Claim: Giza Plateau: discovery of a huge city under the Pyramids

[RAS]

Filippo Biondi and Corrado Malangna published an article in the journal Remote Sensing in 2022 titled "Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza". Details regarding this original article is provided below:

This work continued through a collaboration with Professor Corrado Malanga, Filippo Biondi, Armando Mei, and Nicole Ciccolo. They are currently making some extraordinary claims including:

• Five identical structures near the base of the pyramid, connected by geometric pathways and containing five horizontal levels with sloping roofs
• Eight cylindrical structures resembling vertical wells, surrounded by descending spiral pathways
• Two large cubic structures measuring approximately 80 meters per side at a depth of 648 meters, where the eight cylindrical structures merge
• The entire structure extending approximately two kilometers beneath the surface and continuing beneath all three pyramids of the Giza complex

The conspiracy theorists are running wild with this information on Reddit, YouTube, X, etc... So its impossible not to find information on it.

Nicole Ciccolo made an official statement regarding some of these claims on February 7, 2025. The statement can be viewed on YouTube:

Official press release. Giza Plateau: discovery of a huge city under the Pyramids.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuL3Fv-x3so


The team held another significant press release March 15, 2025, which stirred up all of the recent activity.

 

[RAS]

 

[FatPhil]

As I read the text, I felt the urge to shout "assertion!" several times; mostly proximal to the words "non-natural".
The images don't have enough information (e.g. what are the axes?) to independently even have half a stab at interpretting them. To claim to see an array of columns sounds a lot like pareidolia.
Also, what is their explanation for ScanPyramid's muon tomography not detecting such structures?

 

[Matt33]

Filippo Biondi and Corrado Malangna published an article in the journal Remote Sensing

"Remote Sensing", sounds interesting.

 

[jdog]

The journal is legitimate; I know people who have published in it. It's mostly about sensing technologies like radar, infrared, acoustics, satellite imagery, etc. But this paper seems to have garnered little follow-on interest, possibly due to the woo factor -- "The authors are open to the possibility that a technologically more advanced civilization existed before a known timeline" -- and suggestions that the pyramid blocks were formed like concrete, and the lack of any ground-truthing to the technique or results.

The peer-review record for this paper at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231/review_report shows the reviewers, who thought the technique was interesting, had some enlightening comments:

However, unfortunately, in my opinion the quality of presentation and of the analysis of the results is flawed and requires a significant amount of work before it is of publishable quality. I would add that the analysis presented does not in my opinion provide firm conclusions as to what is being observed in the tomograms, for example whether the tomogram features represent real objects / cavities or whether these are just artefacts of the technique.

More importantly, for such a novel technique, I would have expected to see some careful validation experiments on well-known targets, in a well-known environment, with well characterized vibrations. The effectiveness of the approach needs to first be demonstrated before tackling the mysterious pyramids problem. Within the references, there are no other examples of this technique being applied in such a controlled manner to provide good quality tomograms. Hence there is immediately a lack of confidence of the accuracy of the technique..

Regarding the internal to pyramid analysis, none of the tomograms have meaningful axes, providing an indication of size, for example in metres. The tomograms are overlayed with a pyramid sketch, leading to the impression that the authors have stretched and translated the tomograms and the sketch until by eye, they give the impression of a possible match in features. Even after the authors have declared a match with known features, it is often difficult to agree with their conclusions as to what is being represented, and whether there is a close match with the known features. The analysis of the known features are important, as these constitute the method control experiment, and without this control experiment analysis being well conducted, the rest of the conclusions are brought into doubt.

The conclusions are poor and weak, especially from the point of view of the validation.

The peer-review page is supposed link to PDFs with the reviewer comments and the author responses, but the links are bad.

 

[RAS]

Also, what is their explanation for ScanPyramid's muon tomography not detecting such structures?

To my knowledge they have not addressed this discrepancy. In the ScanPyramids mission, were they only focused on the internal components of the pyramids looking for voids and new chambers? I don't recall whether they did a subsurface analysis but that would be interesting data to compare.

 

[MapperGuy]

Filippo Biondi and Corrado Malangna published an article in the journal Remote Sensing in 2022 titled "Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza". Details regarding this original article is provided below:

View attachment 78434

This work continued through a collaboration with Professor Corrado Malanga, Filippo Biondi, Armando Mei, and Nicole Ciccolo. They are currently making some extraordinary claims including:

• Five identical structures near the base of the pyramid, connected by geometric pathways and containing five horizontal levels with sloping roofs
• Eight cylindrical structures resembling vertical wells, surrounded by descending spiral pathways
• Two large cubic structures measuring approximately 80 meters per side at a depth of 648 meters, where the eight cylindrical structures merge
• The entire structure extending approximately two kilometers beneath the surface and continuing beneath all three pyramids of the Giza complex

The conspiracy theorists are running wild with this information on Reddit, YouTube, X, etc... So its impossible not to find information on it.

Nicole Ciccolo made an official statement regarding some of these claims on February 7, 2025. The statement can be viewed on YouTube:

Official press release. Giza Plateau: discovery of a huge city under the Pyramids.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuL3Fv-x3so


The team held another significant press release March 15, 2025, which stirred up all of the recent activity.

View attachment 78435

All I need to see is the sub-title on their press release.

