Nemon schrieb:Handelt es sich wirklich um ein Grabdenkmal oder war seine Funktion ganz anders? Und wie war es möglich, es in einer Zeit zu bauen, als noch nicht einmal das Rad erfunden war?
Ab dem Schrott hab ich den Klappentext dann nicht weitergelesen.
Dr. Zahi HawassQuelle: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0njouvjbw8wq2SedcW78ZtsF4V11kQS8zDMNqyp8FhDkTaePP3WBbe8zyWjnPdqPBl&id=100044332304573
1 Tag ·
A Statement by Zahy Hawass
on the fake news on Kafre pyramid
I would like to make a statement regarding the news that was published all over the world by a group of amateurs. The news was under the pyramid of Khafre at Giza they found a platform topped with pillars.
All this information is completely wrong and has absolutely no scientific basis. In addition, the ministry of tourism and antiquity did not give permission to any individuals or institutions to work inside or outside the second pyramid. In addition, the claim that a radar was used inside the pyramid is false.
These people who announced this wrong information, they used techniques that are not approved nor validated , the details announced would never have been seen by using this technique.
Zahi Hawass.
Okay. Ich hab Sackkarre gerade deutlich falsch gelesen. So deutlich, dass ich nicht weiß, ob man das hier so schreiben kann. Ich hab jetzt auf jeden Fall ein Bild vor Augen, in dem die diese Steine, mit meterlangen Zöpfchen, die unter ihrem Lendenschurz entspringen, am Nilufer entlangziehen.cpt_void schrieb:Moment, da ist eindeutig eine Sackkarre abgebildet. Jetzt wissen wir endlich
a) wie die Ägypter die Steine für die Pyramiden transportiert haben und
b) warum es Sakkara heißt - dahin haben sie die Sackophage mit den Sackkarren hintransportiert
KernaussagenQuelle: NoteGPT
Neuartige Entdeckung: In der letzten Woche wurde von einer angeblich neuen archäologischen Entdeckung berichtet, dass sich unter der Pyramide von Kafre massive, künstliche Strukturen befinden, die das Potenzial haben, die geschichtliche Sichtweise auf die alte Architektur zu revolutionieren.
Kritische Einschätzung: Der Sprecher äußert anfängliche Skepsis und bezeichnet die Behauptungen über große, unterirdische Strukturen als „unmöglich“ und „verrückt“. Dies weckt jedoch auch das Interesse, die zugrunde liegende Wissenschaft besser zu verstehen.
Synthetische Aperturradar-Dopplertomographie: Die Technologie, die für diese Entdeckung verwendet wird, nennt sich synthetische Aperturradar-Dopplertomographie (SAR-Doppler), eine echte, wenn auch seltene Methode, um unterirdische Strukturen zu erkennen.
Technologische Limitationen: Obwohl die Technologie für ihre Fähigkeit zur Oberflächen- und Nahuntergrundabbildung bekannt ist, sind ihre Möglichkeiten zur Tiefenmessung in hartem Gestein wie Kalkstein begrenzt.
Unklare Deutung: Die Wissenschaftler, die diese Daten interpretieren, müssen eine klare Konsequenz ziehen, wie sie von unklaren Daten zu der Behauptung gelangen, dass acht riesige Zylinder mit Treppen in den Untergrund führen.
Wichtige Schlussfolgerungen
Wissenschaftliche Methode: Der Sprecher fordert eine detaillierte Transparenz hinsichtlich der Software und Algorithmen, die zur Datenumwandlung verwendet werden. Dies ist entscheidend für die Akzeptanz innerhalb der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft.
Bedarf an Vergleichsstudien: Um die Glaubwürdigkeit der Entdeckung zu erhöhen, sollten mindestens vergleichende Studien durchgeführt werden, die ähnliche geologische Formationen mit und ohne bekannte archäologische Strukturen betrachten.
