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

[JMartJr]

The video eventually gets there and also suggests a baseline scan of some random bedrock in the Giza plateau with no man-made structures built on top, as a control.

Some dark, cynical part of me suspects a result of "Oh wow, they built these structures all over the place!" from our friends in Big Woo.

 

[Ravi]

It's not bad faith, only bad science.

Hmm, is it not bad faith because of bad science?

 

[Ann K]

Hmm, is it not bad faith because of bad science?

Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

[JMartJr]

Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Zoidberg's Amplification: "Why not both?"

 

[Mendel]

Zoidberg's Amplification: "Why not both?"

hence the phrase "criminally stupid"

 

[MapperGuy]

My analysis of the technical content of Biondi's articles :

The two articles :

• Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza
• Scanning Inside Volcanoes with Synthetic Aperture Radar Echography Tomographic Doppler Imaging

only differ by their experimental section. Texts and images in the methodology section are almost identical and they were published back to back. They can be analyzed together.
I'll refer to the author as Biondi as comparing the articles it is evident he is the one responsible for the technical content.


Theory
In these articles Biondi use satellite radar data to image subsurface structures.
A common critique of the claim is that radar can't penetrate far underground. This critique doesn't apply to the articles because Biondi is not using the radar data to see directly underground. Biondi is using the radar data to measure surface vibration.

SAR imagery data acquisition is not instantaneous. If the imaged object moves during acquisition, artifacts are introduced in the data. However, the same way you can reconstruct the movement of a light in a long exposure picture, you can extract vibration data from the SAR artifacts. Vibrations cause a small Doppler effect (change in the frequency) that can measured. From this measure the vibrational characteristics can be calculated.

The method uses spotlight mode SAR, this means that while the radar satellite is moving, it rotates in order to keep pointing at the pyramid, creating radar data from multiple angles. The vibrational characteristics of the pyramid is estimated for each viewing angle.
Tomographic reconstructing allow the imaging of the inside of a structure from data measured on the surface at multiple angle. X-ray tomography images the inside of a structure by measuring how much transparent to x-ray it is from multiple angles. Biondi apply this idea to the vibrational data obtained from the SAR data. The result is a SAR Doppler tomography.

The theory is based on previous research works (some of them by Biondi's team). It seems plausible.

Experimental results
Biondi used this tomography technique on two different cases : Mount Vesuvius and the Great Pyramid of Giza / Pyramid of Khnum-Khufu.
As many have remarked, the first step should have been to validate the technique on a know structure. I think Biondi kind of tried to do so with the volcano, but failed in my opinion.

He compares his results to magnetotelluric tomography images :

View attachment 78627

There are only 2 comparisons, they are visual comparisons without any calculated matching score nor detailed analysis.
One weird thing I noticed is that on the left side comparison high magnitude areas seems to match high resistiviry (resistivity?) areas, while on the right side comparison high magnitude areas seems to match low resistiviry areas.

That's it, that's the whole of the validation against data from other sources. It's very poor, and while the pictures kinda match, that's not really convincing. The images have probably been selected because they are the ones with the best match.

Experimental validation on the pyramid case is even worst.

We have a few comparison between Biondi's results and known structures within the pyramid :

View attachment 78628

Whole pyramid​

View attachment 78629

Zed​

View attachment 78630

Queen's chamber​

View attachment 78631


View attachment 78632

There a some structures that match, some that don't. The results show a high level of noise, the matching structure could very well be pareidolia. Biondi doesn't really discuss the quality of the matches.
The most significant comparison to me is the first one. Why is intensity on the left side of the pyramid so much different from the right side? Shouldn't the "shell" of the pyramid have a somewhat uniform density? Is the whole right side a hole? It's a like a third of the pyramid, you can't just ignore it.

A good detection method detects what it's supposed to detect without too many false alarms (low false positive rate). Biondi fails to show that his method detect know structures, but implies that since there are some matches for known structures the rest of what is detected must be unknown structures, without any words about potential false positives.


Conclusion
Although the theory behind the findings is plausible, the experimental protocol and validation are really lackluster, more aligned with trying to prove the methodology works without any reservation than trying to check whether it does and what are its limits.
This is the methodology they used to detect complex structures hundreds of meters underground. From the quality of the results on the example cases, I'm not convinced it could.

I don't think Biondi is acting in bad faith.
Firstly, the method is the result of multiple papers throughout his career, he has submitted a patent application for the technique and it looks to me as if he is planning to sell his analysis services (https://www.harmonicsar.com). He seems genuinely convinced his method works.
Secondly, the lack of experimental result validation seems to be a recurring feature of his research papers. In Monitoring of Critical Infrastructures by Micromotion Estimation: The Mosul Dam Destabilization, which our two articles are building onto, his team evaluate vibrational characteristics of a bridge and of the Mosul Dam, without comparing their results to any other data to validate their finding. It's not bad faith, only bad science.

What intrigues me is that if this works the Intelligence Communities would be very interested in it. Locating undergroud North Korean facilities or Iranian underground uranium enrichment sites for example. And the intel types would do considerable testing to verify and quantify the validity and accuracy of this technique. Don't want to waste bombs of false targets.

Only problem is they might not be telling anybody outside their respective organizations about it.

 

[Ann K]

Only problem is they might not be telling anybody outside their respective organizations about it.

Unless they have reporters on their Signal group chats.

 

[Mick West]

Here they claim to have imaged the Gran Sasso Lab and a road tunnel, which is under a mountain.

We detected for the first time the Gran-Sasso Physics Laboratory at 1.4 km below the Earth using SAR.​

The correlation seems incredibly tenuous, with no real scale or reference points. If this were a viable technique (which I very much doubt) then this would be a perfect ground proof demonstration.

This schematic is not to scale and is about 3 miles from the actual lab, which is under the mountain, not next to it.

If it worked they should be able to demonstrate it here. They have not. Here's a video where they try to show a match.

Nothing matches. They start with the overlay already there at about 10% transparency, so you can't see in the video what it looks like without it. But here's the source image:

None of the structures are visible beyond a possible faint edge, and the road tunnels are entirely missing. It seems like a case of technological pareidolia.

It reminds me of Georesonance, which had a similarly nonsensical claim about looking under things using satellite data. That looked like an investment scam.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...onance-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370.3558/

In order to identify and locate subsurface substances, GeoResonance Remote Sensing analyses super-weak electromagnetic fields captured by airborne multispectral images. During the search for MH370, GeoResonance searched for chemical elements that make up a Boeing 777: aluminium, titanium, copper, steel alloys, jet fuel residue, and several other substances. The aim was to find a location where all those elements were present.

 

[RAS]

The correlation seems incredibly tenuous, with no real scale or reference points.

This seems to be part of the authors typical methodology.

In post #5 of this thread, jdog refers to the Peer-Review Record for their 2022 paper.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231/review_report

In that record Reviewer 2 reports:

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.

It seems like a case of technological pareidolia.

I agree.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Nothing matches

Not surprising, he is eyeballing a match between his data and an artistic rendition using a shear deformation.