"The Pyramids and the Temporal Gateway"

Not people to be taken seriously. "It's ALL ALIENS".......

 

[RAS]

I thought it was odd that Corrado Malanga, a chemist at the University of Pisa, was co-author on a paper interpreting SAR and tomography data, but then I found this blog post (where the poster supposedly interviewed Professor Malanga) on Steemit from eight years ago that explains a lot (you can just search his name and UFOs and see that he is a well known Italian UFO researcher…I had no idea) :

At the beginning, I was anxious to gather enough data about the UFO phenomenon, to show it to the Scientific Community. Then, I realized that, even if I used a rigorous scientific method to come to my conclusions, they were not interested in such topic, because it would totally disrupt any scientific theory and certainty. So I understood I had to talk to the ordinary people.

https://steemit.com/science/@andrew...-heretic-scientist-from-pisa-university-italy

 

[jdog]

I do not have sufficient expertise in the subject area to reject the possibility that he has been replaced with a reptiloid, as I have heard they are fascinated with ancient mysteries and artisanal gelato.

 

[RAS]

I do not have sufficient expertise in the subject area to reject the possibility that he has been replaced with a reptiloid, as I have heard they are fascinated with ancient mysteries and artisanal gelato.

Certainly there must be a Cryptid expert somewhere within this community who can assist!

It is also out of my realm of experience.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I thought it was odd that Corrado Malanga, a chemist at the University of Pisa, was co-author on a paper interpreting SAR and tomography data, but then I found this blog post (where the poster supposedly interviewed Professor Malanga) on Steemit from eight years ago that explains a lot (you can just search his name and UFOs and see that he is a well known Italian UFO researcher…I had no idea) :

At the beginning, I was anxious to gather enough data about the UFO phenomenon, to show it to the Scientific Community. Then, I realized that, even if I used a rigorous scientific method to come to my conclusions, they were not interested in such topic, because it would totally disrupt any scientific theory and certainty. So I understood I had to talk to the ordinary people.

The Galileo Gambit? Again? We're slopping over with Galileos.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm no expert, but like most of us, I sometime pretend to be when online . But seriously, these lines jumped out at me:

The 3D reconstructions are the result of a NEW and original software program created by one of the authors. Dose this new software "look" for structures? Is it finding what the authors want to find, even if it's not there?

Interesting too, if one looks at the supposed structures of Kufu's pyramid that were revealed, there is a definite resemblance to one of the suggested construction techniques, the internal spiral ramp:

Jean-Pierre Houdin helped come up with the idea. Others said it's too complicated, but any form of internal ramping or ways of moving blocks could have left the structure slightly different then the surrounding pyramid as it was filled in. It's all solid, but a new software program may have detected left over areas the helped with the build and is now interpreting them as "structures", "chambers" and "internal stairways".

Just thinking.

 

[Ann K]

From the paper:

Abstract

A problem with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is that due to the poor penetrating action of electromagnetic waves inside solid bodies, the capability to observe inside distributed targets is precluded. Under these conditions, imaging action is provided only on the surface of distributed targets. The present work describes an imaging method based on the analysis of micro-movements on the Khnum-Khufu Pyramid, which are usually generated by background seismic waves. The obtained results prove to be very promising, as high-resolution full 3D tomographic imaging of the pyramid's interior and subsurface was achieved. Khnum-Khufu becomes transparent when observed in the micro-movement domain. Based on this novelty, we have completely reconstructed internal objects, observing and measuring structures that have never been discovered before. The experimental results are estimated by processing series of SAR images from the second-generation Italian COSMO-SkyMed satellite system, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231?type=check_update&version=2

I don't begin to understand the technical details. However the paper continues:

In studying the origin of the pyramids, we believe we should not overlook the existence of ancient mythological writings. A study concerning the myths and folklore of the ancient peoples of the world, highlighting all the similarities between them, was made in [5]. The argument that myths are insignificant—often considered mere stories passed on through generations—has been challenged. The authors are open to the possibility that a technologically more advanced civilization existed before a known timeline, where the existence of various glacial ages [6] prevented the passing down of history. They focus on the mythical cities mentioned in ancient Indian texts, describing how that subcontinent was an integral part of this [7,8]. However, how the Egyptian Pyramids were built has remained an enduring mystery [9,10,11]. A theory that the pyramids were cast of cement-like conglomerate made directly in situ using granular limestone aggregates and an alkali–silicate binder is proposed in [12], and evidence is also discussed in [13,14]. In order to obtain an accurate perception of how the pyramids were constructed, various engineering hypotheses were evaluated in [15], noting that in their current form, they lay the foundations for new theories. At present, the general academic consensus is that pyramids served as funerary monuments and burial sites for the pharaohs. However, it is also widely theorized that such infrastructures may have been built for another purpose. On an aseptic panoramic view, many connections can be found between the pyramids, vibrations and many mechanical devices reminiscent of hydraulic systems, resonance chambers and acoustic filters [16,17]. The energy to make the pyramids vibrate can be provided by the natural environment, and the Earth's atmosphere infrasound vibrations may provide the source of such energy [18]. This provides a basis for the discussion of special classes of waves, including mountain Lee-waves, infrasound, progressive waves in the lower atmosphere, and waves in the upper atmosphere and ionosphere [19]. Atmospheric sound models extended to the combination effects of both finite depth ocean and source directivity in both elevation and azimuth angles are studied in [20].