Mangel an Beweisen: Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass es bereits frühere Scans (wie die Muon-Scans in den 1960ern) gab, die keine solchen Strukturen entdeckt haben. Dies wirft Fragen hinsichtlich der Richtigkeit der aktuellen Studie auf.
Skepsis gegenüber dem Standort: Der Standort der behaupteten Entdeckungen macht keinen hydrologischen, geologischen oder historischen Sinn, was die Gültigkeit der Interpretation weiter untergräbt.
Forderung nach Klarheit: Der Sprecher betont, dass außergewöhnliche Behauptungen außergewöhnliche Beweise erfordern, und ruft zur Aufklärung auf, um das Vertrauen in die Ergebnisse zu stärken und alle Zweifel auszuräumen.
Wichtige Details
Technische Aspekte: Die synthetische Aperturradar-Dopplertomographie misst Mikrobewegungen an der Oberfläche, um Modelle unterirdischer Hohlräume zu entwickeln. Diese Technik hat das Potenzial, versteckte Merkmale zu erkennen, jedoch beschränkt sie sich in der Tiefe auf etwa einen Meter in hartem Gestein.
Kritik an Dateninterpretation: Der Sprecher äußert Bedenken hinsichtlich der Methodik der Fallstudien, die zur Identifizierung der angeblichen Zylinder und Strukturen führten. Die Geduld und die Logik hinter diesen Schlussfolgerungen erscheinen fragwürdig.
Hydraulische und geologische Bedenken: Viele der Strukturen, die als unterirdisch beschrieben werden, befinden sich unterhalb des Wasserspiegels, was technische und praktische Probleme aufwirft. Es wird argumentiert, dass es meisten Sinn machen würde, solche Strukturen weiter entfernt von einem aktiven Fluss zu bauen.
Vergleich mit früheren Studien: Der Sprecher fragt, warum frühere Studien keine Hinweise auf die behaupteten Strukturen gefunden haben und warum die aktuellen Wissenschaftler nicht auf ähnliche, bereits identifizierte Hohlräume Bezug nehmen können.
Offene Fragen an die Forscher: Der Sprecher formuliert spezifische Fragen zur Geologie unter der Pyramide, zur Bestätigung, dass die Merkmale, die sie sehen, nicht einfach natürliche Erosion oder geologische Formationen sind, und zur wirklichen Natur der Daten, die abgeschlossen wurden.
Schlussfolgerung und Rückblick: Abschließend wird erklärt, dass eine Bewertung der Technologie und ihrer Anwendung die Grenzen der gegenwärtigen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis in den Vordergrund rückt. Dies geschieht in der Hoffnung, dass die Forscher die notwendigen Beweise und Erklärungen bereitstellen, um die Ängste und Skepsis der wissenschaftlichen und allgemeinen Öffentlichkeit anzugehen.
Dieser ausführliche Überblick über den Inhalt des Videos beleuchtet die zugrunde liegende Diskussion um neue archäologische Technologien und die daraus hervorgehenden Behauptungen, während er die wissenschaftliche Integrität und die Aufforderung zur Transparenz unterstreicht.
