What possible kernel of truth might they hide?
The Intellectual cul-de-sac
Is Darwinism a myth? The world\u2019s religions would have us believe so, but should we give any credence to their inevitably
biased point of view? Their motives in attacking evolutionary science are obvious, and spring from the concept that God
alone was the creator of all living things, including mankind. But although their belief comes from what the scientists
would call an irrational faith, some of their arguments against Darwinism are highly rational. One of those arguments is
that natural selection could never have produced man\u2019s incredibly complex brain. In the view of Religion, Darwinism is
not a scientific fact but a weakly supported theory – thus, to the devout theologian, it is a myth that evolution is a fact !
Can we really believe that science – as rational seeker of the truth, and the cornerstone of modern belief – has been
misleading us? It is a formidable accusation. Surely we can rely on science and its systematic methods of observation,
experimentation and measurement. Surely its theories are properly tested before being formulated into laws which
govern the physical world. But how can Darwinism be properly tested? The scientists can prove that in theory a mutation
and a change of species occurred, but in the absence of detailed fossil evidence, how can they say that it actually did
occur? What is the truth about Darwinism? For the answer we must turn to the arguments that are raging between the
evolutionists themselves, and to a book which claims to \u201clay out the current controversies\u201d and \u201cexpose the philosophical,
even religious yearnings that have distorted disputes among scientists\u201d. Daniel C. Dennett, the author of \u201c Darwin\u2019s
Dangerous Idea \u201c, is one of the leading philosophers of our time, with extensive experience in the field of evolution
and genetics. In his book, Dennett attempts to kill the \u201cmyth\u201d (that dreaded word again) that the fundamentals of
Darwinism, so well expressed by scientists such as Richard Dawkins, have been refuted by the eminent American
scientist Stephen Jay Gould. The general theme of his book is that Darwinism is alive and well, but what Dennett actually
does is expose the division among the scientists for us all to see.
Significantly, one of the main areas of controversy is something called \u201cadaptationism\u201d – not a genetic process but
rather an approach which some Darwinists have used to draw what are effectively short-cut conclusions by deductive
reasoning. The question is whether this approach is scientifically valid. Dennett argues eloquently that adaptationism is
a valid and useful approach in the field of evolution, but the fact that this argument exists at all indicates that it is not an
approach which would normally be acceptable within other scientific disciplines. Whilst the adaptationist controversy is
one of semantics, the main part of Dennett\u2019s book accuses some of the most distinguished scientists of our times,
including Stephen Jay Could, Roger Penrose, and the linguist Noam Chomsky, of being unable, ultimately, to accept the
fundamentals of Darwin\u2019s theory. This is a dramatic accusation! Let us start with Gould. Dennett claims that Gould\u2019s
comments have been hijacked and twisted in order to attack orthodox Darwinism. In trying to pin down the reasons why
Gould has not corrected such misleading interpretations, he concludes that Gould ultimately lacks faith that Darwinian
ideas can explain evolution in its entirety. Dennett then cites a similar reluctance on the part of Chomsky and Penrose,
but here we get down to specifics.
Noam Chomsky is the world\u2019s leading expert on linguistics. His pioneering work has demonstrated that language
structure – the ability to acquire language through parental communication – is innate in the new-born child. To the great
disappointment of the psychologists, Chomsky has caused the question of language to change from one of learning
theory to one of evolution theory – how did universal grammar evolve as an in-built biological function within the brain?
As Dennett points out, there is no reason in principle why language acquisition should not have emerged through natural
selection, yet Chomsky distances himself from this conclusion. Why? To Roger Penrose, the brain as a whole poses an
evolutionary mystery. Orthodox Darwinism attributes all of the functions of the brain to a collection of algorithms (stepby-
step mechanical procedures), like an artificially intelligent computer. Penrose, however, sees the brain acting at a
much higher level:
\u201cI am a strong believer in the power of natural selection. But I do not see how natural selection, in itself, can evolve
algorithms which could have the kind of conscious judgements of the validity of other algorithms that we seem to
have.\u2019\u2019
As incredible as it may seem, Roger Penrose has abandoned natural selection and, it would seem, is investigating a
radical new approach to the mystery via quantum physics! Clearly everything is not \u201chunky dory\u201d with Darwinism.
Does this mean that Darwinism is dead? Not at all, for in the field of evolution generally it has much to offer. It is only
when it applies to mankind that the battles begin. Why do top ;scientists such as Gould, who has been called \u201cAmerica\u2019s
evolutionist laureate\u201d, feel such discomfort with mankind\u2019s evolution? The great power of Darwinism, according to its
proponents such as Dawkins, is that, given enough time, natural selection can explain anything and everything. Could it
be that lack of time is the misspoken problem? Stephen Jay Could has referred to the \u201cawesome improbability of human
evolution\u201d.\u201d If we use an ape as the starting point, a significant number of big evolutionary jumps are necessary to evolve
into a man (a complete review of this will appear in the next chapter). The geneticists agree that mutation is the mechanism,
but they also agree that the vast majority of mutations are bad. They also agree that the mutational mechanism must take
a long time, because mutations which produce big changes are particularly dangerous to a species and thus unlikely to
survive. Furthermore, they say, if a positive mutation is going to take hold in a species, it will do so only in the right
circumstances, when a small population becomes isolated. Is it these improbable factors, allied to the short period of six
million years allowed for man\u2019s evolution from the apes, which have caused our top scientists so much discomfort? To
use an old adage, you can\u2019t get a quart out of a pint pot!