To no one's surprise, Graham Hancock has expressed an interest in this.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The present work describes an imaging method based on the analysis of micro-movements on the Khnum-Khufu Pyramid which are usually generated by background seismic waves.

I asked GPT to analyze the abstract and the first part of the introduction.

The key to understanding the abstract lies in the concept of micro-movements and how they are detected and analyzed using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Here's a breakdown:

1. What Are Micro-Movements?
Micro-movements are tiny, often imperceptible vibrations or displacements occurring on or within a structure. In the context of the Great Pyramid of Khnum-Khufu, these micro-movements are generated by background seismic waves, which naturally travel through the Earth's crust. These could come from:

Seismic activity (natural earth tremors)
Atmospheric infrasound (low-frequency pressure waves)
Human activity (distant traffic, machinery, etc.)
The key is that these vibrations, although minimal, propagate through the structure and slightly shift or deform the material — including any hidden chambers or anomalies inside the pyramid.

2. How Are Micro-Movements Detected?
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is a remote sensing technology that uses radar signals from satellites (in this case, the COSMO-SkyMed satellite system) to create high-resolution images. Here's how it works in this context:

SAR emits radar waves toward the pyramid.
The radar signals bounce back with slight variations depending on surface or internal movement.
Multiple SAR images are collected over time, capturing repeated reflections.
Micro-movements cause slight phase shifts in the returning radar signals.
By analyzing changes in the radar signal's phase over time, scientists can detect tiny vibrations — measured in millimeters or even smaller — indicating movement from within the structure.

3. Why Analyze Micro-Movements?
The theory is that different materials and empty spaces (such as chambers or tunnels) will respond differently to seismic waves. When these waves travel through the pyramid:

Solid blocks vibrate in one way.
Empty spaces or different materials (e.g., sand, gravel, or constructed chambers) vibrate in another way.
By analyzing the pattern of these micro-movements, researchers can create a 3D tomographic image of the pyramid's internal structure — essentially "seeing" inside without drilling or excavation.

4. What Makes This Novel?
Traditionally, SAR struggles to penetrate solid structures. However, by focusing on the micro-movement domain rather than relying on direct penetration:

The pyramid appears "transparent" because its internal structures generate distinguishable movement patterns.
Previously unknown chambers or objects can be inferred from the way the structure vibrates.
This technique is somewhat analogous to ultrasound imaging, but instead of sound waves, it uses radar and seismic-induced vibrations.

5. Results Claimed by the Paper
The authors claim to have completely reconstructed internal objects, including structures that had never been discovered.
This suggests the possibility of finding new chambers or architectural features within the Great Pyramid.
They also describe this as high-resolution, full 3D tomography, meaning the internal image is detailed enough to differentiate materials or empty spaces.

6. Potential Controversy
The paper references connections to mythological theories, alternative history, and ancient advanced civilizations, which may cast doubt on its scientific rigor.

The technology itself (SAR micro-movement analysis) is scientifically plausible and innovative.
However, the introduction leans heavily into speculative theories about ancient engineering, which may raise questions about the objectivity of the research.

7. In Summary
Micro-movements come from natural seismic activity.
These movements are captured using SAR technology, analyzing the phase shift in reflected radar waves.
The method allows for non-invasive 3D imaging of the pyramid's internal structures.
The results reportedly reveal previously undiscovered structures, but the paper mixes solid scientific techniques with controversial historical theories, potentially affecting its credibility.

 

[Edward Current]

This is so very The Curse of Oak Island. Have they stuck the world's worst camera in a hole and claimed to find blurry images of a skeleton yet?

they were not interested in such topic, because it would totally disrupt any scientific theory and certainty. So I understood I had to talk to the ordinary people.

When professionals aren't buying your BS, go to the masses. Plenty of gullible, wide-eyed-eyed folks there who don't care for the dogma of science.

As Dave Farina (Professor Dave) says: It's always the same.

 

[Mauro]

I thought it was odd that Corrado Malanga, a chemist at the University of Pisa, was co-author on a paper interpreting SAR and tomography data, but then I found this blog post (where the poster supposedly interviewed Professor Malanga) on Steemit from eight years ago that explains a lot (you can just search his name and UFOs and see that he is a well known Italian UFO researcher…I had no idea) :

At the beginning, I was anxious to gather enough data about the UFO phenomenon, to show it to the Scientific Community. Then, I realized that, even if I used a rigorous scientific method to come to my conclusions, they were not interested in such topic, because it would totally disrupt any scientific theory and certainty. So I understood I had to talk to the ordinary people.

https://steemit.com/science/@andrew...-heretic-scientist-from-pisa-university-italy

View attachment 78452

Yeah... it says it all.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

They are using satellite data, apparently. I was wondering about their method because the Egyptian Government is very protective about what happens on the site of the Pyramids of Giza. They even - reportedly - won't license the use of drones with ordinary cameras for research purposes by legitimate institutions. (Not a simple ban on tourists flying drones.)

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I've given GPT a great deal of the text from the Methodology section. I'll just give GPT's conclusion.