00:08
[Music] hello everybody and welcome to Ancient Architects please subscribe to the channel for regular content on ancient architecture as well as all of the latest news from the world of archaeology archaeological discoveries really can be exciting and one so-called new discovery has taken the world by storm that there are huge deep man-made structures below the pyramid of Caffrey i have to be honest and say my first thought was this is absolute rubbish the claims are impossible they're crazy they defy sense and logic
00:50
that there are five unopened man-made structures inside the cafe pyramid that look like the great pyramids king's chamber and relieving chamber arrangement but then it gets even more unbelievable with claims there are eight man-made vertically aligned cylinder-like structures extending through the limestone bedrock for a whopping 648 m each with its own winding stairway and culminating in two large cubic structures with sides measuring around 80 m to put that into perspective the Empire State Building is 443 m in height
01:31
so the so-called man-made cylinders are much much larger and the cubic structures are nearly twice as tall as the Statue of Liberty with everything we know about history ancient architecture and engineering my brain just instantly calls on this entire discovery but of course that's not a good argument against it it's unscientific and it was merely my initial opinion so this past week before jumping into making a video I've tried my best to understand firstly the science try to understand if the method is credible and
02:10
also if the interpretations are valid in this video I'll walk you through my thinking and I'll also list a number of questions and concerns that I'd like to see resolved and answered in the forthcoming press conference and associated scientific paper so let's start with the science the science behind the discovery is apparently called synthetic aperture radar Doppler tomography or S for short a technology that is of course very real but rarely used to detect anything below ground that is not its primary
02:48
use and this is a very very complicated subject so I'll try and simplify everything the best I can synthetic aperture radar is a form of radar that is used to create 2D and 3D images of objects and landscapes the radar equipment is carried aboard planes and satellites an instrument sends out pulses of energy and then records the amount of that energy reflected back after it interacts with targets on Earth from the data received you can detect things unseen with a naked eye or traditional methods of image capture you
03:28
get back data showing energy intensity and from this it can be calibrated and incredibly detailed pictures can be obtained it's a real scientific technique and it is used in archaeology but can it see through soil and rock well the technology has been used to find subsurface features but mainly in soil and always very shallow targets it can't penetrate deep into the bedrock for example one user on X formerly Twitter with the handle the Daddy Shark said the following quote S operates via microwave reflections it
04:11
measures surface features not deep underground chambers vibration-based imaging from orbit is science fiction there's no realistic way to reconstruct kilometers deep structures from pixel motion analysis alone even in S the most advanced S vibration technique only detects large scale surface shifts it's used for monitoring earthquakes not mapping underground cities end quote he then provides advanced mathematics to show that microwave reflections can only penetrate about 1 meter of limestone bedrock but according to researcher Manu
04:55
safe who has also been researching the science the principles behind the science of the new study should not be dismissed because the scientists are not claiming the radar waves are penetrating 2 km of bedrock they're looking at microotions detected at the surface level so excuse the jargon they are modeling subsurface harmonically resonating voids that are projected on the surface above the voids are detected as surface microotions the satellite only detects this motion at the surface not the resonating void
05:35
itself from these surface motions the location and depth of any void can then be reconstructed according to Manu safe the scientific method in theory does work although at this stage he and others are unsure exactly how to reconstruct the data because the software to calibrate these surface motions to turn them into 2D and then 3D depth profiles to highlight any voids is the brainchild of one of the scientists involved in the project Filippo Beyond right now we're taking his word that his software works is his software
06:17
and his algorithm we have to accept so why should we accept it that is a fair question and I would want to see comparative studies where the S microotion technique can see known structures within the bedrock we need a comparison well to be fair to Beyond on his website harmonicsar.com he does show a comparative study where his method was used on the Grand Saso Mountain in Italy to accurately locate known tunnels and also the Grand Saso physics lab and these are located 1.4 km below ground i've left links in the description below
07:02
