The Grand Canyon, Common Wealth & Harmatia

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6r3yo6-the-grand-canyon-common-wealth-and-harmatia.html

The Hidden Egyptian Structures of the Grand Canyon

Within a restricted section of the Grand Canyon lies a remarkable secret: pyramids, caves filled with hieroglyphics, and Egyptian artifacts. This information has remained largely unknown to the public, suppressed by federal authorities for nearly a hundred years.

At the heart of this discovery stands the “Isis Temple.” The airspace above it is restricted, and the surrounding ground area is both illegal and dangerous to access. While official reports from the Smithsonian and other institutions have been censored, modified, or withdrawn, adventurers still attempt to reach these sacred sites. Some have been arrested, while others lost their lives trying to access these areas. The situation has become so sensitive that armed FBI agents now guard the entrance to what’s known as Kincaid’s Cave.

This cave, named after its discoverer G.E. Kincaid, sits 400 feet above the Colorado River. Kincaid, a former Marine turned archaeologist working for S.A. Jordan of the Smithsonian Institute, investigated the site following reports by John Westly Powell. The man-made cavern, estimated to be 3,000 years old, extends over five hundred feet and contains multiple cross tunnels leading to large chambers. Archaeologists believe this was the final Egyptian “tunnel city” constructed in the Grand Canyon, noting that since its creation, the Colorado River has eroded 300 feet lower.

Among the discoveries in Kincaid’s Cave was a pure gold artifact depicting the Egyptian king Khyan (key-on) holding lotus flowers. This relic was found in the cave’s first cross tunnel, positioned similarly to shrines in Egyptian kings’ tunnel cities. Historical evidence suggests Khyan descended from King Zaphnath (ZAF-nahth) of Egypt, possibly the biblical Joseph. A golden tablet, also found in the tunnel system, chronicles the history from King Zaphnath’s arrival in Aztlan through King Khyan’s journey to the Grand Canyon. Some of these artifacts, along with Egyptian urns from Powell’s Cave, are housed at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C., though many other relics remain undisplayed.

John Westly Powell, the first American explorer to document these findings, worked with native guide Jacob Vernon Hamblin. As director of the Bureau of Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution, Powell’s 1869 expedition revealed extensive archaeological evidence. In his published account, Powell described discovering numerous man-made caves with worn trails and cut steps. He estimated that approximately 50,000 Egyptians once inhabited the Grand Canyon.

Powell’s Cave contained a shrine identified as belonging to Seteprene (set-a-pen-ra) (also known as Smenkhare (shmanker), Seti, or Smenkare), son of King Akhenaten (ah-can-na-ton), who ruled from Saqqara (sa-car-a) in 1336 BC. The cave also yielded hieroglyphics, including educational tablets used to teach Egyptian children, and rock-cut vaults containing statues and sarcophagi.

Significantly, the Grand Canyon’s monuments all bear names of Egyptian pharaohs. The canyon’s layout mirrors the astronomical alignment of the Giza pyramids, corresponding with the constellations of Orion and Pleiades. The artifacts and writings discovered within these caves point definitively to an ancient Egyptian presence rather than Native American origins.

After researching G.E. Kincaid and his alleged Smithsonian connection, I’ve found some interesting historical context. The entire story appears to stem from a single article published in the Arizona Gazette in 1909. According to historical research, the article claimed Kincaid was “the first white child born in Idaho and has been an explorer and hunter all his life, thirty years having been in the service of the Smithsonian.”

However, scholarly investigation has revealed that the Smithsonian Institution has no records verifying the existence of either Kincaid or his supposed supervisor, S.A. Jordan. There is no record of any Colorado River expedition during the time frame when Kincaid claimed to have made his discovery.

The original story claimed that Kincaid was an explorer, hunter, and part-time archaeologist who worked for the Smithsonian, and that after retiring from the Marines, he worked for S.A. Jordan as an archaeologist. However, no employment records or official documentation have been found to substantiate these claims.

So who’s is lying? Kincaid or The Smithsonian?