The authors seem to be pushing the boundaries of SAR technology by demonstrating:

• Incredible sensitivity to micro-movements through Doppler diversity.
• The potential to infer internal features from how the structure vibrates.
• A claim that a single pixel — when properly processed — can provide meaningful displacement data.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

Some characteristics of pathological science are:

The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

There are claims of great accuracy.

Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

 

[RAS]

In a fairly extensive and well written review paper on the topic (see citation below), Biondi and Malanga (2022) are cited as innovators in the field:

13.3. Active remote sensing in variable potential fields

This review has identified the need for new and innovative approaches to remotely detect subsurface density changes and magnetic field variations from near-surface structures. As seen in Fig. 4, little airborne or spaceborne remote sensing methodology exists outside of traditional airborne gravity and magnetic survey to identify these subsurface characteristics. However, Biondi (2022) and Biondi and Malanga (2022) have begun to address this, showcasing SARs tomographic ability to image density variations inside volcanoes and ancient pyramids from space. We see potential in trialling similar techniques on semi-rigid structures like grass covered tors and caves, where SAR returns are typically less coherent. Such innovation uses photons as a carrier medium for phononic information, inviting readers to think about other ways in which photons could reveal the presence of subsurface anomalies, particularly when changes in the Earth's gravitational and magnetic field are present.

 

[MonkeeSage]

In a fairly extensive and well written review paper on the topic (see citation below), Biondi and Malanga (2022) are cited as innovators in the field:

13.3. Active remote sensing in variable potential fields

This review has identified the need for new and innovative approaches to remotely detect subsurface density changes and magnetic field variations from near-surface structures. As seen in Fig. 4, little airborne or spaceborne remote sensing methodology exists outside of traditional airborne gravity and magnetic survey to identify these subsurface characteristics. However, Biondi (2022) and Biondi and Malanga (2022) have begun to address this, showcasing SARs tomographic ability to image density variations inside volcanoes and ancient pyramids from space. We see potential in trialling similar techniques on semi-rigid structures like grass covered tors and caves, where SAR returns are typically less coherent. Such innovation uses photons as a carrier medium for phononic information, inviting readers to think about other ways in which photons could reveal the presence of subsurface anomalies, particularly when changes in the Earth's gravitational and magnetic field are present.

The second paper cited there is the one we have previously been discussing. The first one is here:

"Scanning Inside Volcanoes with Synthetic Aperture Radar Echography Tomographic Doppler Imaging"
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/15/3828

Some of the review comments on that paper also express reservations with the accuracy and reliability of the novel method, similar to the reviewers of the second paper that @jdog posted in #5.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/15/3828/review_report

Reviewer 3 (original submission): I find the approach interesting and somewhat original in its development, however I have strong objections on the level of success the method has, as stated in the manuscript. Neither do I share the enthusiasm on the game-changing character the approach may have.

My main reservation is against the validation. The mathematical model is oversimplified, completely stripped of any non-linearities and oversimplified. To this end, the validation fails to support the model in a convincing way.

I am sorry to say that I can not recommend the paper for publication.

Reviewer 1: The manuscript describes a very interesting new idea, i.e. to monitor volcanic surface deformation on very short time scales from space. However, the proposed tomography methodology is in my opinion oversimplified and not applicable to the over-complex subsurface structure of volcanoes. The manuscript is well written in parts, and the author seems to be an expert in SAR processing. However, to be understood by the target audience (volcanologists, geophysicists), some more explanation of the SAR processing must be given (some symbols in equations and steps are not explained). [...] I reccomend to reject the manuscript in the present form. But I recomment [sic] the author to team up with a geophysicist and volcanologist to further explore the possibilites and maybe focus only on the remote detection of ground motions using SAR.

Reviewer 4: The results shown in this paper are certainly very interesting and relevant. My concern is that the results seem to push the limits of what should be possible considering fundamental physical principles. I think that the author should at least clarify some points before this paper could be considered for publication.

My main objection is this: What amplitude of vibrations do we actually see on the surface of the Earth due to the sound waves present beneath the Earth's surface? Surely they must be very small, probably less than a millimeter. How then is it possible for a radar to be sensitive to these tiny motions of the surface? A spaceborne radar has many error sources, such as thermal noise, atmospheric delay, etc., that limit its accuracy. Has the author done any analysis on the accuracy of the method presented here?

Some other issues to consider:

The geometry shown in Figure 1 is highly idealized. For example, the spacecraft velocity is considered to be exactly constant, and the Earth surface considered perfectly flat. Has the author accounted for the actual geometry in the data processing?

At first glance, it would seem that with a PRF of 2 kHz (as shown in Table 1), it would be problematic to measure a Doppler bandwith of 24 kHz, as claimed in the text. I suppose that the antenna steering done for the spotlight SAR acquisition makes this possible. Is it valid to simply assume that there are no Doppler aliasing effects to be concerned about? Could there be any artifacts due to data at the wrong Doppler ambiguity?

Reviewer 5: It is an interesting work but I have three issues to point out:

• The work is based on just one case study. I understand that to add more case studies is almost impossible in the time of a revision.
• There are no quantitative evaluation of the advantages of the proposed method, just visual comparisons. It would be interesting to show some kind of numerical resullts
• On page 3, please be consistent: use micro-motion or micromotion, but not both
• 13 out of 20 (this is, 65%) of the references are 5 or more years old

Reviewer 4 (Round 2): I appreciate that the author has addressed my concerns in his response. I still think that the results shown here should be considered preliminary until there is much more extensive validation against in-situ measurements. Note that there still seem to be some English spelling and grammatical problems, so I recommend proof-reading before publication.

