November, 1976
Dear Folio Friends:
I have read all of the contributions to the first round of the Folio with interest. It is natural that contributors should be enthusiastic about their own ideas, but in some cases this enthusiasm appears to have carried the author beyond the boundary of reason. The ideas expressed regarding the Pyramid–Mars connection, the Avebury–Meydum connection and Extra-terrestrial matters are pure speculation, almost of the science-fiction type, without the slightest shred of outside evidence to support them.
Time does not permit me a detailed criticism of the papers, but anyone with a lively imagination can develop all manner of interesting connections between seemingly unconnected matters. One cannot proceed to suppose this, and infer that, coming finally to some grand conclusion, without factual evidence which is outside of the theory lending strong support to the arguments, or at least the basis of the arguments.
Of the Pyramid theories that I have examined, not one, other than the religious theory, can produce evidence to support itself from outside sources. Most investigators get a theory in their heads and then try to make the facts fit the theory. This is a totally unscientific approach and will lead the investigator into a multitude of blind alleys. The theory, or at least the basis of the theory, must be determined from the facts before any real progress can be expected.
From the contributions I would guess that most authors are non-Christians, or at least not knowledgeable about the plan of God for mankind as given in the Bible. A knowledge of this plan would have steered many of the writers away from the blind alleys they are presently fumbling along.
Before talking about a possible databank on Phobos, it is first necessary to establish that such an extra-terrestrial civilization existed, and also to find references from that civilization regarding the Great Pyramid. Otherwise the theory is valueless.
From reports of UFO’s it would appear that some of their motions defy well known physical laws. It does not seem logical therefore to restrict possible extra-terrestrial space vehicles to the same areas for launch sites as our own. Hence, there is no justifiable link between supposed extra-terrestrials, the Tropical Zones and early civilizations.
Regarding the Giza–Stonehenge connection, or the Meydum–Avebury connection, it is interesting that the angle of slope of the pyramid face is similar to the latitude of the monuments in England. However it appears unreasonable to put more weight on the facts than that without further outside evidence.
As mentioned, time does not permit a detailed criticism, the above comments being merely thoughts that occurred to me as I read the contributions.
After criticising others, I must of necessity outline the basis of our own case for the correctness of the Religious theory, even if only briefly. Even without the final volume in the series, the Pyramidology Books (I to IV), published by the Institute, run to about 1,500 pages. We can obviously only consider some of the highlights of this material in a venture such as the Folio. Also, in view of the shortage of tine, we must endeavor to avoid secondary considerations and stick to the fundamentals upon which the theory rests.
No matter how astounding the symbolic and chronological revelations in the Great Pyramid, according to the theory, it is completely fair to first ask what Religion has to say about the Great Pyramid. By Religion we mean Christianity and therefore we must see if the Bible, the accepted Word of God, has something to say about the Great Pyramid, even in an indirect way, before the theory can be granted any validity at all.
Not one, but several verses allude to the Great Pyramid, although they do not use the name pyramid. It is believed that indirect references were used to conceal the Divine Revelation contained therein from previous generations. This reasoning is based on the example of the Bible which gives chronological prophecies in such a way that Christians in periods past have been unable to decipher the meaning.
However, let us look at the main references in a modern English form:—
Isaiah 19:19–20 At the end of the Gospel Age, there will be a monument which will be for a sign and for a witness to the Lord of Hosts and this monument shall be in the centre of Egypt and yet at the border of the country.
These remarkable words, which are usually by-passed by most people reading the Bible, simply because the passage is incomprehensible to them, pose questions that call for answers. It is quite clear that this monument is situated in Egypt, and also that it is in a central location, not in some remote corner of the land. It is also clear that the monument is to witness, that is, to say something, to give a message or a revelation. One odd phrase, at first confusing, is that the monument is also stated to be at the border of the country. Normally it is impossible to be located both at the centre and the border of a country, but in the unique case of Egypt it is possible to be so located. Reference to a political map of Africa will show that Egypt is depicted as being approximately rectangular in shape, some hundreds of miles from North to South, and similarly from East to West. However, most of this territory is barren wasteland, the only worthwhile portion being the fertile Nile Valley and the Nile Delta. This is as true today as it was 4,500 years ago when the Pyramid was built.