They start with the overlay already there at about 10% transparency

Same trick used in the Vesuvius paper (figure d).

 

[RAS]

I assume that the next step for the authors will be to link the 8 massive structures under the pyramid to the Earth's precessional cycle. Probably something like:

Earth completes one full axial precession approximately every 26,000 years. Divide 26,000 by 8, and you get 3,250 years. Many ancient cultures (Egyptians, Mayans, Hindus) broke time into ages or "yugas" that roughly correspond to divisions of the precessional cycle. 8 segments of 3,250 years each create a cyclical framework—similar to 8 "ages" or phases in a cosmic cycle. The number 8, when turned horizontally, becomes the infinity symbol. This symbolizes eternal cycles, cosmic rhythms, and repetition—just like the precessional motion, which is a never-ending loop.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, I did not even notice the false colour images are in logarithmic scale... This is the best known analysis trick to show stuff that is not actually there.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Oh, I did not even notice the false colour images are in logarithmic scale... This is the best known analysis trick to show stuff that is not actually there.

The logarithmic scale is for the magnetotelluric images he use as a comparison, they come from another article by another team.

 

[JMartJr]

The correlation seems incredibly tenuous, with no real scale or reference points. If this were a viable technique (which I very much doubt) then this would be a perfect ground proof demonstration.

It also seems to be a case of "pick a double line that is closest to where you know there is a double tunnel and claim that is it!" If you did not KNOW there was supposed to be a double tunnel in there somewhere (analogous to not knowing there were huge structures under the pyramid), would you be able to say "Oh yeah, that's a tunnel!" and to say "No, those other similar lines in the image are not tunnels." Color me doubtful.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Earth completes one full axial precession approximately every 26,000 years. Divide 26,000 by 8, and you get 3,250 years. Many ancient cultures (Egyptians, Mayans, Hindus) broke time into ages or "yugas" that roughly correspond to divisions of the precessional cycle. 8 segments of 3,250 years each create a cyclical framework—similar to 8 "ages" or phases in a cosmic cycle. The number 8, when turned horizontally, becomes the infinity symbol. This symbolizes eternal cycles, cosmic rhythms, and repetition—just like the precessional motion, which is a never-ending loop.

Did you read that somewhere or just come up with it on your own? If it's yours, I see a bright future in pseudoscientifical publishing .

 

[Mendel]

It also seems to be a case of "pick a double line that is closest to where you know there is a double tunnel and claim that is it!" If you did not KNOW there was supposed to be a double tunnel in there somewhere (analogous to not knowing there were huge structures under the pyramid), would you be able to say "Oh yeah, that's a tunnel!" and to say "No, those other similar lines in the image are not tunnels." Color me doubtful.

Sounds about as useful as remote viewing.
The "evidence" for that is always along the line of "whst the remote viewer drew can be made to match some features of what is already there somehow", but the military found that it's utterly useless if you don't already know what's there—but that's exactly when you'd need a method like this.

 

[Ravi]

The "structures" they've claimed were "extracted" from the data by AI. No wonder it is a load of bollocks.

 

[Gary C]

The "structures" they've claimed were "extracted" from the data by AI. No wonder it is a load of bollocks.

They should explain the data set that was used to train the AI in that case.

 

[Starflint]

Corrado Malanga responded to some of the challenges：
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aH8tGLQtGk

 

[Mendel]

Corrado Malanga responded to some of the challenges：
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aH8tGLQtGk

That's a long video. What are the main points, and where can I find them in the video?

 

[Starflint]

That's a long video. What are the main points, and where can I find them in the video?

I just saw it and shared it, and at 9:25, Malanga responds to the skepticism about using SAR technology to probe the deep underground, and to be honest I don't really understand if his response is convincing. I saw a user named @alessandrasolinas5349 in the comments section of the video raise two questions about Malanga's response：

1.If we say that the Capella space has a resolution of 25x25cm, and consider that this is the resolution obtained by processing multiple samples, how can it handle vibrations (which, by definition, require a very high temporal resolution) if it is already a processing of multiple samples?
2.If we were talking about 25x25 cm spatial resolution, why did you later mention "sub-millimeter" accuracy when asked about the unit of measurement?

 

[Mauro]

Corrado Malanga responded to some of the challenges：

Just to put the video in context...

The host, Massimo Mazzucco, is, according, to Italian Wikipedia:

Massimo Mazzucco (Torino, 20 luglio 1954) è un regista, sceneggiatore e blogger italiano, attivo sostenitore di diverse teorie del complotto.

".. a film director, scriptwriter and an active promoter of several conspiracy theories".

Mazzucco è noto per essere un fervente e attivo teorico del complotto: gestisce dal 2003 il sito web Luogocomune.net, nel 2019 ha fondato con Giulietto Chiesa il canale di video in streaming Contro.tv[3]​ ed è impegnato nella divulgazione di teorie come quelle che contestano il rapporto della Commissione sugli attentati dell'11 settembre 2001, comprese le critiche alla versione ufficiale dell'attentato al Pentagono. Il sito dà spazio anche ad altre teorie del complotto sugli argomenti più vari, come l'assassinio di John F. Kennedy, la veridicità dell'allunaggio del 1969 e le scie chimiche.

"Mazzucco is known for being a passionate and active conspiracy theories supporter: he manages the Luogocomune.net website since 2003, in 2019 he founded the video streaming channel Contro.tv ['Contro' means 'against', or 'alternative' in this context] together with Giulietto Chiesa [another famous believer] and he promotes theories such as those which doubt the report of the Commission on September 11 attacks, including positions against the official version of the Pentagon attack. The site also devotes space to other conspiracy theories, such as the JFK killing, the truth of the Moon landing in 1969 and chemtrails". [he's also into anti-cancer quack cures].

 

[yoshy]

If it worked they should be able to demonstrate it here. They have not. Here's a video where they try to show a match.

Nothing matches. They start with the overlay already there at about 10% transparency, so you can't see in the video what it looks like without it. But here's the source image:

Wow that is so insanely intellectually dishonest of them. Sadly, I would have been fooled if I didn't know that the overlay started at 10% transparency.

 

[John J.]

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

It might be relevant that the reviewers of the 2022 paper,
"Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza", Filippo Biondi, Corrado Malanga, Remote Sensing 14 (2),
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231
made no mention of the extraordinary claims associated with the 2025 "Official Press Release" linked to in the OP.

Indeed, the 2022 paper made no mention of the extraordinary claims associated with the 2025 "press release" re. vast underground structures/ artificial wells hundreds of metres deep surrounded by spiral staircases.

Whether it is an "official" press release, or has anything to do with Biondi and/or Malanga, I do not know as the linked-to material is 5 Minutes 36 seconds of one woman, Nicole Ciccolo, talking to camera. No media are in attendance.

This communiqué, which can be viewed in the OP, might have been filmed in a corner of a room at home by, well, anyone with a webcam.

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

Again, Nicole Ciccolo, speaking in Italian, this time for 6 minutes 20 seconds. No Biondi, no Malanga, no explanatory graphics.