 

[Ann K]

In a fairly extensive and well written review paper on the topic (see citation below), Biondi and Malanga (2022) are cited as innovators in the field:

The definition of "shallow" requires some clarification. From the paper:

If the subsurface anomaly is geologic, the anomalous structure is usually hundreds of metres deep, adopting numerous forms like dyke intrusions, ore deposits, volcanic conduits, karstic caves, salt domes, buried valleys, structural faults, fracture zones, granite plutons, shallow hydrocarbon prospects and geothermal reservoirs. However, if the subsurface anomaly is anthropogenic, it is generally much shallower, usually existing at depths of 1–10 m and rarely deeper than 50 m.

Might the subject of this thread be a misinterpretation of some geologic features, and the claimed (and suspiciously precise) depth of 648 meters for an anthropogenic feature be merely wishful thinking on the part of researchers who desperately want it to be part of the story of the Great Pyramid in order to bolster their "ancient civilizations" narrative?

 

[RAS]

Armando Mei is the third collaborator on the "Press Release" flyer:

in order to bolster their "ancient civilizations" narrative?

Here is a sampling of Armando's work:

• Original Title: 36.400 A.C. Il Segreto degli Dei
• Translation: 36,400 B.C. The Secret of the Gods
• Subtitle: Il mistero di Giza e le origini di un'antica civiltà perduta
• Translation: The Mystery of Giza and the Origins of a Lost Ancient Civilization

• Original Title: Oltre le Nebbie del Tempo
• Translation: Beyond the Mists of Time
• Subtitle: 2012: L'ultima straordinaria scoperta sulla Piana di Giza
• Translation: 2012: The Latest Extraordinary Discovery on the Giza Plateau

• Original Title: VISOKO – La Scienza occulta delle Piramidi
• Translation: VISOKO – The Occult Science of the Pyramids

• Original Title: La Piramide e i Segreti del 137
• Translation: The Pyramid and the Secrets of 137
• Subtitle: Alle Origini delle Antiche Tradizioni
• Translation: At the Origins of Ancient Traditions

 

[MapperGuy]

The second paper cited there is the one we have previously been discussing. The first one is here:

"Scanning Inside Volcanoes with Synthetic Aperture Radar Echography Tomographic Doppler Imaging"
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/15/3828

Some of the review comments on that paper also express reservations with the accuracy and reliability of the novel method, similar to the reviewers of the second paper that @jdog posted in #5.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/15/3828/review_report

Reviewer 3 (original submission): I find the approach interesting and somewhat original in its development, however I have strong objections on the level of success the method has, as stated in the manuscript. Neither do I share the enthusiasm on the game-changing character the approach may have.

My main reservation is against the validation. The mathematical model is oversimplified, completely stripped of any non-linearities and oversimplified. To this end, the validation fails to support the model in a convincing way.

I am sorry to say that I can not recommend the paper for publication.

Reviewer 1: The manuscript describes a very interesting new idea, i.e. to monitor volcanic surface deformation on very short time scales from space. However, the proposed tomography methodology is in my opinion oversimplified and not applicable to the over-complex subsurface structure of volcanoes. The manuscript is well written in parts, and the author seems to be an expert in SAR processing. However, to be understood by the target audience (volcanologists, geophysicists), some more explanation of the SAR processing must be given (some symbols in equations and steps are not explained). [...] I reccomend to reject the manuscript in the present form. But I recomment [sic] the author to team up with a geophysicist and volcanologist to further explore the possibilites and maybe focus only on the remote detection of ground motions using SAR.

Reviewer 4: The results shown in this paper are certainly very interesting and relevant. My concern is that the results seem to push the limits of what should be possible considering fundamental physical principles. I think that the author should at least clarify some points before this paper could be considered for publication.

My main objection is this: What amplitude of vibrations do we actually see on the surface of the Earth due to the sound waves present beneath the Earth's surface? Surely they must be very small, probably less than a millimeter. How then is it possible for a radar to be sensitive to these tiny motions of the surface? A spaceborne radar has many error sources, such as thermal noise, atmospheric delay, etc., that limit its accuracy. Has the author done any analysis on the accuracy of the method presented here?

Some other issues to consider:

The geometry shown in Figure 1 is highly idealized. For example, the spacecraft velocity is considered to be exactly constant, and the Earth surface considered perfectly flat. Has the author accounted for the actual geometry in the data processing?

At first glance, it would seem that with a PRF of 2 kHz (as shown in Table 1), it would be problematic to measure a Doppler bandwith of 24 kHz, as claimed in the text. I suppose that the antenna steering done for the spotlight SAR acquisition makes this possible. Is it valid to simply assume that there are no Doppler aliasing effects to be concerned about? Could there be any artifacts due to data at the wrong Doppler ambiguity?

