Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt:

Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs

The landscape of the ancient world is dotted with fabulous structures that are
breathtaking in their complexity. The Egyptians and Mayans had their pyramids and temples.
The Hindus crafted elaborate temples throughout Asia. The Greeks built the Parthenon, and
the Babylonians constructed the Jupiter Temple and the fabled Hanging Gardens. The
Romans made their mark all over their world, with engineering geniuses guiding the
construction of their famous roads, the Coliseum, and numerous temples and viaducts, while
Roman sculptors guided their chisels over marble and alabaster, giving it physical presence
and beauty.
With the exception of artifacts such as the mysterious Antikythera Mechanism, an
astronomical computer found by fishermen on the sea floor near the island of Antikythera in
1901, the development of technology in the ancient world seems to have clear origins and is
fairly well understood.
Figure 1. Entrance to the Serapeum
Going back yet further in time, a deeper mystery lies in the question of how the ancient
Egyptian civilization could have flourished for three thousand years without improving the
tools used to quarry and shape stone to near perfection. Since 1984, when Analog magazine
published my article “Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?” controversy on this subject
has persisted. The article proposed that the ancient Egyptians were more advanced than
previously believed and that they used advanced tools and methods to cut granite, diorite, and
other difficult-to-work stone. It does not seem credible that brilliant architects and engineers
would continue to use stone tools and copper chisels for three millennia.
The most stunning and convincing artifacts that clearly contradict theories about how hard
igneous rock was quarried and worked in prehistory are the incredible granite and basalt
boxes in the rock tunnels of the Serapeum at Saqqara. Within these mysterious tunnels that
were carved out of the limestone bedrock are over 20 huge granite boxes. These 70 ton boxes
with their 20 ton lids were quarried at Aswan over 500 miles away and installed in arched
crypts recessed into the walls of the labyrinth of underground tunnels. All of the boxes were
finished on the inside and the bottom side of the lid, but not all were finished on the outside. It
appears that work stopped suddenly in the Serapeum, for there were boxes in several stages of
completion: boxes with lids, boxes that had yet to have the lids placed on them, and the rough
box and lid near the entrance. The floor of each crypt was several feet lower than the tunnel
floor. Iron railings were installed to prevent visitors from falling.
In 1995 I inspected the inside and outside surfaces of two boxes in the Serapeum with a 6-
inch precision straight edge that was accurate to .0002 inch.
In one of the crypts there is a granite box with a broken corner, and this box is accessible by
means of steps down to the lower floor. The outside of the box appears to be roughly finished,
but the glint of a high polish on the inside surfaces beckoned me to climb inside. Running my
hand along the surface of the granite reminded me of the thousands of times I have run my
hand along a granite surface plate when I was working as a machinist and later as a tool and
die maker. The feel of the stone was no different, though I was not sure of its flatness or
accuracy. To check my impression, I placed the edge of my precision-ground parallel against
the surface—and I saw that it was dead flat. There was no light showing through the interface
of the steel and the stone, as there would be if the surface was concave, and the steel did not
rock back and forth, as it would if the surface was convex. To put it mildly, I was astounded. I
did not expect to find such exactitude, because this order of precision is not necessary for the
sarcophagus of a bull—or any other animal or human.
I slid the parallel along the surface both horizontally and vertically, and there was no
deviation from a true, flat surface. The flatness was similar to precision-ground surface plates
that are used in manufacturing for the verification of exactly machined parts for tools, gauges,
and myriad other products that require extremely accurate surfaces and dimensions. Those
familiar with such products and the relationship between gauges and surface plates know that
the gauge may show that the stone is flat within the tolerance of the gauge—in this case
0.0002 inch (0.00508 millimeter) flatness. If the gauge is moved 6 inches along the stone
surface, however, and the same conditions are found, it cannot be claimed with certainty that
the stone is within the same tolerance over 12 inches—unless the plate has been inspected by
another means and is calibrated to a known standard.
Nonetheless, moving the steel edge along the granite provided enough information for me to
conclude that I needed a longer straight edge—and, preferably, even more sophisticated
alignment equipment—to determine the accuracy of the inside surfaces of the box. I was also
impressed to find that each corner of the box had a small radius that ran from the top of the
box to the bottom, where it blended with the corner radius of the floor of the box.
The artifacts I have measured in Egypt have the marks of careful and remarkable
manufacturing methods. They are unmistakable and irrefutable in their precision but origin or
intent will always be open to speculation. The following series of photographs were taken
inside the Serapeum on August 27, 2001. Those taken of me inside one of these huge boxes
show me inspecting the squareness between a 27 ton lid and the inside surface of the granite
box on which it sits. The precision square I used was calibrated to .00005 inch (that is
5/100,000 of an inch) using a Jones & Lamson comparitor.
 Figure 2. Inspecting the inside of the granite boxes
The underside of the lid and the inside wall of the box I found to be square, and finding that
the squareness was achieved not just on one side of the box but both, raises the level of
difficulty in accomplishing this feat.
Think of it as a geometric reality. In order for the lid to be square with the two inside walls,
the inside walls would have to be parallel to one another along the vertical axis. Moreover, the
topside of the box would need to establish a plane that is square to the sides. That makes
finishing the inside exponentially more difficult. The manufacturers of these boxes in the
Serapeum not only created inside surfaces that were flat when measured vertically and
horizontally, they also made sure that the surfaces they were creating were square and parallel
to each other, with one surface, the top, having sides that are 5 feet and 10 feet apart from
each other. But without such parallelism and squareness of the top surface, the squareness
noted on both sides would not exist
The flat surfaces of the inside of the boxes exhibited a high degree of accuracy that is
comparable to surfaces found on surface plates in modern manufacturing facilities.
Finding such precision from any epoch in human history leads one to conclude that a
sophisticated system of precise measure must have been in existence. This is an area of
intense interest to engineers—such as myself—who find in Egypt a language with which we
are familiar. This is the language of science, engineering, and manufacturing. Our
counterparts in that ancient land left future generations of scientists, engineers, architects, and
those who take their instructions and shape materials to their specifications, with a difficult
challenge. This challenge is to recognize what they created and provide evidence-based,
reasonable answers that give the ancient engineers credit for what they achieved.

The ancient Egyptians who built the pyramids and temples, who crafted monumental statues
out of igneous rock, were thinking with the minds of architects, engineers, and craftspeople.
Were ancient archaeologists responsible for the legacy they left us? Without the advice of
modern Egyptian architects, engineers, and craftspeople, are today’s Egyptian archaeologists
missing something? Are modern interpretations of the awesome feats of the ancient Egyptians
irrelevant in providing new and powerful information about this ancient culture? Are the
thoughts and conclusions of Western writers and travelers who stood in front of the Great
Pyramid one hundred years ago (or some forty-five hundred years after it was built) more
intrinsically linked to the ancient Egyptian mind than those who come after them, a century or
more later? What can be described as a “modern perspective?” In his time, Herodotus would
surely have been considered modern. So were Egyptophiles Petrie, Marriette, Champollion,
and Howard Carter—each in possession of a modern mind that was clothed in a fabric of
prejudices and stereotypes that existed within their own culture.
When it comes to completely understanding the ancient Egyptians’ level of technological
prowess, there can be no final conclusion. What is left to study today is a mere skeleton of
what existed at the time of the ancient Egyptians. This skeleton survives as highly
sophisticated and precisely crafted sedimentary and igneous rock. It is my belief that the
clothes we have placed on this skeleton are mere rags compared to what should be there. I
have proposed in the past that higher levels of technology were used by the ancient Egyptians,
but for the sake of argument, I have rejected some ideas and cast doubt on my previous
assertions as to the level of technology they enjoyed. At the same time, I cast doubt on the
methods of manufacture that Egyptologists have asserted were used to build the pyramids and
the glorious temples in Egypt. These methods are primitive and include stone and wooden
mallets; copper chisels; tube drills and saws; and stone hammers for quarrying, dressing, and
sculpting hard igneous rock.
Having knowledge of the incredible precision in the boxes in the Serapeum, we should be
reminded of the work of Sir William Flinders Petrie, who measured and recorded for
prosperity the marvelous layout of the Giza Plateau, and particularly the accuracy and true
alignment of many of the features found in the Great Pyramid. His measurements discovered
that the casing stone were cut within .010 inch and the constructed portion of the Descending
Passage was accurate to within the thickness of a thumbnail (.020 inch) over a length of 150
feet.
To understand how the ancient Egyptians created these testaments to manufacturing prowess,
we need to rely on an examination by scientists and engineers. They would take
measurements with modern tools and analyze the full scope of the work and compare them
with our own capabilities. The full scope of the work includes the most difficult aspects of the
work, which are ignored by Egyptologists when they attempt to explain how the ancient
Egyptians created their monuments. For instance, dragging a 25 ton block of granite over
wooden rollers, with great difficulty, does not explain how a 500 ton obelisk or monolithic
statues weighing 1000 tons were moved by prehistoric people. Bashing out a few cubic
centimeters of granite with a dolerite ball does not explain how thousands of tons of granite
were extracted from the bedrock and shaped with extreme precision and displayed as
monumental pieces of art in the temples of Upper Egypt. To know the true majesty and
capability of the ancient Egyptians, one only has to know and appreciate the full extent of
their work.
While the boxes in the Serapeum present a significant challenge to those who attempt to
explain ancient Egyptian craftsmanship, they are not complex surfaces, like the surfaces that
combine to create the magnificent statues of Ramses II that grace the Temples of the South
and the North. But why, you might ask, would I turn my attention away from engineering
precision to a sculpture? Because the monolithic statues of Ramses issue a challenge to all
who would care to explain how they were made.
What am I?
How did I come to exist?
Make another just like me!
What does the face of Ramses have in common with a modern precision engineering object,
such as an automobile? It has flowing contours with distinct features that are perfectly
mirrored one side to the other. The fact that one side of Ramses face is a perfect mirror image
to the other implies that precise measurements had to have been used in its creation. It means
that the statue was carved in intricate detail to create precise three-dimensional surfaces. The
jaw-lines, eyes, nose and mouth are symmetrical and were created using a geometric scheme
that embodies the Pythagorean Triangle as well as the Golden Rectangle and Golden Triangle.
Encoded in the granite is the sacred geometry of the ancients.

Figure 3. The Statue of Ramses at Memphis

When I was researching for my book, The Giza Power Plant, I had my first encounter with
Ramses the Great. This was at the open air museum at Memphis. It was in 1986 and my
interest was mostly engineering and the pyramids, so I was not necessarily interested in
statues or visiting the temples in the south. It struck me as peculiar at the time, though, that
while looking down the length of the 300 ton Ramses statue I noticed that the nostrils were
identically shaped and symmetrical. The significance of this feature gained more prominence
when I eventually visited the temples in 2004 and became fascinated with the three-
dimensional perfection of the Ramses statues at Luxor. This fascination prompted me to
gather digital images so that I could examine some of the features of Ramses in the computer.
What I discovered was remarkable in that the images revealed a much higher level of
manufacturing technology than what has been discussed previously.
In gathering the images of Ramses, it was important that the camera was oriented
along the central axis of the head. This way the distribution of material on the left and right
side was equal. In order to compare one side of the face to the other, a copy of the image was
made, flipped horizontally and made 50% transparent. Then the reverse image was positioned
over the original to compare the two sides. The results are remarkable. The stunning
implications are analogous to looking through the static interference pattern of time and
confusion and seeing the elegance and precision that is normally built into a Lexus in a place
where only the most rudimentary techniques of manufacturing are thought to have existed.
The techniques that the ancient Egyptians are supposed to have used—those taught us in
school—would not produce the precision of a Model T Ford, let alone a Lexus or a Porsche.

Figure 4. The Symmetry of Ramses at Luxor

We know that the ancient Egyptians used a grid in their designs, and that such a method or
technique for design is intuitively self-evident. It does not require a quantum leap of an
artisan’s imagination to arrive at what is today a common design method. In fact, it is used
now not just for design, but also for describing organizational and conceptual methodology.
Grids, graphs, and charts are used to convey information and to plot and organize work.
With this in mind, therefore, I took the photograph of Ramses and laid a grid over it. Of
course, my first task was to establish the size and number of the cells used in the grid. I
assumed that the features of the face would lead me to the answer, and studied which features
were most prominent. After musing over this puzzle for a while, I took a chance on a grid that
was based on the dimensions of the mouth. It seemed to me that the mouth had something to
tell us due to its unnaturally upturned shape, so I placed a grid with cell dimensions that were
the same height and half the width of the dimensions of the mouth. It was then a simple matter
to generate circles based on the geometry of the facial features. I didn’t expect, though, that
they would line up with grid lines in so many locations. In fact, I was astounded by this
discovery. Going through my mind was: “Okay—now when does this cease to be a
coincidence and become a reflection of truth?”
Plumbing the grid for further information, I discovered that Ramses’ mouth had the same
proportions as a classic 3-4-5 right triangle. The idea that the ancient Egyptians had known
about the Pythagorean triangle before Pythagoras, and they may have even taught Pythagoras
its concepts, has been discussed by scholars, though not without controversy. Ramses
presented me with a grid based on the Pythagorean triangle, whether it was the ancient
Egyptians’ intentions or not. As we can see in figure 5, the Pythagorean grid allows us to
analyze the face as it has never been analyzed before.

Figure 5. The Geometry of Ramses at Luxor]

The Ramses geometry and precision and the discovery of tool marks on some of the statues
are discussed at greater length in Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt. Small seemingly
insignificant mistakes made by ancient tools bring to light information from which a precise
controlled method of manufacture can be discerned.
Other remarkable features of machining on granite are also examined, but probably the most
stunning example of ancient machining lies on a wind-swept hill 5 miles from the Giza
Plateau. Abu Roash has recently been advertised as the “Lost Pyramid” by Zahi Hawass, the
secretary general of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, even though it has been
well known and written about for many years. I wasn’t expecting much when I first visited the
site in February 2006, but what I found was a piece of granite so remarkable that I returned to
that site 3 more times to show witnesses in order to explain its unique features. Those who
accompanied me on different occasions were David Childress, Judd Peck, Edward
Malkowski, Dr. Arlan Andrews and Dr. Randall Ashton. Edward Malkowski immediately
dubbed the stone the new rose-red Rosetta Stone. Mechanical engineer Arlan Andrews
independently came to the same conclusion.
 Figure 6. Views of the stone at Abu Roash

Looking closer at the surface of the block in figure 6 - F, we can see striations that are spaced
between approximately 0.030 inch (0.762 millimeter) to 0.06 inch (1.52 millimeters) apart.
These are a common feature on many artifacts found in Egypt, including some holes and the
cores that were extracted from the holes. The radius where the cut surface terminates is
puzzling when we consider different ways in which the block may have been made. One
suggestion made to me was that the blade that cut the piece was a straight saw but that it was
warped and cut the curve on the stone face. If that were possible, it would explain one radius
on the block, but whether you view the block from above, or along its length, you see a
radius. When considering this and pondering on how this inexplicable geometry was cut into
the granite, the straight saw has to be eliminated, because it would be impossible for it to cut a
concave radius along its face and along its edge. Another suggestion given to me was that the
stone was cut by a stone ball swinging from a pivot point. Yet the evidence suggests a far
greater amount of control and certainty than that of a swinging ball—regardless of the skill
put into the swing.
I tried to imagine a process in which the piece would be cut in one single sawing operation,
but I could not come up with a method that did not demand more out of the tool than was
possible due to an increase in surface area being cut. In other words, assuming a larger block
was being cut along the striated surface with the saw on an angle, depending on the thickness
of the entire block, the thin block, which is the one we are studying, would break apart from
the thicker one. But passing the stone across the saw on an angle would result in an increase
in the surface area being cut. In pursuing an answer to the puzzle, while providing an answer
to Petrie’s question about the size of the saw, it was necessary to calculate the radius of the
saw—the granite block at Abu Roash, provided the attributes to calculate that the stone was
cut with a circular saw that was over 37 feet in diameter. This seems almost impossible to
believe, but the evidence is cut into the stone for anyone to measure and illustrated in figure 7
and 8 for verification.
Figure 7. Axial view of Abu Roash Stone
 Figure 8. Top view of Abu Roash Stone

The boxes in the Serapeum, the Ramses Statue and the stone at Abu Roash, are three
examples of many that have been closely examined and are discussed in Lost Technologies of
Ancient Egypt. Other unique artifacts, include the Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Denderah,
the contoured blocks on the Giza Plateau, the Unfinished Obelisk and the infamous Petrie’s
core #7, a unique artifact that has been a source of controversy since Petrie first discovered it.
And the White crown of Upper Egypt – a remarkable example of ancient Egyptian geometry
and manufacturing. Ellipsoids and ellipses were part and parcel of the ancient Egyptian
knowledge. The stunning evidence is precisely crafted into hard granite and speaks louder
than any tomb drawing about the amazing capabilities of the ancients.
Prehistoric Machined Artifacts

© 2006 Christopher Dunn

All rights reserved
Exhibit 1. Pavement
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.

Exhibit 2. This saw cut ends within the joint to the adjacent block, proving that is was
sawn before installation.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 3. Close up of saw cut.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 4. Saw marks on side of pavement stones.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 5. More saw marks on pavement with appearance of being cut with circular saw.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 6. Distinct saw cuts with clearly defined steps.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 7. Front view of Exhibit 6.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 8. Close up of Exhibit 6.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 9. Large radius saw cut.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 10. Close up of Exhibit 9 revealing feed lines of the tool.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 11. Apparent -V- shaped notches cut into basalt.
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 12. Parallel striations on relative smooth surface of basalt. Close-up taken with
macro lens
Material ~ Basalt.
Location ~ East of the Great Pyramid.
Exhibit 13. Contoured block on the Giza Plateau
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South corner and 100 yards east of Khafre’s pyramid.
Exhibit 14. End view of Exhibit 9 with overlaying circles
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South corner and 100 yards east of Khafre’s pyramid.

Exhibit 15. Front view of Exhibit 9.

Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South corner and 100 yards east of Khafre’s pyramid.
Exhibit 16. Precision straight edge on the crown of true radius.
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South corner and 100 yards east of Khafre’s pyramid.
Exhibit 17. Using forming wax to check the consistency of the corner radius
(see Advanced Machining in Ancient Egyptfor further discussion).
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South corner and 100 yards east of Khafre’s pyramid.

Exhibit 18. Contoured block of granite near Valley Temple.

Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South side outside the Valley Temple.
Exhibit 19. End view of Exhibit 18.
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South side outside the Valley Temple.

Exhibit 20. Precision straight edge on the crown of true radius.

Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South side outside the Valley Temple.
Exhibit 21. Front view of Exhibit 18.
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ South side outside the Valley Temple.
Exhibit 22. Wall inside the Valley Temple.
Material ~ Diorite.
Location ~ East wall inside the Valley Temple.
Exhibit 23. Core drilled hole.
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ West lintel in South East hall inside the Valley Temple.
Exhibit 24. Core broken out of drilled hole.
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ University College London, the Petrie Museum. Discovered at Giza by
William Flinders Petrie - 1881.

