The Stargate Conspiracy (15 page)

This shaft is remarkably interesting. in fact. It descends in three stages to an incredible depth of 120 feet underneath the plateau, as Boris Said discovered when he took Thomas Dobecki down there in 1996. Dobecki took echo-sounding readings, particularly to discover what lay beneath a gigantic black basalt sarcophagus lid. They claim to have found about 10 feet of empty space and what appears to be a tunnel. 8 feet wide, running in the direction of the Sphinx, 300 yards to the east.
⁵¹
Hawass, too, is highly excited by this discovery, suggesting that it is nothing less than the - symbolic - tomb of Osiris.
⁵²

It is puzzling that so much interest has recently been focused on this shaft — and where it leads — because this is not a new discovery. Bizarrely, the current situation appears to be a rerun of events that took place as long ago as the 1930s. That shaft appears in the works of H. Spencer Lewis of AMORC, where it forms the entrance to an underground complex of tunnels and chambers that link the pyramids and the chamber under the Sphinx.
⁵³
And significantly, H.C. Randall-Stevens’s psychic communications told him exactly the same. This coincided with, possibly because it was prompted by, the discovery of the subway and the shaft by the great Egyptian Egyptologist Selim Hassan in the 1930s.

Randall-Stevens claims that Hassan also found a network of underground ‘rooms and chambers, none of which bear any relationship to tombs or funerary chambers. They are colonnaded sanctuaries and hallways - temples and ritual chambers.’
⁵⁴
This is amazing. If Hassan had made one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all time, why does no one know about it? What Randall-Stevens seems to have been describing was nothing less than a massive underground complex that had never even been suspected. Hassan’s work would have been interrupted by the onset of the Second World War, but this hardly explains the complete silence on the subject up until our own day. What are they waiting for? Why is this amazing ancient Egyptian treasure trove being kept under wraps?

On investigation this putative archaeological treasure trove disappointingly dwindles to almost nothing. Randall-Stevens’s description of the underground complex is ridiculously — and possibly deliberately — exaggerated to a huge degree. There are chambers and sarcophagi down there dating from no further back than the Saite period (sixth — seventh centuries BCE), but — according to the testimony of independent researchers such as Chris Ogilvie-Herald and Ian Lawton, who managed to gain access in September 1998
⁵⁵
— they are not especially impressive, nor is there any network of tunnels and halls such as Randall-Stevens described. The very newspaper reports of Hassan’s discovery cited by Randall-Stevens say nothing about the existence of such a complex.
⁵⁶
So why are Said and Schor now focusing attention on that particular location? Perhaps it is simply another piece of mystery-making; after all, few others have access to the place to check it out for themselves. Then again, that same spot has recently attracted the attention of Zahi Hawass, who believes it to be a major archaeological discovery - nothing less than the symbolic ‘tomb of Osiris’.

Unfortunately, nothing connected with Giza is ever simple or straightforward. Film footage of the water shaft taken by Boris Said in 1996 has become the subject of intense legal wrangling which has, at least, succeeded in adding to its fascination for the New Egyptology community. According to Said, he and Schor approached Fox Television with the footage, hoping to clinch a documentary deal with them. Then Schor and Said disputed the terms of the film deal, which means that, until the dispute is resolved, the footage in question cannot be shown commercially. However, Robert Bauval - presumably with both Schor and Said’s blessing - did present it at a conference in London in October 1998.
⁵⁷

Admittedly, this particular sequence is certainly worth viewing, though perhaps for reasons the film-makers did not intend. It certainly out-Indianas Dr Jones: four-wheel-drive vehicles screech to a halt, throwing up sprays of dust on a remarkably tourist-free Giza plateau, and a team of ‘archaeologists’ leap out and abseil down a huge shaft. Squeezing through a sand-clogged tunnel, they break through into a dark chamber, apparently the first people to do so for many centuries (other than the film crew waiting to film their entrance). Then they find a sarcophagus lid embedded in the floor, and excitedly pour the contents of their water bottles over it to wash away the centuries-old dirt.