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


As with the first "press release", the content is, um, interesting. (Any transcription errors are mine):

Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great enthusiasm that we officially announce today that our research team has succeeded in identifying a vast underground city under the Giza plateau, which corresponds to the legendary Amenti. This city is mentioned in ancient texts as a place linked to the universal knowledge of humankind and its ultimate spiritual transformation.

From 3 minutes 26 seconds in,

Professor Corrado Malanga, head of the research project, a chemist and former researcher at the University of Pisa, with a longstanding career in the study of consciousness and the phenomena related to the perception of reality.
His expertise has enabled the development of new interpretive models for analysing the discovered structures.

My emphasis. Maybe he's the head of this "research project" but not of the 2022 paper.
"Amenti" is a place in Ancient Egyptian mythology which (as far as I understand) might be associated with "the Underworld", Hades, Purgatory, the Afterlife.

Nicole Ciccolo is claiming "the team" have literally discovered the Ancient Egyptian Underworld using Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography, which might have important implications for organised religion, theology, archaeology, biology, anthropology, history and our view of our place in the Universe.
It probably won't be seen as good news by the current Pope as he recovers from recent illness (and I wish him well) or indeed by the leaders of many other faiths.
(All hail Osiris.)
The same technology might enable us to image the drinking halls of Valhalla, or the Fields Of The Nephilim (the lands of the Biblical angel-human hybrids, not the Gothic rock band from Stevenage, Hertfordshire UK).

Maybe we shouldn't be too startled by the "research project" saying (via Ciccolo) "we officially announce today" the discovery of Amenti," as she sort of said the same thing in the first "Official Press Release", approx. 31 to 39 seconds in:

A vast underground city has been discovered under the Giza Pyramids. It is the mythical Amenti.

I guess if enough people don't pay attention to your paradigm-shattering first press release, it makes sense to hold another.

As befits announcements of such consequence, La Ciccolo has an emblem (designed by whom?) for the research team displayed throughout her unscientific clickbait press releases:

I need better-informed advice on this, but I think the Italian for "Technology" is "Tecnologia"; "Project" is "Progetto"
(so Italian for "Khafre Project" would be "Progetto Khafren").

So the text is (1) not in Italian, (2) is probably meant to be in English but mis-spells "Technology".
-Accepting that my understanding of this might be in error, any correction will be humbly received.

It might be relevant that:
(1) The 2022 paper "Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza", published in a peer-reviewed journal, does not make claims for large, very deep structures under any of the pyramids. Certainly not a "city" or artificial structures 100s of metres deep.
It deals primarily with the pyramid of Khufu, the Great Pyramid (less detailed investigations of Khafre and Menkaure are described).

(2) Biondi and Malanga have not published separate research concerning the Khafre pyramid in a peer-reviewed journal AFAIK.
Their extraordinary claims seem to be focussed on (but not limited to) the Khafre pyramid.


This extract posted by @RAS in the second post:

Note the odd phrasing, considering that Biondi and Malanga are the authors (even allowing for Italian-English translation):

Our study was inspired by previous research conducted... ...by Filippo Bondi and Corrado Malanga

...and the apparent confusion of the Khufu and Khafre pyramids (again, Biondi and Malanga have not published a scientific paper about Khafre AFAIK).

I had initially wondered if Biondi might be an innocent party to this, but it would appear this cannot be the case.
As far as I can tell, Biondi no longer works at the University of Strathclyde,
(link to the university's staff search https://www.strath.ac.uk/staff/?term=Biondi) and has moved away from technological innovation- a bit surprising considering his extraordinary discoveries using SAR doppler tomography at Giza.

He is now a post-doctorate researcher at the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (see https://www.filippobiondi.com/), where he writes

I study how market power influences firms' responses to productivity and tax changes.

Whoo! That must be loads more exciting than discovering that the Ancient Egyptian underworld physically exists!

The claims of extensive deep structures under the pyramids have not been made in any peer-reviewed journals.
Whatever validity the 2022 paper might have, it does not extend to those claims.

The Giza site might benefit from greater attention by archaeologists familiar with interpreting potsherds and cooking vessels,
as the claims regarding deep artificial structures and the discovery of Amenti as a physical reality are a complete crock.

 

[Mauro]

I need better-informed advice on this, but I think the Italian for "Technology" is "Tecnologia"; "Project" is "Progetto"
(so Italian for "Khafre Project" would be "Progetto Khafren").

You're right.

Also, in Italian Khafre is Chefren (not sure why, but in Italy Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure are known as Cheope, Chefren and Micerino, I guess from Greek).

 

[John J.]

in Italy Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure are known as Cheope, Chefren and Micerino

That's interesting. When I was a schoolkid (late 70s, 80s in England) the largest pyramids were called Cheops and Chephren.
Maybe there's been a change of sponsor.

 

[Ann K]

That's interesting. When I was a schoolkid (late 70s, 80s in England) the largest pyramids were called Cheops and Chephren.
Maybe there's been a change of sponsor.

That's been my recollection from my (much earlier) school days. Wikipedia clarifies Khufu's name:

Khufu's name

Khufu's name was dedicated to the god Khnum, which might point to an increase of Khnum's popularity and religious importance. In fact, several royal and religious titles introduced at this time may point out that Egyptian pharaohs sought to accentuate their divine origin and status by dedicating their cartouche names (official royal names) to certain deities. Khufu may have viewed himself as a divine creator, a role that was already given to Khnum, the god of creation and growth. As a consequence, the king connected Khnum's name with his own. Khufu's full name (Khnum-khufu) means "Khnum protect me".[12]​[13]​ While modern Egyptological pronunciation renders his name as Khufu, at the time of his reign his name was probably pronounced as Kha(w)yafwi(y), and during the Hellenized era, Khewaf(w).[14]​

The pharaoh officially used two versions of his birth name: Khnum-khufu and Khufu. The first (complete) version clearly exhibits Khufu's religious loyalty to Khnum, the second (shorter) version does not. It is unknown as to why the king would use a shortened name version since it hides the name of Khnum and the king's name connection to this god. It might be possible though, that the short name was not meant to be connected to any god at all.[10]​[11]​

Khufu is well known under his Hellenized name Χέοψ, Khéops or Cheops (/ˈkiːɒps/, KEE-ops, by Diodorus and Herodotus) and less well known under another Hellenized name, Σοῦφις, Súphis (/ˈsuːfɪs/, SOO-fis, by Manetho).[10]​[11]​ A rare version of the name of Khufu, used by Josephus, is Σόφε, Sofe (/ˈsɒfi/, SOF-ee).[2]​ (The pronunciations given here are for English; the pronunciations in Ancient Greek were different.) Arab historians, who wrote mystic stories about Khufu and the Giza pyramids, called him Saurid (Arabic: سوريد) or Salhuk (سلهوق).[15]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu

 

[MonkeeSage]

Again, Nicole Ciccolo, speaking in Italian, this time for 6 minutes 20 seconds. No Biondi, no Malanga, no explanatory graphics.

They apparently held an almost 4 hour press conference in Italian, hosted by Nicole Ciccolo, with presentations by Dr. Armando Mei, Filippo Biondi, and Prof. Corrado Malanga.