Exhibit 25. Saw marks.

Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ Abu Rawash.
Exhibit 26. Box carved from solid piece 7-1/2 ft. wide 9 ft. high 13-½ ft. long .
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ Rock tunnels of the Serapeum at Saqqarra.
Exhibit 27. Inspecting the inside of another box at the Serapeum using precision
toolmakers instruments.
Material ~ Aswan pink granite.
Location ~ Rock tunnels of the Serapeum at Saqqarra.

For additional information regarding the boxes in the Serapeum click here.

The article Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt can be read here.

Return to main page

Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt

In August, 1984, Analog magazine published my article "Advanced Machining in Ancient

Egypt?" It was a study of "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh," written by Sir. William
Flinders Petrie. Since the article’s publication, I have visited Egypt twice, and with each
visit I leave with more respect for the ancient pyramid builders. While in Egypt in 1986, I
visited the Cairo museum and gave a copy of my article, along with a business card, to the
director of the museum. He thanked me kindly, threw it in a drawer to join other sundry
material, and turned away. Another Egyptologist led me to the "tool room" to educate me
in the methods of the ancient masons by showing me a few cases that housed primitive
copper tools. I asked my host about the cutting of granite, for this was the focus of my
article. He explained that the ancient Egyptians cut a slot in the granite, inserted wooden
wedges, and then soaked them with water. The wood swelled creating pressure that split
the rock. Splitting rock is vastly different than machining it and he did not explain how
copper implements were able to cut granite, but he was so enthusiastic with his dissertation
that I did not interrupt. To prove his argument, he walked me over to a nearby travel agent
encouraging me to buy airplane tickets to Aswan, where, he said, the evidence is clear. I
must, he insisted, see the quarry marks there, as well as the unfinished obelisk.

Dutifully, I bought the tickets and arrived at Aswan the next day. After learning some of
the Egyptian customs, I got the impression that this was not the first time that my
Egyptologist friend had made that trip to the travel agent. The quarry marks I saw there did
not satisfy me that the methods described were the only means by which the pyramid
builders quarried their rock. There is a large round hole drilled into the bedrock hillside,
that measures approximately 12 inches in diameter and 3 feet deep that is located in the
channel, which runs the length of the estimated 3,000 ton obelisk,. The hole was drilled at
an angle with the top intruding into the channel space. The ancients may have used drills to
remove material from the perimeter of the obelisk, knocked out the webs between the
holes, and then removed the cusps.
Quarry Marks at Aswan Drill Hole at Aswan

The Aswan quarries were educational, though after returning to Cairo the following day
and while strolling around the Giza Plateau later in the week, I started to question the
quarry marks at Aswan even more. South of the second pyramid I found an abundance of
quarry marks of similar nature. The granite casing stones that had sheathed the second
pyramid were stripped off and lying around the base in various stages of destruction. Some
of the stones were still in place, though sections had been split away from them, and there I
found the same quarry marks that I had seen earlier in the week at Aswan. This was
puzzling to me. Disregarding the impossibility of Egyptologists’ theories on the ancient
pyramid builders’ quarrying methods, are they really valid even from a non-technical,
logical viewpoint? If these quarry marks distinctively identify the people who created the
pyramids, why would they engage in such a tremendous amount of extremely difficult
work only to destroy their work after having completed it? It seems to me that the quarry
marks found at Aswan and on the Giza Plateau were from a later period of time, and they
were created by people who were interested only in obtaining granite without caring about
the source from where it came.
Quarry Marks at Giza

Archaeology is largely the study of history’s toolmakers, and archaeologists understand a

society’s level of advancement with tools and artifacts. The hammer was probably the first
tool ever invented, and hammers have forged some elegant and beautiful artifacts. Ever
since man first learned that he could effect profound changes in his environment by
applying force with a reasonable degree of accuracy, the development of tools has been a
continuous and fascinating aspect of human endeavor. The Great Pyramid leads a long list
of artifacts that have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by archaeologists, who have
promoted theories and methods that are based on a collection of tools that they struggle
with to replicate the most simple aspects of the work.

"Quarrymen of the Pyramid age would have accused Greek historian Strabo of
understatement as they hacked at the stubborn granite of Aswan. Their axes and chisels
were made of copper hardened by hammering."

Dr. IES Edwards~Egyptologist

For the most part, primitive tools that are discovered are considered contemporaneous with
the artifacts of the same period. Yet during this period in Egyptian history, artifacts were
produced in prolific number with no tools surviving to explain their creation. The ancient
Egyptians created artifacts that cannot be explained in simple terms. These tools do not
fully represent the "state of the art" that is evident in the artifacts. There are some
intriguing objects that survived after this civilization, and in spite of its most visible and
impressive monuments, we have only a sketchy understanding of the full scope of its
technology. The tools displayed by Egyptologists as instruments for the creation of many
of these incredible artifacts are physically incapable of reproducing them. After standing in
awe before these engineering marvels, and then being shown a paltry collection of copper
implements in the tool case at the Cairo Museum, one comes away bemused and frustrated.

British Egyptologist, Sir. William Flinders Petrie, recognized that these tools were
insufficient. He explored this anomaly thoroughly in "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh,"
and expressed amazement about the methods the ancient Egyptians used to cut hard
igneous rocks. He credited them with methods that "......we are only now coming to
understand." So why do modern mainstream Egyptologists insist that this work was
accomplished with a few primitive copper instruments?

I'm not an Egyptologist, I'm a technologist. I do not have much interest in who died when,
whom they may have taken with them and where they went to. No lack of respect is
intended for the mountain of work and the millions of hours of study conducted on this
subject by intelligent scholars (professional and amateur), but my interest, thus my focus,
is elsewhere. When I look at an artifact to investigate how it was manufactured, I am not
concerned about its history or chronology. Having spent most of my career working with
the machinery that actually creates modern artifacts, such as jet-engine components, I am
able to analyze and determine how an artifact was created. I have also had training and
experience in some non-conventional manufacturing methods, such as laser processing and
electrical discharge machining. Having said that, I should state that contrary to some
popular speculations, I have not seen evidence of laser for cutting on the Egyptian rocks.
Still, there is evidence for other non-conventional machining methods, as well as more
sophisticated, conventional type sawing, lathe and milling practices. Undoubtedly, some of
the artifacts that Petrie was studying were produced using lathes. There is also evidence of
clearly defined lathe tool marks on some "sarcophagi" lids. The Cairo Museum contains
enough evidence that will prove that the ancient Egyptians used highly sophisticated
manufacturing methods once its properly analyzed. For generations the focus has centered
on the nature of the cutting tools used by the ancient Egyptians. While in Egypt in
February 1995, I discovered evidence that raises the question, "What guided the cutting
tool?"

A variety of people have speculated that to erect a building as perfect as the Great Pyramid,
the builders must have possessed supernatural powers. Some even speculate that the
builders used lasers to cut the masonry and then levitated the stones into place in the
pyramid. While I cannot speak authoritatively regarding the builders’ powers of levitation,
whether the implementation of those powers was through the use of the mind or through
the use of technology, I can say with reasonable confidence that no lasers were used in
cutting the materials which went into building the Great Pyramid. Although the laser is a
wonderful tool with many uses, its function as a cutting tool is limited to economically
viable applications, such as cutting small holes in thin pieces of metal and refractory
material. As a general purpose cutting tool, it cannot compete with the machining methods
that were available before its inception.

The methods used to cut the masonry for the Great Pyramid can be deduced from the
marks they left behind on the stone. The bulk of the Great Pyramid was constructed with
limestone blocks weighing an average of 2 1/2 tons each. While there are some interesting
points to be made concerning the limestone that encased the pyramid, and they will be
addressed later, these stones do not offer the same information about the methods that were
used to produce them as the thousands of tons of granite. At the expense of considerable
time and effort by the original creators, the granite artifacts found in the Great Pyramid and
at other sites in Egypt offer the clues we are looking for.
Before we investigate the granite that was included in the Giza pyramids, there are several
artifacts that indicate machinery power being used by the pyramid builders. These artifacts,
scrutinized by William Flinders Petrie, are all fragments of extremely hard igneous rock.
These pieces of granite and diorite exhibit marks that are the same as those resulting from
cutting hard igneous rock with modern machinery. It is surprising that Petrie’s studies of
these fragments have not attracted greater attention, for there is unmistakable evidence of
machine tooling methods. It will probably surprise many people to know that evidence
proving that the ancient Egyptians used tools such as straight saws, circular saws, and even
lathes has been recognized for over a century. The lathe is the father of all machine tools in
existence, and Petrie submits evidence showing that not only were lathes used by the
ancient Egyptians, but they performed tasks which would, by today’s standards, be
considered impossible without highly developed specialized techniques, such as cutting
concave and convex spherical radii without splintering the material.

Petrie's Samples of Machining

While digging through the ruins of ancient civilizations, would archeologists instantly
recognize the work of machine tools by the kind of marks made on the material or the
configuration of the piece at which they were looking? Fortunately, one archeologist had
the perception and knowledge to recognize such marks, and, although at the time Petrie’s
findings were published the machining industry was in its infancy, the growth in the
industry since then warrants a new look at his findings. Read more about Petrie's findings
in "The Giza Power Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt" and at The Pyramids and
Temples of Gizeh Online

One can gather by reading Petrie’s work that he involved himself in some extensive
research regarding the tools that were employed in cutting hard stone. Even so, there is a
persisting belief among some Egyptologists that the granite used in the Great Pyramid was
cut using copper chisels.

Having worked with copper on numerous occasions, and having hardened it in the manner
suggested above, this statement struck me as being entirely ridiculous. You can certainly
work-harden copper by striking it repeatedly or even by bending it. However, after a
specific hardness has been reached, the copper will begin to split and break apart. This is
why, when working with copper to any great extent, it has to be periodically annealed, or
softened, if you want to keep it in one piece. Even after hardening in such a way, the
copper will not be able to cut granite. The hardest copper alloy in existence today is
beryllium copper. There is no evidence to suggest that the ancient Egyptians possessed this
alloy, but even if they did, this alloy is not hard enough to cut granite. Copper has
predominantly been described as the only metal available at the time the Great Pyramid
was built. Consequently, it would follow that all work must have sprung from the able use
of this basic metallic element. We may be entirely wrong, however, even in the basic
assumption that copper was the only metal available to the ancient Egyptians. For another
little known fact about the pyramid builders is that they were iron makers as well.

Hidden chambers and Metal plate CARBON-14 DATING THE GIZA PYRAMIDS? The
Small Relics Found Inside The Pyramids - DE49

In proposing more primitive methods of manufacture, it has been demonstrated that copper
charged with quartz sand can also be used to wear away the granite. Also, small balls made
of dolorite, a stone that is harder than granite, have been found in the granite quarries
which have led Egyptologists to suggest that granite artifacts were created by bashing the
material.

Unforbidden Geology explores the more simple approach to working granite.

While there may be some who are satisfied with believing that these simplistic methods
were adequate in creating the artifacts I have seen and measured, I am not. This is because
they do not explain the full scope of the work.

Without going back in time and interviewing the craftsmen who worked on the pyramids,
we will probably never know for sure what materials their tools were made of. Any debate
of the subject would be futile, for until the proof is at hand, no satisfactory conclusion can
be reached. However, the manner in which the masons used their tools can be discussed,
and, perhaps if we compare current methods of cutting granite with the finished product
(i.e. the granite coffers), there may be some basis on which to draw a parallel.

Today's granite cutting methods includes the use of wire-saws and an abrasive, usually
silicon-carbide which slices through granite with ease. The wire is a continuous loop that is
held by two wheels, one of the wheels being the driver. Between the wheels, which can
vary in distance depending on the size of the machine, the granite is cut by being pushed
against the wire or by being held firmly and allowing the wire to feed through it. The wire
does not cut the granite, but is designed to effectively hold the silicon carbide grit that does
the actual cutting.

By looking at the shapes of the cuts that were made in the basalt items 3b, and 5b, one
could certainly speculate that a wire saw had been used and left its imprint in the rock. The
full radius at the bottom of the cut is exactly the shape that would be left by such a saw.

Mr. John Barta, of the John Barta Company informed me, that the wire saws used in quarry
mills today cut through granite with great rapidity. Mr. Barta told me that the wire saws
with silicon-carbide cut through the granite like it is butter. Out of interest, I asked Mr.
Barta what he thought of the copper chisel theory. Mr. Barta, possessing an excellent sense
of humor, came forth with some jocular remarks regarding the practicality of such an idea.

If the ancient Egyptians had indeed used wire saws for cutting hard rock, were these saws
powered by hand or machine? With my experience in machine shops and the countless
number of times I have had to use a saw (both handsaws and power saws), there appears to
be strong evidence that, in at least some instances, the latter method was used.

Once again, Petrie provides a clue:

"On the N. end (of the coffer) is a place, near the west side, where the saw
was run too deep into the granite, and was backed out again by the masons;
but this fresh start they made still too deep, and two inches lower they
backed out a second time, having cut out more than .10 inch deeper than
they had intended..."

The above was Petrie’s notes on the coffer inside the King's Chamber in the Great
Pyramid. The following concerns the coffer inside the Second Pyramid:

"The coffer is well polished, not only inside but all over the outside; even
though it was nearly all bedded into the floor, with the blocks plastered
against it. The bottom is left rough, and shows that it was sawn and
afterwards dressed down to the intended height; but in sawing it the saw
was run too deep and then backed out; it was, therefore, not dressed down
all over the bottom, the worst part of the sawing being cut .20 inch deeper
than the dressed part. This is the only error of workmanship in the whole of
it; it is polished all over the sides in and out, and is not left with the saw
lines visible on it like the Great Pyramid coffer."

Petrie estimated that a pressure of one to two tons on jeweled tipped bronze saws would
have been necessary to cut through the extremely hard granite. If we agree with these
estimates as well as with the methods proposed by Egyptologists regarding the
construction of the pyramids, then a severe inequity can be discerned between the two.

So far, Egyptologists have not given credence to any speculation that suggests that the
builders of the pyramid might have used machines instead of manpower in this massive
construction project. In fact, they do not give the pyramid builders the intelligence to have
developed and used the simple wheel. It is quite remarkable that a culture, which possessed
sufficient technical ability to make a lathe and progressed from there to develop a
technique that enabled them to machine radii in hard diorite, would not have thought of the
wheel before this.

Petrie logically assumes that the granite coffers found in the Giza Pyramids were marked
prior to being cut. The workmen were given a guideline with which to work. The accuracy
exhibited in the dimensions of the coffers confirms this, plus the fact that guidelines of
some sort would have been necessary to alert the masons of their error.

While no one can say with certainty how the granite coffers were cut, the saw marks in the
granite have certain characteristics, which suggests that they were not the result of hand
sawing. If there was not evidence to the contrary, I might agree that the manufacturing of
the granite coffers in the Great Pyramid and the Second Pyramid could quite possibly have
been achieved using pure manpower, and a tremendous amount of time.

It is extremely unlikely that a team of masons operating a 9-foot handsaw would be cutting
through hard granite fast enough that they would pass their guideline before noticing the
error. To then back the saw out and repeat the same error, as they did on the coffer in the
King's Chamber, does nothing to confirm the speculation that this object was the result of
hand work.

When I read Petrie’s passage concerning these deviations, a flood of memories came to me
of my own history with saws, both power and manual driven. With these experiences, plus
those observed in others, it seems inconceivable to me that manpower was the motivating
force behind the saw which cut the granite coffers. While cutting steel with handsaws, an
object that has a long workface, and certainly one with such dimensions as the coffers,
would not be cut with great rapidity, and the direction the saw may turn can be seen well in
advance of a serious mistake being made; the smaller the work piece, naturally, the faster
the blade would cut through it.

On the other hand, if the saw is mechanized and is cutting rapidly through the work piece,
the saw could "wander" from its intended course and cut through the guideline at a certain
point at such a speed that the error is made before the condition can be corrected. This is
not uncommon.

This does not mean that a manually operated saw cannot "wander," but that the speed of
the operation would determine the efficiency in discovering any deviation that the saw may
have from its intended course.

Another interesting point to consider is that the saw was run too deeply, backed out, and
then proceeded to cut again. Anyone who has been faced with the problem of drawing a
saw-blade out of a cut and then making a restart on only one side of the cut, which is
essentially what was done with the granite, knows that excessive pressure on the saw-blade
would force it back into the original cut. To make a restart of this type it is necessary that
very little pressure is put on the blade. With these considerations, it is doubtful that Petrie’s
deductions of two to three tons pressure being necessary to cut the granite can be verified.

Making a restart in the middle of a cut, especially one of such dimensions as the granite
coffer, would be more easily accomplished with machine sawing than it would be with
hand sawing. With hand sawing there is little control over the blade in a situation like this,
and it would be difficult to accurately gauge the amount of pressure needed. Also, the
blade of the handsaw would be moving quite slowly; a fact that would question further the
suggestion of a handsaw being used. At such a slow speed and with very little pressure,
accomplishment of such a feat would be almost, if not completely, impossible.
With the power driven saw, on the other hand, the blade moves rapidly, and control of the
blade is possible. The blade can be held in a fixed position, with uniform pressure over the
entire length of the blade, and in the direction necessary to restart. This front and side
pressure can be accurately maintained until sufficient material has been removed from the
work piece to allow a continuation of normal cutting speed.

The fact that a normal cutting rate was attained shortly after rectifying the mistake can be
deduced by noting that in the Great Pyramid’s coffer, the mistake was repeated two inches
further along. This is another example of the blade cutting through the granite at the wrong
place faster than the men were able to detect and stop it.

Another method of correcting a mistake while using a handsaw, if the error was only in a
small area of the cut, would be to tilt the blade and continue cutting in the unspoiled area,
so that when the blade reached the area which needed correcting, the blade would be
supported by the fresh tilted cut and would have sufficient strength to combat any
tendencies to follow the original straight cut.

If the granite coffers had been cut with handsaws, it is conceivable that this method could
be used in correcting the errors on the granite coffers. However, it has probably become
apparent by now that William Flinders Petrie had the eye of a hawk and documented just
about anything which came in sight. At the same time he was studying the cutting mistakes
in the granite, he was also noticing other features:

"It is not finely wrought, and cannot in this respect rival the coffer in the
Second Pyramid. On the outer sides the lines of sawing may be plainly
seen: horizontal on the N., a small patch horizontal on the E., vertical on
the S., and nearly horizontal on the W.; showing that the masons did not
hesitate at cutting a slice of granite 90 inches long, and that the jeweled
bronze saw must have been probably about 9 feet long."