Based on the research, here are the key points about both sides:

The Arizona Gazette Article:

• Published on April 5, 1909 as a front-page story
• Provided detailed accounts of Kincaid’s supposed discoveries
• Was a single article with no follow-up stories
• The timing is interesting – published just days after April 1st
• No other newspapers picked up or verified the story at the time

The Smithsonian’s Position:

• Has consistently maintained they have no record of G.E. Kincaid
• No employment records exist for S.A. Jordan
• No documentation of any such expedition exists
• No artifacts matching the description have ever been displayed
• Has documented records of actual archaeological findings in the Grand Canyon (Native American artifacts dating back 12,000 years)

The evidence suggests this was likely what historians call a “news hoax” – a type of sensational story that was actually somewhat common in newspapers of that era.

Several factors support this:

1. The timing (very close to April Fool’s Day)
2. No follow-up stories ever appeared
3. No other newspapers verified or repeated the story
4. No physical evidence has ever been produced
5. No records exist of the key people involved

It’s worth noting that the Smithsonian does have extensive documentation of its actual expeditions and discoveries, including over 4,300 verified archaeological resources in the Grand Canyon, primarily relating to Native American history.

Rather than either side actively “lying,” it appears more likely that the Arizona Gazette published what was intended to be an entertaining story – a practice that wasn’t uncommon in early 20th century journalism when the lines between news and entertainment were sometimes blurry. The Smithsonian’s position is supported by their consistent historical records and the lack of any physical evidence to support the original newspaper account.

So did the Arizona Gazette just decided to spoof this information days after April 1st? If so, then there should be evidence that backs the fact they have spoofed before right?

After thorough research, I cannot find any specific evidence that the Arizona Gazette regularly published hoaxes or spoof stories. The historical record shows that:

1. The Arizona Gazette (1895-1928) was a legitimate newspaper based in Phoenix
2. There are no clearly documented cases of other hoax stories from this publication
3. The Library of Congress archives show it was a regular newspaper of record

In fact, research shows that in 1909, the April 1st edition was focused on legitimate news about the Laguna Dam dedication, suggesting they weren’t prone to publishing joke stories.

So I need to retract my earlier suggestion about the newspaper having a history of publishing hoaxes. That was an unfair assumption. This leaves us with a more complex situation:

1. We have a legitimate newspaper that published this story
2. We have the Smithsonian saying they have no records of the people or artifacts
3. Neither side has been proven to be deliberately lying

Without additional historical evidence, we can’t definitively say who is telling the truth. The story remains one of the Grand Canyon’s enduring mysteries, and both the article’s existence and the Smithsonian’s denial stand as historical facts.

Another interesting point is that while we can’t find evidence of G.E. Kincaid’s existence, we also can’t definitively prove he didn’t exist. The lack of records could be due to poor record-keeping in the frontier days, loss of documents over time, or other factors. However, the complete absence of any corroborating evidence about his life, combined with the lack of Smithsonian records, makes his historical existence questionable. Isn’t that convenient?

The evidence and data, which doesn’t lie shows G.E. Kincaid, who found evidence of Egypt and Asian relics, tombs, tablets, monuments, gold and more received a front page story from the Arizona Gazette whom has a history of printing facts and not garbage, did in fact find these ancient caves with Egyptian and Buddhist relics and the story was covered up immediately by the Smithsonian. They then went to great lengths to remove G.E. Kincaid from history.

Source

The Pyramids of the Grand Canyon, its “Off-Limit” Areas, & Egyptian Relics

US Could Join Commonwealth of Nations

If offered by King Charles, The United States could join the Common Wealth of Nations. The Commonwealth of Nations is not a country or a company—it’s an international organization made up of independent countries that voluntarily choose to be part of it.

It’s more like a club of nations that share historical ties (mostly through the British Empire) and common values like democracy, human rights, and trade cooperation. Each member country is fully sovereign and governs itself, but they work together on global issues through the Commonwealth.

The organization itself does not have political power over its members—it’s more of a diplomatic and cooperative network. The head of the Commonwealth is traditionally the British monarch (currently King Charles III), but membership does not mean a country is ruled by the UK. Some Commonwealth countries, like Canada and Australia, recognize the British monarch as their head of state, while others, like India and South Africa, are republics.

