Credit for Ancient Tech

Writing to Atlantis Rising via snail mail or e-mail is the best, but not the only, way to make your views known to our readers. There are also “forums” on the Atlantis Rising web site. (Go to and select “Discussions.”)


The Problems with Egyptology

As I talk to people here (Egypt) it quickly becomes clear that Egypt is in full crisis mode right now. Their major industry is tourism, and visitors simply are not coming here any more. Sure, there have been a few terrorist events in the region in the last few months, but the problem goes back much further than that. Tourism took a direct hit on 9/11, then the revolution in 2011 socked the final blow. But why? Terrorism has shown its ugly face in many major tourist destinations since 9/11: London, Paris, Turkey, Greece, France, Mexico, even the USA. So why has the country, which has the only remaining wonder of the ancient world, suffered so much more than other major tourist destinations? Why is no one paying attention to Egypt any more? In my opinion it is an issue of perception. And perceptions can be changed.

Thanks to the media, Egypt is now seen as a “dangerous” place to go, which I find odd because the simple fact is that the entire world is now a dangerous place. When I planned my trip to Egypt several months ago, I actually avoided telling some people I was going. Why? Because of the looks I knew I’d get. The questions I knew I would be asked: “Egypt? Why are you going there? Is your life insurance paid up?” It was frustrating to be so excited about an adventure and not be able to openly share it with others. It was my little secret. This is not how you get people to stream into your country by the thousands each year!

Say what you will about Zahi Hawass, he was a showman extraordinaire. A real-life Indiana Jones, and the world loves Indiana Jones stories. So now that Hawass is out of the public light, there is an image vacuum that no one is filling. There may never be another showman for Egypt like Hawass, but there are others who can bring the attention back to Egypt. However, for this to happen Egyptologists will need to make a major concession. They need to open their minds up and tolerate the alternative theories on ancient civilizations. Why? Because Egypt is front and center on this subject.

How some of the ancient structures in Egypt were designed and built has never been well explained, especially by conventional Egyptologists. The curious, inquisitive, open-minded individual knows that there are still many, many questions that have not been satisfactorily answered. There are dozens of books and movies on this subject. And anyone who has listened to an Egyptologist explain how the Great Pyramid came to be knows it simply does not add up. It insults our intelligence to be told that balls of Diorite rock were the tools the ancient Egyptians used to carve the extremely hard red granite from Aswan. We know those Diorite balls could not have carved the intricate and exact features we see on the granite sarcophagus in the King’s Chamber, yet that is the line we are fed by educated Egyptologists who should know better.

This does not mean we need to have a discussion about aliens or even Atlantis. But the evidence is mounting for the case that other ancient civilizations may have had a hand in the knowledge that Egyptians acquired and used so effectively and that it would be impossible today for us to duplicate the Great Pyramid with all of our modern tools and technology. Why do a majority of professional academics believe that the Sphinx is water weathered? How did the Egyptians cut and fit massive blocks of granites so perfectly? Why are there no hieroglyphics in the Great Pyramid and Sphinx temple? How could the Egyptians possibly know about the precession of the earth and calculate that into the geometry of the structures they built? Why do we hold so tightly to the belief that the advancement of civilization is linear, when there is so much evidence to the contrary, such as Göbekli Tepi in Turkey?

Rick Goulian, Phoenix, AZ


Secrets of the Stones

I’ve long figured that the Cyclopean building sites of Sacsayhuaman and Ollantaytambo were not built with precision stone cutting methods, but they were using a form of technology that softened the rocks to make them fit like they do. Some have suggested that some plant might have been used to soften the rocks, and I suppose that’s possible, but close examination of these sites, and in particular Ollantaytambo, show they appear to have been softened at a point in front then disengaged—leaving a telltale extrusion in front of each stone. Sacsayhuaman has the appearance of the rocks having been retained in a form while they were softened. (That extrusion point might be buried in the sides as they added rocks as they went, meaning one such rock on each building would display the extrusion point, but that’s just a guess.) I can’t see a plant being used to get these particular results.

I then read Jeane Manning’s column “John Hutchison—Mad Man or Unsung Pioneer?” AR, #72, and there appears to be a guy, Hutchison, who has stumbled on the technology that did this, but he is probably completely unaware that he has solved the riddle of how these Cyclopean sites were constructed. Has anyone made the connection between his cold ‘melting’ of metals and various substances and these sites? I’ve seen some of his videos, and he seems to have the technology that will cold-melt metals of various kinds; and they droop over things like wood without the wood being burned from heat but just swallowing the wood as the metal seeps. I suspect he has loosened the binding of molecules electrically or magnetically so the metals can flow at room temperature.

