Throughout
three previous articles we highlighted a series of newspaper clippings that proved between 1914 and 1939 there was widespread understanding in academic circles of the bounty of ancient Egyptian influenced archaeology in Australia. But amongst all the favourable publicity and positive public reaction we uncovered, there is an elemental problem we could not resolve.
Given the level of expert public discourse, why did this conversation simply stop? Why was talk of ancient Egyptians in Australia neither challenged nor countered by experts if it was considered just errant nonsense?
Throughout the First World War, the next decade and the decade after that, there was ample opportunity for alternate or opposing theories to be discussed. But what we saw play out in early-1900s media was quite the contrary. Media archives from the time suggest that the top minds in the field all agreed Australia has an Egyptian past, and although such talk has since been banished from the media (and therefore the public’s attention), no-one past or present has publicly rebutted their findings. Instead, the work of these scholars simply disappeared from history… until now.
Covert ForcesWe can confidently claim that in 1937 there was a general consensus of Slater’s findings. His presentation of a paper, compiled by some of the best archaeologists of the day, rounded out decades of work and culminated in a general academic agreement that a range of archaeology in Australia came about through personal contact between Original people and ancient Egyptians.
According to a
Sydney Morning Herald report dated January 23, 1937, Slater was “pleased with the publicity that has been given to the paper [that was] read before the Science Congress”. Adding weight to Slater’s assertions was a supporting cast of the highest calibre, including “Mr. W. J. Enright… former president of the Anthropological Society of Sydney, and well known for his collaboration with other scientists” and “Mr. Roy H. Goddard… an authority on Australian aboriginal (sic) artefacts”.
At some time during 1937, or the year after, something happened that riled officials and academics alike. Since public records show nothing to contradict Stater’s assertions, and Slater’s personal correspondence suggests covert forces were at play, and we can presume officials weren’t reacting to valid archaeological evidence to the contrary!
This raises the questions of the officials of the day… What was their unspoken agenda? Why were they so keen to silence Slater and his views? Why act covertly and avoid public discussion? Why did the truth of Australia’s history make them respond in such a way? Did they have a different history to sell?
Since the government of today still refuses to acknowledge this country’s ancient past, further questions come to mind… What unspoken agenda did today’s government inherit? Why is the Australian government still perpetrating this false history? To whom are they accountable? What would be the implications to Australia’s “post-Cook” sense of national identity, freely propagated by the Commonwealth Government, if our true history became well known? Does the truth hold implications to the lawful sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia? And more importantly, why do we continue to tolerate a government that would hinder public access to such important historical information?
What we do know is that by 1939, Slater was fighting a rear-guard action, reacting to pressure from a variety of Government agencies and doomed to lose both the battle and war. Talk of ancient Egyptians in Australia had been commonplace for close to 25 years, but by this time, new rules (and censors) were now at play, leaving Slater complaining that he had “shipped a sea of troubles”. But strangely, any record of the incident, statement or action taken by Slater that precipitated the 180′ shift in attitude and his fall from academic grace (and memory!) was seemingly lost to public records and posterity. All that remained was the sad stick figure we sketched ourselves.
But that all changed a week ago when Erik Bower sent us the results of his fourth investigation into long-lost public records. There amongst the press clippings was the ‘smoking gun’ – a cancellation of a joint lecture that Slater and Mr. R. H. Goddard were scheduled to give in 1937.
It seems Slater had pushed the boundaries of discovery too far and had to be silenced.
The Smoking GunThe
first newspaper article was quite small, barely two hundred words in length, but without doubt one phrase demanded immediate attention and reflection: “… the national Park has several examples of early philososophical treatises, older than those of Egypt”. Extending horizons never raised until now, this is the first time we have seen talk of other ancient travellers or earlier civilisations. Slater’s personal correspondence made note that the archaeology and first language he was familiar with led him to believe that there was evidence in Australia of earlier civilizations than the ancient Egyptians. But by referring in the media to such ancient civilisations visiting Australia, it is clear Slater walked an academic step too far for proponents of the status quo.