In our view, the whole event was stage-managed for optimum dramatic effect. The shaft they abseil into bears no resemblance to the one where they find the sarcophagus. The latter does appear to be the water shaft, but it cannot be accessed by abseiling; its three tiers are reached by means of a metal ladder. In other words, they were filmed going into one place and coming out of quite another to make it look more dramatic. In any case, the sarcophagus they ‘discovered’ so excitedly on camera had already been known about for some time.

Why is this particular place being so determinedly turned into a legendary location when all the evidence is that, although it has archaeological interest, it is not particularly remarkable? Could it be simply because such a thing is easily achieved — and lo and behold, another myth is attached to Giza!

Confusion certainly reigns on the plateau — more, we suggest, by design than accident. But because of the actions and statements of key people, it is impossible to know with any certainty exactly what is rumour and what is genuine information.

Confusion itself seems somehow to be stage-managed. A few years ago matters were neatly clear-cut where Egypt was concerned. Two camps stood in opposition to standard Egyptologists: the New Egyptology, fronted by Hancock and Bauval; and the esotericists, such as Joseph Schor and ARE. The picture is considerably muddier now because all the main players have been plotting with almost Machiavellian vigour, jostling for position and making alliances with those who will serve their interests best, producing some very odd bedfellows.

In May 1998 Graham Hancock and John Anthony West issued a joint statement on the Internet. Superficially it seemed very magnanimous, a nobly proffered olive branch. After years of acrimonious scrapping with Dr Zahi Hawass, they were suddenly giving him this unqualified endorsement:

Robert Bauval also issued a statement shortly afterwards, saying: ‘Graham Hancock, John West and myself are now satisfied that no “behind the scene” activities, secret explorations and/or secret agendas are being implemented at Giza.’
⁵⁹

A similar volte-face concerned Mark Lehner: after
Keeper of Genesis
had suggested strongly that he was part of an ARE plot, Bauval and Hancock recently went on record giving him their seal of approval.
⁶⁰

Having portrayed Lehner and Hawass as the villains of the piece in books, articles and lectures for years - as well as being the most high-profile instigators of claims of ‘hidden finds’ and ‘secret agendas’ - it came as something of a surprise to find Hancock and Bauval suddenly defending them and denouncing rumourmongers. It is no less surprising to find Hawass reciprocating; back in May 1997 he had called a conference at the Foreign Press Association in Cairo to complain about the ‘fringe element’ distracting him from his real work, and specifically condemned Bauval and Hancock for their influence over the public.

It has now been announced that Zahi Hawass will be the next Head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) — the official all-powerful Egyptian committee that decides on all excavations - on the retirement of the present incumbent in 1999.
⁶¹
That means that Hawass will be in power at the time of the Millennium, which makes him most attractive as a friend and colleague. We have already seen that Hawass has agreed to give Bauval, Hancock and the rest of the Magic 12 - the authors who have received their seal of approval - a platform in front of the Sphinx for their ‘message to the planet’ on Millennium night.

This was not the only change of heart of those authors in recent years. According to Hieroglyph:
The Hancock and Bauval Newsletter,
the two authors considered that the project being undertaken at the Sphinx by the Schor Foun lation and Florida State University, and which had been licensed by the SCA, ‘had many aspects about it that were unsatisfactory’.
⁶²
The exact grounds for their complaint is unclear, or rather appears contradictory. Initially, they were upset by the Schor Foundation’s withholding of its alleged discovery of nine chambers beneath the Sphinx, which Bauval and Hancock had revealed to the public in lectures, articles and radio appearances. However, the announcement that there were plans to open these chambers on live television seems to have intensified their opposition. This is very curious: first Bauval and Hancock protested because they believed a major discovery was being covered up; then they complained because it was being made public ...

They subsequently mounted a campaign to get the Schor Foundation/Florida State University’s licence revoked, exploiting their own high profile among their reading public.
⁶³
For example, Zahi Hawass received ‘literally thousands’
⁶⁴
of letters from around the world protesting about the project, written mainly because of Bauval and Hancock’s campaign. The licence was duly cancelled, and the project stopped.