A youtuber who goes by Metatron, who is a native Italian speaker, made a 35 minute review/analysis video of the press conference and some of the claims that were made by the researchers. I think it's worth a watch but below are the tl;dw outlines I got from it.


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

0:00-6:22 - Intro and context.

06:22-13:15 - Dr. Mei's presentation. He claims the pyramids were built 36,400 years ago. He says that since there are no hieroglyphs in the pyramids, he needs to find "their code" and goes into numerology based on the layout of the Temple of the Valley and other structures. He claims the numerology "connects space-time to immortality" and other new-agey sounding stuff. He mentions the Halls of Amenti and says the numerology gives a clue what could be under Giza. He cites the Emerald Tablets of Thoth (a theosophy / occult inspired pseudo-historical book from 1930) as support that the Halls of Amenti are a real place.

13:15-19:31 - Mr. Biondi's presentation. He discusses how their novel SAR Doppler tomography technique works. He likens how it works to sonar. He says they used visual inspection of the scans and AI to interpret the results. He shows their scans allegedly showing the Gran Sasso Lab and Mosul Dam tunnels as verification their technique works.

19:31-30:03 - Prof. Malanga's presentation. He explains what the colors in the scans mean, and says they use their own software to help interpret the scans (an example is shown). He says they identified large underground tuning-fork like structures beneath Giza. He says it's some kind of fate or destiny that their tomography technique is measuring vibrations and they found tuning-fork structures. He interprets the Khafre pyramid scans as showing hollow tubes with glass tunnels that wrap around them going down. He says they stretched the scan images but it doesn't matter because "a pixel is a pixel". He says he knows the "structures" are not just pareidolia because AI also said they could be artificial structures. He says "The AI does not have the phenomenon of pareidolia, and it does not make things up", and "Can the AI identify shapes that are fake? No. Because pareidolia is a psycho-analytical phenomenon." He goes into numerology about how 648 meters is significant because 648 is double 324, and 324 has something to do with the "axis of space and time", and half 324 is 162, which is significant because 161.8 is the Golden Ratio. He shows an image of an AI chat session where it says the darker areas in the scans could be some kind of natural or artificial cavities, and thinks this supports their interpretations. He says the "blocks" at the bottom of the pipes are the "Rooms/Chambers of Amenti". He says the pipes and the blocks were built to support the weight of the pyramid, along with an (unknown to archeology) "plate" at the top, and that without these the pyramid would presently be sunken 50 meters below ground level. He claims their scans of the Osiris Shaft show a sarcophagus made of a type of stone only found in Turkey that is mildly radioactive. He says there is possibly a large block of the Tungsten metal at the bottom of the shaft.

30:03-35:00 - Discussion about the presentations.


Original press conference in Italian:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM8vzUUZdVM

 

[Mendel]

He says "The AI does not have the phenomenon of pareidolia, and it does not make things up",

Face recognition error rates are far from 100%, depending on circumstances.
LLM AI hallucinations are a well-known phenomenon.
They consider AI as some sort of authority, but it's just a machine trained to tell you what you want to hear.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

He is now a post-doctorate researcher at the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (see https://www.filippobiondi.com/

It's not the same Filippo Biondi.

 

[RAS]

He goes into numerology about how 648 meters is significant because 648 is double 324, and 324 has something to do with the "axis of space and time", and half 324 is 162, which is significant because 161.8 is the Golden Ratio.

lol…I knew it was only a matter of time before they began to play the numbers game.

 

[Mendel]

I suppose a bigger obstacle for the supposed mega structures built under the pyramids is the well known fact that the pyramids are built directly on bedrock…lol

and the diagrams you quoted with that make it clear that this is false:

He says the pipes and the blocks were built to support the weight of the pyramid, along with an (unknown to archeology) "plate" at the top, and that without these the pyramid would presently be sunken 50 meters below ground level.

 

[NorCal Dave]

He cites the Emerald Tablets of Thoth (a theosophy / occult inspired pseudo-historical book from 1930) as support that the Halls of Amenti are a real place.

Just for reference, Jason Colavito's book The Legends of the Pyramids: Myths and Misconceptions about Ancient Egypt is a deep dive into all the legends involved and where most of them came from. I could say that the blurb from his website for the 2021 book anticipated the claims these guys are making:

Could the Great Pyramid of Giza be a repository of ancient magical knowledge? Or perhaps evidence of a vanished pre–Ice Age civilization?

But it just looks like that, because these guys are rehashing existing tropes.

The book has a lot of information showing how many of the current day ideas associated with the pyramids are variations on ancient texts, reinterpreted through early Christian thought and doctrine which was further reworked by the Islamic groups that followed. As I often do, I got the audio version, but it gets a bit difficult to keep all the names straight.

https://www.jasoncolavito.com/legends-of-the-pyramids.html

 

[John J.]

It's not the same Filippo Biondi.

Apologies, @RobertBillyBob's quite right, not the same guy at all. I really dropped a clanger there.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Jay Anderson ("Project Unity"), who was largely responsible to these claims going viral because his video was shown on Infowars and JRE, recently did a 46 minute interview with Filippo Biondi and Armando Mei.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b513P5g7XmQ

Some thoughts about the interview (any transcription errors are mine):

06:38

Biondi: First of all I would like to sorry for my English because I don't speak every day this language but uh we will manage to do it well.

He is not a native English speaker, just to keep that in mind.


06:53

Biondi: I know this that there was a bit of criticism about the technique we used for scanning inside pyramids, but I tell you that criticism was raised by people that weren't deeply inside of [the] scientific world. I tell you I saw a lot of debunkers, a lot of youtubers, some-- one physicist that I can't say her name, but never mind, and one professor of radar that is specialized in Ground Penetrating Radar. We are a community of about two or three hundred guys, uh, people. We are a restricted community, yes, but nobody told me anything about my technique so that's good in my personal opinion.

He seems to be saying none of his peers in his subset of the scientific community have raised any criticism of his technique. This is odd because we have seen several peer-reviewers of the previous papers on the Volcano scans and the Great Pyramid scans who expressed doubts and criticisms of the technique. Some had concerns with the maths and interpretations, but some were technical criticism of the actual technique.

Reviewer 4: 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?

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

Reviewer 2: The proposed micro-motion tomographic method itself sounds promising, however I am left wondering what size (amplitude) of vibrations would be necessary for the technique to provide useful tomograms for a given radar frequency. Could the required amplitudes of motion be stated please? I am also unaware how the vibrations map what is vertically below the surface as opposed to what is normal to the surface tangent for example. What about effects from structures to the side of the pixel being examined. What about effects due to reflecting acoustic waves within the structures, which may be described as multipath? None of these effects are mentioned and should be given some consideration in the paper.

Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231/review_report


08:55

So according to this I want to explain how technically my method works, to everyone, so everyone can know how this technique works and so maybe somebody can also replicate the experiments. It's well known that radar is the interaction of radar with, or of radars, with targets is only superficial. So electromagnetic waves interacts with matter, principally, superficially. So a Synthetic Aperture Radar, which is a payload installed on satellites that are low earth orbit satellites, that orbits around the earth at approximately 600 kilometers with respect to the surface of the earth. Has geosynchronous(?) orbital characteristics that in this case radar scans the earth and receives the response, the scattering, the backscattering energy of the earth. In this context as I told you before the interaction is only superficial. We can't penetrate matter using electromagnetic waves. It's not possible. I repeat-- it is not possible.

He wants to make it clear that his new technique is not traditional radar mapping and he is not claiming radar can penetrate many meters below the surface.


10:35

A lot of years that I study Synthetic Aperture Radar so I have to tell you that the Synthetic Aperture Radar is completely different with respect to conventional radars. Synthetic Aperture Radar is another thing, because as the word announces-- the name, synthetic, it is something different. Why synthetic? Synthetic because we synthesize a long aperture in the absolute direction in order to generate (sorry if I speak technical but this is the moment I think), to synthesize spatial resolution. What is the spatial resolution? The spatial resolution is a distance, it's a the minimum distance for which two targets can be distinct-- can be detected separately. Okay, so the more the spatial resolution the better are the electromagnetic images that we want to produce of the earth because Synthetic Aperture Radar, they are used for remote sensing in order to study the earth to capture electromagnetic pictures of the earth. Okay. According to this we are now moving in details about my technique. SAR images are produced in two steps: the first step is made by range focusing. Range focusing. Range focusing is performed by convolution between a chirp signal that I have as a reference, with the electromagnetic impulses that I am receiving. Okay so I have the first step which is an image that is range focused, from raw data we arrive to a range focused image. Okay. Then we move to a middle step, that is located between the first and the second the middle step is called motion compensation. We have to compensate the location of the targets due to the motion of the satellite. Okay. Then we move to the second step, which is the azimuth focusing, and here acts my technique. Why? Because azimuth focusing is made by compressing the Doppler bandwidth. The Doppler bandwidth is recast inside zero hertz to maybe 20, 30 or 40 kilohertz, which are acoustic-- which is acoustic information. So the azimuth focusing process is made by sound. Okay, by sound. Then, what-- how how works my technique? Instead to "synthesize", in order to have the maximum azimuth spatial resolution, we only use a part of the orbit to produce a lower azimuth resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar image, but the rest of the orbit, we use the rest of the orbit in order to extrapolate, to grab, from the earth surface, the sound, in order to "utilize", not "use", utilize the radar as a microphone. A giantest(?) microphone that is located in the space. Okay? This microphone uh can "ascoltare"-- how you say, "hear"-- can record, the sound of the surface of the the earth for 20 seconds, let's say 20 seconds, and recording this sound we can say that it is a sufficient statistics, a sufficient statistic, in order to produce a tomographic image of the inside of the earth. Why? Because, the sound propagates ONLY in matter, and here we are changing our mind, because we are not anymore using the electromagnetic waves, but we move to another point of view, in order to process the sound information. And the sound information propagates ONLY inside the earth, and the sound interacts ONLY with matter. Interacting only with matter and using a method for record this sound from space, we had the a perfect condition in order to explore inside the Giza plateau. So the the the Doppler bandwidth that we have estimated, it's uh um let's say, a completely acoustic bandwidth, so belonging between zero hertz to 20 kilohertz, so it's perfect. We used the-- the technique we used to invert the model, so once we have recorded 20 seconds of acoustic information of the earth-- of the surface of the earth we have used the so-called tomographic inversion, in order to retrieve the acoustic photos-- photos-- focus at the photos, of the internal of the earth.

Further clarification that the novel technique is attempting to measure acoustic vibrations and infer subsurface features, not radar penetration.


17:37

Biondi: This technique, first of all, was before-- to use this technique on the Giza plateau, I made a lot of experiments. This technique born for performing the infrastructure monitoring of large bridges, in order to retrieve principal component analysis of vibrations of the bridge. In this context we made a very interesting project in collaboration with the European Space Agency in order to analyze this issue. And then you can see, if you go on the web, you can read my papers about the bridge monitoring. [...] I used the same technique [on Gran Sasso National Labrabory and Mosul Damn], you can find the results on my website www.harmonicsar.com and where I have produced the inside the scanning of the Gran Sasso. The Gran Sasso is a huge mountain where I bought(?) in L'Aquila, Italy-- central part of Italy-- where inside, in the 80s, thanks to our professor [Antonino] Zichichi, who is a physicist, who decided to build up a huge laboratory inside the Grand Sasso. Why? Because it was an optimal environment to study so-called muons or neutrinos. It is very interesting. Once I went to visit the laboratory, and the principal project that they are working for is called the Gerda project, seeking the Majorana particle. It's very, very interesting.

He refers back to previous alleged successful application of the technique to the Gran Sasso and Mosul Dam allegedly correctly identifying known features.


19:46

Jay: I think it's it's important, and by all means Armando you can weigh in on this as well, but I highlighted this in a recent video. I think it's important to talk about the material composition of the Giza plateau and the pyramids themselves. And it's my opinion, and perhaps you'll agree with me here, that the the Giza plateau's limestone composition, and the the pyramid itself, with the inclusion of rose quartz granite might be creating, you could say, like an energetic coupling between the acoustic amplification of limestone which obviously would create this mechanical stress, the piezoelectric effects of granite. Could this coupling effect of limestone and granite be assisting the amount of subsurface vibration that your team is discovering? Is the material composition of Giza unique for this type of study?

Jay is a believer in the idea that quartz is allegedly present in Egyptian and other megalithic structures because it served some functional, advanced technology purpose pushed by alnerate history proponents (communication, power generation, etc).


20:35

Mei: First of all I beg a pardon for my English, because as Filippo said, it's not our first language. [...] My first approach to the Giza plateau, and particularly to the pyramids, start from the particular features of the monuments, because they are very, very intriguing, and in my opinion, are not compatible(?) with the tools and skills of the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty. And particularly during the fourth-- the ancient, Old Kingdom, but in the fourth dynasty. That is why I approach the study of the monuments from a different point of view, because I believe that the monuments don't belong to to the Egyptian civilization. But we also must better analyze these monuments from a scientific point of view, because all around the world everyone says something about there are lots of theories about the the the pyramids, who build them, how the pyramids were built, but no one has a precise idea of what the post(?) monuments are. Pyramids of Cheops [Khufu] for example, that is composed by sandstone from great part, and the grainite for the inside the chambers-- the chamber of the king for example, and also by limestone. During my last investigation on the field, I noted because this is a question that asked me-- Professor Corrado Malanga that is the team leader of the Khafre project-- because he asked me "take a look to the base of the pyramids, because I believe there is something strange that you must investigate," and he refers to the the platform on which the pyramids were built. The pyramids of Cheops, the pyramids of Khafre, for example, and the pyramid of Menkaure as well. Because all the three pyramids are based on the slabs of limestone that penetrates the ground for at almost six meters-- in 16 meters under the surface. And we noted that exploring the underground of Giza using the SAR. And when we discovered-- and I'm referring to the Khafre pyramid-- when we discovered the coils under the pyramid of Khafre, we elaborated the two kind of possible solution in the effort to understand why those shafts were built, under the pyramids of Khafre. Maybe the first possible hypothesis is to support the weight of the monuments. Okay? Because we made the study on the possible weight of the pyramids in respect of the base where it was built. And without these slabs the monuments, very likely, would collapse. So this slabs is very important limestone that is at the base of the pyramids, connected to the tubular-- the coils that was in the underground. Another possibility is a technical use of shafts. And maybe they are connected to the use of energy. But of course those are also hypotheses that we must study scientifically, but exploration is very important. Why I'm saying that? Because in 2012 I was studying the pyramid of Khafre based on a mathematical and the arithmetical model of analysis, and I approached particularly the sides of the monuments, elaborating by this model-- mathematical model, and I noted that the monuments-- the sides of the monuments, are based on the first two prime number of the table of a prime number. That is to say in the case of Khafre the number 11, and the number 3. But what is very important is that, that monument contain the number 137, and the number and 137 is a basic number for physicists, because it's the the base from which originated electromagnetism, relativity and quantum physics. And if there are-- there is, this code, in the pyramid of Khafre and also in the pyramid of Khufu, it means that this number was very, very important for the civilization of build that monument. So I believe that the only way to better understand the purpose of the pyramids is the conjunction between archaeology and science. This is the only way to understand what what happened in the ancient past.

