Here’s a point that I’m bringing forward from the comments section, because it seems to be a common point of contention:
There’s no doubt that Tompkins was certainly “out there”. But believing in his theories (which I don’t) is not a prerequisite for believing that Sanborn referenced his books (which I do). Now, back to the previously scheduled program…
It is a well known fact that the strata and the pond placed in the courtyard by Sanborn form a nearly perfect line with the Kryptos sculpture itself. Furthermore, according to notes taken by Elonka Dunin, Sanborn has confirmed that “the front-entrance pieces were supposed to parallel something in the courtyard, but [he] was surprised and a bit disappointed when it appeared that they did not.” From overhead imagery, it is easily confirmed that the front-entrance pieces are nearly parallel with the line formed by the courtyard pieces and the Kryptos sculpture. So one might wonder why Sanborn went to the trouble of forming these lines. We are clearly supposed to take notice, else why form the parallels? What do the lines indicate? Where are they pointing?
I used the linear mensuration feature of Google Earth to find out. I started by drawing a line from the center of the Kryptos sculpture, through the (approximate) center of the two courtyard strata and along the straight edge of the courtyard pool. Then I extended the line out across the Washington DC area. To see the surprising result, as well as its relevance to the works of Peter Tompkins, check out my supplemental report or my APEX Theory website.
The number of correspondences between peripheral elements of Kryptos and the works of Peter Tompkins are now overwhelming. This simple thesis explains numerous peripheral elements of Kryptos (e.g. limestone rock, polished red granite strata, whirlpool, green blob, “APEX”, “RQ”, “SOS”, alignment of sculpture with courtyard strata and pool).
It simply defies belief that these are all mere coincidences.