The Mystery of the Glozel Stones

May 1st, 2014

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

In 1927, a subterranean chamber in France was
discovered, accidentally, by a cow. Full of mysterious artefacts, some
of them Neolithic, the find was an enigma. Was it a mediæval magician’s
store, a Templar treasure house or something even more mysterious?
Patricia and Lionel Fanthorpe revisit one of their earliest
investigations.

Seventeen-year-old Emile Fradin was helping his
grandfather on their family farm at Glozel, near Vichy in the heart of
central France, when they stumbled – quite literally – across one of the
most bitterly controversial mysteries of the century. It was 1 March
1924 when one of their grazing cattle fell suddenly through the
apparently smooth and stable surface of the meadow. The ground collapsed
under the poor beast, dropping it into a totally unsuspected,
artificial chamber or cavity. This strange, man-made chamber was lined
with interlocking bricks, some of them glazed as though by intense heat.
The room resembled a primitive glassworks, or mediæval kiln. Young
Emile rescued the unlucky bovine by passing broad webbing under the cow
to lift it. Descending again to explore – without the impediment of
sharing the chamber with a frightened cow – he made some extremely
exciting discoveries.

The chamber was full of shelves and niches
containing many ancient and unusual objects. There were several carved
bones and a number of antlers. There were what appeared to be statuettes
of primitive deities – resembling the heavily pregnant Stone Age
‘Venus’ – and, most intriguing of all, there were numerous clay tablets
covered with an unknown alphabet.

In the years that followed, so
many human remains were found in the surrounding area that locals named
the place Champ des Morts (The Field of the Dead). When we visited in
1975, we noticed the curious, rather disturbing atmosphere there… as
though something was waiting for an opportunity to deliver a message
from the remote past.

Dr Albert Morlet, a medical practitioner in
nearby Vichy, soon heard of young Fradin’s unusual discovery. Morlet
was keenly interested in archæology and anthropology and went out to
visit the Fradin farm on 26 April 1925. He was as impressed by what he
saw there as we were some 50 years later when we met Emile Fradin
himself in 1975 (left, with Lionel). Subsequent to his visit, Dr Morlet
made an arrangement with the Fradins. Under the terms of this agreement,
the artefacts would be theirs, but Morlet would have exclusive rights
to the publication and reproduction of all the scientific information
associated with the site.

There’s an old Greek proverb: “Never
praise one philosopher in the presence of another.” Academia is stuffed
like an olive with bitterly jealous rivals who would gladly sacrifice a
limb or an eye to get their names on a learned paper – or better still a
book. This acidulous, personal animosity now got right in the way of
the serious, objective research that the Glozel discoveries richly
deserved.

Dr Capitan, an eminent archæological expert (at least
in his own opinion), now involved himself in the mystery. After visiting
the Glozel site he wrote enthusiastically to Morlet: “You have a
marvellous stratum here. Please write me a detailed report of your
findings which I can pass on to the Commission for Historic Monuments.”
But Morlet saw through this at once; Capitan would get most of the
credit while Morlet did most of the work. Morlet and the Fradins had
other plans; they produced a booklet of their own entitled: Nouvelle
Station Néolithique (A New Neolithic Site).

Unfortunately, as we
have suggested above, human nature often places formidable psychological
obstacles in the path of objective truth. It would be an understatement
to say that Dr Capitan was furious with Morlet and the Fradins for
slighting his great reputation. Anger turned into action, and he now
challenged the authenticity of their site and its contents. He even
accused the Fradins of having made the objects themselves!

As the
controversy escalated, other leading archæologistsbecame merrily
embroiled. Professor Salomon Reinach of St Germain-en-Laye said he was
favourably impressed with Glozel; the finds there supported his
hypothesis that civilisation had originated in the Mediterranean area
rather than elsewhere. It was a vaguely patriotic theory, popular in
France at the time. Historian Camille Jullian sided with Morlet and the
Fradins; he felt that the tablets provided important information about
the Roman occupation of Gaul. There was a stone death mask among the
finds, and this impressed Professor Loth of the Académie Français; he
labelled it ‘The Beethoven Mask’ because he thought it looked rather
like the dead composer. It was a piece of ‘evidence’ that cut in both
directions. Professor René Dussaud declared that it was a copy of the
real Beethoven death mask and was, therefore, proof that the finds were
fakes! (Beethoven had gone to a better world in 1827, almost a century
before Emile Fradin rescued the cow!)

The controversy deepened
when Edmond Bayle, a forensic scientist, thought he could detect
fragments of what might have been grass in some of the Glozellian clay
tablets. He cast his vote against their authenticity – forgetting,
perhaps, that recognisable foliage had been found in the remains of
Siberian mammoths. Hunter Charles Rogers – reputed to be a notorious
faker of relics – claimed that he had been responsible for some of the
Glozel artefacts, but little or no attention was paid to his testimony.
He was not generally regarded as a credible witness in matters
archæological.