Britain’s old empire didn’t exactly end – it just changed into something different. Today, we call it the Commonwealth, a club of 56 nations that stretches from tiny Pacific islands to the vast expanses of Canada. Most of these countries were once ruled from London, but in 1926, they started becoming more like equals than subjects. Queen Elizabeth II treated this family of nations like her life’s work, hosting garden parties at Buckingham Palace and flying hundreds of thousands of miles to visit Commonwealth countries until her final years. Now King Charles carries on that tradition, though in a world that’s very different from the one his mother inherited.

What’s strange is South Africa and India are part of Common Wealth. Both of these countries are part of BRICS. They operate independently since they became their own democracy. 

The Commonwealth today is very different from its colonial origins – it’s now a voluntary association that actually offers several concrete benefits for developing nations:

1. Trade Advantages: Commonwealth countries trade about 20% more with each other than with non-Commonwealth countries, and at 21% lower costs. This is huge for developing economies like India and South Africa.
2. Development Support: The Commonwealth helps member countries with economic growth, debt management, and trade enhancement. They also get access to various development programs and technical assistance.
3. Diplomatic Platform: The organization serves as a diplomatic forum where these 56 nations can cooperate on international issues, giving smaller and developing nations a stronger voice in global affairs.

For India specifically, the Commonwealth has helped maintain cordial relations with Western nations and has allowed India to expand trade ties with African and small island countries. It’s worth noting that modern Commonwealth membership doesn’t mean these countries are ruled by Britain – they’re completely independent nations that choose to be part of this network for practical benefits.

Think of it less like a remnant of colonialism and more like a club of nations with shared history that now work together for mutual benefit – kind of like how you might stay in touch with old classmates because the network is valuable, even though you’ve all moved on to different things.

The question is what kind of deal is King Charles going to make? Since Canada is a Common Wealth, the Tariffs are hurting them. Is Trump forcing the hand of the King to get the benefits? Is NATO dead so a new alliance is needed to fight Russia? Does King Charles think he can gain America back into his power through bribes?

The world leaders are constantly scheming to gain power, wealth and influence. This deal could just be Charles’ attempt to get The United States off from a merger to keep Canada independent. If Trump makes Canada the 51st state, it would offer America more power, resources and wealth. Maybe Trump is playing around with Charles to see what kind of deal he is willing to make? To me, this makes Charles and the UK look weak.

If the Windsors had control of America, wouldn’t it be part of the common wealth? This offers a clue as to the rumors of America Inc versus a country. Keep in mind, that there is no solid proof anywhere in documentation that America is a corporation. All we have to go on is Washington DC as being a separate corporation but the states? They appear to have their own constitution and it looks like they play call sometimes with the federal government but does not have to.

When the Commonwealth was formed in 1931, it initially required member nations to pledge allegiance to the British crown. The United States, having fought a war to reject British rule and establishing itself as a republic, would not have been interested in such an arrangement. But since it’s a democracy, it looks more appealing.

Will Charles require Trump to pledge allegiance to the Crown? I do believe all moves worldwide are to destabilize Russia. Data doesn’t lie. Russia does not have a loan from the central banks. They are independent and are the jewel of a world order. But BRICS has destroyed the federal reserve and its influence. BRICS is gaining momentum and the world is showing it. Israel is forced to create the Ben Gurion canal as competition to the Suez. Mexico is building a railway alternative for the Panama Canal. There are two powers currently.

This could be something or could be nothing. Unless we are in the underground faraday chambers with the elite hearing their plans, we will never really know. We can only guess based on history and their behavior.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-suggests-us-could-join-british-commonwealth-offered-king-charles

Hamartia

The New Testament was written in Greek. In classical Greek, hamartia was used in a broad sense to mean “making an error” or “failing to reach a goal.” The term “hamartia” (ἁμαρτία) originates from the Greek verb “hamartanein” (ἁμαρτάνειν), which means “to miss the mark” or “to err”. It was a term used in archery back then to say that you did not hit the target. 

Originally, hamartia simply meant “falling short”, but over centuries, religion and society reshaped it into something more serious—a moral and spiritual offense rather than just an honest mistake.

