My investigation into viral claims about massive underground structures beneath the Khafre Pyramid: tracing sources, examining evidence, and providing the full English translation of the Italian press conference that started it all.
I tried accessing the dataset from umbra.space and contrary to what is in the transcript, yes there is an open data program, but I could not find any on the Giza plateau. Its possible to browse the bucket and dataset but only a few are named and other just have some sort of hash code that you cannot identify. Also in Umbras handbook on the technology at no point there is mention on subterrain data.
What Ive asked myself anyway is how the "transform light into sound" idea would work anyway given the satellite does not have a "sound sensor" for that. Apparently Umbra works in the X-Band "for high resolution surface mapping". For ground penetration you would need much lower frquencies. Also in general Doppler Shift Analysis in SAR is used for velocity mapping (e.g., moving targets) not subsurface scanning. So I would really like to see more on their methodology.
Thanks, Roster. I appreciate your comment. Yes, it's all rather odd, to say the least. I think many people would like to see a full breakdown of their methodology. If they are serious about their reported findings, they'll write them up in a paper for peer review. Let's see if that happens.
Thanks for writing this up, Jonathan. Glad to see a spirit of truth trying to ground things in reality. A great relief from the sometimes disconnected and fantastical nature that is often seen in the social media and viral internet in general.
Yes, I agree, there's a lot of ungrounded noise out there in the social media world. Curiously, I think it's that tendency in people that in part motivated the emergence of the scientific method, as a counter to all the "superstition" and here-say.
I look forward to seeing how this story develops over the coming months, and how much basis in reality it has. I'd love for it to be entirely true, as I've always been fascinated by alternative perspectives on ancient history, but I'm also somewhat more fascinated by Reality, as opposed to conjecture, delusion, and fantasy.
After reading the transcript there's very little to go by. A lot of bold claims and extraordinary statements. A lot of "I imagine it to be" "I think it implies" and more worringly "no further research is needed to proove. This is the research!"
I applaud his understanding that egyptology and archaeology are stymied by political and professional zealotry, fundamentalism, dogmatism and authoritarianism. But you still HAVE to deliver the empirical evidence.
What we have here reads like a diatribe from a 15 year old reddit sci-fi fan-fiction. He throws out that we should just focus on myth and that all these other sources are credible and that that somehow backs up his findings? Sorry but that isn't going to cut the mustard! There might be grains of truth to be found in myths from antiquity and scrolls, but those grains are like finding a needle in the sahara!
I'm not getting the sense that there's been an adherence to following genuine evidence. Why show only 10 scans? They must have taken many more! So they cherry picked the ones which more closely match what they want to show?
There's a lot of hyberbole and dopamine talk. A lot of promise. A lot of negating details on how the SARS tomography method works, nothing mentioned in detail about how the software interpolation was carried out, nothing mentioned on how the AI came to the same conclusions as the human interpretation.
We're all just supposed to take their word that their internal and proprietary method works and they state no further research is needed to confirm their findings??? That's not how science works!
Sure it's not about "the size of your desk" and independent research is required to cut through the mud of the blatant lies and blocks of "accepted" timeline narratives, BUT you still have to have your findings confirmed by other methods and by replication of your method.
After reading through what was a majority case of babble and hype and fairy tales in what was supposed to be an academic presentation I'm now VERY skeptical on any credibility emerging. This was frankly a disaster of a press conference, and no one pressed them on the research. It's all "as you will see tomorrow" "tomorrow we will show you"... Why not just deliver it here. You babbled mainly bullsh#t for an hour and threw in your "Monorail" to get everyone excited.
I'm not here to buy excitement and hopium. I'm here for evidence. Of which the claims need verifying by a source that I can trust far more than quakery and twaddle.
I'm honestly winddring if these are paid opposition by the globalists and the WEF and Hawass to try and damage the "older than 4500 years" theories.
What he's saying and how it's presented does more damage than good to credible research.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. And the claims made here are off the charts! I'm more inclined to believe proof in unicorns after reading the transcript than I am in any scientific method given cursory mention amongst the glut of hype and mythology. And that is a shame!
We need people genuinely able to bring ideas forward in credible ways. The scientific method works. Scientism doesn't. And this IS scientism!
Let's see the full method! Release all the scan data! Provide the software used! Show in full how AI was used and what human parameters were set out for the AI to follow!
I don't by lemons from car dealers and I definitely don't by oranges from psuedo-academics!