While Lionel was lecturing on ‘The Psychology and
Sociology of Unexplained Phenomena’ for Cambridge University’s E-M Board
in the 1970s, we visited the Glozel site as part of our research
programme and had a long and very helpful interview with Emile Fradin
himself, now aged 68. Having met him and examined, first hand, the site
and the artefacts in the Glozel Museum, we were in no doubt that he was
perfectly honest. Whatever mysterious history lies behind the strange
objects and the unknown alphabet of Glozel, it was clear to us that
Emile Fradin had no deceitful hand in it. All that he did was to make
the initial discovery in 1924.

Nevertheless, the dark cloud of
suspicion hung over the the Fradins and Dr Morlet for years… until the
advent of the thermoluminescent (TL) dating technique (see panel). When
samples of the mysterious artefacts from Glozel were duly subjected to
TL tests, some were found to be centuries old and others were thousands
of years old. Dr Morlet and the Fradins were vindicated; our estimate of
Fradin’s honesty was confirmed; and the French academic archæological
establishment’s savage criticism of the Glozel discoveries was sharply
refuted. What a tragedy that thermoluminescence wasn’t around in 1925!

Some
orthodox archæologists were sceptical about Glozel because of the wide
time-range of the discoveries. The earliest and latest specimens were
separated by as much as 3000–4000 years. What individual, or group,
could have collected them there and, above all, why?

Before the
recent development of scientific archæology and palæontology, much
uninhibited speculation surrounded ancient flint artefacts, bones and
fossils turned up by the plough. Stone Age cemeteries, tombs and
monuments were variously attributed to Arthur, Merlin, pagan gods,
giants, demons, angels, leprechauns or fairies. Bones of mammoths and
dinosaurs were regarded as evidence that the Biblical, antediluvian
giants – along with the monstrous Leviathan – had once roamed the Earth.
Flint arrowheads were attributed to elven warriors and færie craftsmen.

Such
artefacts were widely prized through the Dark Ages by seers, sorcerers,
wizards, warlocks, witches, prophets, shamans and ‘cunning-ones’ –
together with supposedly magically knowledgeable priests and exorcists
and other ‘wise-people’ of various kinds – in the belief that they had
magical properties. Stone Age objects were used in the manufacture of
protective talismans and medicines. For example, it was widely believed
that carrying a flint (‘færie’) arrowhead in a leather pouch prepared
with the appropriate herbs and moonlit incantations would protect the
bearer from arrow wounds. Similarly, a tiny portion of a ‘giant’s bone’
(perhaps one attributed to David’s Goliath) could be ground up, mixed
with oatmeal and fed to an undersized boy to help him grow.

A
mediæval magician or wise-woman would need somewhere safe and secure in
which to keep his or her store of magical ingredients and equipment.
Suppose such a person discovered the disused glass kiln. Here indeed was
a well-hidden underground chamber, already lined with a glass-firer’s
shelves and niches, in an ideally remote country area safe from prying
eyes – safe, above all, from the Holy Inquisition and their army of
secret informers. Is it possible that young Fradin rediscovered just
such a subterranean magician’s warehouse in 1924 when his grandfather’s
cow fell into it?

Glozel lies very close to the imposing ruins of
the 13th century Château Montgilbert, built at the time of Templar
ascendancy in France. Only two or three days’ swift ride to the south is
Rennes-le-Château – citadel of many unsolved historical mysteries –
with its fabled Arcadian Treasure and controversial Templar and Cathar
connections. An astonishing series of real (but admittedly tenuous)
connections could link the mysterious Glozel artefacts with the
legendary treasure of Rennes and with the Oak Island Money Pit mystery
off the coast of Nova Scotia. This would unite three of the most
intriguing enigmas of all time.

Whatever the treasure of
Rennes-le-Château may eventually turn out to be, more than a quarter of a
century’s research and site investigation have convinced us that it has
nothing whatever to do with Jesus of Nazareth. Neither is there a shred
of truth in the romantic, sensational, but ever-popular ‘bloodline’
theories involving St Mary Magdalene and the old French Merovingian
Dynasty. The treasure of Rennes-le-Château is probably something far
older than our Christian era. In order to bring the flickering torch of
theory into the gloom of the underground chamber on the Fradin farm at
Glozel, it is necessary to go back a very long way indeed.

First,
we need to consider Graham Hancock’s theories about the lost
civilisation that, he argues, might once have existed below the present
Antarctic ice sheets. If Hancock is right – and his evidence is
convincing and well organised – refugees from the encroaching ice might
well have made their way to Egypt millennia ago. Once there, they shared
their advanced culture and technology with the earlier inhabitants of
the Nile Valley. The Sphinx, for example, could well provide evidence of
their vast, ancient knowledge and their sudden arrival in the Nile
Valley about 15,000 years ago. Recent discoveries of significant
pyramids in Brazil – bigger and older than the Egyptian examples – also
seem to suggest that an advanced culture spread north to escape from the
encroaching Antarctic ice.