Throwing petrol onto the growing fire, Slater was as intellectually adventurous as he was expansive, and supplied details and celestial locations. Slater and his colleague Goddard had compiled
a joint paper to be presented to a gathering of scientists and academics at the “Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science” in January 1937. At least that was their intention – the meeting never took place and the paper they submitted was eventually stamped “cancelled”. There was also an official imprint left on the document, presumably from the same department that decided the paper was not suitable for the learned ears of the association’s members.
Unfortunately, due the passing of years or insufficient spread of ink on the rubber stamp, we cannot fully make out the name of the condemning agent. What is visible is a touch surprising – the only words discernible are “public health” and “tropical”, both of which seem somewhat obscure. It is difficult to see how any department specialising in tropical-climate medicine has the expertise to adjudicate on such weighty historical and archaeological issues, and the fact that the submission wasn’t stamped as “cancelled” until December 1938 is at best a peculiar detail.
A Step Too Far… Into the StarsSlater and Goddard’s paper was meant to expand upon the mythology, science and archaeology Slater referred to in
a 1938 Sydney Morning Herald article. As President of the Archaeological Society, it was not enough for Slater to suggest there were more ancient peoples and civilisations in contact with Original people, there had to be proof and scientific scrutiny. And presenting that proof was the objective of this paper, planned to be released in such august and scholarly company.
We suspect it was opposition to Slater’s talk of our off-world ancestry and possibly genetic manipulation that stopped this paper from ever being heard or discussed in public circles. The paper was primarily a discourse on the Origins of the Original Sky-heroes as interpreted by Slater and Goddard through their work on two sets of Original rock engravings. Beginning with the central and first ‘Creation Being’, Baiame, Slater identifies a recurring motif in that Baiame “brought living things from on high and then stepped back into the high regions from whence he came”. According to Slater, Baiame means “he who brought life from on high” and because of this his first priority was to bring “life into the world, set down man and woman and gave them the sacred means of propagating life”.
Until now, we have never seen carvings or scripture that refers to making love as the “sacred means of propagating life”. But if human life was indeed propagated under the supervision of benevolent beings from Pleiades by genetically manipulating the existing hominid species, such a description would certainly apply.
Despite the resistance subsequently imposed on Slater, he was not the first to discuss evidence of this theory. In fact the story of the creation of human life through genetic manipulation is depicted on the hieroglyph walls at Bambara, and is similarly told through the ancient Original Dreaming lore. The reason why some sort of artificial involvement (be it through replication or test tube) seems the logical conclusion is that Slater also went to great lengths to describe Baiame’s modus operandi, detailing the method Baiame employed to bring “life from on high”.
The Return Journey into the StarsTo achieve such a lofty ideal through a vehicle of flesh and bone, Baiame “cut off one of his legs in order to make man”. This seems to be a deliberately metaphoric way of describing the complex process of combining genetics, and is very much in keeping with the notion of splicing genes and mixing Pleiadian and hominid mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes – a process we know today is entirely possible. The sacrificing of one leg explains why Baiame’s mudowi (step) is always a single print. It is also worth noting that Baiame’s other name, Muun, means “alive” or one who “gave life” or “brought life into the world”, while the name Baiame has also been translated to mean “to cut off, to build”.
Slater also described the roles and deeds of Baiame’s sons. Of particular interest was the son who was never meant to stay or have a formal title, who was simply called “the nameless one”. He had no interest in staying and walked away… towards a rather intriguing object or vessel. His brother tried to follow him but he protested each time calling out “go back”. According to Slater and his colleague, “the nameless one… climbed a tree so tall the foliage mingled with the clouds”. Not only did he “mingle,” he had the capacity to “mingle” with distant galaxies. The brother stood back and “saw that tree had vanished in a cloud of smoke. This beautiful tree is now the Southern Cross”.
This description of a “tree” that “vanished in a cloud of smoke” sounds very much like a rocket launching, described without the benefit of specific words for such unknown technologies. And in reality, some sort of extra-terrestrial craft was essential in facilitating the arrival of Mulla Mulla to this planet, the first wife of Baiame.