Reviewer 5: It is an interesting work but I have three issues to point out:

• The work is based on just one case study. I understand that to add more case studies is almost impossible in the time of a revision.
• There are no quantitative evaluation of the advantages of the proposed method, just visual comparisons. It would be interesting to show some kind of numerical resullts
• On page 3, please be consistent: use micro-motion or micromotion, but not both
• 13 out of 20 (this is, 65%) of the references are 5 or more years old

Reviewer 4 (Round 2): I appreciate that the author has addressed my concerns in his response. I still think that the results shown here should be considered preliminary until there is much more extensive validation against in-situ measurements. Note that there still seem to be some English spelling and grammatical problems, so I recommend proof-reading before publication.

When you have a new and innovative technique that you believe reveals subsurface structure and voids the first thing you do is test it on a variety of KNOWN and well understood locations.

Plenty of underground mines where the location and geometry of voids is well known. Salt mines for example may have very large voids where
salt has been removed and the surrounding salt is being monitored to watch for potential movement or collapse. Block-caving mining produces large volumes of rock that have been disrupted and shattered by the block-caving method, where the geometry of the disrupted rock is well known.

Exploiting the new and innovative technique over well understood areas and comparing the results of your technique with 'ground-truth' should be your first step.

After demonstrating the validity of your technique THEN you start looking at pyramids and such.

 

[RAS]

Snopes has looked into the claim and published a Fact Check 3/21:

No credible evidence supports claims of vast underground structures found beneath Egyptian pyramids

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pyramids-of-giza-new-discovery-structures/

They, like me, have had a difficult time finding more detailed information on the so called "Khafre Project".

 

[RAS]

Snopes assumes a potential hoax, however, I have found an interview with the collaborators on YouTube where they discuss the project and conference:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFUZBCPVA4


It's in Italian, so I have downloaded the subtitles and had ChatGPT to translate into an English version (attached in case you'd rather skim instead of watch the video). The ChatGPT version is not exact but will give you the jest of the conversation.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

They are using satellite data, apparently. I was wondering about their method because the Egyptian Government is very protective about what happens on the site of the Pyramids of Giza. They even - reportedly - won't license the use of drones with ordinary cameras for research purposes by legitimate institutions. (Not a simple ban on tourists flying drones.)

This is complicated issue. Maybe Byzantine. I don't know anything for certain.

There was a project called the ScanPyramids mission in ~2015 to 2017 timeframe, and this did involve the use of some drones. The problem may be more one of the generally strict drone laws in Egypt.

 

[Gary C]

So to substantiate their video, they post another video?

Do we have an RF or signal processing expert among the membership? IIRC from my military days, satellite based SAR is typically used for large scale mapping projects where resolutions greater than one meter don't add much useful information. One peer reviewer quoted in the early pages of this thread criticizes the authors for not giving the methodology they employ to get sub-millimeter resolutions of the pyramid surface or explaining the steps taken to extract reliable data from all the human activity coming from nearby Cairo.

 

[NorCal Dave]

After demonstrating the validity of your technique THEN you start looking at pyramids and such.

Not if you already believe the Pyramids to be evidence of the ancient, advanced civilization of Atlantis. No sense fooling around with salt mines, go for what you know.

@Ann K already posted this section from the paper, but it bears repeating (in an easier to read font). That anyone would put this paragraph in a serious paper about the pyramids tells one all they need to know. This is everything from Frasier's The Golden Bow through Lovecraft's Mythos, Von Deniken's Chariots of the Gods, Ancient Aliens right up to Hancockian ramblings about Atlantis. I'm surprised Giorgio Tsoukalos isn't a coauthor, or at least cited:

In studying the origin of the pyramids, we believe we should not overlook the existence of ancient mythological writings. A study concerning the myths and folklore of the ancient peoples of the world, highlighting all the similarities between them, was made in [5]. The argument that myths are insignificant—often considered mere stories passed on through generations—has been challenged. The authors are open to the possibility that a technologically more advanced civilization existed before a known timeline, where the existence of various glacial ages [6] prevented the passing down of history. They focus on the mythical cities mentioned in ancient Indian texts, describing how that subcontinent was an integral part of this [7,8].

However, how the Egyptian Pyramids were built has remained an enduring mystery [9,10,11]. A theory that the pyramids were cast of cement-like conglomerate made directly in situ using granular limestone aggregates and an alkali–silicate binder is proposed in [12], and evidence is also discussed in [13,14]. In order to obtain an accurate perception of how the pyramids were constructed, various engineering hypotheses were evaluated in [15], noting that in their current form, they lay the foundations for new theories. At present, the general academic consensus is that pyramids served as funerary monuments and burial sites for the pharaohs.

However, it is also widely theorized that such infrastructures may have been built for another purpose. On an aseptic panoramic view, many connections can be found between the pyramids, vibrations and many mechanical devices reminiscent of hydraulic systems, resonance chambers and acoustic filters [16,17]. The energy to make the pyramids vibrate can be provided by the natural environment, and the Earth's atmosphere infrasound vibrations may provide the source of such energy [18]. This provides a basis for the discussion of special classes of waves, including mountain Lee-waves, infrasound, progressive waves in the lower atmosphere, and waves in the upper atmosphere and ionosphere [19]. Atmospheric sound models extended to the combination effects of both finite depth ocean and source directivity in both elevation and azimuth angles are studied in [20].

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The ScanPyramids mission is a much more well known project. What did it find?

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanPyramids

The team was using Infrared thermography, muon tomography, 3D simulation and reconstruction techniques.

Discoveries
2016
On October 15, 2016, ScanPyramids confirmed their first unknown void discoveries thanks to muon tomography in the Great Pyramid. A previously unknown cavity[13] was confirmed on the North-Eastern Edge, roughly at 110 metres (360 ft) high with similar void volume characteristics as a known "cave" located at 83 metres (272 ft) on the same edge.

A second void was discovered behind the chevrons area of Khufu's North Face above the Descending Corridor. This area was investigated after thermal anomalies observation that led the team to position muon emulsion plates in the Descending Corridor. This void was further investigated during 2017 to provide more information about its shape, size, and exact position.

2017

In 2017 more muon-sensitive emulsion plates were positioned in the descending corridor and in Al-Mamun's tunnel[broken anchor]. The void behind the chevrons could be confirmed through different points of view and its characteristics refined. This void is located between 17 and 23 metres (56 and 75 ft) from the Great Pyramid's ground level, between 0.7 and 2 metres (2 ft 4 in and 6 ft 7 in) from the North Face. It could be horizontal or sloping upwards and it has a corridor-like shape.

On November 2, 2017, the ScanPyramids team published its third discovery in Nature, which was named "ScanPyramids Big Void.". It describes a newly discovered huge void in a circumscribed area above the Grand Gallery. It is estimated to have a length of at least 30 metres (98 ft) and a similar cross-section as the Grand Gallery. The ScanPyramids Big Void has been observed by three teams of physicists from different points of view (2 points of view in the Queen's Chamber and from outside in front of the North Face).

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is what GPT has to say about the muon thing.

Muon Radiography (Muon Tomography)

Muons are generated when high-energy cosmic rays from space collide with Earth's atmosphere, producing a continuous stream of particles that pass through solid matter.

As muons travel through materials, they lose energy and are absorbed according to density and thickness.

Detector Technology:

Three types of detectors were used:

Nuclear Emulsion Plates: Capture muon tracks with high resolution.

Scintillator Panels: Detect light emitted when muons pass through a material.

Gas Detectors (Resistive Plate Chambers): Measure muon trajectories.

Placement:

Detectors were placed inside strategic locations:

Inside the pyramid's internal chambers.

At the base or along accessible tunnels.

Data Processing:
Muon Trajectories:

The number and angles of incoming muons were recorded.

Absorption Mapping:

By comparing the number of detected muons with the expected flux, density maps were constructed.

Resolution:

Density resolution was sufficient to identify voids larger than 1-2 meters in diameter.

Integration Time:

Data collection took several months to accumulate enough muon tracks for meaningful analysis.

 

[RAS]

The ScanPyramids mission is a much more well known project. What did it find?

I am very suspicious of the depth of the subsurface data claimed in the Biondi work. I see no credible explanation for how SAR data can be utilized to resolve structures hundreds of meters below the surface.

Here is a more recent study of the area using well established geophysical methods published in May 2024:

 

[Ann K]

Frasier's The Golden Bow

Slight correction: that's The Golden Bough. My father had a copy of that in his library (which I could never get through as a youngster), along with Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision (which I did read).

 

[RAS]

My father had a copy of that in his library

As do I

 

[JMartJr]

Slight correction: that's The Golden Bough

And if we're in slight correction mode, it's "Frazer!" (I have some Frazer ancestors, gotta stick u for the clan!)

 

[Ann K]

And if we're in slight correction mode, it's "Frazer!" (I have some Frazer ancestors, gotta stick u for the clan!)

My ancestors came over to Britain in 1066 with William the Conqueror, and unfortunately one branch died out without any male heirs. The Frazers thus became owners of their castle. It's a pity; I liked you before now.

 

[NorCal Dave]

And if we're in slight correction mode, it's "Frazer!" (I have some Frazer ancestors, gotta stick u for the clan!)

Slight correction: that's The Golden Bough.

OK, well I guess I screwed the pooch all the way around on that one. Was just thinking off the top of my head after reading that paragraph.

Moving on from you Frazerites, I started tracking down some of the references from the paragraph in question from Biondi & Malaga, starting with the notion that myths might be real:

A study concerning the myths and folklore of the ancient peoples of the world, highlighting all the similarities between them, was made in [5].

5 leads us to this paper:

Subcontinent of india: A part of the earliest and most advanced civilisation of the world

From the abstract:

This paper challenges the argument that myths are inconsequential and are mere stories passed down since generations. It holds the view that a more technologically advanced civilisation existed before the time line that history gives us and if examined minutely, the proofs of its existence can be easily visible. This paper attempts to bring to light the existence of the mythical cities citied in ancient Indian texts and various other mythologies and how the Indian subcontinent was an integral part of it all.

Straight up Ancient Civilization claim (and I'm just going to shorten this to AnCiv, as I expect it's going to come up a lot and I don't feel like typing it out every time), this time with a likely nationalistic nod to India. From the 2nd page of this paper, we have familiar person being cited:

An archetype is a universal symbolic pattern. True to their universal nature, archetypal characters and stories appear again and again in myths across many diverse cultures (Däniken, E.V. 1968).