Cairo, the modern capital of Egypt, Memphis the ancient capital, and the Giza Pyramids are all situated close together near the boundary of Upper and Lower Egypt where the Nile Valley spreads out into the Delta. In the Old Kingdom period Egypt was controlled from Memphis, and thus the Great Pyramid was close to the main centre of activity in the country. The area of useful land in the Delta is of the same magnitude as the area of productive land in the Valley, hence from this viewpoint the Pyramid is also at the centre of the Country. However, to the West of the Great Pyramid is nothing but desert for many hundreds of miles, so in a real sense the building may also be regarded as being at the effective border of the Country.
Thus, the seemingly rather odd description of being at the centre and yet at the border is seen to be quite logical in both political and geographical senses and to the point to the Giza area generally. In actual fact the indicator of being at the centre is more precise than this in a geometric sense. The shoreline of the Delta forms the circumference of a quadrant of a circle, the centre of which falls on the Great Pyramid.
The Hebrew text of Isaiah 19:19–20 also confirms the Great Pyramid as the monument intended. It is well known that in ancient times Hebrew letters were also used as numbers and when the text is added up it totals 5,449 which is the height of the Great Pyramid as left by the ancient builders, measured in Pyramid inches. It is, therefore, fair to say that there can be no doubt that the Great Pyramid is the monument indicated by this Biblical passage. At this point we have only considered one reference in the Bible, so let us turn our attention to another one:—
St. Matthew 21:42 Jesus said unto them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner.’” The Scriptural passage referred to here by Jesus is that in Psalm 118:22 which reads, “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.”
The passage brings out several interesting points. In this reference, Jesus is likened to a headstone of the corner, or “chief corner stone” as Ephesians 2:20 has it. In any normal building the term “chief corner stone” has no meaning which is generally understood. Only in a pyramid does the term make sense, although in these days we would use the word “topstone” instead of “chief corner stone” even if the latter term is actually more descriptive. The topstone of a pyramid is over every corner and thus is the chief corner stone.
It is also interesting that literal and symbolic meanings are intertwinned in the passage, and doubtless God chose the pyramid shape because such an intertwinning was possible. Present day visitors to Giza observe that the sides of the Great Pyramid do not come to a point at the top, but terminate in a small, square platform. Historical records suggest that it was ever so, even prior to the spoliation of the exterior in the period A.D. 900 to 1400.
It is believed that the top stone was never placed because the Great Pyramid was actually constructed slightly smaller than the original design. The top stone already hewn to the original design was therefore too big, and hence rejected by the builders as the Bible says. Many of the pyramids in Egypt are now in a ruined or semi-ruined state, and therefore one cannot always be certain about their top stones. However, the Great Pyramid is the only notable one, confirmed by ancient records, to have been without a top stone.
Thus the Great Pyramid is selected by the Bible geographically and numerically, and by the words of Jesus himself, as the monument intended in the passage in Isaiah. At this point, you will notice, we have not even started to consider the Christian theory of the Pyramid. However, we believe that the foregoing factually establishes the basis for looking at the Great Pyramid in a Religious context. Not one of the other pyramid theories have factually established their bases in this manner from outside sources.
Some critics attack the Religious theory in general by picking a date and event in one interpretation which did not come true and thereby condemning the whole Religious theory. They fail to separate the interpretation from the basic factual truth of the Revelation. There have been many detailed interpretations of the Religious message contained in the Great Pyramid which have failed to be proved true, but this does not disprove the entire Religious message. The particular interpreter should be blamed, not the Great Pyramid’s Revelation!
In any investigation it is always wise to take one step at a time and to consolidate the position before moving forward. I think this is enough for the first round of the Folio, for establishing a sound basis is most important. May I commend Mr. Forrester for his initiative and enthusiasm for getting the Folio going, and I shall look forward to further rounds with keen anticipation.
Yours sincerely
J. Rutherford