The latest issue of Atlantis Rising Magazine
#75 features an article on the "Giza Underground" by Philip Coppens. The first part of the article rehashes the news on the A.R.E.'s Sphinx drilling project which I had already posted here.
This can also be read on page 12 of the AR pdf sampler.
The rest of the Giza article by Coppens is cut off in the sampler, but was posted in its entirety under a different title on Coppens' own website reproduced below:Pyramid Cavities Philip Coppens
A new sandstorm is brewing on the outskirts of the Egyptian desert: newly released ground scans reveal that a team of Egyptian scientists has identified potential locations of tunnels and caves – on par with the controversial Hall of Records – in the immediate vicinity of the pyramids and the Sphinx.
The pyramids of Giza are built on a limestone plateau, which means that it has got the consistency of a cheese with lots of holes. Indeed, one cave on the plateau was actually incorporated into the internal layout of the pyramid – and may have contributed to why the Great Pyramid, the only pyramid that has an elaborate structure in the pyramid itself, has this unique internal structure.
It is therefore to be expected that elsewhere on the plateau, similar cavities, if not long tunnels, exist. This makes for intriguing possibilities, as some of these tunnels may have been used by the ancient Egyptians – or that other tunnels or caves may have been expanded, or new “halls” – such as the fabled Hall of Records – constructed.
At almost regular intervals, the temperature as to what might lie below the Giza plateau rises. Some years ago, Andrew Collins in “The Gods of Eden” argued that an entire layout of the Duat was potentially laying in wait of discovery underneath the plateau. It came at a time when others were speaking about the fabled Hall of Records, which according to some traditions would hold important relics of a bygone age, often said to predate Egypt itself (read: Atlantis).
More recently, not so much pyramid fever, but cavity fever, has risen again. Cavity fever has risen, if only because the groundwater in the area is rising too, and this might endanger the monuments. In some areas, flooding has already begun, caused by farming, urbanization and residential housing near temples. Reda Mohamed el-Damak, director of the Center of Studies and Designs for Water Projects at Cairo University's Faculty of Engineering, states that groundwater is posing the most serious threat to the Sphinx, carved from the bedrock of the Giza Plateau, and situated at lower altitude than the pyramids, who sit on the plateau, themselves. The latest measurement readings from the site show that groundwater is present at a depth of only four meters under the Sphinx.
This means, of course, that any tunnel that goes deeper than four meters around the area of the Sphinx, is now under water. Anything inside, unless watertight, will therefore already be destroyed, if only because the water that is causing the problem is waste water. This does not bode well for people searching for the Hall of Records underneath this enigmatic monument.
Map showing the nine areas subjected to GPR analysis
Most of the scientific research that is carried out today, is preservation. Little exploratory archaeology is occurring. Furthermore, in bygone days, dynamite was the preferred archaeological tool; today, only non-destructive methods are allowed. As such, trying to find out what lies beneath without using a spade is not an easy task.
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) made its introduction in the 1970s, and has been used on the Giza plateau since the 1980s. In 1987, Yoshimura and Tonauchi used GPR to scan the inner structure of the Great Pyramid, the constitution of the Sphinx and to determine the age/era during which the Sphinx was used.
More recently, in 1998, Abbas Mohamed Abbas was asked to study how best to restore the Sphinx and its protection against groundwater penetration. But now, Abbas has been involved in a series of exploration work, rather than preservation. And some will argue it is long overdue…
In February 2006, Abbas returned to the Giza plateau with GPR technology, this time to “investigate deep-wide parts of the plateau to reveal any hidden shafts or tunnels throughout the studied sectors.” Nine areas of potential interest had been identified, which Abbas and his team subjected to a series of detailed scans.
Abbas’ survey came about after Andrzej Wójcikiewicz, president of a Polish Foundation that is interested in doing GPR work in Egypt, contacted Belgian author Patrick Geryl in 2003, after reading the Polish edition of “The Orion Prophecy”.