Mulla Mulla means “life taken down by the hands” or “lifted down”… In the story of the creation… it appears from her name that she was lifted down alive from a high place, and so, instead of being made on earth, she came from the sky above, where Bhaiame dwells. There were eight children, four sons and four daughters.
There is no room to manoeuvre in interpreting this ancient narrative. The woman it depicts was not conceived on Earth. Moreover, her stay on Earth was brief and she soon returned to her off-world destination, which happens to be the same location to which Baiame returned.
Censorship and SubterfugeEvery quotation we have referred to above comes from Slaters’ contribution to this paper. Yet we have no doubt that this evidence remains in archive only because his name was listed after Goddard’s; Goddard was to present the first half of the talk with the main speaker, Slater, being the headline attraction. Aside from this paper, there is no public record of Slater’s work, despite the extraordinary amount of time, energy and intellect he spent on it – and on publicizing it. Slater’s work as President of the Australian Archaeological and Educational Research Society has apparently been wiped from history.
At this stage, our archive researcher Erik has exhausted every possible avenue trying to find further traces of Slater’s work. Showing how thoroughly all evidence of his work and life was censored from the public record, Erik searched for simple keywords such as “Slater”, “Australian archaeology”, “Australian archaeological association” and “Australian society for historical archaeology”. The results were as before: “zero returns”.
Frederic Slater was considered so much the expert on Original language and Egyptology that he was elected as President of the Australian Archaeological Society, but nothing he did or wrote has been preserved or found on record, until Richard Patterson acted on a hunch and rummaged inside an old unmarked filing cabinet at the
Brunswick Valley Historical Society in Mullumbimby NSW. In stark contrast, the entries when searching for the far less important Goddard are numerous. A foundation was named after him, there is a collection kept at the museum bearing his name, as are some of his papers. Although he was of exactly the same era, Goddard’s prolific presence in historical archives – as opposed to Slater’s complete void – is unprecedented and unprincipled.
As we stated, we believe it was only because of Goddard’s name, a person who was clearly deemed ‘acceptable’ by mainstream academics and officials, that Slater and Goddard’s paper remains uncensored from history. Given the chronology of media reporting and public acceptance of Slater’s Original/Egyptian theories, which we have already outlined, we are convinced the reason he was ultimately expunged from all government and academic records was because of this paper and the sensational claims of off-world destinations made within it. It was one thing for Slater to proclaim that there were civilisations in Australian before the ancient Egyptians arrived, but to specify that a being came to this planet from somewhere out in “the sky above” was clearly too challenging a theory for many to bear.
Not only did Slater reveal the Original peoples’ ”traditional sacred grounds with their ‘permanent records’, ideographs and venerated objects”, claim that the “higher teachings” were delivered “from on high”, and challenge notions of Australia’s pre-history, he also contradicted fundamental ideas of the entire planet’s history along with the ancestry of its present-day hominid population. No wonder he was silenced. Whether speaking seventy years ago or today, any academic who maintains that a variety of civilisations (including off-worlders) are part of the ancient Australian scenery and heritage, will invariably be attacked and ridiculed from all angles. From the evidence at hand, we can derive that Slater was effectively shut down and a culture of academic silence instilled around his findings – one that still remains today.
Another “Sea of Troubles”What has become increasingly obvious throughout these articles is that, in many respects, Slater’s final conclusions are very similar to ours. We have long maintained, based on our archaeological and Original exploration, that the creation of modern humanity involved off-world intervention on Australian land – just as the Dreaming stories tell. Our means varied widely from Slater’s, but we both arrived at the same ends. What we didn’t know until Erik’s last influx of news clippings was that Slater was 75 years ahead of us in his understanding.
Originally, it was our intention that this article detailed the official censorship and hostility Slater suffered for his work. The problem is that the intransigence to which Slater was subjected is an inconvenience we are also forced to deal with. Taken off the national air waves, often jammed when on overseas radio interviews, threatened without cause by government agencies both on the phone and by post, visited on many occasions by unmarked helicopters, and so it continues. It would seem that, just like Frederic Slater, we “have shipped a sea of troubles”.
The difference is, we are sitting inside an Original boat with Original guides at the helm, and this time the ship will not be so easily sunk.
SOURCE