One thing is certain – mankind is here – and that fact needs to be explained. Religions raise many valid questions about
Darwinism, such as how incredibly complex organs such as the eye, the ear and brain could have evolved simultaneously.
They then turn to their holy books and find that God created man. But religions have no single positive rational scientific
argument to support this claim. Religions accuse scientists of relying on the myth of Darwinism, but they themselves are
guilty of relying on a myth – the \u201crevealed truth\u201d of Divine Creation. Science cannot ignore the fact that mankind is here
on planet Earth. The only mechanism which has been put forward to explain this fact is Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution by
natural selection. Since this appears to be the only alternative to Creation, the scientists have instinctively forced the
theory to fit the facts and vice versa. It is a most convenient scientific paradigm. There is no doubt that Darwinism
contains many truths in the animal kingdom, but severe doubts surround its practical application to man. These two
entrenched standpoints place us in an intellectual cul-de-sac. The religious and scientific arguments go round and round,
but we are getting nowhere. How then to explain the fact that we are here? Is there an alternative which will get us out
of this cul-de-sac? Sometimes a seemingly impossible problem has a simple solution – the problem becomes an \u201cevaporating
cloud\u201d which will quickly disappear. But invariably this requires a new way of looking at the problem, the removal of an
incorrect assumption or constraint. Perhaps it is time to reconsider flesh-and-blood gods as the answer to the mystery.
Technological Perspectives
The Lord said \u201cGo out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord. for the Lord is about to pass by\u201d.
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was
not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake
came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it he
pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.\u201d
This is the account of Elijah\u2019s first encounter with the Lord, fortunately preserved in the Bible even though its meaning
was surely not understood. It is not surprising that ancient tales such as this have been dismissed as myths. However, in
our generation, for the first time, these myths can be seen to contain evidence of advanced technology. Only in the
twentieth century have we developed the rocket engine and the aircraft, that enable us to interpret Elijah\u2019s \u201cvision\u201d. Of
course, we would not expect to find the correct technical terms used thousands of years ago, for the same reason that the
American Indians referred to the railroad as the \u201ciron horse\u201d. Imagine for a moment that you were asked to describe a
computer using everyday terminology from one hundred years before it was invented!
Read Elijah\u2019s vision again with a technological perspective and ask yourself what kind of phenomenon is being described.
If we had lived in his times, without a twentieth century vocabulary, we could surely find no better terms than his to
describe the landing of a Harrier Jump Jet aircraft.
Alongside the widespread tales of flying gods, there are equally numerous tales of creation, where mankind was
created by the gods, not God. One hundred years ago genetics was an unknown science, so it would have been ridiculous
to suggest that the Divine Creation was actually a physical, genetic intervention. Nowadays the idea cannot be dismissed
so easily. Furthermore, the twentieth century has witnessed a growing acceptance of the possibility of extraterrestrial
intelligence. The improvement of our telescopes, the findings from our space probes, and the use of powerful computers
to process the data, have enabled us to reach out into our galaxy and understand it as never before. Former sceptics,
such as the famous scientist Carl Sagan, are now firm believers in the possibility of extraterrestrial life and intelligence.
It is now thought that there are billions of stars with planets like Earth and that the universe contains an abundance of the
basic ingredients of life. In 1989, the US space agency NASA announced a plan to embark on mankind\u2019s first systematic
search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), spending $100 million over ten years.\u201d We can see how seriously the
subject is taken by the fact that an established SETI code of conduct has been drawn up by the International Academy of
Astronautics.
What will SETI find? Probably nothing – its search is the proverbial needle in a haystack. But if, as the Bible says, it was
the Elohim, the IIu \u201cLofty Ones\u201d, who created us in their own image, then we should not be surprised to find our own
species rather than bug-eyed monsters. It may well be that evolution to the point of self-awareness is so improbable that
it has happened only once in our galaxy, and that we are an offshoot rather than the primary source. It may turn out that
our whole concept of \u201caliens\u201d and extraterrestrial\u2019\u2019 has been based on a false premise. The Old Testament Book of
Ezekiel also records strange, technological visions. Ezekiel was a priest among the Jews deported to Babylon in the first
exile of 597 BC. Five years later he had the first of his amazing series of \u201cvisions\u201d which spanned a period of nineteen
years. We can imagine Ezekiel\u2019s sense of frustration in trying to describe something which was beyond his comprehension
and outside his vocabulary:
I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north – an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded
by brilliant light. The centre of the fire looked like glowing metal, and in the fire was what looked like four living
creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces and four wings. Their legs
were straight, their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four
sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, and their wings touched one another.
Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.
As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. This was the
appearance and structure of the wheels: they sparkled like chrysolite and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be
made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. As they moved. they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures
faced: the wheels did not turn about as the creatures went. Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims
were full of eyes all around. When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living
creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose. Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels
would rise along with them. because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.
Occasionally a scientist will break ranks with the establishment view. In 1968, following the publication of Erich von
Daniken\u2019s Chariots of the Gods, a NASA engineer by the name of Josef Blumrich set about analysing the evidence in
order to disprove von Daniken\u2019s suggestion that Ezekiel saw a spaceship:
I read Chariots of the Gods with the superior attitude of a man who knew in advance that it was all rubbish. From the
wealth of material supplied by von Daniken, I found, when I came to the description of the technical characteristics of
Ezekiel\u2019 s visions, a territory in which I could join in the conversation, so to speak, as I have spent most of my life in the
construction and planning of aircraft and rockets. So I got out a Bible to read the complete text, feeling sure that I would
refute and annihilate Daniken in a few minutes.\u201d
Josef Blumrich credentials were first rate – a NASA chief engineer who was
heavily involved in the design of Skylab and the Space Shuttle, and who
had the rare distinction of a NASA Exceptional Service Medal, awarded in
1972 for his outstanding contribution to the Saturn and Apollo
projects. After a long period of intensive spare-time research, the cynical
Blumrich became the converted Blumrich, and published in 1973 his
book The Spaceships of Ezekiel. Blumrich deduced both the shape and
size of the craft seen by Ezekiel, and identified many key features such as
rotor blades, fairing housings, landing legs and retractable wheels. He
concluded that the shape of the ship was essentially the same shape that
NASA engineers say is most compatible with the type of orbiting and
inter-atmospheric descents and ascents that were described by Ezekiel.
His drawing of the craft (Figure 4) appears similar to a Gemini or Apollo capsule, with the addition of helicopter-like
devices for the purpose of feathering descent and inter-atmospheric flight.
Blumrich stated:
\u201cThe helicopter [devices] themselves are distinguished by such features as folding wings, ability to change their
position and astute layout for the control rockets. All these properties fit together without any contradiction or
unsolved questions; they are unmistakable indications of very able and sophisticated planning and design.\u201d
Modern devices such as those seen by Elijah and Ezekiel are not only described in the ancient texts, but also found
depicted in drawings, paintings and cast in metal. Influenced by their own individual society and culture, the land-locked
Hebrews referred to these craft as chariots, the sea-going Egyptians called them \u201cboats of heaven\u201d, whilst the Chinese
saw them as dragons. In time, the references took on religious connotations such as the \u201cglory\u201d or \u201cspirit\u201d of the Lord.
In the past it has been convenient to label as myth that which we do not understand; today we have no such excuses. If
we are to continue blindly ignoring the evidence in front of us, then our thinking is no more advanced than the Cargo
Cult of the New Guineans ! It is time to recognise myths as the records of mankind\u2019s earliest prehistory and to seek out
their hidden truths.
The Fear of Ancient Astronauts
There is a widespread perception that the idea of intervention by extraterrestrial gods – the so-called \u201cancient astronaut\u201d
theory – has been entirely discredited. How has this lie been perpetuated? If we stop for a moment to consider how our
beliefs are influenced – by books, newspapers, journals and television – it quickly becomes obvious that in many fields,
science in particular, our perceptions are based on the views of the \u201cexperts\u201d. These experts, usually high-ranking
scientists, are just as human as the rest of us; they have careers to follow and families to support.
The budding scientist is forced, early in his career, to choose a specialism in a field which is becoming increasingly
specialised, as the body of human scientific knowledge expands. He becomes expert in a field which is usually long
established and which operates under very fixed paradigms. In each field there exist standard texts and theories which
are so entrenched that nothing is to be gained (and everything lost) by the maverick who tries to challenge the status quo.
Scientific progress is therefore achieved by building on top of what has already been established. It is not a good career
move to tear down the \u201cMountain of Knowledge\u201d and start again.
Those scientists who appear in the media are usually ambitious, and their expert status comes only from a narrow focus
in their field. They are not closed-minded but simply have little time for contact with other scientific disciplines. What are
the belief sets of these people? Most fields of science have been studied for hundreds of years, during which they have
evolved a number of fixed laws or assumptions. These include: life began on Earth and everything on Earth evolved from
t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
IMPORTANT FOREW0RDAround 200,000 years ago, the hominid known as Homo erectus suddenly transformed itself into Homo Sapien with a50 per cent increase in brain size, together with language capability and a modern anatomy. How could this havehappened so suddenly after 1.2 million years of no progress at all? It is anomalies such as these that … <\/p>\n