Just speculation based on rejecting mainstream archeology and subjective interetation of the tomography scans. Also a bit telling that he includes his numerology findings in the "conjunction between archaeology and science".


25:59

Jay: Something that a lot of people are asking, and perhaps you can both address this, perhaps Filippo this would be best addressed by you: the 2022 study on the great pyramid of Giza, this previous study, different to the one that was done on the Khafre pyramid, why did these structural anomalies that the team is now finding at the Khafre pyramid, why did these not show up on the original studies? A lot of people online are wondering why these larger structural components, the spiraling columns, and two kilometer deep signatures, a lot of people are asking why these were not detected when you were doing these original scans of the great pyramid?

Biondi: Yes, thank you very much for this question. The 2022 paper-- okay let's say this-- the 2022 paper results has been estimated using the same technique of today. What changed with respect to the 2022? Velocity. We have optimized the software, we have-- kernel, we have changed the kernel, we are now moving to make it run in GPU instead of CPU. So it is quite different, but the algorithm is the same. Just to tell you, John, the software is--

Jay: Oh by the way, just real quick, I'm using my friend's zoom. My name is Jay Anderson. John Majerowski's a friend. Thank you for letting me use your zoom today-- but yeah it's very confusing, but my name is Jay. That's not your fault I should have explained at the beginning.

Biondi: Okay, Jay. I tell you-- thank you very much, the software is complicated but well structured. We need a lot of time, we need a lot of time to synthesize the vibrations. Okay. Let's say we have two steps: the first step is synthesis, where we synthesize vibrations. The second step is analysis: once we have the vibration we just put down the curtain [he makes the sound *vrrrp*] and we have tomography. It's very simple. One month of processing, one minute of processing. So those are the entity of the mass-- the mass I call it. In 2022 we were only focused on Khnum-Khufu, only on on Khnum-Khufu. We had the software 1.0, let's say, 1.0 version, worked very, very good, but it wasn't optimized in terms of computational effort. So we used to process only small and very dedicated tomographic lines-- you can read it on the paper, so in some tomographies we are looking a bit down, there are some coils like that, but we didn't have an open mind, let's say like that, to say "no", because we were focusing our mind on the top of that pyramid. So we were seeking the big void, we were seeking the little void, we were seeking and we found the corridor that belongs between the chevron and the grand gallery, which we found for absolutely, and we were the first research group that found that corridor. And so we didn't focalize our mind in seeking something deeper, because the software we have to say that has to be tuned: "okay, find things that are a bit on the top," and "find things that are deeply located under ground," so also that, we have to say. Now that today, because we have shifted our mind in scanning all the Giza plateau, we tuned the software to say "okay, software go where you can arrive, deep-- as deep where you can" and so things changed.

I don't understand the technical details of the technique well enough to know if the explanation about tuning to find things at different levels makes sense. Some known features like the lower corridor and a few known voids (from GPR) below the Great Pyramid were missing from their scans. I feel like the "put down the curtain" (Wizard of Oz reference?) and out pops a tomogram was pretty hand-wavey. He then changes the subject and asks a question to Jay.


30:40

Biondi: I have to ask you this, because people will maybe will ask you, and will ask you these questions, and to clarify this thing to everyone: which is the maximum deepness, that a Synthetic Aperture Radar, in terms of vibrational analysis, can investigate below? The maximum deepness? I give you the answer: zero. Because from the space the power density is very, very little, so if you use the energy, the energy transmitted from something that is 600 kilometers far away, it's not good. If you use a Ground Penetrating Radar, which is a radar that is on the soil-- on the earth, on the surface of the earth, and you scan like that, manually, then you can arrive maybe 15 meters, but that's not the Synthetic Aperture Radar we are speaking about. Rather radars that are located in space which is another academy. It's completely different with respect to conventional radar, it's different, as I told you before. So with my technique, that is the-- let's call it modified the Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler tomography, which is the maximum deepness that we can achieve? Let's say around five kilometers, like that. It depends on the Doppler bandwidth that we are synthesizing. Okay. About five kilometers below. So we have tuned at two or three kilometers and we found these shafts that are very visible! And the first time we saw these shafts, we were-- me and Corrado-- Corrado told me "Filippo what are those things?"-- "No, Corrado that's noise"-- the first day, the first week, the first month. But the second month we say-- "Corrado we have changed the radar, we have changed images, we had changed everything and always these shafts were completely visible." And so how you say, by our consciousness, we announce it to everyone, with a certain probability that is very high-- "people, there are the shafts."

It seems like there would need to be some controlled measurements using the technique to rule out noise, or some kind of secondary artifacts of the system, rather than just comparing multiple scans. Maybe they did that but here it just sounds like they compared multiple scans without any controlled way to rule out false positives.


33:32

Jay: So, yeah, ahead of time you released, that before that presentation in March, there was a series of abstracts and 3d graphics that were released. How confident are you that the 3d renderings-- the 3d images of the pyramid structures that were released in the abstract-- how confident are you that these images represent what is below the Khafre pyramid? Because there have been, again, critiques online saying this is artistic representation, so how how confident?

Biondi: We thank people the critique, because critique is, in my personal opinion, always constructive. That's good. I give you the answer: I can tell you 90 percent why-- so, very high-- why, because in order to perform-- so draw-- so make that the 3d model, we have analyzed one year of tomographies. Maybe 200 tomographies. Two computers 24 hours, seven days, were processing tomographies. So we have at least 200 tomographies acquired with different, let's say, tomographic lines, different images and different satellite systems-- different everything, same results.

Again the methodology just seems to be to compare multiple scans with no control. No explanation was given for how the scans were transformed into 3d models.