The Biblical record is not specific
about it, but when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, an
immeasurably important part of that ancient Egyptian treasure and wisdom
almost certainly went with him. Is that why Pharaoh made such a
reckless attempt to recover it, at the cost of his hapless charioteers,
once the loss was discovered by the Egyptian Court and after Moses was
well on his way? This act of suicidal military stupidity is otherwise
inexplicable and, whatever else he was, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was no
fool.

Moses and the Israelites carried the Ark of the Covenant
with them everywhere, and guarded it with their lives. It was of a
pattern well known in Egypt long before Moses left. Suppose it was not
constructed after his Sinai experience and the giving of the Tablets of
the Law. What if it had been brought from Egypt at the start of the
Exodus along with whatever mysterious pre-Egyptian ‘treasure’ it
contained? Suppose that the core of that ‘treasure’ was something
priceless, something that had originated in the ancient civilisation now
buried far below the thick ice sheets of Antarctica?

The tides
of war washed over the subsequent Hebrew Kingdoms. Conquerors came and
went as they in turn were conquered. At last, the Ancient Unknown Object
in the Ark could have gone to the Imperial Roman Treasury. When
Alaric’s Visigoths conquered Rome at the start of the fifth century, it
could have travelled on with their other precious loot to what was
believed to have been the ancient Visigoth stronghold of
Rennes-le-Château – safe and easily defensible on the rugged foothills
of the Pyrenees.

Did the ever-questing Templars find clues about
what it was and where it was, when they probed the ancient foundations
of their lodgings in Jerusalem during the reign of King Baldwin? Or did
they already have strange, ancient knowledge to guide them? Did their
fellow Templars of southwestern France also know the secrets of
Rennes-le-Château? Did these French Templars carry that secret knowledge
to Château Montgilbert next to Glozel? Were further clues to that same
incredible mystery hidden in the underground chamber at Glozel, in the
very shadow of the ancient Château?

It is the adventurous and
indomitable Templars who also provide the intriguing link with Oak
Island near the coast of Nova Scotia. The mysterious Yarmouth Stone
(above, centre), bearing what at first appeared to be a runic
inscription, turned up in Nova Scotia in 1812. Many of those Yarmouth
Stone runes accord very closely with the weird Glozel alphabet. One
theory about the Oak Island Money Pit mystery suggests that it was the
Templars who hid their treasure there in Nova Scotia. Some Templars
certainly escaped from France in 1307, and the mystery of the Lost Fleet
of the Templars is one of history’s greatest enigmas. What really
became of it? Were those same Templars aboard it responsible for the
Glozel tablets as well as the Money Pit on Oak Island?

Templars
loved using codes and ciphers. They were experts at it. Is that what the
Glozel tablets were… a Templar code? Did those esoteric inscriptions
refer to the strange nature and secret location of the priceless object
Moses brought out of ancient Egypt? The Glozel Alphabet could be even
more important than the Rosetta Stone once its mysterious letters and
characters can be properly understood.

THE DATING GAME

Some of the questions raised by the Glozel discoveries were only answered later by the technique of thermoluminescent dating.

The
pioneering work on thermoluminescent (TL) dating was done at the
Universities of Edinburgh and Copenhagen more or less simultaneously,
but the technique is now used almost everywhere. The TOSL Research
Laboratory, at Dalhousie University in the USA, for example, is one of
several field leaders who offer their TL analytical services to
interested museums, art galleries and private collectors, researchers
and investigators.

Calcite, quartz, various feldspars and several
other crystals – including diamond – absorb energy from ionising
radiation: alpha, beta and gamma as well as cosmic rays. This energy
liberates electrons, enabling them to travel through the crystal
lattice. Some electrons get trapped in places where there are
imperfections and faults in that lattice. If powerful energy is directed
towards the crystal – or if it is heated – some of the trapped
electrons can be released. Light is emitted from the crystal as these
electrons leave.

It is possible to calculate how much time has
elapsed since the energy was previously lost, by simply measuring the
light that is released when heat energy is applied. Imagine that a piece
of pottery was fired in ancient times (say 4,000 years ago). The energy
in any quartz crystals in that pottery would be dispersed by the heat
of the kiln firing. Suppose that for some 4,000 years the pottery
fragment lay undisturbed in the ground and no heat reached it during
those millennia; natural radioactivity would very slowly recharge it. If
the 4,000-year-old fragment is then taken to the TL laboratory and
heated in a light-proof cylinder with a luminescence detector attached,
the ancient pottery sample would glow again. The temperature at which it
glowed – calculated along with some other modifying factors – such as
the level of background radiation at the site where it was found – would
provide a satisfactory guide to the date on which it was previously
fired.

Very old pottery and ceramic artefacts, first fired
millennia ago, glow again quite rapidly at relatively low temperatures.
Modern pottery – the cup dropped in the canteen last Wednesday, for
example – have to be subjected to very high temperatures for quite a
while before they will glow again.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AscensionEarth2012/~3/Ia4wFwDKJHI/the-mystery-of-glozel-stones.html