If the operators of the saw, in an attempt to correct a mistake, had tilted their blade in the
manner described above, the saw lines would show a difference with the pre-error saw
lines, because they would be at an angle. The mistakes in the granite were found on the
north side of the coffer, and Petrie observed that the saw lines on this side were horizontal.
Following Petrie’s footsteps in 1986, I was able to verify his observations of the coffer in
the Great Pyramid. The saw lines on the side where the mistakes were made are all
horizontal. Any argument proposing that the mistake was overcome by tilting the blade,
which is probably the only method that would be successful using a hand-saw, is
invalidated. This evidence points to the distinct probability that the pyramid builders
possessed motorized machinery when they cut the granite found inside the Great Pyramid
and the Second Pyramid.

Today these saw marks would reflect either the differences in the aggregate dimensions of
a wire band saw with the abrasive, or the side-to-side movement of the wire, or the wheels
that drive the wire. The result of either of these conditions is a series of slight grooves. The
feed-rate and either the distance between the variation in length of the saw or the diameter
of the wheels determine the distance between the grooves. The distance between the
grooves on the coffer inside the King's Chamber is approximately .050 inch.

Along with the evidence on the outside further evidence of the use of high speed machine
tools can be found on the inside of the granite coffer in the King's Chamber. The methods
that were evidently used by the pyramid builders to hollow out the inside of the granite
coffers are similar to the methods which would be used to machine out the inside of
components today.

Tool marks on the inside of the granite coffer in the King's Chamber indicate that when the
granite was hollowed out, preliminary roughing cuts were made by drilling holes into the
granite around the area which was to be removed. According to Petrie, these drill holes
were made with tube-drills, which left a central core that had to be knocked away after the
hole had been cut. After all the holes had been drilled, and all the cores removed, Petrie
surmises that the coffer was then hand worked to its desired dimension. The machinists on
this particular piece of granite once again let their tools get the better of them, and the
resulting errors are still to be found on the inside of the coffer in the King's Chamber:

"On the E. inside is a portion of a tube-drill hole remaining, where they had
tilted the drill over into the side by not working it vertically. They tried hard
to polish away all that part, and took of about 1/10 inch thickness all
around it; but still they had to leave the side of the hole 1/10 deep, 3 long,
and 1.3 wide; the bottom of it is 8 or 9 below the original top of the coffer.
They made a similar error on the N. inside, but of a much less extent. There
are traces of horizontal grinding lines on the W. inside."

The errors noted by Petrie are not uncommon in modern machine shops, and I must
confess to having made them myself on occasion. Several factors could be involved in
creating this condition, although I cannot visualize any one of them being a hand operation.
Once again, while working their drill into the granite, the machinists had made a mistake
before they had time to correct it.

Let us speculate for a moment that the drill was being worked by hand. How far into the
granite would they be able to cut before the drill had to be removed to permit cleaning the
waste out of the hole? Would they be able to drill 8 or 9 inches into the granite without
having to remove their drill? It is inconceivable to me that such a depth could be achieved
with a hand-operated drill without the frequent withdrawal of the drill to clean out the hole,
or provisions being made for the removal of the waste while the drill was still cutting. It is
possible, therefore, that frequent withdrawals of the drill would expose their error, and that
they would have noticed the direction their drill was taking before it had cut a .200 inch
gouge into the side of the coffer, and before it had reached a depth of 8 or 9 inches. Can’t
we see the same situation with the drill as with the saw? Here we have two high speed
operations where errors are made before the operators have time to correct them.

Although the ancient Egyptians are not given credit for having a simple wheel, the
evidence proves that they not only had the wheel, they had a more sophisticated use for it.
The evidence of lathe work is markedly distinct on some of the artifacts housed in the
Cairo Museum, as well as those that were studied by Petrie. Two pieces of diorite in
Petrie’s collection he identified as being the result of true turning on a lathe.

It is true that intricate objects can be created without the aid of machinery, simply by
rubbing the material with an abrasive such as sand, using a piece of bone or wood to apply
pressure. The relics Petrie was looking at, however, in his words, "could not be produced
by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface."

The object Petrie was studying would hardly be considered remarkable to the
inexperienced eye. It was a simple rock bowl. Studying the bowl closely, however, Petrie
found that the spherical concave radius, forming the dish, had an unusual feel to it. Closer
examination revealed a sharp cusp where two radii intersected. This indicates that the radii
were cut on two separate axes of rotation.

I have witnessed the same condition when a component has been removed from a lathe and
then worked on again without being recentered properly. On examining other pieces from
Giza, Petrie found another bowl shard that had the marks of true lathe turning. This time,
though, instead of shifting the work piece’s axis of rotation, a second radius was cut by
shifting the pivot point of the tool. With this radius, they machined just short of the
perimeter of the dish, leaving a small lip. Again, a sharp cusp defined the intersection of
the two radii. While browsing through the Cairo Museum, I found evidence of lathe
turning on a large scale. A sarcophagus lid had distinct lathe turning marks. The radius of
the lid terminated with a blend radius at shoulders on both ends. The tool marks near these
corner radii are the same as those I have observed when turning an object with an
intermittent cut. The tool is deflected under pressure from the cut. It then relaxes when the
section of cut is finished. When the work piece comes round again to the tool, the initial
pressure causes the tool to dig in. As the cut progresses, the amount of "dig in" is
diminished. On the sarcophagus lid in the Cairo Museum, tool marks indicating these
conditions are exactly where one would expect to find them.

Egyptian artifacts representing tubular drilling are clearly the most astounding and
conclusive evidence yet presented to indicate the extent to which knowledge and
technology was practiced in pre-history. The ancient pyramid builders used a technique for
drilling holes that is commonly known as "trepanning." This technique leaves a central
core and is an efficient means of hole making. For holes that didn’t go all the way through
the material, they reached a desired depth and then broke the core out of the hole. It was
not only evident in the holes that Petrie was studying, but on the cores cast aside by the
masons who had done the trepanning. Regarding tool marks that left a spiral groove on a
core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote, "the spiral of the cut
sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the
quartz and feldspar which is astonishing." After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie.
This was an incredible feedrate (distance traveled per revolution of the drill) for drilling
into any material, let alone granite. I was completely confounded as to how a drill could
achieve this feedrate. Petrie was so astounded by these artifacts that he attempted to
explain them at three different points in one chapter. To an engineer in the 1880’s, what
Petrie was looking at was an anomaly. The characteristics of the holes, the cores that came
out of them, and the tool marks indicated an impossibility. Three distinct characteristics of
the hole and core, as illustrated, make the artifacts extremely remarkable. They are:

 A taper on both the hole and the core.

 A symmetrical helical groove following these tapers showing that the drill
advanced into the granite at a feed rate of .100 inch per revolution of the drill.
 The confounding fact that the spiral groove cut deeper through the quartz than
through the softer feldspar.

In conventional machining the reverse would be the case. In 1983, Mr. Donald Rahn of
Rahn Granite Surface Plate Co., Dayton, Ohio, told me that in drilling granite, diamond
drills, rotating at 900 revolutions per minute, penetrate at the rate of 1 inch in 5 minutes. In
1996, Eric Leither of Trustone Corp, told me that these parameters haven't changed since
then. The feedrate of modern drills, therefore, calculates to be .0002 inch per revolution,
indicating that the ancient Egyptians were able to cut their granite with a feed rate that was
500 times greater or deeper per revolution of the drill than modern drills. The other
characteristics also create a problem for modern drills. They cut a tapered hole with a spiral
groove that was cut deeper through the harder constituent of the granite. If conventional
machining methods cannot answer just one of these questions, how do we answer all three?

In the Fall 2000 issue of the magazine, "Egypt Revealed," Dr. Mark Lehner, probably the
most vocal and visible Egyptologist to apply his knowledge of manufacturing in analyzing
the technology of the ancient Egyptians, postulated the existence of a copper shop in the
newly discovered "worker's village." He stated that it was used "...to fashion thousands of
copper chisels each probably no wider than your thumbnail for dressing the acres of
limestone casing for the pyramids." In his documentary Obelisk I, Lehner passionately
states that he is convinced that hieroglyphs and reliefs, the attributes of which Petrie
marveled at because of their fine cross sections, measuring a mere .100 inch, indicating
that the tool that created them had to have ploughed through the granite in a single pass,
were actually created by bashing the granite with dolerite pounders.

One can gather by reading Petrie’s work that he involved himself in some extensive
research regarding the tools that were employed in cutting hard stone. Even so, there is a
persisting belief among some Egyptologists that the granite used in the Great Pyramid was
cut using copper chisels. I.E.S. Edwards, British Egyptologist and the world's foremost
expert on pyramids, makes the following statement.

“Quarrymen of the Pyramid age would have accused Greek historian Strabo of
understatement as they hacked at the stubborn granite of Aswan. Their axes and chisels
were made of copper hardened by hammering.” (Edwards, I.E.S. Ancient Egypt, Page 89.
(1978 - National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.)

Hopefully, besides mainstream Egyptologists, such as Mark Lehner and IES Edwards,
(RIP) other Egyptologists do not suggest that the copper chisels, that can now be found in
the Cairo Museum, were representative of the tools used to build the pyramids. If they
were I would strongly suggest that they make an effort to learn about the materials and
processes that they are proposing by actually creating one of these artifacts. To identify
copper as the metal used for cutting granite is like saying that aluminum could be cut using
a chisel fashioned out of butter. What follows is a more feasible and logical method, and it
provides an answer to the question of techniques used by the ancient Egyptians in drilling
into granite.

The fact that the feedrate spiral is symmetrical is quite remarkable considering the
proposed method of cutting. The taper indicates an increase in the cutting surface area of
the drill as it cut deeper, hence an increase in the resistance. A uniform feed under these
conditions, using manpower, would be impossible. Petrie theorized that a ton or two of
pressure was applied to a tubular drill consisting of bronze inset with jewels. However, this
doesn’t take into consideration that under several thousand pounds pressure the jewels
would undoubtedly work their way into the softer substance, leaving the granite relatively
unscathed after the attack. Nor does this method explain the groove being deeper through
the quartz.

It should be noted that Petrie did not identify the means by which he inspected the core,
whether he used metrology instruments, a microscope or the naked eye. It should also be
noted that all Egyptologists do not universally accept his conclusions. In "Ancient Egyptian
Materials and Industries," Lucas takes issue with Petrie's conclusion that the grooves were
the result of fixed jewel points. He states:

"In my opinion, to suppose the knowledge of cutting these gem stones to form teeth and of
setting them in the metal in such a manner that they would bear the strain of hard use, and
to do this at the early period assigned to them, would present greater difficulties than those
explained by the assumption of their employment. But were there indeed teeth such as
postulated by Petrie? The evidence to prove their presence is as follows.

(a) A cylindrical core of granite grooved round and round by a graving

point, the grooves being continuous and forming a spiral, with in one part a
single groove that may be traced five rotation round the core.

(b) Part of a drill hole in diorite with seventeen equidistant grooves due to
the successive rotation of the same cutting point.

(c) Another piece of diorite with a series of grooves ploughed out to a depth
of over one-hundredth of an inch at a single cut.

(d) Other pieces of diorite showing the regular equidistant grooves of a

saw.

(e) Two pieces of diorite bowls with hieroglyphs incised with a very free-
cutting point and neither scraped nor ground out.

But if an abrasive powder had been used with soft copper saws and drills, it is highly
probable that pieces of the abrasive would have been forced into the metal, where they
might have remained for some time, and any such accidental and temporary teeth would
have produced the same effect as intentional and permanent ones…"

Lucas goes on to speculate that withdrawing the tube-drill in order to remove waste and
insert fresh grit into the hole created the grooves. There are problems with this theory. It is
doubtful that a simple tool that is being turned by hand will remain turning while the
artisans draw it out of the hole. Likewise, placing the tool back into a clean hole with fresh
grit would not require that the tool rotate until it was at the workface. There is also the
question of the taper on both the hole and the core. Both would effectively provide
clearance between the tool and the granite, thereby making sufficient contact to create the
grooves impossible under these conditions.

The method I propose explains how the holes and cores found at Giza could have been cut.
It is capable of creating all the details that Petrie and myself puzzled over. Unfortunately
for Petrie, the method was unknown at the time he made his studies, so it is not surprising
that he could not find any satisfactory answers.
The application of ultrasonic machining is the only method that completely satisfies logic,
from a technical viewpoint, and explains all noted phenomena. Ultrasonic machining is the
oscillatory motion of a tool that chips away material, like a jackhammer chipping away at a
piece of concrete pavement, except much faster and not as measurable in its reciprocation.
The ultrasonic tool-bit, vibrating at 19,000 to 25,000 cycles per second (Hertz) has found
unique application in the precision machining of odd-shaped holes in hard, brittle material
such as hardened steels, carbides, ceramics and semiconductors. An abrasive slurry or
paste is used to accelerate the cutting action.

The most significant detail of the drilled holes and cores studied by Petrie is that the
groove is cut deeper through the quartz than the feldspar. Quartz crystals are employed in
the production of ultrasonic sound and, conversely, are responsive to the influence of
vibration in the ultrasonic ranges and can be induced to vibrate at high frequency. In
machining granite, using ultrasonics, the harder material (quartz) would not necessarily
offer more resistance, as it would during conventional machining practices. An
ultrasonically vibrating tool-bit would find numerous sympathetic partners while cutting
through granite, embedded right in the granite itself! Instead of resisting the cutting action,
the quartz would be induced to respond and vibrate in sympathy with the high frequency
waves and amplify the abrasive action as the tool cut through it.

The fact that there is a groove may be explained several ways. An uneven flow of energy
may have caused the tool to oscillate more on one side than the other. The tool may have
been improperly mounted. A buildup of abrasive on one side of the tool may have cut the
groove as the tool spiraled into the granite.

The tapering sides of the hole and the core are perfectly normal when we consider the basic
requirements for all types of cutting tools. This requirement is that clearance be provided
between the tool’s non-machining surfaces and the work piece. Instead of having a straight
tube, therefore, we would have a tube with a wall thickness that gradually became thinner
along its length. The outside diameter getting gradually smaller, creating clearance
between the tool and the hole, and the inside diameter getting larger, creating clearance
between the tool and the central core. This would allow a free flow of abrasive slurry to
reach the cutting area.

A tube drill of this design would also explain the tapering of the sides of the hole and the
core. By using a tube-drill made of softer material than the abrasive, the cutting edge
would gradually wear away. The dimensions of the hole, therefore, would correspond to
the dimensions of the tool at the cutting edge. As the tool became worn, the hole and the
core would reflect this wear in the form of a taper.
 Ultrasonic Machining the Granite Hole & Core

With ultrasonic machining, the tool can plunge straight down into the work piece. It can
also be screwed into the work piece. The spiral groove can be explained if we consider one
of the methods that is predominantly used to uniformly advance machine components. The
rotational speed of the drill is not factor in this cutting method. The rotation of the drill is
merely a means to advance the drill into the work piece. Using a screw and nut method the
tube drill could be efficiently advanced into the work piece by turning in a clockwise
direction. The screw would gradually thread through the nut, forcing the oscillating drill
into the granite. It would be the ultrasonically induced motion of the drill that would do the
cutting and not the rotation. The latter would only be needed to sustain a cutting action at
the workface. By definition, the process is not a drilling process, by conventional
standards, but a grinding process in which abrasives are caused to impact the material in
such a way that a controlled amount of material is removed.

Another method by which the grooves could have been created is through the use of a
spinning trepanning tool that has been mounted off-centered to its rotational axis. Clyde
Treadwell of Sonic Mill Inc., Albuquerque, NM, explained to me that when an off-centered
drill rotated into the granite, it would gradually be forced into alignment with the rotational
axis of the drilling machines axis. The grooves, he claims, could be created as the drill was
rapidly withdrawn from the hole.

If Treadwell's theory is the correct one, it still requires a level of technology that is far
more developed and sophisticated than what the ancient pyramid builders are given credit
for. This method may be a valid alternative to the theory of ultrasonic machining, even
though ultrasonics resolves all the unanswered questions where other theories have fallen
short. Methods may have been proposed that might cover a singular aspect of the machine
marks and not progress to the method described here. It is when we search for a single
method that provides an answer for all data that we move away from primitive, and even
conventional machining, and are forced to consider methods that are somewhat anomalous
for that period in history.

Further studies need to be made of the cores; indeed it has been suggested that replication
of the cores using the methods I propose and those proposed by some Egyptologists using
primitive methods. Following such a replication, a comparison should be taken of the cores
using metrology equipment and a scanning electron microscope. Microscopic changes in
the structure of the granite can occur due to pressure and heat while it is being worked. It is
doubtful that Egyptologists will share my conclusions regarding the pyramid builders'
drilling methods, and it would be beneficial to perform these tests in order to prove
conclusively the true methods used by the pyramid builders for cutting stone.

Amazing Discovery at Giza

In February 1995 I joined Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval in Cairo to participate in a
documentary. While there, I came across and measured some artifacts produced by the
ancient pyramid builders, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that highly advanced
and sophisticated tools and methods were employed by this ancient civilization. Two of the
artifacts in question are well known; another is not, but it is more accessible, since it is
laying out in the open, partly buried in the sand of the Giza plateau. For this trip to Egypt I
had brought along some instruments with which I had planned to inspect features I had
identified during my trip in 1986. The instruments were:

 A "parallel": A flat ground piece of steel about 6 inches long and 1/4 inch thick.
The edges are ground flat within .0002 inch.
 An Interapid indicator. (Known as a clock gauge by my British compatriots.)
 A wire contour gage. A device once used by diesinkers to form around shapes.
 Hard forming wax.

I had brought along the contour gage to check the inside of the mouth of the southern shaft
inside the King's Chamber, for reasons to be discussed in a forthcoming chapter.
Unfortunately, I found out after getting there that things had changed since my last visit. In
1993, a German robotics engineer named Rudolph Gantenbrink installed a fan inside this
opening and, therefore, it was inaccessible to me and I was unable to check it. I had taken
along the parallel for quick checking the surface of granite artifacts to determine their
precision. The indicator was to be attached to the parallel for further inspection of suitable
artifacts. Though the indicator didn’t survive the rigors of international travel, the
instruments with which I was left were adequate for me to form a conclusion about the
precision to which the ancient Egyptians were working. The first object I inspected was the
sarcophagus inside the second (Khafra’s) pyramid on the Giza Plateau. I climbed inside the
box and, with a flashlight and the parallel, was astounded to find the surface on the inside
of the box perfectly smooth and perfectly flat. Placing the edge of the parallel against the
surface I shone my flashlight behind it. No light came through the interface. No matter
where I moved the parallel, vertically, horizontally, sliding it along as one would a gage on
a precision surface plate I couldn’t detect any deviation from a perfectly flat surface.

A group of Spanish tourists found it extremely interesting, too, and gathered around me as
I animatedly exclaimed into my tape recorder, "Space-age precision!" The tour guides were
becoming quite animated, too. I sensed that they probably didn’t think it was appropriate
for a live foreigner to be where they believed a dead Egyptian should go, so I respectfully
removed myself from the sarcophagus and continued my examination outside.