35:06

Jay: There have been comments from some researchers, including the theory that these might not be structural elements but void spaces that we're seeing. Maybe even filled with water. What do you think about these ideas that they're not structures, but might be spaces or gaps which have been dug down into, deliberately, or connected into the water table and filled with water, how do you address those claims?

Biondi: I tell you this, in my personal-- but in the opinion of the research group, are not naturally void, natural voids but artificial voids, because we have found the typical finger fingerprint of anthropic structures. So 90 degree angles, spirals, rooms, something straight. No. They are not natural. I'm sorry. I have to reject, but I thank always people that make critiques. I thank them because I'm always constructive, but I have to reject that. Thank you.

He seems to base the conclusion that they are artificial structures entirely on the presence of geometric patterns. But we know of natural geological features with geometric patterns like 90 degree angles, such as the Giant's Causeway, so this doesn't seem especially convincing. It's also not clear the scans actually show such geometric features since no real explanation was given for how the 3d renders were created from the tomographic scans.


36:21

Jay: Now Armando, maybe you can touch on this, because the history of Egypt and the history of the Giza plateau-- the claims of subterranean structures, underground labyrinths. This is not is not a new claim, this is not alone in a vacuum, this is quite a historically recognized-- going significantly far back in time, from explorers and Egyptologists and archaeologists and scholars who have claimed this. So what would you say about the historical evidence regarding subterranean structures and sacred halls in Giza?

Mei: In fact I have to say that I confirm that this is not the first time where a possible existence of a city in the underground of Giza exists. Because for example in 1930, an Egyptian Egyptologist, Selim Hassan, stated in his work, discovered structures beneath the pyramids-- the unknowns-- the possible existence of an hidden city under the pyramid. But also all these tunnels-- corridors that originated from the surface of Giza, because in the underground, were explored in past by Akim Abdullahuian(?), for example that explored the tunnels, also Andrew Collins, that explored the tunnels originating from the NC2 Tomb of the Birds. So there are lots of study and research along that, over the the last century that could prove the existence of something in the underground of Giza. So the we started from the oldest studies, and all these studies, and we approach a new model of analysis, that lead us to discover these structures that are unbelievable, because a few points is correct. Because when we first saw what were the results of the the detection of the the SAR, we believe it's impossible, this is impossible, but we analyzed the subphrase(?) for different points with different satellites, as Filippo told, and the results is always the same. So we are sure that under the the pyramids are the structure we show during the conference of March 16.

It sounds like they were starting from the position there are unknown subsurface structures beneath Giza and then tried to fit their results to that assumption.


38:43

Jay: Well it's just phenomenal. I mean you know, this is the most significant discovery in human history regarding our own story, where we came from, what were we capable of in the distant past. This is obviously meeting significant scrutiny in the mainstream world because of the models and frameworks that have been developed over time. This contradicts those models, this contradicts those frameworks, and it's going to make some people very angry. In fact how would you both respond to individuals such as Zahi Hawas, the former minister for the Department of Antiquities in Egypt, who's been pretty critical of the of the findings. He does not believe it to be true and many of the archaeologists who are in the more traditional side are falling in alignment with that position. So how do you respond to those who are dismissing all of this and encouraging people, I would say, from what I've seen, to laugh at the very idea of this being possible. What would you say to those people?

Mei: We usually respond with data coming from scientific models, applying to our studies. No with announcement without any scientific value. So generally we discuss with people and we make a statement all around the world, just only if we have the certainty that results are precise. Zahi Hawas, in my opinion of course, is a very well-known Egyptologist and he worked the sincearly for his country, to bring to light the wonders of the Egyptian civilization, nevertheless, Hawas make some statement in the last 10 days, but he was not well informed on the technology we were using. So I suggest him to learn before to to say something that is not correct. Anyway, we are always open to the scientific community we are ready to discuss with them to improve also our job that we are doing, because the cooperation between a different field of investigation of scientific field there is very important to move forward to the origins, to understand the origins of our civilization. So everyone, welcome, and the Khafre project is an open world, so we can-- we are happy to receive the support of the scientific community to move forward in our job. Just for humankind, because humankind I think must know from where this civilization originated, and the Giza plateau is, as many other sites, all the sites, archaeological sites in the world, are property of humankind and not one person.

Biondi: What can I say? I am studying radar for 30 years, and working on radars also. We used the poor(?) science, orthodox methods and hard working, to retrieve-- we are working on this project every day. We have used the scientific methods, that one of that is the experiments repeatability. We are measuring-- we are just measuring and showing the world our results. Thank you.

It's understandable they are upset about people dismissing their claims based on misunderstanding the technique and making claims about the impossibility of the technique based on that misunderstanding. I had the same misunderstanding based on Flint Dibble's video. But this doesn't address the criticisms of their methods and results by those who do understand the technique.


42:35

Jay: Well, like I said this is this is going to anger and and confuse people who have been holding on to a very particular type of idea about Egypt, a very particular model about Egypt, and so having the the resistance is to be expected, but the data should overwhelm the critiques, the evidence should overwhelm the naysayers, and that's what I'm very much looking forward to seeing with the development of this information, and hopefully you will be doing more scans and more work and more data collection. I'm assuming that you want to be taking this to other locations around the world as well?

Biondi: Yes, yes, absolutely and thank you for giving me this open question. Yes, of course, we want to move on other archaeological sites that are spread around the world. I don't know, let's say the other pyramids, or the-- that are that are located in other parts of the world. I don't know, the Bosnian pyramids, let's say something like that. A very, very interesting site--

Mei: Teotihuacán--

Jay: Maybe Gunung Padang in Indonesia and Göbekli Tepe as well is a very interesting one to get information on--

Mei: Yes, we already have some targets to detect.

Biondi: Yes, and just to say we are using equipments that are located in space, they are in orbit, in lower orbit and we know that, let's say, other planets that are our neighbor, like Mars, maybe Mars, that has dedicated missions that are at this moment orbiting around Mars. Why not? Can be a very, very-- an opportunity to yes to scan maybe some something that is located on that planet. Can be a nice topic.

Mei: We can put in orbit the SAR also Mars, to detect the planet.

Telling that they assume the Bosnian pyramids are archeological structures when the overwhelming concensus is they are natural formations. I guess we can also look forward to an announcement about artificial structures under Mars in the future.

 

[Mendel]

Jay Anderson ("Project Unity"), who was largely responsible to these claims going viral because his video was shown on Infowars and JRE, recently did a 46 minute interview with Filippo Biondi and Armando Mei.

My "wtf?" moment in your transcript (thank you!) was here:

The Doppler bandwidth is recast inside zero hertz to maybe 20, 30 or 40 kilohertz, which are acoustic-- which is acoustic information. So the azimuth focusing process is made by sound. Okay, by sound.

When the police use doppler radar on cars, they don't measure sound, they measure speed.

When you have a 10 cm wavelength radar, and you can measure 20 khz of Doppler shift, then the target eliminates or adds 20,000 wavelengths of reflection path in 1 second, and because a reflection goes back and forth, that corresponds to 10 cm × 20,000/s × ½ = 100m/s. This is the relative speed of the object, i.e. the combined velocity of the object and the radar system. The radar is mounted on a satellite moving at approximately 7000 m/s tangentially to Earth. The doppler shift depends on the slant angle of the radar beam vs. the direction on travel, but with a ratio of 1:70, it can be fairly vertical.