i can't give any personal comment or critique on any of the science because it's well out of my area of expertise so at this stage I would like Beyond to do two things and no not for me but for everyone that's interested in the pyramids of Egypt number one please release full details of all the stages taken to turn open access S data into this 3D diagram your software is the key to all of this and to gain acceptance by the wider scientific and archaeological community there needs to be complete
07:41
transparency and the findings do need to be independently verified by scientists unaffiliated with the Cafrey S project number two can we please see more comparative studies i would like to see the scan results of another patch of limestone bedrock in northern Egypt maybe close to Giza ideally the same geological formation but without any known archaeology above ground this way we can see how a standard patch of limestone bedrock looks using your method the more comparative studies the better because it will instill trust in your
08:23
work i'd like to see every stage the raw data the calibrated data the 3D modeling and the interpretation with full transparency as to how the method actually works so that's the science and if all the above can be done well I can accept it scientific breakthroughs are made all the time and I am absolutely in no position to judge what can be done and what can't be done like I said it's way out of my every year of expertise from this point on in good faith I'll accept that these diagrams this data is what the team got back but
09:05
my next concerns and questions are all regarding the interpretations of the data how do you go from this to this and also this to this what concerns me most of all with this study is that a scientist gets some fuzzy data from his S microotion method and somehow ends up with eight giant man-made cylinders with spiral stairways taller than the Empire State Building and leading to cube-like structures twice as big as the Statue of Liberty a substantial part of these structures would be below the water table and no
09:46
not just today not just in dynastic history in pre-dynastic history but ever since the river Nile has been an active river and certainly all the way through the African humid period humans do build cylinder structures going into the bedrock but this is to reach the groundwater they're called wells but they don't carry on for hundreds more meters it doesn't make any sense why would anyone modern-day people ancient Egyptians mythical Atlantanss or a lost civilization build a lost city that was partly underwater in what has to be said
10:28
is very fractured faulted costic and very poor quality limestone bedrock why build a lost city this close to the Nile River you'd build it a few kilometers into the desert if you were clever enough to build this city you wouldn't be stupid enough to put it next to a river the team are talking about a lost city and a lost hall of records being discovered and that the structures are all man-made but this makes no logical sense it doesn't make sense hydraologically because a substantial part of the
11:05
structures are underwater it doesn't make sense geologically because it is a terrible place to build a lost city in badly weathered limestone and right next to the Nile River it also does not make sense historically because it doesn't fit into any historical context and it also doesn't make any engineering sense as well humans being in the main practical people as seen by the archeological discoveries from every era of history these structures being so enormous and so timeconuming to make and so pointless having a large amount
11:44
underwater really defy logic and where did all the excavated rock and rubble go we're looking at rock with a volume of say 10 or more empire state buildings excavated from the earth so where is this rock because it wasn't used to build the pyramids of Egypt because we do know exactly where the quaries were i therefore believe wholeheartedly that the interpretation is completely wrong i can't see a scenario where it makes realistic sense that is my opinion for now again I will reiterate I'm no expert but to me this leaves only two
12:26
ways to interpret the data we're either looking at noise or artifacts in the calibrated scan data or we're looking at natural geological features to be able to so quickly come out with the interpretation that we're looking at man-made superructures going down for hundreds of meters that being the expert opinion of scientists involved in the study means they must have taken every other option every other interpretation into account so I now have some more questions for the team which I'm saying publicly in a
13:04
video for the record and for transparency with my viewers number one if you've detected man-made structures going down for hundreds of meters into the bedrock you must have a very clear and detailed understanding of the geology specifically directly beneath the cafrey pyramid because you're able to rule out a natural explanation i know and so do many others that the Giza limestone is riddled with faults and fissures at Giza there are vast cave networks all of which are natural as seen leading from the tomb of the birds
13:42
and these may well extend all the way to the cafrey pyramid there are also ironri mineralized veins running next to and beneath the cafrey pyramid there are multiple bedding planes from numerous limestone beds and these beds have lateral changes in thickness and because of groundwater movement I'm sure they've all undergone some weathering so can the scientists please explain in detail why their so-called man-made features can't be natural voids like caves faults and fissures and also weathered bedding planes all such