I’m sure with fine-tuning of his device, he could soften rock like he does metals to get the same results as seen at either of these two ancient building sites.

Rick Pilotte, Victoria, BC, CN


Mars and the Bible

With all the explorations of Mars, many hope that signs of life may one day prove the Bible wrong. However, Joseph Smith, the [Mormon] American Prophet, restored a book, alluded to in II Esdras 14:6, where Moses is told: “These words [books] thou shalt de­clare, and these [books] shalt thou hide [keep secret].”

Apparently, God had told Moses: “And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose… For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumer­able are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them” (Book of Moses, 2:v33 & v35).

Since this [book] was restored 185 years ago, we know there is other life out there, beyond Earth, and some that has passed away, as is undoubtedly the case on Mars.

To think that the Creator, in all eternity, had only created mankind, in all that time, seems absurd; for even in the Bible, we also read of various other creations, such as the Sons of God, archangels, angels, seraphims, and cherubims, hinting that there are many other intelligent beings in God’s eternal unending creations, for we are also told: “the heavens, which are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man,” already exist: “And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens there­of, even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words” (Moses 2:37-38).

The Old Testament in Isaiah and the New Testament in Revelations refer to a divine “New Heaven and a New Earth,” the final state, “in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, and the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up… Nevertheless we…look for New Heavens and a New Earth” (II Peter 3:10 & 13).

Ernst Brenner, Edmonton, AB, CN


Younger Dryas Redux

In 2010, Richard Firestone, Allen West, and Simon Warwick-Smith presented in The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes (Bear & Co., 2010) a wide array of scientific and anthropological evidence that a comet impacted the Laurentian ice sheet c. 13,000 BP.  Ralph Ellis refers to this book in “Secrets of the Carolina Bays” (AR #116, March/April 2016) but must not have read it. Nearly everything in his article comes from Catastrophes:

  • Comet impacted (or exploded over) center of Great Lakes region (chapter 26).
  • Carolina Bays created by ejected ice, slush balls, and sediment (chapter 27).
  • Coriolis forces affected trajectory of ejecta (pp. 212-13).
  • Mass extinctions due to fire, ice, flooding, and reduced sunlight (in passim).
  • Impact triggered Younger Dryas (p. 288).

Ellis omits important evidence presented in Catastrophes: “black mat,” magnetic mirospherules, and isotopic anomalies at the Clovis horizon and (possible) secondary impact craters in parts of west and southwest North America, Central America, and Europe. He wrongly says Catastrophes attributes the Carolina Bays to a “transient shock wave and wind”; dismisses this misstatement as “nonsense”; then presents “a more plausible mechanism” that is clearly set forth in Catastrophes. How did these borrowings and errors escape editorial review?

Ellis differs from Catastrophes on three points:

  • A more limited range of ejecta impacts due to a purported “butterfly effect.”
  • Ejecta had a ballistic, suborbital (rather than shallow) trajectory.
  • Catastrophes acknowledges alternative scenarios (comet exploded in atmosphere and other impact sites).

These differences may be resolvable by additional physical analysis and computer modeling of current or future evidence. It would be a positive contribution if these ideas help refine the theories presented in Catastrophes. Otherwise, give credit where due.

Walter Smith, Columbus, OH


In his brief article, Ralph Ellis explains that he is relying primarily on the work of Michael Davias from the website (, but where Davias associates the Carolina Bays record with an 800,000-year-old Mid-Pleistocene event, Ralph argues that we should look to the much more recent Younger Dryas for the best connection. Other researchers have dealt with the Carolina Bays. (We added a reference to Otto Muck in the article.) We checked with Ralph and were assured that, indeed, he had never heard of Firestone’s book, though he had read a paper published by him in 2007. The editor takes responsibility for inserting the mention of the book, where Ralph’s text had mentioned only Firestone in reference to his paper. We had erroneously assumed that the reference was intended for the book and inserted the parenthesis. Our apologies to all involved.

However, whether or not Ralph was giving sufficient homage to the work of any particular author is not our concern. Atlantis Rising has never pretended to be—or to follow the rules of—a peer-review journal. We publish informative articles with interesting and plausible reporting on matters neglected by establishment journals, whether subjected to full scientific rigor or not. We let our readers decide what to make of it. It is our view that many worthwhile studies, including the book mentioned by Walter Smith, have been unfairly excluded from the scientific debate. In our small way, we are trying to rectify that situation, but limited time and resources preclude us from doing everything we might prefer to do. —ED


Write to us at Letters to the Editor, Atlantis Rising. Our postal address: P.O. Box 441, Livingston, MT 59047. By e-mail write to: