I just watched a show dealing with Incan Andean cosmology that said they believed in 'As Above, So Below'. This is one of three laws of Magi and Dictum of Hermes that our secret agent of British Intelligence has on back cover of his book Secret Societies.

Dr. Davidovits is modern patent holder of many geopolymeric rock-making or concrete processes and I talked at length with his co-author Marjorie Morris in 1993-4 about a variety of things related to their book 'The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved'. In interest of brevity I'll leave out how they were back-stabbed in a media hatchet-job by WGBH Boston who produced what BBC takes to schools all around world. It is a video called 'This Old Pyramid' and it was shown on U.S. National TV as well as 'The Nature of Things' with David Suzuki. I saw his letter saying he didn't know they had used fork-lift trucks and modern tools to build this small pyramid that shifted in sand after a few weeks and didn't have 'fit' anyway.

The recent April issue of Scientific American deals with this in a somewhat tangential manner as it mentions Miller-Urey Chicago creation of life experiment that was taught as creation of animate from inanimate for many years although it actually isn't creation, of much more than a few basic proteins. However, that start which became a dead end in some people's minds has continued to produce valuable insights. This particular article helps one see how attunement may have been initiated by collective consciousnesses within inanimate matter or mountains that natives of world revere. It may be a bit of a stretch but nanotube article and other science from solid state chemistry as well as work of Drs. Robins and Tiller would support it as well.

"Carbon-based molecules needed protection and assistance to enact this drama {The beginning of life, which NASA now knows is everywhere.}. It turns out that minerals could have served at least five significant functions, from passive props to active players, in life-inducing chemical reactions. Tiny compartments {What Robins calls 'energy wells'.} in mineral structures can shelter simple molecules, while mineral surfaces can provide scaffolding on which those molecules assemble and grow. Beyond these sheltering and supportive functions, crystal faces of certain minerals can actually select particular molecules resembling those that were destined to become biologically important. The metallic ions in other minerals can jump-start meaningful reactions like those that must have converted simple molecules into self-replicating entities. Most surprisingly, perhaps, are recent indications that elements of dissolved minerals can be incorporated into biological molecules. In other words, minerals may not have merely helped biological molecules come together, they might have become part of life itself!" (11)

Geopolymers are revolutionary for concrete industry {He is a member of Board of Portland Cement and a Director of a French concrete development consortium or research entity. His Doctorate in chemistry began his journey.}. Any type of rock aggregate can be used, and concrete made with geopolymeric binder is practically indistinguishable from natural stone. Geologists unfamiliar with technical possibilities afforded by geopolymerization have scrutinized geopolymeric concrete and have mistaken it for natural stone. This is unprecedented technology; no tremendous heat or pressure is required... sets rapidly at room temperatures to form synthetic stone...

To develop a new branch of chemistry is one thing, but to apply that chemistry to ancient history is quite another. How did I learn that pyramid stone is also geopolymeric? Any theory must be feasible; then, there must be evidence; and ultimately, hard scientific proof is required. All mysteries associated with pyramid construction must be resolved. {The pyramid rock weighs 20-25% less than quarried stone and same as geopolymeric rock. This does not mean that Christopher Dunn's finishing engineering doesn't apply and that molds were used when obelisks or special rocks were required either. He doesn't deal with healing or other energy in some of these surrounding structures either.} A description is found in ancient science encyclopedia written by Pliny Elder (A.D. 23-79), Roman naturalist. Pliny's account is not legendary or written esoterically; it clearly describes salient features of technology. But Pliny's description has not been understood by modern science, because to recognize what is written, one must have appropriate knowledge… {Or at least enough to actually hear what is being said.}

To date, passages related to alchemical stonemaking confuse scholars, resulting in gross errors of translation on Pliny's work. Worse, salient principles and characteristics of ancient science being unknown, translators dismissed Pliny's account as erroneous. De Roziere commented on problems of translation:

'M. Grosse, author of a German translation of Pliny, highly esteemed by learned people, points out that in whole of this description Roman naturalist seems to have done his best to make himself obscure. 'Despite my familiarity,' he said, 'both with Pliny's style and meaning he gives to terms, it has been difficult, sometimes even impossible, to translate passages clearly and exactly.' The reason was certainly that he was unfamiliar with substance that Pliny was describing...

A passage from Book 31 of Pliny's encyclopedia made no sense to French scholars. But passage is compelling in its support of existence of alchemical stonemaking. The passage appears in Latin as follows:

Nitrariae Aegypti circa Naucratim et Memphim tantum solebant esse, circa Memphim deteriores. Nam et lapidescit ibi in ascervis: multique sunt cumuli ea de causa saxei. Faciunt ex his vasa

Translated into English this passage reads:

In previous times, Egypt had no outcrops of natron except for those near Naucratus {Where Milesian consortium set up their trading city around 6th century BCE.} and Memphis, products of Memphis being reputedly inferior. It is a fact that in accumulation of materials it (natron) petrifies (minerals). In this way occurs a multitude of heaps (of minerals) which became transformed into real rocks. The Egyptians made rocks of it.

This particular passage is simple and straitforward, so there is no error of translation." (12)

In late 2004 media was all agog with small hominids found on Flores Island where I had written about artifacts showing sea travel technology must have existed. I had argued with many people about issue and their argument had some merit in that we had no proof of a connection to humans or nearby Mungo Man. However, once we found these creatures which some researchers even think could be part chimpanzee issue became clearly in my favor. I think divergence of human lice proven through DNA technology going back 1.18 to 1.8 million years ago is even more telling and I look forward to further research on pubic lice that might prove hominids cross-breeding. Here is one source for further review.

“It was astonishing and exciting enough to have discovered a new - and wholly unexpected - hominid species last week. The discovery of partial skeletons of three-foot tall "hobbits" on Indonesian island of Flores would have been front page news however old they were. But what made them really extraordinary was their age. They weren't fossils. These were bones rotted to consistency of blotting paper, less than 18,000 years old; and there are grounds for hoping that creatures lived on into historical times. Some might even be alive in sufficiently remote island jungles today. The native legends about "Ebu Gogo" suggest that contact between Homo sapiens and Homo floresiensis took place within last century on Flores.

The idea that our ancestors had contact with other human species is a profound and disturbing one. The whole term "human species" begs question. If they are other species, can they really be what we mean by "human"? Human is a moral category as much as a biological one. That's why it is such a useful weapon word in debates about abortion. To call someone or something human is generally meant as praise, and implies that they should be treated as we treat ourselves.

This interpretation of "humanity" is not, of course, a necessarily human trait. It's certainly not encoded in our genes. Most cultures, in most of history, have had no trouble in treating other human beings as domesticated animals or very much worse. But we, who speak English, call this process "dehumanisation".

The skeletal fragments, and legends from local people, make this story far more vivid than other evidence for human encounters with other humanoid species. That shouldn't obscure fact that this is second such story this autumn, and first one is far more chilling.