There were more features of this artifact that I wanted to inspect, of course, but I didn’t
have the freedom to do so. The corner radii on the inside appeared to be uniform all around
with no variation of precision of the surface to the tangency point. I was tempted to take a
wax impression, but the hovering guides expecting bribes (baksheesh) inhibited this
activity. (I was on a very tight budget.)

My mind was racing as I lowered myself into the narrow confines of the entrance shaft and
climbed to the outside. The inside of a huge granite box finished off to an accuracy that we
reserve for precision surface plates? How did they do this? And why did they do it? Why
did they find this piece so important that they would go to such trouble? It would be
impossible to do this kind of work on the inside of an object by hand. Even with modern
machinery it would be a very difficult and complicated task!

Petrie gives the dimensions of this coffer, in inches, as: outside, length 103.68, width
41.97, height 38.12; inside, length 84.73, width 26.69, depth 29.59. He stated that the mean
variation of the piece was .04 inch. Not knowing where the variation he measured was, I’m
not going to make any strong assertions except to say that it’s possible to have an object
with geometry that varies in length, width and height and still maintain perfectly flat
surfaces. Surface plates are ground and lapped to within .0001-0003 inch, depending on the
grade of the specific surface plate; however the thickness may vary more than the .04 inch
that Petrie noted on this sarcophagus. A surface plate, though, is a single surface and would
represent only one outside surface of a box. Moreover, the equipment used to finish the
inside of a box would be vastly different than that used to finish the outside. The task
would be much more problematic to grind and lap the inside of a box to the accuracy I had
observed, which would result in a precise and flat surface to the point where the flat
surface meets the corner radius. There are physical and technical problems associated with
a task like this that are not easy to solve. One could use drills to rough the inside out, but
when it came to finishing a box of this size with an inside depth of 29.59 inches while
maintaining a corner radius of less than 1/2 inch, there are some significant challenges to
overcome.

While being extremely impressed with this artifact, I was even more impressed with other
artifacts found at another site in the rock tunnels at the temple of Serapeum at Saqqarra, the
site of the step pyramid and Zoser’s tomb. I had followed Hancock and Bauval on their trip
to this site for a filming on Feb. 24, 1995. We were in the stifling atmosphere of the
tunnels, where the dust kicked up by tourists lay heavily in the still air. These tunnels
contain 21 huge granite boxes. Each box weighs an estimated 65 tons, and, together with
the huge lid that sits on top of them, the total weight of the assembly is around 100 tons.
Just inside the entrance of the tunnels there is a lid that had not been finished and beyond
this lid, barely fitting within the confines of one of the tunnels, is a granite box that had
also been rough hewn.

The granite boxes are approximately 13 ft. long, 7 1/2 ft. wide and 11 ft. high. They are
installed in "crypts" that were cut out of the limestone bedrock at staggered intervals along
the tunnels. The floors of the crypts were about 4 ft. below the tunnel floor, and the boxes
were set into a recess in the center. Bauval was addressing the engineering aspects of
installing such huge boxes within a confined space where the last crypt was located near
the end of the tunnel. With no room for the hundreds of slaves pulling on ropes to position
these boxes, how were they moved into place?

While Hancock and Bauval were filming, I jumped down into a crypt and placed my
parallel against the outside surface of the box. It was perfectly flat. I shone the flashlight
and found no deviation from a perfectly flat surface. I clambered through a broken out edge
into the inside of another giant box and again, I was astonished to find it astoundedly flat. I
looked for errors and couldn’t find any. I wished at that time that I had the proper
equipment to scan the entire surface and ascertain the full scope of the work. Nonetheless, I
was perfectly happy to use my flashlight and straight edge and stand in awe of this
incredibly precise and incredibly huge artifact. Checking the lid and the surface on which it
sat, I found them both to be perfectly flat. It occurred to me that this gave the
manufacturers of this piece a perfect seal. Two perfectly flat surfaces pressed together,
with the weight of one pushing out the air between the two surfaces. The technical
difficulties in finishing the inside of this piece made the sarcophagus in Khafra’s pyramid
seem simple in comparison. Canadian researcher Robert McKenty accompanied me at this
time. He saw the significance of the discovery and was filming with his camera. At that
moment I knew how Howard Carter must have felt when he discovered Tutenkahmen's
tomb.

The dust-filled atmosphere in the tunnels made breathing uncomfortable. I could only
imagine what it would be like if I was finishing off a piece of granite, regardless of the
method used, how unhealthy it would be. Surely it would have been better to finish the
work in the open air? I was so astonished by this find that it didn’t occur to me until later
that the builders of these relics, for some esoteric reason, intended for them to be ultra
precise. They had taken the trouble to bring into the tunnel the unfinished product and
finish it underground for a good reason! It is the logical thing to do if you require a high
degree of precision in the piece that you are working. To finish it with such precision at a
site that maintained a different atmosphere and a different temperature, such as in the open
under the hot sun, would mean that when it was finally installed in the cool, cave-like
temperatures of the tunnel, you would lose that precision. The granite would change its
shape through thermal expansion and contraction. The solution then as it is now, of course,
is to prepare precision surfaces in the location in which they were going to be housed.

This discovery, and the realization of its critical importance to the artisans that built it,
went beyond my wildest dreams of discoveries to be made in Egypt. For a man of my
inclination, this was better than King Tut’s tomb. The Egyptians’ intentions with respect to
precision are perfectly clear, but to what end? I would suggest that further studies of these
artifacts be made and, where applicable, should include thorough mapping and inspection
with the following tools.

 A laser alignment tool with retro reflector surface flatness checking capabilities
 An ultrasonic thickness gage to check the thickness of the walls to determine their
consistency to uniform thickness.
 Inside micrometers to accurately measure the distance between the inside walls.
 An optical flat with monochromatic light source. Are the surfaces really finished to
optical precision? (Though a question remains as to whether there would be
sufficient reflection from the surface.)
Granite Box in the Rock Tunnels at the temple of the Serapeum at Saqqara.

For an update on the precision of these boxes, see ../Precision.htm

I have contacted four precision granite manufacturers in the US and haven’t been able to
find one who can do this kind of work. With Eric Leither of Tru-Stone Corp, I discussed in
a letter the technical feasibility of creating several Egyptian artifacts, including the giant
granite boxes found in the bedrock tunnels the temple of Serapeum at Saqqarra. He
responded as follows:

"Dear Christopher,

First I would like to thank you for providing me with all the fascinating
information. Most people never get the opportunity to take part in
something like this. You mentioned to me that the box was derived from one
solid block of granite. A piece of granite of that size is estimated to weigh
200,000 pounds if it was Sierra White granite which weighs approximately
175 lb. per cubic foot. If a piece of that size was available, the cost would
 be enormous. Just the raw piece of rock would cost somewhere in the area
of $115,000.00. This price does not include cutting the block to size or any
freight charges. The next obvious problem would be the transportation.
There would be many special permits issued by the D.O.T. and would cost
thousands of dollars. From the information that I gathered from your fax,
the Egyptians moved this piece of granite nearly 500 miles. That is an
incredible achievement for a society that existed hundreds of years ago."

Eric went on to say that his company did not have the equipment or capabilities to produce
the boxes in this manner. He said that his company would create the boxes in 5 pieces, ship
them to the customer and bolt them together on site.

Another artifact I inspected was a piece of granite that I, quite literally, stumbled across
while strolling around the Giza Plateau later that day. I concluded, after doing a
preliminary check of this piece, that the ancient pyramid builders had to have used a
machine with three axes of movement (X-Y-Z) to guide the tool in three-dimensional space
to create it. Outside of being incredibly precise, normal flat surfaces, being simple
geometry, can justifiably be explained away by simple methods. This piece, though, drives
us beyond the question, "What tools were used to cut it?" to a more far reaching question,
"What guided the cutting tool?" In addressing this question and being comfortable with the
answer, it is helpful to have a working knowledge of contour machining.

Many of the artifacts that modern civilization creates would be impossible to produce using
simple handwork. We are surrounded by artifacts that are the result of men and women
employing their minds to create tools which overcome physical limitations. We have
developed machine tools to create the dies that produce the aesthetic contours on the cars
that we drive, the radios we listen to and the appliances we use. To create the dies to
produce these items, a cutting tool has to accurately follow a predetermined contoured path
in three dimensions. In some applications it will move in three dimensions, simultaneously
using three or more axes of movement. The artifact that I was looking at required a
minimum of three axes of motion to machine it. When the machine tool industry was
relatively young, techniques were employed where the final shape was finished by hand,
using templates as a guide. Today, with the use of precision computer numerical control
machines, there is little call for handwork. A little polishing to remove unwanted tool
marks may be the only handwork required. To know that an artifact has been produced on
such a machine, therefore, one would expect to see a precise surface with indications of
tool marks that show the path of the tool. This is what I found on the Giza Plateau, laying
out in the open south of the Great Pyramid about 100 yards east of the second pyramid.

There are so many rocks of all shapes and sizes lying around this area that to the untrained
eye, this one could easily be overlooked. To a trained eye, it may attract some cursory
attention and a brief muse. I was fortunate that it both caught my attention, and that I had
some tools with which to inspect it. There were two pieces laying close together, one larger
than the other. They had originally been one piece and had been broken. I found I needed
every tool that I had brought with me to inspect it. I was most interested in the accuracy of
the contour and its symmetry.
Contoured Block of Granite on the Giza Plateau
Coaxial check of Contoured Block

Wax impression taken

Tangential Radius Verified

Tangential Radius Verified

What we have is an object that, three dimensionally as one piece, could be compared in
shape to a small sofa. The seat is a contour that blends into the walls of the arms and the
back. I checked the contour using the profile gage along three axes of its length, starting at
the blend radius near the back, and ending near the tangency point, which blended
smoothly where the contour radius meets the front. The wire radius gage is not the best
way to determine the accuracy of this piece. When adjusting the wires at one position on
the block and moving to another position, the gage could be re-seated on the contour, but
questions could be raised as to whether the hand that positioned it compensated for some
inaccuracy in the contour. However, placing the parallel at several points along and around
the axes of the contour, I found the surface to be extremely precise. At one point near a
crack in the piece, there was light showing through, but the rest of the piece allowed very
little to show.

During this time, I had attracted quite a crowd. It’s difficult to traverse the Giza Plateau at
the best of times without getting attention from the camel drivers, donkey riders and
purveyors of trinkets. It wasn’t long after I had pulled the tools out of my backpack that I
had two willing helpers, Mohammed and Mustapha, who weren’t at all interested in
compensation. At least that’s what they told me, but I can honestly say that I lost my shirt
on that adventure. I had cleaned sand and dirt out of the corner of the larger block and
washed it out with water. I used a white T-shirt that I was carrying in my backpack to wipe
the corner out so I could get an impression of it with forming wax. Mustapha talked me
into giving him the shirt before I left. I was so inspired by what I had found I tossed it to
him. Mohammed held the wire gage at different points along the contour while I took
photographs of it. I then took the forming wax and heated it with a match, kindly provided
by the Movenpick hotel, then pressed it into the corner blend radius. I shaved off the
splayed part and positioned it at different points around. Mohammed held the wax still
while I took photographs. By this time there was an old camel driver and a policeman on a
horse looking on.

What I discovered with the wax was a uniform radius, tangential with the contour, the back
and the side wall. When I returned to the US, I measured the wax using a radius gage and
found that it was a true radius measuring 7/16 inch.

The side (arm) blend radius has a design feature that is a common engineering practice
today. By cutting a relief at the corner, a mating part that is to match or butt up against the
surface with the large blend radius may have a smaller radius.

Corner Radius with Relief

This feature provides for a more efficient machining operation, because it allows a cutting
tool with a large diameter, and, therefore, a large radius to be used. With greater rigidity in
the tool, more material can be removed when making a cut. I believe there is more, much
more, that can be gleaned using these methods of study. I believe the Cairo Museum
contains many artifacts that when properly analyzed, will lead to the same conclusion that I
have drawn from this piece. The use of high-speed motorized machinery, and what we
might call modern techniques in non-conventional machining, in manufacturing the granite
artifacts found at Giza and other locations in Egypt warrants serious study by qualified,
open-minded people who could approach the subject without preconceived notions.
In terms of a more thorough understanding of the level of technology employed by the
ancient pyramid builders, the implications of these discoveries are tremendous. We are not
only presented with hard evidence that seems to have eluded us for decades, and which
provide further evidence proving the ancients to be advanced, we are also provided with an
opportunity to re-analyze everything from a different perspective.
Understanding how something is made opens up a different dimension when trying to
determine why it was made.

The precision in these artifacts is irrefutable. Even if we ignore the question of how they
were produced, we are still faced with the question of why such precision was needed.
Revelation of new data invariably raises new questions. In this case it’s understandable to
hear, "Where are the machines?" Machines are tools. The question should be applied
universally and can be asked of anyone who believes other methods may have been used.
The truth is that no tools have been found to explain any theory on how the pyramids were
built or granite boxes were cut! More than eighty pyramids have been discovered in Egypt,
and the tools that built them have never been found. Even if we accepted the notion that
copper tools are capable of producing these incredible artifacts, the few copper implements
that have been uncovered do not represent the number of such tools that would have been
used if every stonemason who worked on the pyramids at just the Giza site owned one or
two. In the Great Pyramid alone, there are an estimated 2,300,000 blocks of stone, both
limestone and granite, weighing between 2½ tons and 70 tons each. That is a mountain of
evidence, and there are no tools surviving to explain its creation.

The principle of "Occams Razor," where the simplest means of manufacturing holds force
until proven inadequate, has guided my attempt to understand the pyramid builders'
methods. With Egyptologists, there is one component of this principle that has been
lacking. The simplest methods do not satisfy the evidence, and they have been reluctant to
consider other less simple methods. There is little doubt that the capabilities of the ancient
pyramid builders have been seriously underestimated. The most distinct evidence that I can
relate is the precision and mastery of machining technologies that have only been
recognized in recent years.

Some technologies the Egyptians possessed still astound modern artisans and engineers
primarily for this reason. The development of machine tools has been intrinsically linked
with the availability of consumer goods and the desire to find a customer. One reference
point for judging a civilization to be advanced has been our current state of manufacturing
evolution. Manufacturing is the manifestation of all scientific and engineering effort. For
over a hundred years industry has progressed exponentially. Since Petrie first made his
critical observations between 1880 and 1882, our civilization has leapt forward at
breakneck speed to provide the consumer with goods, all created by artisans, and still, over
a hundred years after Petrie, these artisans are utterly astounded by the achievements of the
ancient pyramid builders. They are astounded not so much by what they perceive a society
is capable of using primitive tools, but by comparing these prehistoric artifacts with their
own current level of expertise and technological advancement.

The interpretation and understanding of a civilization's level of technology should not

hinge on the preservation of a written record of every technique that they had developed.
The "nuts and bolts" of our society do not always make good copy, and a stone mural will
more than likely be cut to convey an ideological message rather than the technique used to
inscribe it. Records of the technology developed by our modern civilization rest in media
that is vulnerable and could conceivably cease to exist in the event of a worldwide
catastrophe, such as a nuclear war or another ice age. Consequently, after several thousand
years, an interpretation of an artisan’s methods may be more accurate than an interpretation
of his language. The language of science and technology doesn’t have the same freedom as
speech. So even though the tools and machines have not survived the thousands of years
since their use, we have to assume, by objective analysis of the evidence, that they did
exist.

There is much to be learned from our distant ancestors, if only we can open our minds and
accept that another civilization from a distant epoch may have developed manufacturing
techniques that are as great or perhaps even greater than our own. As we assimilate new
data and new views of old data, it is wise to heed the advice Petrie gave to an American
who visited him during his research at Giza. The American expressed a feeling that he had
been to a funeral after hearing Petrie’s findings, which had evidently shattered some
 favorite pyramid theory of the time. Petrie said, "By all means let the old theories have a
decent burial; though we should take care that in our haste none of the wounded ones are
buried alive."

With such a convincing collection of artifacts that prove the existence of precision
machinery in ancient Egypt, the idea that the Great Pyramid was built by an advanced
civilization that inhabited the Earth thousands of years ago becomes more admissible. I am
not proposing that this civilization was more advanced technologically than ours on all
levels, but it does appear that, as far as masonry work and construction are concerned, they
were exceeding current capabilities and specifications. Making routine work of precision
machining huge pieces of extremely hard igneous rock is astonishingly impressive.

Considered logically, the pyramid builders' civilization must have developed their
knowledge in the same manner any civilization would and had reached their "state of the
art" through technological progress over many years. As of this writing, there is much
research being conducted by many professionals throughout the world. These people are
determined to find answers to the many unsolved mysteries indicating that our planet Earth
has supported other advanced societies in the distant past. Perhaps when this new
knowledge and insight is assimilated, the history books will be rewritten and, if mankind is
able to learn from historical events, then perhaps the greatest lesson we can learn is now
being formulated for the benefit of future generations. New technology and advances in the
sciences are enabling us to take a closer look at the foundations upon which world history
has been built, and these foundations seem to be crumbling. It would be illogical, therefore,
to dogmatically adhere to any theoretical point concerning ancient civilizations.

For the full text and context of Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt Read The Giza Power
Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt.

Last updated

6/12/01

2/29/04

© Copyright 1998-2004 ~ Christopher Dunn. All rights reserved.

Beyond Gantenbrink's Door

New Evidence Revealed

by

Christopher Dunn
On Monday, September 16, 2002 at 8:00 PM ET, FOX television (US) broadcast live from
Egypt an exploration of the Southern Shaft in the Queen's Chamber in the Great
Pyramid. Since 1993, when German robotics engineer, Rudolph Gantenbrink, made his
initial exploration of this 8-inch square 220-ft. long shaft, millions of Egypt watchers
around the world have been waiting for the day when additional explorations would
take place and another tantalizing barrier to greater knowledge might be removed.

The two-hour FOX/National Geographic extravaganza, broadcast live from the Giza
Plateau, provided a torturous prelude to the moment when iRobot's masonry drill-bit
finally broke through into the space beyond, and the endoscopic camera was inserted
into the hole to take a peek at what lay beyond Gantenbrink's "door".

The preparatory work was fascinating. In order to determine the length of drill to be
used, the team first had to know the thickness of the limestone block. They used an
ultrasonic thickness tester and from those results, selected the proper drill. Then, a test
rig was assembled that simulated the shaft with a limestone block of appropriate
thickness at the end. Dr. Hawass observed the drilling of the rock and gave the go-ahead
for the team to drill through the so-called "door."

The buildup to the show explored several ideas on what lies behind this so-called door.

