Giza Death Star
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
-
Recent Comments
Chuck McCorkle on Donate ericswan on IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UP… ericswan on NEW PROJECTS, SOME THANK YOU… Chuck McCorkle on Donate Chuck McCorkle on THE GREAT PYRAMID WEAPON HYPOT… Chuck McCorkle on WILL THE REAL ADOLF HITLER PLE… Chuck McCorkle on About Chuck McCorkle on THE GREAT PYRAMID WEAPON HYPOT… Recent Posts
Subscribe
Other Ways to Subscribe
Bad Astronomy Blog- New York Times – Heisenberg
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- New York Times – Anthropology
- Britain: Artifacts’ Valuation Is Higher
- Artery Disease in Some Very Old Patients
- Fun With Nicknames for Ancient Crocodiles
- Dell Hymes, Linguist With a Wide Net, Dies at 82
- A Case in Antiquities for ‘Finders Keepers’
- The Anguish of War for Today’s Soldiers, Explored by Sophocles
- The Savage Detective
- Claude Lévi-Strauss’s Two-Part Harmonies
- Claude Lévi-Strauss, 100, Dies; Altered Western Views of the ‘Primitive’
- Closed Circles
- New York Times – Physics
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- New York Times – Pyramids
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Dr. Farrell
-
Brent said
Very interesting
Joseph P. Farrell said
Thnks Brent, and thanks for visiting my site. Hope you will continue to do so. I’m sort of new to blogging, and henace tend to respond slowly.
Joseph P. Farrell said
(I also TYPE pourly, as you can tell)
Jeff Knutsen said
Hey Joseph!
Having read both your and Dunn’s books, I’ve been trying to figure out on the web if you have come to any mutual agreement on the ultimate purpose of the pyramid – and then I luckily stumbled upon your blog. (Not being much of a “blogger” myself, I actually had to start a blog to ask you this question!) This question has been keeping me awake at night. What is the consensus now as of 2006 among those who have come to the understanding that Giza is not a tomb, but a vast machine? From my layman point of view, the camps are three, correct? Weapon vs power vs communication device. (I totally discount the ediface for future generations theory.) Could the truth be that Giza could have been used for all three purposes? Among the experts, how is this issue divided?
Thanks again for a FABULOUS book. I’m now going through it a second time!
– Jeff Knutsen
Joseph P. Farrell said
Hi Jeff:
Thanks for visiting my site and thanks for your comments. Just to answer your questions, let me say that Chris Dunn and I have spoken together at two conferences, and I think I can safely say that while we are both agreed that the pyramid is a machine, I doubt very much that Mr. Dunn would agree to the weapons hypothesis. He alludes to it briefly in his Giza Power Plant, but in the main my impression is that he would definitely not adhere to the weapon hypothesis as of our last meeting. For my part, I believe Dunn’s idea is more of a theory, in that while speculative to be sure, it is much less so than my weapon hypothesis. So, the short answer is that there is no consensus yet – as of 2006 – on what TYPE of machine it may have been.
You also asked whether the machine could have been used for all three purposes. I get asked this question alot when I speak at conferences or on talk shows, so thanks for bringing it up here. To answer: in my opinion it COULD have been used for all three purposes, though, again, my belief is, based on what types of dimensional analogues are found in the Pyramid, as well as the tremendous NUMBER of them, that these indicate a type of scalar weapons application was the original intention of its builders, whoever they were. In this respect I disagree with many (including Sitchin) who, encounterting the weapon hypothesis, argue that the structure was modified in order to weaponize it. On the contrary I believe it was intended as a weapon ab initio.
William said
Dr. Farrell,
As I understand it, according to Scalar Physics apparently, Longitudinal Waves travel via the Time-Space Matrix. Wouldn’t standard E-M Waves travel the same medium?
Also, if the vector of a particle is zero, irrespective of the value of the scalar, how does the particle participate in the formation of a vortex, its vector is ZERO, ie. NO velocity?!
I am certain I must be missing something conserning these two issues, could you please advise me?
Thanks,
William