And a reference to Von Daniken's legacy project as well as another familiar guy being mentioned (bold by me):

At the University of California at Irvine in April 2017 Aerospace engineer, Travis Taylor obtained the model of an aircraft whose design specifications are based solely on information gleaned from an ancient Indian text that is believed to have been recorded in 500 BC and before they were in practise but no written records were maintained (HISTORY, "Ancient Aliens: Vimana Model Aircraft Experiment (Season 12, Episode 11)", 2018).

And concluding:

All these dates point in one direction which is, that a highly advanced civilisation flourished at the end of the Ice Age which was destroyed due to the massive glacial meltdowns, the stories of which are prominent throughout various myths.

Thus, I would like to conclude that with the above facts as backing, my hypothesis that a more advanced civilisation existed at the end of the Ice Age has been proved to be accurate.

This paper has 16 listed references, including 1 for Von Daniken, 2 for Grham Hancock and 7 for Ancient Aliens. Like as in the silly TV show. Nearly 1/2 the references are for the Ancient Alien TV show, and this work is being cited in the Biondi & Malanga paper on the pyramids.

Moving on with Biondi & Malangas paper:

The authors are open to the possibility that a technologically more advanced civilization existed before a known timeline, where the existence of various glacial ages [6] prevented the passing down of history.

6 takes us to some articles, that as far as I can tell are about the transitions from non-glacial to glacial between the Eocene and the Oligocene, so 40 million years ago. I guess there using some of the wording like this:

Nevertheless, a general acceptance that glaciations occurred in the middle to late Eocene will probably require further evidence. The suggested existence of large Northern Hemisphere ice sheets in the Eocene is highly controversial. Moreover, the fidelity of the magnesium content ofCaCO3 as a measure of temperature demands further scrutiny. However, the existence of precursor glaciations foreshadowing the major transition to the glacial state is theoretically expected of a system that is subject to natural fluctuations but is gradually evolving from onestable state to another

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...sociated-with-global-carbon-cycle-changes.pdf

Then suggesting, since the transition from Eocene to Oligocene may have involved some glaciation where it wasn't expected, maybe the same thing happened 10,000 years ago or so and that's why there is no evidence for the AnCiv they believe existed. Or something like that. And follow that sentence up with this one, where the "they" appears to be the authors:

They focus on the mythical cities mentioned in ancient Indian texts, describing how that subcontinent was an integral part of this [7,8].

7 is a book from Roskilde University in Denmark, so can't read what they read, but it sounds like there isn't a lot of India in it, aside from maybe a connection via trade routes. Even then, it wouldn't relate to an AnCiv in India:

From the Narmer palette to funerary preparations to pyramids, Steen Bergendorff draws on anthropological insights to provide new interpretations of accepted truths about Ancient Egypt. Bergendorff traces societal reproductive patterns in Ancient Egypt and the regional trade network that stretched from the Levant and Mesopotamia in the west and Nubia and Africa to the south in order to illustrate Ancient Egyptian culture anew. This book is recommended for students and scholars of archaeology, anthropology, Egyptology, and history.

https://forskning.ruc.dk/en/publica...ral-order-of-ancient-gypt-an-ethnographic-and

Likewise, 8 doesn't seem to have much to do with an AnCiv in India:

Spatial Analysis in Saqqara from the Origins to the End of the Old Kingdom: Examples from the Funerary Complexes of Netjerikhet and Sekhemkhet

This study is a spatial analysis of the archaeological remains dating from the origins to the end of the Old Kingdom of the funerary complexes of Netjerikhet and Sekhemkhet in Saqqara. The objective of this work is to understand the spatial occupation, the challenge being to be able to process the very large amount of information from the publications. To identify all the documentation to be examined, a database and a geographic information system (GIS) were created. Thanks to these computer tools, all the artefacts could be recorded and an analysis of the relationships between the different entities identified could be carried out in an attempt to understand how space is organized. Printed maps make it possible to visualize the results of queries, which were also imagined beforehand to build the tools. This examination of the data, through a geodatabase, also makes it possible to evaluate the interest of computer tools for research.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...khemkhet&author=Noc,+E.&publication_year=2015

I'm not really sure what's going on here. Some of these appear to be legit books, articles and studies but don't seem to have a lot to do with the claims being made that I can see. When a reference does support ancient myths and evidence for an Ancient Civilization, it's based heavily on pseudo-science pop culture.

That's enough for now, although looking ahead to reference #17, we get Hancock.
.

 

[Ann K]

That's enough for now, although looking ahead to reference #17, we get Hancock.

Hancock, like Von Däniken, Travis Taylor and others we could name, have illustrated how lucrative woo can be, which probably guarantees it to be a growing field. Fame and fortune do not come so easily to the scientists and debunkers, alas.

 

[Gary C]

Hancock, like Von Däniken, Travis Taylor and others we could name, have illustrated how lucrative woo can be, which probably guarantees it to be a growing field. Fame and fortune do not come so easily to the scientists and debunkers, alas.

Woo was a viable business model before the Internet. With streaming, podcasts, donation buttons, and pay-for-clicks advertising it's practically a golden age of bunk.

 

[RAS]

Hancock, like Von Däniken, Travis Taylor and others we could name, have illustrated how lucrative woo can be

It has its place in the Fiction section of Barnes and Noble….not in scientific journals. I guess we will find out where they try to publish this non-sense.

 

[RAS]

Speaking of the fiction section….this "study" has made it on the latest version of the Joe Rogan podcast.