Before the show aired, Dr. Zahi Hawass, chairman of the Supreme Council of the
Antiquities (SCA) in Egypt, expressed a belief that a book about Khufu would be
discovered - Perhaps Khufu's diary:

"What this door might hide is very important to know, that Khufu wrote a sacred book
and maybe this book is hidden behind this door, or maybe a papyrus roll telling us
about building the pyramids."http://www.itv.com/news/World547010.html

Hawass's comments were taken further by the Egyptian State Information Service:

"Hawass stated that such doors were constructed for religious purposes due to the books
found there, such as 'the gateways,' 'the cavities,' and 'two road' which guided the dead
to the hereafter and warned them against the dangers they might
face." http://www.uk.sis.gov.eg/online/html7/o240922n.htm

German Egyptologist, Ranier Stadelman, who directed the work of Rudolph

Gantenbrink in 1993, expressed a belief that the so-called door was a false door for the
king's soul to pass through on its way to Osiris, represented by the star Sirius. He
believed that the copper fittings were handles that the king would use to lift the door.

Robert Bauval, author of The Orion Mystery predicted that a statue would be discovered
and that the end of the shaft served as a serdab from which the ancient Egyptians
viewed the stars.
John Anthony West, author of Serpent in the Sky, commented that there would be
nothing but core masonry behind this door.

A caller to the Art Bell show during an interview I had with George Noory on September
15th identified herself as an Egyptologist and claimed to know what was behind the
"door." Dismissing my own hypothesis on what would be behind the door, she claimed
that they would find a space 30 feet long that contained sacred sand.

My own hypothesis, which we will discuss in a moment, has changed little since the
publication of my book in 1998, I resurrected it on my website and discussed in
interviews both prior to and after September 16th.

The confidence in Chairman Hawass became noticeably muted as the program drew to a
close. He cautioned the viewers that there may be nothing behind the door at all. His
prophetic comments became a reality to all of us as the camera with its fish eye lens
pushed through the hole and a distorted image came into view. There appeared to be
nothing there but a rough looking block a short distance away.

With inimitable style and gusto, Dr. Hawass could hardly contain his excitement at the
dismal image sent back by the camera. "It's another door!" he exuded with glowing
enthusiasm, "with a crack!"

Hawass's pre-broadcast predictions were downgraded a week later to "Everything now

needs a careful look. We will ask the National Geographic Society to cooperate to reveal
more mysteries."

On September 23, 2002, news came out of Egypt that the pyramid rover team had
successfully explored the Northern Shaft in the Great Pyramid. This shaft, opposite the
Southern Shaft, posed problems for Gantenbrink in 1993, Upuaut II was unable to
navigate around earlier explorers' rods that were jammed in the passage as they
attempted to push the rods around a bend in the shaft. The iRobot team had a cunning
but simple solution to the problem with which Gantenbrink was faced. They turned the
robot 90 degrees and sent it up the shaft gripping the walls instead of the ceiling and
floor. In this manner, it was able to ride over the top of the obstacles.

iRobot's treck up the Northern Shaft revealed another blockage which was similar, but
not exactly the same, as Gantenbrink's "door."

You will notice that this block also has two metal fittings. Within the context of the
power plant theory, the existence of these metal fittings is predictable. Also predictable
are the characteristics of the fittings. The power plant theory describes a chemical
process where two solutions combine to create hydrogen. The Giza Power Plant
theorizes that the Southern Shaft provided a diluted hydrochloric solution to the Queen's
Chamber and the Northern Shaft provided a hydrated zinc solution. The function of
these electrodes, i.e. the flow of electricity from one metal fitting through the liquid to
the other metal fitting thereby creating a circuit, predicts that suspended metallic atoms
in the fluid would be deposited on the cathode. What is evident on these metal fittings,
is the result of electro deposition. Follow this link to learn more.

This part of the floor in the Southern Shaft suffered erosion after the pyramid was built.

The evidence supporting the theory of dilute hydrochloric acid can be seen in the above
photograph. The floor of the shaft obviously was eroded AFTER the pyramid was built.
The theory proposed in the Giza Power Plant also proposes that the metal fittings known
to exist in the Southern Shaft were actually electrodes that served as a means to signal
when the level of chemicals in the shaft dropped below a certain level.

Dr. Hawass has predicted that behind the stone block at the end of the Northern Shaft
would be "another door." On this point, Dr. Hawass and I agree. Behind the block at the
end of the Northern Shaft they will discover another space similar to the one at the end
of the Southern Shaft. This time, I believe, they will find a shaft that is on the right side of
the cavity. Perhaps in the floor, but possibly in the right wall. The reason I say this is
because of the vertical shafts on the east side of the Great Pyramid.
Vertical Shaft on the east side of the Great Pyramid.

The Southern Shaft connects to vertical shafts on the south side of the Great Pyramid and
the Northern Shaft connects to vertical shafts on the East side of the Great Pyramid. This
is why the connecting shaft beyond the Northern Shaft "door" will more than likely be
located on the East (right) side of the space that Hawass, and myself, predict will be
found when another exploration is made.

Compared to other predictions regarding what will be found beyond Gantenbrink's

"door," I have used more of the Great Pyramid's entire inner design to arrive at my
conclusions. I have discussed this subject with knowledgeable and staunch believers of
the tomb theory, and they insist that it doesn't matter what may be found behind the
"door," it will support the tomb theory. One conversant commented that even a vertical
shaft that goes down into the bedrock would be incorporated into the tomb theory
because, "If the Pharaoh wanted a vertical shaft, he could have one." His reason was that
Egyptology is not a hard science and does not need to conform to the same standard.

In the Giza Power Plant theory, every architectural element in the Great Pyramid is
integrally linked. Some features can be analyzed separately, but for the most part, the
Queen's Chamber, King's Chamber and the Grand Gallery are the principle features that
work together in unison, and they cannot be separated from each other when
considering a piece of evidence.

The features found in the King's Chamber led me to propose the use of dilute
hydrochloric acid in the Southern Shaft and hydrated zinc in the Northern Shaft of the
Queen's Chamber. The features in the Grand Gallery led me to understand the function
of the King's Chamber. The features in the Queen's Chamber indicate that a chemical
reaction was taking place there to create hydrogen. The hypothesis rises or falls on the
evidence found in these areas. For the theory to hold together, evidence that is
discovered in the future has to support it. Some evidence, such as what will be found
behind Gantenbrink's "door," can be predicted by what is found in the chamber, the
Southern Shaft and the Northern Shaft. The power plant will be either vindicated or will
be severely challenged or even dismissed based on what is revealed.

Before the Pyramid Rover exploration, I went on record as being fully prepared to admit
that I was wrong if a search of the Southern shaft does not reveal another shaft, or shafts,
that will be redirected and eventually lead to a point underneath the pyramid. I also
predicted that on the backside of the "door" the copper fittings would have connections
or would continue away from the "door" and to a point underneath the Great Pyramid.
Unfortunately, as of now, there have not been any clear images of the backside of the so-
called door, so this part of the prediction has not been verified. However, the illustration
in my book predicted one of the attributes of the "door" and the evidence vindicated this
prediction. In my illustration, the thickness of the block is given, by scale, as 3.64 inches
thick. My measure was arbitrary and was based on nothing more than the proposed
function of the block. The ultrasonic thickness tester on the Pyramid Rover measured the
actual thickness and found it to be 3.25 inches thick.
A Pyramid Rover team member records the thickness of the door.

Like everybody in the U.S., I was watching the video on FOX television. In the top left
corner was the word LIVE and the bottom left carried the FOX symbol with Channel 27.
There was really nothing for me to become excited about by what I was able to gather on
this broadcast, until a man in Germany uploaded provided a hi-res image that he had
taken of the National Geographic program broadcast on Sky Television in Europe. This
image seemed to indicate that there was more to be seen in the area that was occluded
by the FOX logo.

I copied the image into a graphics program and auto adjusted the levels, which lightened
the dark areas. I stared at the screen for what seemed to be eternity at what was
revealed.
I know that if you stare at something long enough you might be able to see a face or
some other shape, but the rectangular shape in the left corner of the new block became
immediately apparent. I then adjusted the levels, curves and colors to bring more
definition to the image and created construction lines using the bottom corners as guides
in order to create a vanishing point. It was my intention to see if the geometry of the
rectangular shape on the left side was indeed a true rectangle and parallel with the wall.
Striking a line from the vanishing point and bringing it along the side of the rectangular
shape, I became confident that I may have indeed discovered the down shaft that I had
predicted would be there. Interestingly, the line in the floor is also parallel to the walls,
which indicates that either the floor is made of two blocks, or that a groove is cut in the
floor. Notice, also, in this enhanced image the signs of staining on the floor leading from
the "down shaft" end and also along the wall on the right side.

Because the chemical flowing into the Queen's Chamber did not need to be a great
torrent or even what a normal faucet would produce, replenishing the shaft with fluid
would not require a large orifice. The notched corner as seen in the bottom right corner
of the block would be all that was needed to maintain the fluid level. Moreover, if we
look at the size of the vertical shaft behind the "door" by scale it is only about 1 1/2 inches
wide and 4 inches long.
The exploration of the Northern Shaft and what was discovered at the end was
predictable and, without any shadow of a doubt vindicates the purpose for these shafts
as outlined in The Giza Power Plant. The image of another "door" with copper fittings
and the subtle difference between these fittings and those at the end of the Northern
Shaft supports the hypothesis regarding the chemicals used. The electrodes are affected
by different chemicals a different way. In the Southern Shaft, the action of the dilute
hydrochloric acid eroded the copper over time. Because the upper part of the copper was
covered with chemical for a shorter period of time than the lower part, as the fluid was
always falling, the lower part of the copper was eroded more that the upper part. This
resulted in a taper of the copper and the ultimate failure of the left electrode. In the
Northern Shaft, we see a different effect. Because this shaft contained a hydrated metal,
such as hydrated zinc, what we see is an electroplating of the left electrode. This is
normal and predictable considering that electricity flows from cathode (+) to anode (-)
there would be a deposit of zinc on the anode. What we see in the photograph taken by
Pyramid Rover is a white substance on the left electrode only. There is no erosion on
these electrodes, and the thickness of the metal is considerably less than those in the
Southern Shaft. Notice also the stained limestone on the left and on top of the electrode.
Studies on what causes this effect are still being made.
Southern Plug Northern Plug

While Egyptology is not considered to be a hard science, scientific standards should be

employed when trying to explain this edifice. Arguments should follow the rules of
evidence and conform to scientific principles. While Egyptologists may say the tomb
theory is unassailable, my view has been that if the tomb theory cannot follow logical
scientific arguments, and be subject to radical revision when new data emerges, then it
fails. These are the standards applied to alternate theorists, such as myself, so we should
expect no less from those who teach and support the accepted view. Moreover, the
theory should be predictable. What was discovered behind Gantenbrink's "door," though
not yet brought into full view, was not predicted by Egyptologists and does nothing to
support the theory that this edifice was originally a tomb.

Scientific and social progress demands that we all be skeptics and question the accepted
mores and theories that have been handed to us. Alternate views need to be discussed.
Indeed, they should be welcomed by anyone who is serious about learning what flaws
may exist with their own ideas. Western born Egyptology should not be immune from
these scientific precepts, though its orthodox protectors' awkward attempt to force
contradictory data to fit an unsupportable hypothesis gives little hope for the prospects
of change.

The shame is that the true heritage of the Egyptian people is being ignored; for if the
level of technology evident in the stones of Egypt are evaluated, completely understood
and explained by appropriate experts, Egypt will give itself and the world, the greatest
gift possible. An understanding of a glorious past with innumerable lessons for future
generations.
(c) Copyright 2002 - 2004 All Rights Reserved
What Will Be Found Behind
Gantenbrink's Door?
A Prediction
by
Christopher Dunn
February 2000

The Discovery:

Explorations within the Great Pyramid have revealed, for the first time in modern history, the
contents and features of the enigmatic Southern Shaft in the Queen's Chamber. What other
discoveries will be found when the Egyptian government penetrates further into the Great
Pyramid's ancient confines?
The Queen's Chamber Southern Shaft was first discovered in 1872 when Waynman Dixon
detected a crack in the wall and was able to push a rod through the crack for some distance
without meeting any resistance. This discovery prompted him to have Bill Grundy chisel through
the limestone to discover what lay behind. A full account of this exploration and its implications
is contained in The Giza Power Plant.
In 1993, there was a flurry of excitement around the world when information was released about a
remarkable discovery inside the Great Pyramid. German robotics engineer, Rudolph Gantenbrink,
who had been contracted to install ventilation fans inside the pyramid, received permission to
design a robot to explore the shafts inside the Queen's Chamber. Unlike the shafts leading from
the King's Chamber, these approximately eight-inch square shafts had no known exit point on the
outside of the pyramid. A complete and thorough account of these explorations can be found at
Gantenbrink's own website athttp://www.cheops.org
The robot, named Upuaut II (meaning opener of the ways) was equipped with lights, camera and
laser pointer, and has received more fame and recognition that any other similarly equipped
explorer on the subject. What the robot revealed to the world was a termination point high in the
body of the pyramid. The shaft came to a dead end and barring the way was a solid limestone
block through which two mysterious copper fittings protrude.

The Question:

What does the discovery of this so-called door portend for the orthodox theories proposed by
Egyptologists? The discovery of this door poses a dilemma for Egyptologists. Simply by virtue of
its existence, parts of the tomb theory that explain the existence of these shafts, as well as other
features of the Great Pyramid have undergone revision. When Gantenbrink sent his robot tracking
off into the unknown, Egyptologists did not know that what the robot discovered would contradict
conventional wisdom. They had to provide an answer for the discovery, and one that would make
sense.
The official orthodox opinion on the purpose of these shafts is that they had a cultic or symbolic
purpose.
With the proliferation of alternative views on the purpose of the Great Pyramid, it is
understandable that there is a degree of trepidation and no real urgency to look behind
Gantenbrink's so-called "door" because what could be found may further weaken orthodox views
of prehistory.

The Method:

The standard I set for myself when researching the Great Pyramid was that every single feature
found within the Great Pyramid had to have a logical reason. Engineered features, especially, I
contended, were intrinsic to the original purpose for the building. Every single design
characteristic must be explained and lead to a logical conclusion. In other words, the reasons for
every minute detail must strengthen and support the proposed function for the entire building.
This means that, putting my money where my mouth is, for the theory proposed in The Giza
Power Plant to have validity, whatever is discovered behind Gantenbrink's "door" must be
reconcilable within the context of the pyramid being a power plant. If a room full of mummies or
funerary trappings is found behind the door, then what I have proposed in my book is severely
weakened and may be null and void.
On the Egyptologists' side of the fence, based on the standards they have established for the
explanation of evidence with the pyramids, whatever is found behind Gantenbrink's door can be
explained away by invoking mysterious occult symbolism.

The Prediction:

It has been seven years since Gantenbrink made his discovery. He is quite clear that he could have
continued his explorations, and we would have had knowledge of what is behind this door a long
time ago. With the time dragging on, I couldn't wait for this information to be forthcoming and
published The Giza Power Plant with a prediction of what will be found. This prediction is based
on what is found elsewhere in the Great Pyramid and is an engineering analysis of the function of
the pyramid as a machine.
Egyptologist, Zahi Hawass, has indicated that the "door" will be penetrated and what is
discovered revealed to the world. There have been several dates discussed, including the summer
of 2000. As we are quickly approaching the time during which there may be additional
discoveries, I am taking this opportunity to bring to the fore the predictions in The Giza Power
Plant, and publish for the first time some modifications based on my observations while in Egypt
in May 1999.
As I am writing this, Amargi Hillier, (www.projectduat.com) who is ensconced in a flat in Giza,
is, by my request, taking photographs of some large vertical shafts on the east and south side of
the Great Pyramid. I did not photograph these shafts in 1999, as their true significance did not
immediately strike me. Links to the photographs together with descriptions of them by Amargi
can be found at the end of this article.

In the Giza Power Plant, I made the prediction that behind Gantenbrink's door would be found a
vertical shaft that transcended to a bedrock chamber beneath the Great Pyramid. The bedrock
chamber, I proposed, would house the mechanism necessary to pump chemicals to the Queen's
Chamber shafts to sustain the production of hydrogen for the power plant.
I am modifying this original prediction with the following graphic:

Within the context of the powerplant hypothesis, the vertical bedrock shafts located on the outside
of the Great Pyramid will connect with the Queen's Chamber shafts. Therefore, I predict that
when Gantenbrink's "door" is penetrated, features will be found to support this hypothesis,
Both Queen's Chamber shafts will have shafts, of unknown size or geometry, that join with
bedrock shafts that eventually lead to the shafts on the outside of the Great Pyramid.

Chris Dunn February 2000

Photographs and descriptions of the shafts next to the Great Pyramid courtesy of Amargi Hillier
The photos were taken on February 13, 2000 - 1:30pm.
The shaft area is located approx 15 meters from the center area of the east side of the Great
Pyramid. There is a one meter iron fence surrounding the top of the shaft on all four sides. This
fence is elevated on a stone ledging approx 12 inches high. To look over the fence and down into
the shaft, you need to step up on the concrete ledge. Or you can peer through the bars of the fence.
The shaft is actually two shafts, or has two halfs, divided by a center rough 'wall' which does not
reach to the top of the shaft. The center wall runs east/west. This can be clearly seen in photo
"shaft1.jpg". The shaft is approx 5 meters deep at current depth. Wind-blown sand covers the
remainder depth. Wind also blows in debris and trash, which is removed from the area frequently.
The glass soda bottle on the center wall can give a visual reference of the approx size of the shaft
and within.
The photo briefs are as follows:
Facing east:
Under the iron fencing on the east side of the shaft is a small
metallic door (modern). Center wall runs east/west.

Facing south:
In the north/west corner of the shaft is what looks to be stone steps or stairs....
leading south into a small opening in the center wall, which continues to the southern half of the
shaft.
3 niches or 'cutouts' can be seen on the north side of the center wall.
There are numerous shafts on the plateau with steps going down them.
Facing west:
This photo gives you a better view of the steps. You are looking
almost vertically down. If you lifted your head up and looked
horizontal, you would be facing west at the east side of the Great
Pyramid.
Interesting groove marks, niches, criss-cross patterns and other things can be viewed in the walls
and stone of this shaft.
Amargi Hillier
Photographs Copyright 2000 Amargi Hillier
Our Thanks to Amargi for taking these photos at such short notice, even a powercut did not stop
him!

Back to Gizapower.com
©Copyright 2000 Christopher Dunn
The Evidence Leading up to Gantenbrink's Door

by

Christopher Dunn

Updated September 15, 2002

On Monday, September 16, 2002 at 8:00 PM ET, FOX television (US) will broadcast live
from Egypt an exploration of the Southern Shaft in the Queen's Chamber in the Great
Pyramid. Since 1993, when robotics engineer, Rudolph Gantenbrink made his initial
exploration of this 8-inch square 220 ft. long mysterious shaft, millions of Egypt watchers
around the world have been waiting for the day when additional explorations would take
place and a tantalizing barrier to our past would be penetrated.