14:20
features can appear regular and also linear in shape and size as they follow natural zones of weakness relatively straight tectonic faults and fissures and relatively straight bedding planes number two how come you've been unable to find the bleon chamber in your calibrated data and also the lower chamber the horizontal passageway and the two descending passages if you have found them can we see how they appear in the raw data we need to see the known structures in the raw data as an absolute minimum on your Facebook page you say
14:59
the reason is because the horizontal passage in the Belleone chamber are both embedded in a limestone slab and that this absorbs the signal but they're not in a limestone slab whatever that means they're just cut into the natural limestone bedrock number three the cafe pyramid was muon scanned in the 1960s this central cone region was scanned and so why doesn't this chamber and its associated relieving chambers appear in the old data the scientists in the 1960s found absolutely nothing and they did ensure
15:37
there were strict and accurate controls in their experiment they did ensure the Muan scan was effective if you found chambers they should have appeared in the Muan scans number four okay so if we say the scans from the 1960s were in fact wrong well I'm aware the CF pyramid was or is being scanned again this time by the Scan Pyramids project the team who successfully identified two voids in the Great Pyramid and their technique has been ground trouthed as well as we've now seen inside the northace
16:15
corridor so my question is will you be talking to scan pyramids to compare data sets number five ground penetrating radar took place in the 1970s from inside the Belleone chamber scientists were looking beneath the pyramid the acoustic soundings did discover two voids both likely natural one being 21 m below ground and the other one being 33 the data was published and is available so where are these specific voids in your data if you can claim to see for hundreds of meters below the pyramid where are these two relatively
16:59
shallow cavities that were found in the 1970s furthermore can you also explain why the team in the 1970s did not see any hint of a giant cylinder or winding walkway number six we know there are multiple voids and cavities in all the pyramids of Egypt including the Great Pyramid the core structure of pyramids is not perfectly built the core limestone is not beautifully cut and placed with millimeter precision and a lot of the stone can be described as rubble and there are also sandfield voids and also empty
17:38
voids so I want to ask these researchers how they differentiated constructional voids within the coremasonry from the so-called unopen built chambers they've apparently discovered the questions and concerns I've outlined in this video I believe are all absolutely fair and valid to make extraordinary bold claims on the most iconic archaeological site in the world does require extraordinary evidence the team need to silence the doubters including me and you don't do that by banning comments on your
18:16
Facebook page after I listed these exact same questions on your posts at the weekend because trust me nobody wants this to be true more than me if the claims made are real they would be earthshattering the greatest archaeological discovery in the history of mankind but right now we need absolute transparency in the methods used both regarding how the software actually works and also how you interpreted the data because now the team are also scanning the entire Giza plateau and they put this diagram into their press
18:54
release apparently we're looking at a south to north view of Giza and look all of these features follow the natural sloping bedding planes of the limestone at Giza a limestone that's been heavily weathered for millions of years and is now filled with caves fissures and faults this new picture could well be geology and looking at these scans of Giza and we do see a lot of vertical features and to me these clearly look like noise or artifacts of the scan in my opinion these are features and this is noise so could the giant
19:36
cylinders below the cafe pyramid just be a zoomed-in view of this vertical noise i don't know at this point I have to give my honest opinion and say that yes okay maybe the science is valid i'm in no place to question that but regarding the interpretation I think we could well be looking at No I think we can only be looking at noise or nature thank you very much for watching this episode of Ancient Architects if you enjoyed the video please subscribe to the channel please like the video and please leave a comment below thank you
20:16
very much
Ist AI.. nervt unheimlich solchen Stimmen zuzuhören.
Ja, ist für mich auch denkbar. Ich mein nicht dass die Leute sowas nicht hätten bauen können...die haben einiges gebaut was für viele unmöglich scheint.wing7 schrieb:Das kann doch nur ein Messfehler sein.
Na ja, das ist leicht übertrieben. Klingt so, als wenn man bei einem Spaziergang im Herbst unweigerlich irgendwelche Pilze findet ;)
Da wurden keine Messungen in situ an der Pyramide durchgeführt. Dafür wären diese Leute nie zugelassen worden, siehe auch Zahi Hawass weiter oben. Die Methode ist auch eine Ferndiagnose mit Satellitendaten.