In 2005, a team convened by Wójcikiewicz, supported by research material from the Vice President of the Foundation, Lucyna Lobos, and Geryl went to Egypt. The Polish team identified a series of locations of potential interest, for which Abbas asked permission with the Department of Antiquities: to scan parts of the Giza plateau – the project would be paid for by the Polish Foundation.
The work was carried out in February 2006, but the report was only released in late 2007. In the report of his finding, appearing in NRIAG Journal of Geophysics, Abbas states that “the results of the survey support the possibility of the presence of undisclosed relics, of high value”. These are powerful claims to make and they do go beyond the available evidence as presented in the report, which “merely” points out the presence of subterranean cavities.
The report states that they have identified two likely caves and one possible shaft, filled in with clays or sandy clays, one located close to the southern side of Khufu’s pyramid, the second around the causeway of Khafre’s pyramid. Other features “of less mass” have been delineated close to the eastern side of Khafre’s pyramid and – no doubt of interest to some alternative historians – close to the entrance door to the northern side of the Sphinx. GPR profile of cave-like phenomena in area 1 and area 2
Abbas and colleagues further state that the cavities are at a fairly deep level, ranging from 12 to 25 metres below the surface. He also states that “The cave-like features could be ascribed to a tunnel section of at least 3 to 5 m width […] it is like a void in the limestone rock.” He concludes: “we can presume the existence of a momentous diversity of archaeological structures at the Pyramids plateau which remain, as yet, unexposed. These structures could be a linked net of tunnels and shafts that may well lead to precious tombs.”
It is an enigmatic statement to make, and is either Abbas’ wording to guarantee that future funding is received, or that he has additional data, not included in the report, that warrants his optimism.
The possibility that there is ‘additional’ information might be a tall claim to make, but it is nevertheless one made by William Brown, an American Civil Engineer who was involved with the 2006 Polish Research Team and is a regular visitor to the Giza plateau, as much as four times per year since 2003. It means that he has come to know the local guards, and they have begun to see him not as yet another tourist, but a ‘distant’ friend. His known involvement with the Polish team now means that his walks on the plateau are currently done in the presence of Giza officials.
In January 2008, he learned about the release of Abbas’ report through the Philip Coppens website. He too agreed that Abbas’ report is not what you would expect to read in a scientific magazine. It “hints” at more. And the first “clue” that something was afoot with the report came when Brown noticed that Abbas had only posted one section of the three GPR scans of the Causeway between the Second Pyramid and the rear of the Sphinx.
Brown states how “in Dr Abbas posting of the locations of the causeway scans, he indicated the exact distances and directions, etc. He indicated a 10 meter gap area between the ending of section 2 and the beginning of section 3 of the missing Sphinx Causeway sections of the Report. At first I did not notice anything out of the normal, until I visited the area again [in early February 2008], with my own updated report in hand. I then understood why Abbas did not post the other two sections and possibly why he may not have been allowed to scan the 10 meter area listed above. My own research indicated that about 57 years ago, something was discovered in that missing causeway section gap area, and that perhaps even the Dr Abbas project was not permitted to scan it!”
Furthermore, Brown, as a member of the 2006 survey team, notes that “I had personally requested Dr Abbas for an entire scan of the Sphinx causeway lengthwise and then we were to do cross sections on the next GPR request, the latter which was denied.”
That was not all. Abbas’ GPR area no. 8, is an area of 30 by 60 metres, a vast area. Abbas’ report states that there were no features discovered inside. But we know that in 1935, a discovery was made there, as shown in a report by Dr. Selim Hassan and 1935 contemporary newspaper accounts. This was a tomb area, composed of two discoveries. The upper level area know as GPR area 6 (B) was the so-called “Osiris tomb” and another location, known as GPR area 8, much lower in that level area, contained a “Three Pillared Tomb”, as Hassan described it.
Furthermore, currently, there are excavations in progress in this same area -8-, indicating that something is indeed located there. A discovery was recently made in this specific area, namely an underground stone ‘doorway’ opening found within a shaft, ten metres deep, facing into the direction of the rear of the Sphinx about 100 meters away.Current Excavation at GPR Zone Area 8 of new underground discovery. January 2008.