This is written as a follow up to a question posed by Don Holeman, biochemical engineer, co-
moderator and designer of the Hall of Ma'at message board. In ancient Egypt, the Hall of
Ma'at was where honesty and truth was weighed. Symbolically, the Hall of Ma'at depicts a
scale with one side of the scale having a feather and the other a man's heart. In principle, we
die with heavy hearts only when we do not conduct ourselves throughout our lives in
accordance with truth, integrity and honor. The Hall of Ma'at message board was created
to weigh the evidence for alternate history. I am please to put forward my evidence in the
Hall of Ma'at so that it may be weighed in an atmosphere of objectivity and honesty. I don't
expect universal agreement, but at least I will go on record for those who have not read my
book and wonder how many marbles I have left for making such a bold prediction.

Mr. Holeman asks: [my clarification in brackets, for the benefit of new readers.]
"I've seen the thread at gh [the Graham Hancock message board] in which gizapyramid.com
[Dr. John DeSalvo's association website of which I am a member] is mentioned and it
reminded me to inquire about the proposition apparently forwarded in your book (which I
have not read) and illustrated herehttp://www.gizapower.com/html/sampleimages/the%20giza
%20power%20plant.gif that the QC [Queen's Chamber] of the GP [Great Pyramid] was at
some point a vat full of hydrochloric acid.

"I wonder if you would elaborate on how you think the AE [ancient Egyptians] made
hydrochloric acid in the first place and secondly how you think it could exist in a limestone
chamber for more than a few minutes without turning the chamber to gasseous CO2 [carbon
dioxide] and road salt?"

As a preamble to my response to the question, I would like to take out of my book and place
here statements that I believe are pertinent and should weigh in on any discussions of my
work.

In 'The Giza Power Plant' page xix paragraph 3, I state:

"I began to see the drawings of the Great Pyramid, with its numerous chambers and
passageways positioned with such deliberate accuracy, as the schematics of a very large
machine. I became convinced that it could not be anything else, and I set about trying to
understand how this machine operated. The effort could be considered similar to what is
known as the process of reverse engineering. To be successful at this, I knew that I had to find
an answer for every single detail found within the Great Pyramid. I could not ignore any
evidence or twist it in any way. I was determined to prepare a report that was accurate and as
honest as I was capable of making it."

On page123 paragraph 2, I state:

"In proposing my theory that the Great pyramid is a power plant, I am not adamantly adhering
to any one proposition. The possibilities may be numerous."

On page 255 paragraph 2, I state:

"My theory is that the Great Pyramid was the ancient Egyptians' power plant. However
radical the idea may seem, it is, in my mind, supported by hard archaeological evidence. The
artifacts reveal that the ancient Egyptians used advanced machining methods, which supports
the deduction that their civilization, and perhaps others, was technologically advanced.
Nevertheless, even with the powerful evidence I have presented throughout this book, and the
growing support for such ideas, there is still a mountain of evidence - or lack of it - that
prevents this theory's total acceptance. I acknowledge this truth, and I am open to revising my
power plant theory if another theory presents itself to explain all the anomalies in the ancient
artifacts and pyramids I have examined to build my own case."

Science and engineering work hand in hand when developing technology. To propose a new
and radical approach to generating energy that was fully functional, right out-of-the-box
working perfectly correct, would have been a miracle. So I don't completely, utterly and
dogmatically adhere to every aspect of my hypothesis to the exception of reasonable
arguments to the contrary. Having said that, I have not been persuaded, so far, to believe that I
am on the wrong track, or that the pyramids were designed and built to function as tombs or
funerary monuments. I am always aware, however, that evidence may turn up at any time to
change my mind. The 21st century exploration of the Southern Shaft and what may be found
on the other side of Gantenbrink's "door" may be an event that either supports my hypothesis
or shatters it completely.

I am one of several theorists who have published ideas on what will be discovered "beyond
the door." To my knowledge, I am the only theorist who uses the Great Pyramid's entire inner
design to support my prediction. I discussed this subject with a knowledgeable and staunch
believer of the tomb theory on the Ma'at message board, and he insisted that it doesn't matter
what may be found behind the "door", unless it is an alien spaceship, it will support the tomb
theory. Even a vertical shaft that goes down into the bedrock would be incorporated into the
tomb theory because, "If the Pharaoh wanted a vertical shaft, he could have one." His reason
was that Egyptology is not a hard science and does not need to conform to the same standard.

Enlightened though I am with that discussion I did not learn anything that would change my
mind regarding the analysis of the Great Pyramid. The evidence of science and technology in
its construction is quite obvious to those who are schooled and experienced in construction
and industrial arts. The stones themselves reach across the centuries and the story they tell is,
unlike the translation of ancient text or art, unambiguous.

As my stated mission in analyzing the Great Pyramid was to leave no detail without an
explanation, the first misunderstanding I would like to clear up regarding Don Holeman's
question is that I did not propose that the Queen's Chamber was a vat filled with hydrochloric
acid. However, Don brings up a good point when he mentioned the chamber turning into salt
as the result of interaction between hydrochloric acid and the calcium carbonate (limestone)
composition of the chamber. This chamber is the only chamber that was noted to have a build
up of salt on the walls and ceiling. It is reported to have been built up to about an inch thick in
places. In 'The Giza Power Plant' I present the results given in 1978 by the Arizona Bureau of
Geology and Mineral Technology who did a chemical analysis of this salt. They found it to be
a mixture of calcium carbonate (limestone), sodium chloride (halite or salt), and calcium
sulfate (gypsum, also known as plaster of paris). Patrick Flanagan, Ph.D, collected the sample
and certified its origin.

While it has been suggested that this build up of salt was the result of the great flood, there
would need to be many great floods to deposit salt on the walls to such a thickness. Moreover,
similar deposits are not found in other areas of the pyramids. There was some in the
horizontal passage and the lower parts of the Grand Gallery. There is also some in the
Subterranean Pit.

In the Giza power plant theory, every architectural element in the Great Pyramid is integrally
linked. Some features can be analyzed separately, but for the most part, the Queen's Chamber,
King's Chamber and the Grand Gallery are the principle features that work together in unison
and they cannot be separated from each other when considering a piece of evidence.

The features found in the King's Chamber led me to propose the use of hydrochloric acid in
the Queen's Chamber. The features in the Grand Gallery led me to understand the function of
the King's Chamber. The features in the Queen's Chamber indicate that a chemical reaction
was taking place there. The hypothesis rises or falls on the evidence found in these areas. For
the theory to hold together, evidence that is discovered in the future has to support it. Some
evidence, such as what will be found behind Gantenbrink's "door", can be predicted by what
is found in the chamber and the Southern Shaft. The power plant will be either vindicated or
will be severely challenged or even dismissed based on what the future reveals.
I am fully prepared to admit that I am wrong if a search of the Southern shaft does not reveal
another shaft, or shafts, that will be redirected and eventually lead to a point underneath the
pyramid. I also predicted in my book that on the backside of the "door" the copper fittings
would have connections or would continue away from the "door" and to a point underneath
the Great Pyramid.

My illustration of what may be behind Gantenbrink's "door" gives a general idea of what the
power plant theory predicts will be found.

Interesting early reports coming from Egypt!

The Pyramid Robot has measured the thickness of the so-called "door". The robot equipped
with an ultrasonic measuring device has climbed the shaft and its feedback indicated that the
limestone was 3-inches thick. The above illustration was created in 1998. Scaling the
measurement of the limestone "door" partition with the dimension of the shaft, my illustration
predicted that the "door" would be 3.64 inches thick. The accurace of the ultrasonic
measurement would depend on the calibration of the equipment, which is tested against a
piece of similar material with similar thickness.

There have been arguments that the Queen's Chamber shafts do not hold water. Mr.
Gantenbrink believes that it is nonsense to propose such an idea. He has good reason to
question this idea. He is in possession of videotape taken within the shaft that examined every
inch of its length. Some of that video I have seen and there are noticeable gaps between some
of the blocks. Presumably caused by a shifting of the structure at some point in prehistory.

Before responding to Mr. Gantenbrink's retort, allow me to explain my state-of-mind when I

examined the evidence before he made his landmark exploration and discoveries. This state-
of-mind compelled me to proffer my hypothesis.

As my book describes in great detail, features in the King's Chamber dictate the creation of
hydrogen in the Queen's Chamber. I had considered several gasses while researching my
book, but hydrogen was the only gas that fit. It's wavelength and frequency were in "tune"
with the rest of the pyramid.

Supporting the idea that a chemical reaction took place in the Queen's Chamber, (and before
the discovery of Gantenbrink's "door") my hypothesis relied on the evidence discovered in
the chamber by early explorers as follows:

The rough, unfinished floor

inside the Queen's Chamber.
The corbelled niche cut into
the east wall of the Queen's
Chamber.
The repugnant odor that
assailed early explorers.
Drop in Horizontal Passage
floor level before it goes
into the Queen's Chamber.
This would allow chemicals
to pool inside the chamber
and "wick" up the
evaporation tower.
Corbelled niche in wall of
the Queen's Chamber. This
may have been a means to
key the evaporation tower
into the structure.
Shafts leading to the
Queen's Chamber but not
quite connected to it. These
could have been supply
shafts for chemicals needed
in the reaction. The shafts
would allow chemicals to
enter the chamber and
prevent evolving gases from
escaping.
Stone ball, grapnel hook,
and cedar like wood. The
wood and hook assembly
could have served as a
floating contact to signal the
need for more chemical. The
stone ball may have been
used to prevent erosion of
the "left" as the channel
filled with fluid. (I am not
adverse to the idea that these
items were introduced at a
later time, but offer this as a
reason for their presence
assuming they are
contemporaneous with the
building.)
Flakes of gypsum exuding
from joints in shafts. This
substance probably resulted
from the chemical reacting
with limestone (suggesting
the use of hydrochloric
acid).
Buildup of salt crystals on
the walls and ceiling of the
Queen's Chamber,
Horizontal Passage, and
lower level of Grand
 Gallery. This buildup was
likely the result of gaseous
vapor passing over the
limestone, reacting with the
calcium in the limestone,
and giving up water and
impurities. This was a by-
product from the drying of
the gas.
Well Shaft bored from the
juncture of the Grand
Gallery and the Horizontal
Passage down to the Grotto.
This was probably either a
waste removal shaft or an
overflow shaft.
Large granite block at the
bottom of the Well Shaft at
the level of the Grotto. Most
likely this was put into place
to catch the chemical
overflow, thereby
preventing erosion of the
limestone.

The strongest argument to support the use of a fluid in the shafts is that they were not
connected with the chamber. They terminated just five-inches away from the inside wall. At
the time I was researching this part of the book, I was living in Indiana, which is famous for
its limestone quarries. I had bought some property out in the country and was putting in a
septic system. This led to an in depth discussion with a civil engineer about the standards and
calculations used when putting in a septic system and seep field. I was particularly fascinated
when a percolation test was run on my property. It was a simple test that involved time and
volume of liquid. A hole is dug, water is poured into it and time is taken for the water to
disappear from the hole.

I asked the civil engineer if he had ever performed a percolation test in the limestone bedrock.
He said yes and that the principle is still the same. The square footage required for a septic
system is calculated from the percolation results, whether the hole is dug into limestone, clay
or regular soil. From my discussions with him, I learned that air would not pass through that
five-inch plate of limestone that separated the Queen's Chamber from the Shafts, but a liquid
would. I also learned that the percolation rate would be precise as long as the head pressure,
which is determined by the weight of the column of liquid, remained the same.

Because other evidence in the Great Pyramid suggested hydrogen as a gas, I consulted with a
chemical engineer to find out what chemicals, when brought together, would produce
hydrogen gas. I was told that diluted hydrochloric acid coming in from one shaft and hydrated
zinc feeding in from the other when combined would produced hydrogen. Joe Drejewski, my
consultant, also affirmed that the boiling off of hydrogen when the chemicals mixed would
create salts on the limestone (calcium carbonate) walls and ceiling of the chamber.
The shafts inside the Queen's Chamber were not discovered until 1872. In 1993 I was glued to
the television while Upuaut II climbed the Southern Shaft. I had heard many rumors before
then about what had been found. Most of them were wrong. As I watched this exploration,
though, I believed I was seeing real evidence of the action that a dilute hydrochloric acid
solution would have on limestone.

The lower parts of the shaft were eaten up by erosion. As Gantenbrink's robot traveled
through the shaft it was as though it was traveling through a cave. Early explorers noted that
gypsum was leaching from the walls and oozing from the joints.

For an example of what the previous paragraph describes, please use the links within the text.
For Mr. Gantenbrink's report, go to Gantenbrink's website.

Further up the shafts, other evidence came into view of a section of the floor that had been
eaten away. As you can see in the following link, the erosion happened after the shaft was
constructed because it extends beneath the block that forms the side walls and ceiling. The
rounded irregular undercut is clearly not manufactured and seem to have been produced by
eroding elements after the shaft had been constructed.

Upuaut's camera also reveals what appears to be erosion patterns in the wall. Considering the
camera angle and direction, the erosion pattern on the wall appear to be "tide marks". As
though the surface of a fluid had left a horizontal impression at certain locations along the
wall.

Please see "tide

marks here and here.

Finally, Upuaut came to the infamous "door" with its copper fittings. Again we have clear
signs of erosion on the copper. The bottom of the left fitting had broken off. This, in my mind,

is significant. Without any previous intrusion from mice or man, this section had broken away
from the parent copper material.
You will notice, also, that the copper is tapered from the upper part down to its tip. Was it
intentionally manufactured this way? Or is this is another sign of erosion? Considering that
the left fitting had broken away, it would appear that the copper was subject to some sort of
action, whether chemical or mechanical, after they were installed. Along with the signs of
erosion in the lower parts of the shaft, the tapering of the copper is crucial to understanding
what happened.

In The Giza Power Plant, I propose that these copper fittings were part of an electrical circuit
which closed when the shaft was full of chemical. As long as the circuit was closed, the
necessary head pressure, assuring a consistent and predictably flow into the Queen's
Chamber, would be maintained. When the level dropped below the level of the copper
electrodes, the circuit opened and a signal was transmitted so that more chemicals would be
delivered to the shaft.
The action of the dilute hydrochloric acid eroded the copper over time. Because the upper part
of the copper was covered with chemical for a shorter period of time than the lower part, as
the fluid was always falling, the lower part of the copper was eroded more that the upper part.
This resulted in a taper of the copper and the ultimate failure of the left electrode.

Gantenbrink's "door"

Because the feed into the Queen's Chamber would not have been a great torrent or even what
a normal faucet would produce, replenishing the shaft with fluid would not require a large
orifice. The notched corner as seen in the bottom right corner of the block would be all that
was needed to maintain the fluid level.

With respect to Mr. Gantenbrink's assertion that the shafts do not hold water, I respectfully
suggest that they were not intended to hold water but to transfer a fluid from one point to
another. Similarly today, we use conduits that are not water tight to convey water from one
point to another. Sewers and field tile come to mind. It is noted, also, that gaps in the lower
limestone blocks may be problematic. However, it should be noted that the shaft is only 8-
inches square and on a television screen, traveling through this space looks the same as
traveling through the 42 inch square Ascending Passage. They both fill the screen,
consequently perspectives within the confines of this small shaft can be somewhat
exaggerated. Moreover, so far there is no knowledge of how the masonry that surrounds the
shafts is constructed, or what sealing methods may have been employed underneath the shaft
blocks. Nonetheless, the evidence of an erosion causing fluid occupying these shafts at some
time in history is forceful enough to allow the speculation that either a water tight seal was not
necessary or that one exists that has not yet been discovered.

Why the lower parts of the shaft were eroded more than the upper parts may be explained by
evaporation of the water leaving a stronger concentration of hydrochloric acid as the level
gradually fell. These ideas are speculative and are offered in the spirit of inquiry into
anomalistic features that heretofore have not been explained.

The foregoing explains the reasoning behind my prediction of what will be found on the other
side of Gantenbrink's 'door'. The prediction has been in my book since 1998 and on this
website since 2000. Science needs to be verifiable and predictable. After the dust settles on
the Pyramid Rover following its peek beyond the "door," in whose corner will the weight of
evidence rest………. Stay tuned.

© Copyright September 15, 2002 All Rights Reserved

The Amazing Boxes of the Serapeum

by

Christopher Dunn

10/8/01 & 3/2/03

In this article, I will explain in detail why I believe ar-

tifacts that I have studied in Egypt were the products
of an advanced culture, or a culture with a signific-
antly different level of technology for which we have
given them credit. I will focus on one particular aspect
of these artifacts: their precision. I could get into a
long drawn out discussion of what was necessary to
produce this amazing precision, but I will leave that
for another article. For the purposes of this article,
what we need to understand is what manufacturing
precision is and why we create it.

What is precision?

The word comes from "precise" which Webster's

defines as "sharply or exactly limited or defined as to
meaning; exact; definite, not loose, vague or
equivocal; exact in conduct; strict; formal; nice;
punctilious." Preciseness is "exactness; rigid nicety;
excessive regard to forms or rules; rigid formality."
Precision is "The state of being precise as to meaning;
preciseness; exactness; accuracy."

To many people, the application of precision in their

lives is related to their words and actions. We have
precise speech, precise time keeping and the precision
of a military drill. We may have the good fortune to
be invited to a dinner party by a "precisian" and find
the tableware in exact order, with nary a spoon or
goblet out of position.

The application of precision, as noted above, is part

and parcel of being civilized. It is the discipline and
order that is necessary for civilization to function
successfully.

Beginning in the late 1800s, a different application of

precision was gaining increased importance and seen
to be necessary to ensure the successful outcome of
human endeavors. The machines that were invented
and used as labor-saving devices depended on
precision components to function properly. In the
1800s, the cotton industry and steam power spawned
the Industrial Revolution in the north of England. The
demand for more efficient spinning mills and looms
gave rise to a greater emphasis on producing
components that functioned precisely. To make
products that were consistent, variables in the
manufacturing process had to be reduced or
eliminated. To accomplish this, dimensional variables
that were inherent in the manufacture of critical
components needed to be reduced to acceptable
levels. However, because of the inaccuracies of the
machine tools of that day, skilled fitters were needed
to scrape, chisel and file components to close
dimensions in order for them to fit properly.

Wars have accelerated the evolution of standardized

measurements and the elimination of variables in the
manufacturing process. Put yourself in the place of a
soldier during the Civil War. Their rifles were
precision crafted, but when replacing a component in
the field, they had to hand file the pieces to fit.
Obviously, this was time consuming, and in war,
timing could make you a winner or a loser. Standards
were necessarily instituted and suppliers had to meet
these standards or lose business.

Anyone who has brought home a bicycle or piece of

"Ready to assemble" furniture can appreciate the
precision that is required for these objects to go
together easily. Have you ever found yourself trying
to align a bolt in a pre-drilled hole that is off by an
eighth of an inch? This is an excellent example of the
need for precision, and how the effort to produce
precision products can be an expensive, difficult
endeavor.

In manufacturing today, components are made

throughout the world and come together in assembly
plants. The exacting standards and precision of the
product shipped from thousands of miles away ensure
that when they go to the assembly line, the
components fit together without additional work being
performed.

