Dr. Philippo Biondi has announced on an over-long episode of the Matt Beall podcast (shorter bit here also) that instead of publishing the full methodology and results of his work on the alleged shafts and othersuch nonsense under the Khafre pyramid, he is now messing about looking elsewhere. He says he is "almost certain he has found a second SPHINX beneath the Giza Plateau" and talks about it at some length. He's done some dubious carto-geographical jiggery-pokery to find a location - right under a "small mountain that we arrre obserjving" sticking up beyond the Western Cemetery attached to the Great Pyramid.
And then he produces some SAR scam-scans to show there are voids in it shafts coming down from the top - "just like the Sphinx" (if you believe Edward Caycee). And the plot he shows have the same pixellated rainbow splodges on it that the others havce before they are AI-manipulated to make the images that excite his slackjaw supporters.

Jason Colovito has written about where the idea came from ('
Filippo Biondi Claims to Have Found Second Sphinx Under Giza', 3/26/2026). As he says, Biondi is obviously drawing on "alternative archaeology" books to make his claims. The claim is not ancient, it's from 1997. Their source appears to be tour guide Bassam el-Shammaa, whose 1997 book
Egypt: Future of the Past claimed that a second sphinx stood on the Giza Plateau. I do not have this book, and Colovito neglects to say whether the tour-guide pinpointed where the "second sphinx" should be looked for.
I will leave afficionados of whackery the pleasure of working out towards which sites this and the other side of the Atlantic this postulated monument is looking towards (but it ain't the "constellation Leo").
I'd just urge first though looking(as all archaeologists do) at the CONTEXT and the actual evidence on the site, but also seeing what we have on the ground now is part of a dynamic system, which includes taking into account the work of others. If we take a look at the satellite photos (nota bene, Mr Biondi's measurements were taken from satellite data too) we see this "small mountain we are keeping under observation" has a very characteristic shape. It has the shape of an excavation dump, most likely made from tipping the excavated material from wagons running on rails, which is why it is long, parallel0-sides and rises up in that characteristic way. There are other ones south of it. Mr Biondi, PUBLISH the Khafre shaft data, stop chasing chimeras, stop spouting off your attention-seeking, narcissistic, spurious-sensationalist stories without first THOROUGHLY checking them. This is pathetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep it civil and clean. Don't attack other posters. No anonymous contributors please (and remember the comments are for making a contribution to the discussion) terms as here: [ https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/12/note-to-comment-posters.html ]
Thanks