This ‘missing’ information in itself provides a logical framework as to why Abbas’ report is so “speculative” in its conclusions: the GPR did discover certain interesting anomalies, but these appear to have been edited out of the final, published report. Egypt has seen similar “the absence of evidence proves there is a conspiracy” cases before, and many ended in nothing but wild speculation, without anything ever seen or heard from them again. But unlike those claims – whether true or not – Brown notes that he is not talking about a complete lack of evidence, or wild speculation; it’s just that there is no logical reason why Abbas did not scan a ten meter section of the third section of the Sphinx Causeway, nor report underground features in area 8. The question then is: why not?
On his 18th trip to Giza, in February 2008, Brown and a friend took pictures of the area above the causeway. “With what I know from other scan profiles, I have successfully put the bigger picture together with enough information to show the true ‘facts’ of my allegation” – that there is ‘missing’ information that did not make it into the report.
Brown’s observations were confirmed when he contacted the former 2006 GPR Polish Team field testing co-ordinator, geologist Adam Szynkiewicz, who is a Ph. D. geologist at the Wroclaw University, Institute of Geological Sciences, in Poland. Szynkiewicz personally worked with Dr Abbas and Brown on the GPR project at Giza. Both had to sign a contract not to publish or disclose facts related to the 2006 scans until the report was published.
Szynkiewwicz states that within certain portions of the 2006 GPR scan profile of the Sphinx Causeway, i.e. specifically section 6 (A), there is a tomb-like anomaly not discussed in the original Abbas report. Section 6 (A) also reflects an indication of at least three tomb-like anomalies below the causeway based on very special and unique anomaly profile features, this according to Szynkiewicz. Profile of 2006 GPR tomb-like anomaly discovered under the Sphinx causeway
A total of at least 7 such ‘anomaly’ tomb-like features have been found within the limits of the three areas of the causeway. In short, the GPR scan profile shows much more than what the report states, and this suggests that either Abbas did not include this information, or that the material was edited out – censured. Seeing that Abbas’ conclusions hint at certain things that are not discussed in the main body of the text, it appears that some information has indeed been edited. Brown personally does not believe that Abbas edited the report himself, but posits that it might have occurred within the 18 months it took for this report to be published.
Brown is now preparing a report of his own, focusing on what the “revised” 2006 GPR report left out – those areas that no doubt led Abbas to speculate. He argues that there are seven underground ‘causeway’ tomb-like anomalies, which could possibly have been part of a larger whole. These locations were originally found within the ‘second’ level shaft room of the so-called Tomb of Osiris discovered in 1935 – and were reported at the time. Brown has researched these excavation records himself at the Cairo University Library. He finds it interesting that many of these discoveries are now not open to the public and remain locked behind steel bars. While public safety is certainly an important consideration to make, it is also a method used to prevent further exploration. The very secretive nature – the agreements the Polish foundation members needed to sign – of the 2006 scans themselves underlines that scientific exploration in Giza is not done in a framework of openness and transparency. The existing Egyptian 2002 legal restrictions concerning any additional excavations at Giza, a law that remains in place until the year 2012, is another big issue that is clearly in need of review, sooner rather than later.
Though something is being hidden, Brown feels that Abbas is not part of a cover-up; instead, that he – and his report – are perhaps trying their best to signal to the world that something is going on, hoping that the world takes note, and applies pressure to the powers that are to change the paradigm.
Brown himself is preparing a report, but is also using state of the art technology to penetrate deeper into the understanding of the 2006 scans. Szynkiewic has been using so-called ‘RADAN’ computer scan programs, in lieu of the lesser quality GSSI system program used by and shown by Dr Abbas in his report. He is also trying to get three-dimensional readings of these results, which will enable a clearer understanding for those who have not been trained to “read” the published GPR results. More than two years after the scans were performed, the story of the scans themselves only seems to be at a beginning.