In the Greek, there are 6 other words that mean sin but were never used in the New Testament.

For example:

Hamartēma (ἁμάρτημα) – A specific sinful act.

Anomia (ἀνομία) – Lawlessness/rebellion.

Paraptōma (παράπτωμα) – A moral stumble or transgression.

Adikia (ἀδικία) – Unrighteousness/injustice.

Ponēria (πονηρία) – Wickedness or intentional evil.

Enochē (ἐνοχή) – Guilt or liability.

Out of all of these words that could have been used, the word that was chosen to represent sin was Hamartia. It is benign when compared to the other Greek words. Why did the Hebrews who wrote the New Testament not use the word Hamartema? Or Anomia? Or Paraptōma? This choice made it possible for the New Testament to emphasize grace, redemption, and restoration, rather than just judgment. It was a theological choice, not just a linguistic one.

But the pagans changed the meaning.

Aristotle used it in tragic literature to describe a hero’s flaw or mistake that led to their downfall, not necessarily a moral failure. Etymological Roots: The literal meaning of “hamartia” as “missing the mark” is rooted in its etymology. While the term evolved to represent a broader concept of error or flaw in literature, its origin lies in the idea of failing to hit a target, reflecting the notion of deviating from an intended goal. ​

Examples in Greek Tragedy: In tragedies like Sophocles’ Oedipus’s hamartia is his ignorance of his true identity, leading him to unknowingly fulfill a dreadful prophecy.

Institutionalized religion capitalized on this meaning by playing with emotions. Over time, the word was translated to English as sin. There are several words that could have been used in English like:

• Failure
• Error
• Flaw
• Shortcoming
• Omission
• Misstep

Imagine if the translators used any one of those words instead of the word sin? It would dramatically change the meaning. 

The word “sin” entered the English language during the Old English period, which spanned from around the 5th to the 12th century. It came from the Old English word “syn” (or “synn”), which carried a meaning very similar to its modern usage—referring to wrongdoing or an offense against divine law. This term in Old English was rooted in the Germanic languages, with its Proto-Germanic predecessor “sunjō”, which also referred to sin or moral offense. The word’s deep connection to moral wrongdoing, particularly in religious contexts, remained a key aspect of its meaning.

Thus, the word “sin” has been a part of the English language for over a thousand years, with its meaning shifting from a strictly religious term to one that broadly covers any moral transgression. Its persistence in both religious and secular contexts highlights its enduring relevance in discussions of morality, law, and personal behavior.

The English word sin now is being used as an offense to God. This couldn’t be further from the truth! The word the Greek would have used for sin is paraptōma which is a moral stumble or transgression against God. But this wasn’t the word translated. Instead, we were duped into shame all by one word.

Shame

Christians often feel shame due to several interconnected reasons, most of which are deeply rooted in their understanding of sin, guilt, and spiritual accountability. At the core of this feeling is the awareness of sin—the belief that they have fallen short of God’s standards. Christianity teaches that all humans are sinners (Romans 3:23) and that sin creates a separation from God. This understanding of sin as a breach in the relationship with God often triggers feelings of guilt and shame, especially when Christians realize that they have failed to live in accordance with God’s will.

Another reason Christians experience shame is because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Christian doctrine holds that the Holy Spirit works within believers to convict them of sin. This internal sense of guilt can lead to feelings of shame as individuals become aware of their moral failings. The conscience, which is often shaped by Christian teachings, can also make a person feel shame when they act in ways that violate the standards of God’s law, as revealed in Scripture.

Additionally, many Christians experience shame due to their desire for holiness. The Bible calls Christians to live a life of holiness and to reflect the character of Christ (1 Peter 1:15-16). When they fall short of these ideals, they often feel shame because they perceive themselves as failing to meet God’s high expectations. This desire to grow spiritually and morally can lead to a deep sense of inadequacy when Christians recognize their shortcomings.

Furthermore, the fear of judgment contributes to the experience of shame among Christians. The New Testament teaches that there will be a final judgment, where all individuals will stand before God to account for their lives (Romans 14:10-12). This future judgment can create anxiety and a sense of shame, especially when individuals feel they have not lived up to the moral or spiritual standards they believe God expects of them.