Be that as it may, while the Earth is moving, we can safely say the ground in Egypt is not moving at 100m/s, or somebody would have noticed.

Note also that if you measure the velocity of a loudspeaker membrane momentarily, this might give you some idea of the volume of the sound, but no hint whatsoever about its frequency—and over the course of several measurements, the velocity averages to 0.

If you shine a continuous beam on the loudspeaker membrane to receive a continuous speed signal back, then you have enough information to determine the frequency.
But they're doing ranging, which uses a discontinuous signal?
So they're not doing that?

And anyway, even if it worked, this would amount to radar seismology, which requires a pulse to move the Earth in a defined and detectable way. But there is no pulse here.

If this method works at all, its principles should be demonstrable in a simple laboratory setup, and there should be a paper published about it.
The absence of such a paper reinforces my conviction that the principle is unsound.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

My "wtf?" moment in your transcript (thank you!) was here:

The Doppler bandwidth is recast inside zero hertz to maybe 20, 30 or 40 kilohertz, which are acoustic-- which is acoustic information. So the azimuth focusing process is made by sound. Okay, by sound.

When the police use doppler radar on cars, they don't measure sound, they measure speed.

When you have a 10 cm wavelength radar, and you can measure 20 khz of Doppler shift, then the target eliminates or adds 20,000 wavelengths of reflection path in 1 second, and because a reflection goes back and forth, that corresponds to 10 cm × 20,000/s × ½ = 100m/s. This is the relative speed of the object, i.e. the combined velocity of the object and the radar system. The radar is mounted on a satellite moving at approximately 7000 m/s tangentially to Earth. The doppler shift depends on the slant angle of the radar beam vs. the direction on travel, but with a ratio of 1:70, it can be fairly vertical.

Be that as it may, while the Earth is moving, we can safely say the ground in Egypt is not moving at 100m/s, or somebody would have noticed.

Note also that if you measure the velocity of a loudspeaker membrane momentarily, this might give you some idea of the volume of the sound, but no hint whatsoever about its frequency—and over the course of several measurements, the velocity averages to 0.

If you shine a continuous beam on the loudspeaker membrane to receive a continuous speed signal back, then you have enough information to determine the frequency.
But they're doing ranging, which uses a discontinuous signal?
So they're not doing that?

And anyway, even if it worked, this would amount to radar seismology, which requires a pulse to move the Earth in a defined and detectable way. But there is no pulse here.

If this method works at all, its principles should be demonstrable in a simple laboratory setup, and there should be a paper published about it.
The absence of such a paper reinforces my conviction that the principle is unsound.

According to this paper : Vibration and Rotation in Millimeter-Wave SAR (which they or one of their references cites) it's possible :

Although vibration and rotation may be visible in a SAR intensity image, the origin of a smeared target signature or of paired echoes is most often not clear. A time–frequency analysis of such signatures, however, allows not only the target movement identification but also the measurement of vibration amplitude and frequency

 

[Mendel]

According to this paper : Vibration and Rotation in Millimeter-Wave SAR (which they or one of their references cites) it's possible :

I'm still trying to find an open access paper, but here's an introduction, at least:

Article:

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Volume 177, 1 September 2022, 109178

Multi-scale and full-field vibration measurement via millimetre-wave sensing

According to the different working modes of radar, it is mainly divided into the following categories, i.e., single-frequency continuous wave (CW) Doppler radar [19], frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar [20], and ultra-wideband (UWB) radar [21]. Completely different from the conventional range and velocity measurement which are achieved by the time difference calculation and Doppler frequency shift estimation of the baseband signal [22], microwave radar-based micro-motion detection has attracted much interest,

. In general, the micro-motion detection method based on CW Doppler radar focuses on a single target, and it is incapable of realizing multi-target synchronous measurement for the lack of range sensing ability. To this end, the FMCW radar is applied to realize the vibration measurement of multiple targets located in different range bins by estimating the beat frequency and phase evolution of baseband signals [30].

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0888327022003351

Radar interferometry with multiple receivers gets mentioned.

I can sort of see that an interferometric setup like a SAR can do ranging on a continuous signal, which would enable it to record vibrations. I don't see how that achives sub-millimeter accuracy across 600 km.

 

[Ravi]

I can sort of see that an interferometric setup like a SAR can do ranging on a continuous signal, which would enable it to record vibrations. I don't see how that achieves sub-millimeter accuracy across 600 km.

I also have a hard time trusting the data they present. The "validation" of the technology/technique by showing they can "see" the underground lab+tunnels, is far from trustworthy imo. The mathematics of their technique should be looked into very carefully.

 

[Mauro]

I'm still trying to find an open access paper, but here's an introduction, at least:

Article:

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Volume 177, 1 September 2022, 109178

Multi-scale and full-field vibration measurement via millimetre-wave sensing

According to the different working modes of radar, it is mainly divided into the following categories, i.e., single-frequency continuous wave (CW) Doppler radar [19], frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar [20], and ultra-wideband (UWB) radar [21]. Completely different from the conventional range and velocity measurement which are achieved by the time difference calculation and Doppler frequency shift estimation of the baseband signal [22], microwave radar-based micro-motion detection has attracted much interest,

. In general, the micro-motion detection method based on CW Doppler radar focuses on a single target, and it is incapable of realizing multi-target synchronous measurement for the lack of range sensing ability. To this end, the FMCW radar is applied to realize the vibration measurement of multiple targets located in different range bins by estimating the beat frequency and phase evolution of baseband signals [30].

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0888327022003351

Radar interferometry with multiple receivers gets mentioned.

I can sort of see that an interferometric setup like a SAR can do ranging on a continuous signal, which would enable it to record vibrations. I don't see how that achives sub-millimeter accuracy across 600 km.

If I understood what Biondi et al. are doing (but I'm not sure at all I got it right), they use the doppler shift of the reflected radar wave to determine the speed of the reflecting surface relative to the satellite and then extract from this the frequency at which the surface is oscillating.

Which looks possible in principle, but I really doubt that it could work in this case. The COSMO-Skymed satellites use an X-band radar:

https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/missions/cosmo-skymed#instruments-section

9.6GHz correspond to a wavelength of ~3 cm, which looks way too big to me to sense oscillations (that is to say, vertical displacements of the ground) which I guess are in the range of microns at most, and from space, Doppler or not Doppler (compare with the resolution of the radar, 1m at best, about 33 times the wavelength. Also, only the militaries get access to the full resolution data).

If their method really worked as advertised it would have not only a great scientific impact but also a great military importance... if I were in Biondi et al. I would have rushed to publish all the algorithms and data asap: being the only one to know such a secret would make me really uneasy... This did not happen for what I know, so I'm not really convinced their method works at all.

Lastly, endorsing faboulous underground caves below the Giza pyramids speaks by itself (well, to me at least).