Most people will never actually create objects to a

high precision. It is understandable, therefore, that
most people overlook this important aspect of a
civilization's infrastructure. To laypersons, precision
is an abstract concept. This is not a criticism. If you
have not had precision manufacturing experience,
either professionally or as a hobby, an understanding
of the concept of precision is academic.

We are end users of powerful precision technologies

that fuel our civilization and make our lives easier.
Without manufacturing precision, cars would not run,
planes would not fly and CDs would not play. The
precision we create is born out of necessity. We do
not create it without good reason, because the costs of
producing artifacts today go up exponentially if the
demand for accuracy is greater.

An example of close accuracy and precision is the 12-

inch straight-edge that I have taken to Egypt in 1999
and 2001. The edge was finished on a precision
grinder. Its deviation from a perfect straight line was .
0001 inch. For the reader who cannot relate to what
that means in real terms, take a hair out of your head,
and split it equally along its length into 20 parts. One
part is approximately equal to .0001 inch. (the average
hair is .0025 inch). Or, to compare it to our "Some
Assembly Required" example above, this straight-
edge is 1,250 times MORE precise than the pre-
drilled hole which was off by an eighth of an inch.

If we were to miraculously uncover an unidentified

artifact in the Sahara desert that had been buried for
thousands of years, how would we determine its
purpose? If the speculation arises that it may have had
some technological purpose, the challenge would be
to prove it, which would require us to reverse
engineer its design to determine its function. Reverse
engineering has been a part of industrial
competitiveness for years. Engineers would buy a
competitor's product and by studying its design and
components would understand the science and
engineering behind its function. This is why the
recovery of a potential or real enemy's weapons of
war is important.

If, after a cursory examination of this unidentified

prehistoric artifact, we determine that it may have
been a machine that functioned as a tool to create
artifacts, how would we know that it was a precision
machine tool? In order to prove the case for our
prehistoric precision machine tool, it would need to be
measure for accuracy. Certain components associated
with precision machine tools are manufactured to a
high accuracy. Flat surfaces necessary for the machine
to function properly would be finished to within .0002
inch. This kind of accuracy separates primitive tools
and those that are the result of need and development.
The discovery of this precision would elevate the
artifact to a higher purpose. If these components were
not precise, the arguments against it being the product
of an advanced society would be strengthened.

The critical evidence, therefore, is the accuracy of the

surfaces being measured. Artisans do not create
surfaces with such accuracy unless the artifact they
are creating needs to function to exact specifications.
This kind of precision is only conceived of and
created out of need. Unless there is a need, it isn't
even a consideration.

When looking for prehistoric machines, though, we

tend to look for artifacts that are made of iron or steel,
not granite. Primarily because we use iron and steel to
construct our machines. We see things as we are not
how they are. Nevertheless, the critical proof that
would be demanded to support the conclusion that a
steel artifact was a precision machine is its precision,
and the product of the machine. This precision can be
found in Egypt—crafted into many artifacts made of
stable igneous rock that would survive tens of
thousands of years and still retain their precision. On
the one hand we may not have the iron and steel used
to create the artifact, but we have the products in
abundance. Many of these artifacts, I believe may
have been mis-identified and assigned to a time period
that does not support the hypothesis that the tools
used to create them may have eroded over a much
longer time than established dates would allow. There
is support for such a speculation if we look at artifacts
from purely an engineering perspective. It has been
said that to understand the ancient Egyptian culture,
you have to think like an Egyptian. To understand
their technological accomplishments, however, you
have to think like an engineer.

The Serapeum

The granite box inside Khafre's pyramid has the same characteristics as the
boxes inside the Serapeum. Yet the boxes in the Serapeum were ascribed to
the 18th dynasty, over 1100 years later when stoneworking was supposedly in
decline. Considering that this dating was based on pottery items that were
found and not the boxes themselves, it would be reasonable to speculate that
the boxes have not been dated accurately. Their characteristics show that
their creators used the same tools and were blessed with the same skill and
knowledge as those who created Khafre's pyramid. Moreover, the boxes in
both locations are evidence of a much higher purpose than mere burial
sarcophagii. They are finished to a high accuracy, their corners are
remarkably square, and their inside corners worked down to a dimension that
is sharper than what one would expect to find in an artifact from prehistory.
All of these features are extremely difficult to accomplish and none of them
necessary for a mere burial box.

This photograph is of a wax impression taken of the inside southwest

vertical corner of Khafre's box. The wax impression was fixtured on a 40X
J&L comparitor. The existence of such a sharp corner raises the question of
purpose because of the inordinate amount of extra time needed to work the
granite down to such a small dimension.
The following photograph is of the corner radius in one of the boxes inside
the Serapeum. I was the only person inside this dark box when this
photograph was taken, so I had to put down my flashlight to use my camera.
Hence, the photograph, is somewhat out of focus. I can testify, though, that
when I was going through my set of radius gages in order to select the
closest fit, the 5/32 inch radius gage that you see in this photograph fit
snugly in the corner.
In 1995 I inspected the inside and outside surfaces of two boxes in the
Serapeum with a 6-inch precision straight edge that was accurate to .0002
inch. My report on what I discovered has been published in magazine
articles, in my book The Giza Power Plant, and on my
website, www.gizapower.com, as Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt.

The artifacts I have measure in Egypt have the marks

of careful and remarkable manufacturing methods.
They are unmistakable and irrefutable in their
precision but origin or intent will always be open to
speculation. The following series of photographs were
taken inside the Serapeum on August 27, 2001. Those
taken of me inside one of these huge boxes show me
inspecting the squareness between a 27 ton lid and the
inside surface of the granite box on which it sits. The
precision square I used was calibrated to .00005 inch
(that is 5/100,000 of an inch) using a Jones & Lamson
comparitor.
The underside of the lid and the inside wall of the box
I found to be square, and finding that the squareness
was achieved not just on one side of the box but both,
raises the level of difficulty in accomplishing this feat.
Think of it as a geometric reality. In order for the lid
to be square with the two inside walls, the inside walls
would have to be parallel to one another along the
vertical axis. Moreover, the topside of the box would
need to establish a plane that is square to the sides.
That makes finishing the inside exponentially more
difficult. The manufacturers of these boxes in the
Serapeum not only created inside surfaces that were
flat when measured vertically and horizontally, they
also made sure that the surfaces they were creating
were square and parallel to each other, with one
surface, the top, having sides that are 5 feet and 10
feet apart from each other. But without such parallism
and squareness of the top surface, the squareness
noted on both sides would not exist

While it may be argued that modern man cannot

impose a modern perspective on artifact that are
thousands of years old, an appreciation of the level of
precision found in these artifacts is lacking in
archaeological literature and is only revealed by an
understanding what it takes to produce this kind of
work. As an engineer and craftsman, who has worked
in manufacturing for over 40 years and who has
created precision artifacts in our modern world, in my
opinion this accomplishment in prehistory deserves
more recognition. Nobody does this kind of work
unless there is a very high purpose for the artifact.
Even the concept of this kind of precision does not
occur to an artisan unless there is no other means of
accomplishing what the artifact is intended to do. The
only other reason that such precision would be created
in an object would be that the tools that are used to
create it are so precise that they are incapable of
producing anything less than precision. With either
scenario, we are looking at a higher civilization in
prehistory than what is currently accepted. To me, the
implications are staggering.

This is why I believe that these artifacts that I have

measured in Egypt, are the smoking gun that proves,
without a shadow of a doubt, that a higher civilization
than what we have been taught existed in ancient
Egypt. The evidence is cut into the stone.

The boxes that are off the beaten tourist's path in the
rock tunnels of the Serapeum would be extremely
difficult to produce today. Their smooth flat surfaces,
orthogonal perfection and incredibly small inside
corner radii that I have inspected with modern
precision straight edges, squares and radius gages,
leave me in awe. Even though after contacting four
precision granite manufacturers I could not find one
who could replicate their perfection, I would not say
that it would be impossible to make one today—if we
had a good reason to do so. But what would that
reason be? For what purpose would we quarry an 80-
ton block of granite, hollow its inside and proceed to
craft it to such a high level of accuracy? Why would
we find it necessary to craft the top surface of this box
so that a lid with an equally flat underside surface
would sit square with the inside walls?

There may be arguments against the claims of

advanced societies in prehistory. Some may argue that
the lack of machinery refutes such claims, but a lack
of evidence is not evidence. It is fallacious to deny or
ignore what exists by arguing for what does not exist.
When we ponder the purpose for creating such
precision, we inexorably move beyond the simple
reasons espoused by historians and are forced to
consider that there was a civilization in prehistory that
was far more advanced and vastly different than
previously thought. We do not need to look for secret
chambers or halls of records to know that this
civilization existed. It is crafted into some of the
hardiest materials with which they worked—igneous
rock.

I am indebted to Dr. Zahi Hawass for introducing me

to Mr. Adel Hussein Mohamed, the Director of
Saqqara, who gave me permission to conduct further
studies inside the Serapeum. Mr. Mohamed was
extremely hospitable and kind. He accompanied me to
the site and observed as I inspected the granite boxes
and took photographs. I especially enjoyed his
Egyptian hospitality and hot tea. I am deeply grateful,
also, to Gail Fallen of Grizzly Adams Productions.
Without her impeccable diplomacy, these events
would not have transpired.
Chris Dunn & Dr. Zahi Hawass
 In the rock tunnels at Saqarra

Adel Hussein Mohamed, Director of Saqqara,

Mohamed, Inspector and Gail Fallen, Producer.

©Copyright 2001 - 2004 Christopher Dunn

Following the Evidence

By

Christopher Dunn

10/15/01

03/16/04

8/15/2010

As The Giza Power Plant was going to press, most of my communication was with like
minded people who knew of my work and who agreed that there was some truth to it and that
it should receive further study. I was blissfully unaware of a multitude of people who looked
at this out-of-the-blue, from far left field radical idea of the Great Pyramid as a power plant as
quite fantastic and unbelievable. Well, I suspected there were some out there. No, I knew they
were out there. Their existence at that time, though, did not really affect me as it does now.
This is primarily because I believe I could have done a better job of persuading intelligent
critically minded people who visit this site to follow the evidence that led me to my
conclusions.

In an attempt to correct part of this error, I would like to bring your attention to another
chapter in my book that discusses the Grand Gallery in the Great Pyramid. But first some
background information.

The details of the Grand Gallery are extremely important and have no parallel in any other
structure on Earth. Its geometric design predicts that sound originating within its space is
focused through a passageway past the Antechamber and into the granite complex known as
the King's Chamber. This phenomena has been noted by musicians, acoustical engineers,
military scientist and laypeople alike. Some of the more puzzling features of this architectural
acoustical miracle, however, are not adequately explained by conventional literature or,
indeed, in any other literature. They are the 27 pair of slots that are cut into the ramps that
traverse both side of the Grand Gallery.

Within the context of a machine, these slots can be imagined to perform all sorts of functions.
On author speculated that they may have serves as the teeth on a rack and pinion type device
that would allow the device (pinion) to crawl up the Grand Gallery. Some have speculated
that they may have housed devices that would serve as gates for the elevation of fluids. The
conventional theory is that the granite plugs in the lower part of the Ascending passage were
held in the Grand Gallery prior to being lowered into place. These slots, they surmise, housed
wooden pegs that held the blocks in place.

In attempting to explain the existence of these slots in the power plant theory, my focus was
to introduce an explanation that not only explained why the slots were there, but also how
these slots fit with the explanations for all the other evidence found within the Great Pyramid.
The evidence that I worked with at the time included the design of the Grand Gallery and all
the evidence that was around it.

"Prior to my visit to Egypt in 1986, I had speculated that the slots along the Gallery floor
anchored wooden resonators, but that these devices were balanced in a vertical orientation
reaching almost to the full height of the gallery. I speculated that the resonators were
anchored in the slots at the bottom and held in place by utilizing dowels that fit into the
groove located in the second corbelling and running the full length of the gallery. If this
speculation is true, it would logically follow that the geometry of the 27 pair of slots would be
unlike the drawings I have studied. The bottom of the slot may be parallel to the horizontal
plane, rather than parallel with the angle of the gallery, and the side walls of the slot would
be vertical to a horizontal plane, rather than perpendicular to the angle of the gallery. This
was a significant detail and a simple one to check out.

"My first trek inside the Great Pyramid in 1986 didn't reveal anything about the geometry
of these slots as they were filled with dirt and debris. The following day I set out to the Great
Pyramid with a soupspoon that I had 'borrowed' from the hotel restaurant. Digging out the
dirt and debris, with tourists and guides looking at me like I was crazy (actually, it was
probably illegal to do this as you need special permission and to carry out excavations in
Egypt), I finally came to the bottom of the slot. It was as I predicted it would be; parallel to
the horizontal. Also, the sides of the slots were perpendicular to the horizontal. Other slots
were perpendicular to the horizontal as well, though some of them had bottoms that were
parallel to the gallery floor. In either scenario, it appears that the slots were prepared to
accommodate a vertical structure, rather than restrain weight that would exert shear
pressure from the side."
In my book, I speculate on the existence of these resonators primarily by back engineering the
phenomena we know as the King's Chamber. However, the real phenomena that was the
genesis of my inquiry into the function of the Great Pyramid is the damage that the King's
Chamber had suffered at some distant point in its history.

I'm not sure I would have considered that the Great Pyramid was a power plant without the
evidence of energy affecting change within this structure. Reading in Petrie's Pyramids and
Temples of Gizeh that the King's Chamber had been subject to a powerful force that caused
the walls to push out over one inch made me sit up and take notice. The cracks in the ceiling
beams did not seem, to me, to be explained by settling, and the historical explanation that all
of this damage was the result of an earthquake just didn't add up.

The earthquake hypothesis does is on rather shaky ground, considering there is no similar
damage in the lower parts of the Great Pyramid. Petrie surveyed the Descending Passage and
found an amazing accuracy of .020 inch over 150 feet and a mere .250 inch over 350 feet of
its constructed and excavated parts. With this evidence, there is no indication that the building
had been shook to such an aweful extent that a chamber 175 feet above the bedrock would be
significantly moved. Additionally, one might question why an earthquake would cause a
chamber to expand rather than collapse? Combined, this point and the lack of supportive
evidence in the lower parts of the Great Pyramid actually argues against and dismisses the
earthquake theory.

Faced with this evidence, and for a variety of other reasons I bring out in more detail in The
Giza Power Plant, I speculated that there had been an explosion in the King's Chamber. I had
also speculated that this explosion resulted in a conflagration in the Grand Gallery that
destroyed the proposed resonators in the Grand Gallery:

"If subjected to excessive levels of energy, what changes would take place in an object like
the coffer? Perhaps the coffer was originally red and quarried at the same time, in the same
place, as the rest of the granite. Depending on other elements that were present at the time of
the malfunction of the power plant, it is conceivable that certain changes would be recorded
in any object fortunate enough to survive the accident. The comparatively thin sides and base
of the coffer would naturally be more susceptible to excessive energy levels than would the
huge granite blocks comprising the walls and ceiling. It could be suggested, therefore, that
the coffer, without the ability to conduct the heat to which it was subjected, simply over-
cooked, with a change in color being the result.

"The guardians, alarmed at this sudden malfunction, then accessed the inner chambers of
the pyramid by climbing down the Descending Passage and then up the Well Shaft to the level
of the Grand Gallery. They cut through to what is now known as Davison's Chamber where
they inspected the next layer of granite. While in this chamber they could have cleaned away
the limestone dust (exuviae) from the top of the beams, which is why the exuviae wasn't
discovered until an opening was made by Howard Vyse into the chamber above.

"If the resonators were made of combustible material they may have been destroyed at the
same time the King's Chamber was subject to its disturbance.

"As evidence to support this speculation, there are reports that the limestone walls in the
Grand Gallery were subjected to heat, and calcination, or burning, of the limestone blocks
took place. The disaster that struck the King's Chamber, therefore, may have been
responsible for destroying the resonators in the Grand Gallery."

When I wrote the above in 1998, it did not occur to me that I would find evidence to support
my speculation barely a year later. Following a trip to Egypt in 1999, I wrote the following in
an article entitled Return to The Giza Power Plant, published on this website:

In all the literature I had read, the Grand Gallery is described as being constructed of
limestone. But here I was looking at granite! I noted a transition point further down the
gallery where it changed from limestone to granite. I scanned the ceiling and saw, instead of
the rough crumbling limestone one sees when first entering the gallery, what appeared to be,
from 28 feet below, smooth highly polished granite. This was highly significant to me. It made
sense that the material closer to the power center would be constructed of a material that was
more resistant to heat.
I then paid closer attention to the scorch marks on the walls. There was heavy heat damage
underneath each of the corbelled layer for a distance of about 12 inches, and it seemed as
though the damage was concentrated in the center of the burn marks. I then visually took a
straight line through the center of each scorch mark and projected it down towards the
gallery ramp. That was when the chills ran down my spine and the hair stood out on my
neck. The line extended down in alignment with the slot in the ramp!

Because I was involved in a conference and had little time for further research at that time, I
could not take photographs of the scorch marks at that time. I was hopeful that some video of
the experience would be released in some form, but that has not come to pass at the time of
this writing. Nevertheless, patience is one's best friend in this field and in August of 2001, I
again had the opportunity to go back to Egypt. This time it was under the auspices of PAX
television and Grizzly Adams Productions.

Dr. Zahi Hawass was extremely ebullient and helpful to Grizzly's producer, Gail Fallen, and
myself as we visited with him. He bent over backwards to accommodate any of our wishes to
see anything we wanted to see. High on my list was a visit to the Serapeum, but also to be one
of the limited number of tourists that are allowed inside the Great Pyramid daily.

We entered the Great Pyramid at around 3:00 PM and I was amazed at the difference in its
interior. There had been a tremendous amount of cleaning of the walls and ceilings. Even the
writing on the Queen's Chamber south wall near the opening of the shaft had been stripped
off. The writing used to read "Opened in 1872." It was sad, in a way, to see that writing gone.
While it was introduced by modern Westerners, it seemed, to me, to be a significant part of
the history of the Great Pyramid.

Enhancing the interior face-lift of the Great Pyramid was a much improved lighting system.
With lighting and cleaning combined, the Great Pyramid revealed more of its secrets. Some
evidence may have been stripped away, but other evidence was revealed. The ceiling of the
grand gallery had a pattern of what strongly resembles scorch marks. (Please see the
following two images.)
The pattern is unmistakable and pronounced. The scorch marks on the Grand Gallery ceiling
approximates the design and location hypothesized in my book. The support structure for the
resonators are on both sides of the gallery. Correspondingly, there are pairs of scorch marks
located where the support structure would have been.

These marks do not appear to be marks that could have been created by smudges from
torches, either. Besides, any smoke residue, I am sure, would have been cleaned off by the
very thorough cleaning performed by the Egyptians while the pyramid was closed. I am left to
assume, therefore, that these marks were caused by intense heat and secondary damage
intrinsically linked to the overall downfall of the entire operating system.