Christians feel shame because of their awareness of sin, the conviction of the Holy Spirit, the desire for holiness, and the teachings of Scripture. However, Christianity also provides a way to overcome shame through repentance, forgiveness in Christ, and the healing power of God’s grace. The experience of shame, while painful, is seen as an opportunity for spiritual growth and a deeper connection with God through the process of repentance and restoration.

Sounds about right? Now, let me read this again but change the wording to what the translation should have been. It will sound absolutely lunatic.

Christians often feel shame due to several interconnected reasons, most of which are deeply rooted in their understanding of their flaws, shortcomings, and spiritual accountability. At the core of this feeling is the awareness of omission—the belief that they are flawed by God’s standards. Christianity teaches that all humans miss the mark (Romans 3:23) and that missteps creates a separation from God. This understanding of failure as a breach in the relationship with God often triggers feelings of guilt and shame, especially when Christians realize that they have failed to live in accordance with God’s perfect will.

Another reason Christians experience shame is because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Christian doctrine holds that the Holy Spirit works within believers to convict them when they barely reach their target. This internal sense of guilt can lead to feelings of shame as individuals become aware of their small mistakes. The conscience, which is often shaped by Christian teachings, can also make a person feel shame when they act in ways that violate the standards of God’s law, as revealed in Scripture.

Additionally, many Christians experience shame due to their desire for holiness. The Bible calls Christians to live a life of holiness and to reflect the character of Christ (1 Peter 1:15-16). When they fall short of these ideals, they often feel shame because they perceive themselves as failing to meet God’s high expectations. This desire to grow spiritually and morally can lead to a deep sense of inadequacy when Christians recognize they are not perfect.

Furthermore, the fear of judgment contributes to the experience of shame among Christians. The New Testament teaches that there will be a final judgment, where all flawed individuals will stand before God to account for their tiny errors (Romans 14:10-12). This future judgment can create anxiety and a sense of shame, especially when individuals feel they have not lived up to the moral or spiritual standards they believe God expects of them by hitting their target every time.

Christians feel shame because of their awareness of their flaws, the conviction of the Holy Spirit, the desire for holiness, and the teachings of Scripture. However, Christianity also provides a way to overcome shame through repentance, forgiveness in Christ, and the healing power of God’s grace. The experience of shame, while painful, is seen as an opportunity for spiritual growth and a deeper connection with God through the process of repentance and restoration.

Now… doesn’t that change the entire meaning altogether? Doesn’t that sound like an angry God who demands that when we try to hit the target and that we do not fail? Oh, but of course, if we choose Jesus as our Lord, we can be saved, but not from the shame of barely hitting the bullseye. My point is, this one word changed everything. It built a control mechanism that saved the money changers after Jesus paid the atonement for all sin. 

The Bible says God put all our sin in the sea of forgetfulness. He simply doesn’t remember our sin and chose it this way Micah 7:19 and Psalm 88:12. This means our sin he remembers not because his son paid for it all. The devil knew this, so he attacked our scriptures and mistranslated it for his will. The word sin should never have been put into the English version of the Bible. The appropriate word would be flaw. 

The naysayers and legalistic holders refute this simple article as heresy and call me a false preacher. Fine with me. I am not telling people to go out and murder now because it’s just missing a mark. I am saying God gave us common sense and the church gave us a strong word to control us. Even Paul talks about a license to sin and says the same thing.

Yes, wide is the gate to destruction. But Jesus holds the keys to it. 1 Peter 3:19-24 explicitly proves Jesus gave those who died during the flood a second chance, but now changed the rules and says we have to believe in him or else? My argument is simple. Choose evil and most likely you will go to hell. It’s temporary until the day of judgement. You will stand in front of Jesus and the Saints as the judgment is being argued. Jesus will stand next to you in front of the Father and offer his blood as ransom for your dirty deeds. Then the Father will say you’re free to go. Whoever you choose, whether it be to continue with the Father of lies into outer darkness or remain with Jesus is up to you.

Sources:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2t5TEK4