I tried accessing the dataset from umbra.space and contrary to what is in the transcript, yes there is an open data program, but I could not find any on the Giza plateau. Its possible to browse the bucket and dataset but only a few are named and other just have some sort of hash code that you cannot identify. Also in Umbras handbook on the technology at no point there is mention on subterrain data.
What Ive asked myself anyway is how the "transform light into sound" idea would work anyway given the satellite does not have a "sound sensor" for that. Apparently Umbra works in the X-Band "for high resolution surface mapping". For ground penetration you would need much lower frquencies. Also in general Doppler Shift Analysis in SAR is used for velocity mapping (e.g., moving targets) not subsurface scanning. So I would really like to see more on their methodology.
Thanks, Roster. I appreciate your comment. Yes, it's all rather odd, to say the least. I think many people would like to see a full breakdown of their methodology. If they are serious about their reported findings, they'll write them up in a paper for peer review. Let's see if that happens.
Thanks for writing this up, Jonathan. Glad to see a spirit of truth trying to ground things in reality. A great relief from the sometimes disconnected and fantastical nature that is often seen in the social media and viral internet in general.
Thanks for your kind sentiments.
Yes, I agree, there's a lot of ungrounded noise out there in the social media world. Curiously, I think it's that tendency in people that in part motivated the emergence of the scientific method, as a counter to all the "superstition" and here-say.
Congrats on an informative and unbiased article.
Thank you Malcolm. Much appreciated.
I look forward to seeing how this story develops over the coming months, and how much basis in reality it has. I'd love for it to be entirely true, as I've always been fascinated by alternative perspectives on ancient history, but I'm also somewhat more fascinated by Reality, as opposed to conjecture, delusion, and fantasy.
After reading the transcript there's very little to go by. A lot of bold claims and extraordinary statements. A lot of "I imagine it to be" "I think it implies" and more worringly "no further research is needed to proove. This is the research!"
I applaud his understanding that egyptology and archaeology are stymied by political and professional zealotry, fundamentalism, dogmatism and authoritarianism. But you still HAVE to deliver the empirical evidence.
What we have here reads like a diatribe from a 15 year old reddit sci-fi fan-fiction. He throws out that we should just focus on myth and that all these other sources are credible and that that somehow backs up his findings? Sorry but that isn't going to cut the mustard! There might be grains of truth to be found in myths from antiquity and scrolls, but those grains are like finding a needle in the sahara!
I'm not getting the sense that there's been an adherence to following genuine evidence. Why show only 10 scans? They must have taken many more! So they cherry picked the ones which more closely match what they want to show?
There's a lot of hyberbole and dopamine talk. A lot of promise. A lot of negating details on how the SARS tomography method works, nothing mentioned in detail about how the software interpolation was carried out, nothing mentioned on how the AI came to the same conclusions as the human interpretation.
We're all just supposed to take their word that their internal and proprietary method works and they state no further research is needed to confirm their findings??? That's not how science works!
Sure it's not about "the size of your desk" and independent research is required to cut through the mud of the blatant lies and blocks of "accepted" timeline narratives, BUT you still have to have your findings confirmed by other methods and by replication of your method.
After reading through what was a majority case of babble and hype and fairy tales in what was supposed to be an academic presentation I'm now VERY skeptical on any credibility emerging. This was frankly a disaster of a press conference, and no one pressed them on the research. It's all "as you will see tomorrow" "tomorrow we will show you"... Why not just deliver it here. You babbled mainly bullsh#t for an hour and threw in your "Monorail" to get everyone excited.
I'm not here to buy excitement and hopium. I'm here for evidence. Of which the claims need verifying by a source that I can trust far more than quakery and twaddle.
I'm honestly winddring if these are paid opposition by the globalists and the WEF and Hawass to try and damage the "older than 4500 years" theories.
What he's saying and how it's presented does more damage than good to credible research.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. And the claims made here are off the charts! I'm more inclined to believe proof in unicorns after reading the transcript than I am in any scientific method given cursory mention amongst the glut of hype and mythology. And that is a shame!
We need people genuinely able to bring ideas forward in credible ways. The scientific method works. Scientism doesn't. And this IS scientism!
Let's see the full method! Release all the scan data! Provide the software used! Show in full how AI was used and what human parameters were set out for the AI to follow!
I don't by lemons from car dealers and I definitely don't by oranges from psuedo-academics!