Two years later, though, Bauval and Hancock wrote that they now ‘feel that a reconsideration by the SCA of the Schor Foundation to carry on with their work is in order’.
⁶⁵
It should come as no surprise to discover that the Schor Foundation/Florida State University had their licence returned and in October 1998 they were granted permission to undertake drilling work near the Great Pyramid (where underground tunnels are believed to exist) in order to test the reliability of the remote-sensing techniques employed at the Sphinx. If this is ultimately successful, Hawass may allow Schor’s team to return to the Sphinx enclosure. Joseph Jahoda was present on site in October 1998.
⁶⁶

This is an extraordinary situation. Although the SCA - the official licensing authority - may have granted the Schor Foundation/Florida State University team a licence, Hancock and Bauval were saying that they considered the SCA to be wrong, and launched a successful campaign to have it revoked. When they deemed that it was time for the team to be given their licence back, that is what happened. It is incredible that those two authors consider themselves to be a higher authority than the SCA — and that the SCA itself seems to agree with their self-image. Why do the Egyptians fall in with their plans so readily?

An air of glasnost now pervades Giza, though, as Bauval is now lobbying Hawass to allow Rudolf Gantenbrink back there.

Then there is the remarkable case of Nigel Appleby and his ‘Operation Hermes’. Appleby claimed to have worked out the location of the Hall of Records, beneath the outskirts of Cairo, based on certain geometrical alignments and astronomical computations — indeed, he claims to have recognised the Orion/Giza correlation several years before Robert Bauval. Appleby planned a major expedition to find the Hall of Records, amid escalating publicity: his Operation Hermes was, we were led to believe, backed by the British Army (he is a Territorial soldier), who were to provide extraordinary services, including the supply of four-wheel-drive vehicles and the use of Hercules transport aircraft to ship the expedition and its equipment to Egypt.

However, disaster lay in wait for Appleby. Although his
Hall
of
the
Gods went straight into the Top 10 hardback bestseller list in the United Kingdom in June 1998, it would not remain there for long. It was withdrawn from sale within a week due to allegations of plagiarism by a number of authors.
⁶⁷
Initially it was Ralph Ellis, author of
Thoth: Architect of the Universe,
who made the allegations, but then he was joined by Robert Temple, Andrew Collins, and Christopher Knight and Robert Lemas (co-authors of
The Hiram Key and The Second Messiah).
But the organisers of this campaign - who persuaded most of the other authors to make their complaints and co-ordinated the issuing of public statements, mainly on the Internet - were none other than Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval. According to Appleby himself, they even offered to pay the legal fees incurred by some of this group.

The fact that
Hall of the Gods
was withdrawn within a week of being published was surely no accident. It ensured maximum publicity (and humiliation for Appleby) and threw Operation Hermes into chaos. Hancock and Bauval followed this up with a posting on the Internet about the affair, signed jointly with the other authors (except Ellis), declaring that they had no affiliations with Appleby or Hermes, ‘nor [do we] intend to have in the future’.
⁶⁸
Then, oddly, within a few weeks the announcement was made of a joint Robert Bauval/Nigel Appleby lecture cruise on the Nile, advertised for November 1998. Bauval has also publicly called for the other authors to forgive and forget.
⁶⁹
For his part, Appleby has recently gone on record praising Bauval’s fairness.

Superficially this sounds like an admirable state of affairs, with Bauval emerging as a decent, magnanimous gentleman trying to calm troubled waters. Once again, though, the situation is much more complex than it may first appear. When Nigel Appleby’s work first received publicity in 1997, Hancock and Bauval commissioned Simon Cox. who is a professional researcher, to prepare a report about Appleby and his theories, which they included in the joint statement posted on the Internet. Now that peace has broken out all round, however, Appleby has written an article for
Quest
magazine defending himself against his detractors, particularly singling out Cox’s report as an example of the campaign against him.
⁷⁰
Ironically he ends his piece by thanking Robert Bauval for resolving the matter, and for brokering a deal between him and the other authors — despite the fact that Cox’s report was initially commissioned, and then made public, by Bauval and Hancock themselves. (The two authors in fact hold the copyright.)