After the 2011 revolution, Hawass retired from public office to work independently as an archaeologist. He currently oversees excavations in Saqqara and Luxor, the Scan Pyramids project, and is about to begin work in the never-before-excavated Valley of the Marks. Recently, he has published a novel in French dramatizing the life of Khufu and finished an opera about the life of Tutankhamun that will premiere in 2024. In the rare moments when he is not working, Hawass enjoys smoking a cigar and watching old cowboy movies.Quelle: https://www.hawasszahi.com/bio
Du hast überhaupt keine Bewertungsgrundlage und musst dich auf berufene Experten verlassen. Die bisherige vernichtende Kritik ist gültig. Eine "vernünftigere" Prüfung erübrigt sich, weil die gesamte These Unfug ist und nicht richtig aufgestellt wurde. Was aus dem Messverfahren an sich vielleicht mal wird, ist eine andere Sache.
Also mal sehen... vielleicht wird das nochmal vernünftig geprüft.
Na so war das auch nicht gemeint.
Es geht hier nicht um "an etwas glauben", sondern um Fakten. Meinung ist eine andere Sache. Du kannst die Meinung haben, dass etwas faktisch als Bullshit Erwiesenes gut ist. Aber wen interessieren Meinungen, wenn sie nicht qualifiziert oder begründet sind. Geht ja nicht gegen dich, ist halt grundsätzlich so.
Ich muss nicht der gleichen Meinung sein.
Wenn du dich auf etwas beziehen würdest, das hier im Thread steht...
Darum ging es mir.
Also ist es generell wohl fraglich was da entdeckt wurde..oder eben nicht.
Du solltest weniger iwas wo reinlesen was da nicht steht. Spar dir den Atem und die Zeit.
Seit wann das denn? Diese ägyptische Ausgabe von Indiana Jones nutzt auch jede Gelegenheit, um im Net seine Hüte zu verkaufen. Man nimmt an, dass sogar die Live Übertragung einer angeblich noch unentdeckten Kammer mit ihm als Hauptakteur entweder zeitversetzt übertragen wurde oder ein kompletter Fake war. Niemand ist so umstritten wie Hawass:
Du warst es, die ausdrücklich in Betracht gezogen hat, dass die angenommen Strukturen hätten gebaut werden können:
Da hast du halt kühne Statements rausgehauen. Und da wir hier in Wissenschaft sind und nicht in irgend einem "Was geht dir gerade durch den Kopf" Thread, habe ich mir erlaubt, kritisch darauf einzugehen. Kein Grund für dich, eingeschnappt zu sein, sondern ein ganz normaler Vorgang, wie ich meine. :peace:
Ja, aber was genau machst du daraus in Bezug auf das von mir zitierte Statement?
None of the structures are visible beyond a possible faint edge, and the road tunnels are entirely missing. It seems like a case of technological pareidolia.=== === ===
It reminds me of Georesonance, which had a similarly nonsensical claim about looking under things using satellite data. That looked like an investment scam.
Keines der Bauwerke ist über einen möglichen schwachen Rand hinaus sichtbar, und die Straßentunnel fehlen völlig. Es scheint ein Fall von technologischer Pareidolie zu sein.Deutsch von DeepL
Es erinnert mich an Georesonance, das eine ähnlich unsinnige Behauptung aufstellte, man könne mit Hilfe von Satellitendaten unter Dinge schauen. Das sah aus wie ein Investitionsbetrug.
Das ist aber eine verdeckte Unterstellung deinerseits. Fremdwörter machen Hawass nicht seriöser. Von ehemaligen Kollegen wird er als Choleriker mit Profilneurose beschrieben. Um auch mal Chatgpt zu bemühen:
Zahi Hawass, der bekannte Ägyptologe, ist eine umstrittene Figur. Er hat sowohl Bewunderung für seine Beiträge zur Ägyptologie als auch Kritik für seine Methoden und Ansichten erhalten. Einige Kontroversen betreffen seine aggressive Haltung gegenüber anderen Forschern und seine oft polarisierenden Aussagen über die ägyptische Geschichte und Kultur. Zudem gab es Diskussionen über seine Rolle im Umgang mit antiken Artefakten und die Rückgabe von Kulturgütern, die während der Kolonialzeit nach Europa gebracht wurden.