The photograph I wanted to take of the marks on the wall, was later taken by Jon Bodsworth
and is displayed along with many other magnificant photographs on his website.

Photograph Courtesy of Jon Bodsworth of EgyptArchive.co.uk

The location of this photograph is the south wall of the Grand Gallery looking up to the
passageway that leads to Davison's Chmaber. The marks on the wall look like impact craters
as though an object in proximity to them exploded. Considering the angle of the camera, and
the eliptical shape of the craters, it is reasonable to infer that if looked at normal to the
surface, they would be round. While one might wonder if these marks could have been made
by someone climbing a rope to the top of the gallery, it would seem that there would be two
sets of tracks, if that were the case, and that any impressions made by a foot would not be
quite as regular.

In summary, the evidence brought to light inside the Grand Gallery, reinforces the power
plant explosion hypothesis and is a predictable element that the hypothesis implies and fits
perfectly without any awkward revisions thereof.

I am indebted to Dr. Zahi Hawass and to Gail Fallen of Grizzly Adams Productions. Without
her impeccable diplomacy, these events would not have transpired.

Return to Welcome Page

�2001-2004 Christopher Dunn ~ All rights reserved.

Return to Welcome Page

Wednesday, May 16, 2001

Leading Ukraine physicist endorses The Giza Power Plant!

In recent months we have discovered that pyramid research is alive and

well in Russia and the Ukraine. Ukraine scientists have made some
remarkable discoveries in their research. After reading a research article
submitted to the Giza Pyramids Research Association by Dr. Volodymyr
Krasnoholovets, I sent him a copy of The Giza Power Plant for review. I
was delighted to receive this email today.

****************

Dear Christopher,

I already finished to read your dissertation. I take of my hat before you.

Should I send it to you by the mail? I just entered the amazon.com and put
the following comments to your book:

SUMMARY
 It can help our modern progressive science to find ground

ABSTRACT
The book keeps pace with my recent findings in the area of fundamental
physics: the oriented pyramid is a resonator of the Earth inerton waves,
that is, the aether wind, which was elusive from scientists in the 19 th and
the beginning of 20th centuries. When Einstein proposed his very formal
general relativity all studies, which touched the aether problems, were
abandoned. However, today the inerton field is already revealed. The field
influences objects in the same way as ultrasound. That is why I absolutely
support Chris Dunn's theory: indeed, the Pyramid was constructed as a
power plant that transduced the Earth vibrating energy into the
electromagnetic energy. That is why the book is highly recommended to
all thinking scientists, especially, physicists.

VolodymyrDr. V. Krasnoholovets
Department of Theoretical PhysicsInstitute of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
Prospect Nauky 46UA-03028
Kyiv
Ukraine

Read more about Dr. Krasnoholovets' at www.inerton.cjb.net . His

own pyramid research can be read at the Giza Pyramid
Research Association website

www.gizapyramid.com

THE GIZA POWER PLANT: TECHNOLOGIES OF ANCIENT EGYPT was published

in August 1998. Since then I have been overwhelmed by the response to the power
plant theory. The reviews have been nothing short of incredible! I have received
letters and emails from all over the world that support the argument that high levels
of technology existed in prehistory on this planet and that the Great Pyramid
represents the pinnacle of that technology.

Though the power plant theory may explain every characteristic and noted
phenomena found within the Great Pyramid, without actually replicating its function
(way beyond my own personal resources) it could be ignored or dismissed as being
too fantastic by those who feel more secure with conventional views of prehistory.
Not so with the hard evidence of machining! There is a section in the book that is
increasingly being seen as the "smoking gun" which proves, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that the pyramid builders used advanced technology. It is not a simple matter
to dismiss the physical constraints imposed on those who would attempt to accurately
replicate the granite artifacts found in abundance all over this ancient land. Those
who try to dismiss it do so from inexperience and do not understand the subtleties of
the work, or they cling desperately to the belief that Western Civilization is the first
civilization to develop science and translate that science into products that require
advanced methods of manufacturing.

My article, Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt has been under public scrutiny for
around 15 years. (A shortened version appeared in Atlantis Rising #9 as An Engineer
in Egypt, and a complete expanded version with the latest updates fills two chapters
in the book.) With the level of support that it has received from those who, in modern
times, would be charged with performing the same kind of work performed by the
ancient Egyptians, along with additional proof, it is rising from the rank of theory to
fact. Since its original publication in Analog magazine in 1984, this tentative,
controversial thorn in the side of Egyptologists has been reinforced time and time
again by my own on-site inspections and others who have had the opportunity to see
these incredible artifacts for themselves. The weight of evidence and the educated
opinions of those who understand this kind of work, are creating a consensus that is
overturning our understanding of prehistory, with implications that are stunning.

The most awesome implication has to be that civilizations are mortal!

Civilizations such as ours can rise to great heights and be dashed onto a path of
devolution by natural or engineered effects. In a blink of an eye, we can lose it all!
Whether as one or multiple blinks of an eye, our distant ancestors in prehistoric Egypt
received a mortal blow to the industry that was capable of creating the artifacts we
see there today. Whether that blow came from extraterrestrial forces such as a
comet, geophysical disturbances, or even a nuclear war, are open to speculation, the
fact remains that their industries did exist, and they somehow became extinct!

The purpose for this article is not to belabor the obvious or to restate what others
have stated more eloquently, but to bring you an update on what has happened since
the book was published. There has been a lot of activity and some startling
discoveries, and I have looked forward to and appreciate this opportunity to tell you
about them.

On my trip to Egypt in May 1999, as a participant in the conference "Egypt in the New
Millenium," I was able to perform additional on-sight inspection of some of the
artifacts I described in my articles and book. I was also blessed to discover startling
evidence that supports and confirms a unique and important aspect of the Giza
Power Plant theory! Evidence that made chills run down my spine, for it came about
in a rather unexpected, though fortuitous, manner. This evidence was inside the
Great Pyramid in the Grand Gallery, and I am still amazed by what I found. But more
on that later.

It is with great appreciation to the organizers, attendees and speakers of this

conference that this article is written. Their spirit, diversity and camaraderie buoyed
my spirit and gave me strength. But more than that, through their support and
patronage of the conference (which was sometimes accompanied with frustrating and
arduous conditions, with our blessed guide Hakim almost being thrown in jail), further
evidence to support the power plant theory has now been captured on video and
becomes part of the historical record.

A large part of my presentation at Gouda Fayed's conference center in Nazlet El

Samman was to be on-sight inspection and demonstration of the precision of several
artifacts. Gouda's place overlooked the Sphinx with the Giza Plateau and the pyramid
complex forming an awe-inspiring backdrop. It was agreed by all that this was the
perfect place to hold a conference. The real celebrities of the conference, though,
were not standing in front of a microphone with laser pointer and slide remote in
hand, but could be seen through the window a short distance away. The massive
pyramids provided a stunning punctuation mark to each word that was spoken.

Though I can say with great confidence that I have proven that the ancient pyramid
builders used advanced methods for machining granite, the full scope of the work has
not yet been determined or documented. While I was in Egypt in 1995, I had taken
some instruments with me to inspect the flatness of artifacts that, just by looking at
them, had the appearance of being extremely precise. Just looking at an artifact,
however, is not good enough when attempting to determine its true characteristics. I
needed some kind of known reference with which I could compare the precision. I
also needed something simple and transportable. The precision ground straight edge
I used in 1995 allowed me to determine a higher order of precision in many different
artifacts than what has been described in any previous literature written on the
subject.

This year for the conference, in my backpack I carried with me a precision-ground 12-
inch long parallel, or straight edge. The hardened steel edge was precise to within .
0001 inch. I also had a precision toolmaker's solid square. I knew exactly the artifacts
I wanted to use it on-the inside corners of the granite boxes at the temple of the
Serapeum at Saqqara and inside the pyramids. Also in my toolkit was a set of
precision Starrett radius gauges for inspecting the machined radius that makes the
transition from one surface or contour of an artifact to another. These instruments are
critical to our understanding of the basic attributes displayed by these artifacts from
antiquity.

I was unable to access the rock tunnel at the temple of the Serapeum, where over 20
huge black granite and basalt boxes weighing over 70 tons reside. We pleaded with
the officials at the site, and I even discussed it with a local businessman in the
Movenpick hotel. Whether or not he had the power and influence he claimed to have,
I was told that the Serapeum was closed because it was a danger to the public. I
asked what kind of danger it held, and was told that there was water dripping down
and threatening to collapse the roof. I didn't press the question I had in my mind
about where the water came from in an arid country. There was enough other work to
do, so I let it go.

Following my morning presentation on the advanced machining methods of the

ancient Egyptians, the entire conference group and the film crew made their way to
the Giza Plateau and into the bedrock chamber of the second largest pyramid on the
plateau, Khafre's pyramid. It was in this chamber in 1995 that I had discovered the
perfect flatness on the inside surfaces of the black granite box (commonly and
mistakenly, in my opinion, known as the 'sarcophagus'). In 1995 I had exclaimed
"space age precision" to a group of Spanish tourists who were looking on as I shone
my flashlight behind the precise edge of a steel parallel and discovered the stunning
precision of the black surface. Deviation in the flatness of the surface would have
been revealed by this test, and I could detect none.

Though I confidently wrote articles that hailed this discovery as additional proof of the
level of technology practiced by the pyramid builders, in the back of my mind was
always the nagging need to go back to Egypt with additional instruments and do more
tests. Each time I go to Egypt I approach these relics of the past with eager
anticipation that is mixed with trepidation. Will I find them the same as the time I was
here last? Will the next range of instruments I have brought with me confirm or deny
what I gleaned from my previous visit?

The cool confines of the passageway leading to the bedrock chamber of Khafre's
pyramid were a welcome relief from the burning Egyptian sun. My backpack was
weighing heavy on my shoulders as I joined the group and made my descent. It felt
familiar and right to be there at this time. I was excited to share the discovery I had
made four years earlier with the wonderful people who attended the conference, as
well as being able to document the event on film. But still, there was that tinge of
doubt in the back of my mind. Had I made a mistake in the past? Will the new
instruments reveal anything significant?

The answer, I found, was NO and YES!

Climbing into the black granite box that is set into the floor of the chamber, I placed
my 12-inch straight edge on the inside surface of the box. The edge had been
prepared differently than the other straight edge I used in 1995, as it had a chamfer
on both corners. To all who were interested, I slid this edge along the smooth interior
of the granite box with my flashlight shining behind it and demonstrated its exact
precision. But while I was doing it, in the back of my mind I was anxious to perform
other tests. The squareness of the corners was of critical importance to me. Modern
machine axes are aligned orthogonally, or exactly perpendicular, to each other to
assure accuracy. This state assures us that the corners cut into an object on the
machine are square and true.

The requirements for producing this condition go beyond coincidental simplicity. I

wasn't expecting the corners of the sarcophagus to be perfectly square, for perfection
is extremely difficult to achieve. However, I was not prepared for the degree of
perfection I found. I was flabbergasted as I slid my precision square along the top of
the parallel (I used the top of the parallel to raise the square above the corner radius)
and it fit perfectly on the adjacent surface. "Bloody Hell!" I exclaimed as the
significance of this find came over me. I pointed it out to others in the group (Alan
Alford spent the next few days mimicking me with a good natured "bloody hell"). The
film crew was busy capturing it on video as I went to each corner and found the same
condition. On three corners the square sat flush against both surfaces. One corner
had a gap that was detected by the light test, though it was probably only about .001
inch.
 "Bloody Hell!" Chris inside the granite sarcophagus located in the
Kings Chamber of the Great Pyramid
(Photograph courtesy of Stephen Mehler- conference speaker)

So not only do we have an artifact with perfectly flat surfaces, the inside corners are
also perfectly square. What else is significant about this so-called sarcophagus? The
corners themselves! After conducting the test with the parallel and the square, I
pulled out my radius gauges to check the corner radius. As I checked the corner, I
chuckled to myself with memories of a documentary I had seen in March.

Those of you who saw the Fox Special early this year will remember the world's
foremost Egyptologist and director of the Giza Plateau, Zahi Hawass, pick up a
dolerite ball in the bedrock chamber under one of the satellite pyramids next to
Khephren's pyramid. He was describing to the Fox anchor, Suzie Koppel, the
Egyptologist's theory of the methods the ancient Egyptians used to create granite
artifacts. This method involves bashing the granite with a round ball until the desired
shape is achieved.

I'm not disputing that this is a viable means of creating a box, and, indeed, there is
evidence at Memphis near Saqqara that some boxes were created in this manner.
 Chris points out that this crude sarcophagus at Memphis could have
possibly
been created using 'stone balls' as some Egyptologists postulate.
(Photograph courtesy of Tim Hunkler - conference attendee)

This box had large corner radii, it was extremely rough and tapered toward the
bottom. Exactly what you would expect to produce using a stone ball. However, as
Hawass was wielding his 8-inch diameter ball in front of the cameras, my attention
was riveted on the shiny, black so-called "sarcophagus" behind him, which sat in
mute contradiction to what he was proposing. The inside of this box had the same
appearance as the box inside Khafre's pyramid. The surfaces appeared smooth and
precise, but more importantly, the inside corners were equally as sharp as what I
witnessed in Khafre's pyramid. Just looking at it you could see that to create such an
artifact with an 8-inch diameter ball would be impossible!

Likewise, creating the corner radius of the box inside Khafre's pyramid using such
primitive methods would be impossible. Checking this corner radius with my radius
gauges, I started with a half-inch radius gauge and had to keep working my way
down in size until selecting the correct one. The inside corner radius of the box inside
Khafre's pyramid checked 3/32 inch. The radius at the bottom, where the floor of the
box met the wall, checked 7/16 inch. It should go without saying that you cannot fit an
8-inch ball into a corner with a 3/32 radius, or even a 1-inch radius.

It is an incredible piece of work. One that speaks of high technology in its creation as
well as its use. Even if we put aside the question of how it was manufactured, it still
begs the question, "for what primitive purpose would we find it necessary to hold
such precision and accuracy?" If we understand what it takes to perform such work,
and recognize our conditioned preconceived ideas about history and prehistory, we
are left with no alternative but to accept that highly advanced civilizations did exist in
prehistory.

Artifacts such as these fly in the face of any previous explanations of the ancient
Egyptians stone cutting methods. Egyptologists are now abandoning their previous
assertions that these marvelous granite artifacts were cut using copper chisels, and I
applauded them for such honesty. Moreover, there have been recent plausible
demonstrations of how the ancient Egyptians cut granite using primitive methods by
Denys Stocks and Mark
Lehner http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/cutting.html ). However,
what has been demonstrated does not come close to explaining the remarkable
precision, geometry and tool marks cut into the stones found on the Giza Plateau and
other sites in Egypt.

The Giza Power Plant: More Evidence

I don't think I have ever been as surprised as I was while filming inside the Grand
Gallery. (Not even when my teenage son gave me a hug.) It was especially rewarding
as I had my doubts whether I would get to go into the Great Pyramid as it was closed
to visitors, ostensibly for restoration, and we had spent almost a week of uncertainty
as to whether access to the Great Pyramid would be granted. After numerous calls
and visits to government officials, the organizers of the conference finally got the go-
ahead.

While the group entered a meditative state in the King's Chamber, the film crew and I
went out into the Grand Gallery to do some filming. I was going to describe, on film,
my theory about the function of the Grand Gallery. This involved pointing out the slots
in the gallery side ramps, the corbelled walls and the ratchet style ceiling. I was
equipped with the microphone, and stood in position just below the Great Step while
the camera was position on top of it. As the sound guy, adjusted his equipment, I
scanned the wall with my flashlight. I noticed that the first corbelled ledge had some
scorch marks underneath it, and that some of the stone was broken away. Then the
camera lights came on and things became really interesting.

In all the literature I had read, the Grand Gallery is described as being constructed of
limestone. But here I was looking at granite! I noted a transition point further down the
gallery where it changed from limestone to granite. I scanned the ceiling and saw,
instead of the rough crumbling limestone one sees when first entering the gallery,
what appeared to be, from 28 feet below, smooth highly polished granite. This was
highly significant to me. It made sense that the material closer to the power center
would be constructed of a material that was more resistant to heat.

I then paid closer attention to the scorch marks on the walls. There was heavy heat
damage underneath each of the corbelled layer for a distance of about 12 inches,
and it seemed as though the damage was concentrated in the center of the burn
marks. I then visually took a straight line through the center of each scorch mark and
projected it down towards the gallery ramp. That was when the chills ran down my
spine and the hair stood out on my neck. The line extended down in alignment with
the slot in the ramp!

Chris Dunn and Stephen Mehler just after they had exited the Great
Pyramid.
(Photograph courtesy of Tim Hunkler - conference attendee)

In THE GIZA POWER PLANT, I had theorized that harmonic resonators were
housed in these slots and were oriented vertically toward the ceiling. I had also
theorized that there was a hydrogen explosion inside the King's Chamber that shut
down the power plant's operation. This explosion explained many other unusual
effects that have been noted inside the Great Pyramid in the past, and I had surmised
that the explosion had also destroyed the resonators inside the Grand Gallery in a
terrible fire.

Only with the powerful lights of the video camera did the evidence become clear, and
illuminated before me, like at no other time before, was the charred evidence to
support my theory. Evidence that I was not even looking for!

Even as I finish up this article, I am receiving additional confirmation that I'm on the
right track. Others are stepping forward with their own research that goes along the
same lines. A complete update on this, though, will have to wait for another time.
Perhaps when the Egyptian government discloses what they find behind
Gantenbrink's "door" in March 2000? I am most anxious to know what is discovered
behind this so-called "door." If my own prediction is correct, then yet another aspect
of the power plant theory will be confirmed.

It has been an interesting year, to say the least.

Back to Gizapower.com
© Copyright 1999 Christopher Dunn
This article is also available in Atlantis Rising Number 21 and is also avialable at
the Atlantis Rising website.

Ed's place in Florida City

Ed's place in Florida City with a remaining monolith
Ed's place in Florida City
Ed's crowning glory - the 30 ton rock

Ed's crowning glory from the backside

Grizzly Adam's Filming for PAX television Encounters

These two photographs show that Ed's tripod is not high enough to raise the obelisk.
The tripod on the left and center shows the mysterious boxes on top.

The left tripod clearly shows a cable going from the box to the coral bedrock.

The hoists in Ed's toolshop and on his tripods are not rated for the weight Ed was
lifting.
T

This photograph indicates that the chain link is no thicker than 3/8 inch.
A chain link capable of withstanding the strain of 30 tons, would exceed 1 inch in
thickness
The Leedskalnin "Code Book"?
What is Leedskalnin trying to tell us?
A convenient blank page for deciphering the code?

© Copyright 2004 ~ Christopher Dunn

All Rights Reserved.