The
Evidence Leading up to
Gantenbrink’s "door"
by Christopher Dunn
Updated September 15, 2002
from
GizaPower Website
On Monday, September 16, 2002 at 8:00 PM
ET, FOX television (US) will broadcast live from Egypt an
exploration of the Southern Shaft in the Queen’s Chamber in the
Great Pyramid. Since 1993, when robotics engineer, Rudolph Gantenbrink made his initial exploration of this 8-inch square 220
ft. long mysterious shaft, millions of Egypt watchers around the
world have been waiting for the day when additional explorations
would take place and a tantalizing barrier to our past would be
penetrated.
This is written as a follow up to a question posed by Don Holeman,
biochemical engineer, co-moderator and designer of the Hall of Ma’at
message board. In ancient Egypt, the Hall of Ma’at was where honesty
and truth was weighed. Symbolically, the Hall of Ma’at depicts a
scale with one side of the scale having a feather and the other a
man’s heart. In principle, we die with heavy hearts only when we do
not conduct ourselves throughout our lives in accordance with truth,
integrity and honor.
The Hall of Ma’at message board was created to
weigh the evidence for alternate history. I am please to put forward
my evidence in the Hall of Ma’at so that it may be weighed in an
atmosphere of objectivity and honesty. I don’t expect universal
agreement, but at least I will go on record for those who have not
read my book and wonder how many marbles I have left for making such
a bold prediction.
Mr. Holeman asks: [my clarification in brackets, for the benefit of
new readers.]
"I’ve seen the thread at gh [the
Graham Hancock message board] in which
gizapyramid.com [Dr. John
DeSalvo’s association website of which I am a member] is
mentioned and it reminded me to inquire about the proposition
apparently forwarded in your
book (which I have not read)
and illustrated
here that the QC [Queen’s
Chamber] of the GP [Great Pyramid] was at some point a vat full
of hydrochloric acid.
"I wonder if you would elaborate on how you think the AE
[ancient Egyptians] made hydrochloric acid in the first place
and secondly how you think it could exist in a limestone chamber
for more than a few minutes without turning the chamber to
gaseous CO2 [carbon dioxide] and road salt?"
As a preamble to my response to the
question, I would like to take out of my book and place here
statements that I believe are pertinent and should weigh in on any
discussions of my work.
In ’The Giza Power Plant’ page xix paragraph 3, I state:
"I began to see the drawings of the
Great Pyramid, with its numerous chambers and passageways
positioned with such deliberate accuracy, as the schematics of a
very large machine. I became convinced that it could not be
anything else, and I set about trying to understand how this
machine operated. The effort could be considered similar to what
is known as the process of reverse engineering. To be successful
at this, I knew that I had to find an answer for every single
detail found within the Great Pyramid. I could not ignore any
evidence or twist it in any way. I was determined to prepare a
report that was accurate and as honest as I was capable of
making it."
On page123 paragraph 2, I state:
"In proposing my theory that the
Great pyramid is a power plant, I am not adamantly adhering to
any one proposition. The possibilities may be numerous."
On page 255 paragraph 2, I state:
"My theory is that the Great Pyramid
was the ancient Egyptians’ power plant. However radical the idea
may seem, it is, in my mind, supported by hard archaeological
evidence. The artifacts reveal that the ancient Egyptians used
advanced machining methods, which supports the deduction that
their civilization, and perhaps others, was technologically
advanced. Nevertheless, even with the powerful evidence I have
presented throughout this book, and the growing support for such
ideas, there is still a mountain of evidence ’or lack of it’ that
prevents this theory’s total acceptance. I acknowledge this
truth, and I am open to revising my power plant theory if
another theory presents itself to explain all the anomalies in
the ancient artifacts and pyramids I have examined to build my
own case."
Science and engineering work hand in
hand when developing technology. To propose a new and radical
approach to generating energy that was fully functional, right
out-of-the-box working perfectly correct, would have been a miracle.
So I don’t completely, utterly and dogmatically adhere to every
aspect of my hypothesis to the exception of reasonable arguments to
the contrary. Having said that, I have not been persuaded, so far,
to believe that I am on the wrong track, or that the pyramids were
designed and built to function as tombs or funerary monuments. I am
always aware, however, that evidence may turn up at any time to
change my mind. The 21st century exploration of the Southern Shaft
and what may be found on the other side of Gantenbrink’s "door" may
be an event that either supports my hypothesis or shatters it
completely.
I am one of several theorists who have published ideas on what will
be discovered "beyond the door." To my knowledge, I am the only
theorist who uses the Great Pyramid’s entire inner design to support
my prediction. I discussed this subject with a knowledgeable and
staunch believer of the tomb theory on the Ma’at message board, and
he insisted that it doesn’t matter what may be found behind the
"door", unless it is an alien spaceship, it will support the tomb
theory. Even a vertical shaft that goes down into the bedrock would
be incorporated into the tomb theory because, "If the Pharaoh wanted
a vertical shaft, he could have one." His reason was that Egyptology
is not a hard science and does not need to conform to the same
standard.
Enlightened though I am with that discussion I did not learn
anything that would change my mind regarding the analysis of the
Great Pyramid. The evidence of science and technology in its
construction is quite obvious to those who are schooled and
experienced in construction and industrial arts. The stones
themselves reach across the centuries and the story they tell is,
unlike the translation of ancient text or art, unambiguous.
As my stated mission in analyzing the Great Pyramid was to leave no
detail without an explanation, the first misunderstanding I would
like to clear up regarding Don Holeman’s question is that I did not
propose that the Queen’s Chamber was a vat filled with hydrochloric
acid. However, Don brings up a good point when he mentioned the
chamber turning into salt as the result of interaction between
hydrochloric acid and the calcium carbonate (limestone) composition
of the chamber. This chamber is the only chamber that was noted to
have a build up of salt on the walls and ceiling. It is reported to
have been built up to about an inch thick in places. In ’The Giza
Power Plant’ I present the results given in 1978 by the
Arizona
Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology who did a chemical analysis
of this salt. They found it to be a mixture of calcium carbonate
(limestone), sodium chloride (halite or salt), and calcium sulfate
(gypsum, also known as plaster of paris). Patrick Flanagan, Ph.D,
collected the sample and certified its origin.
While it has been suggested that this build up of salt was the
result of the great flood, there would need to be many great floods
to deposit salt on the walls to such a thickness. Moreover, similar
deposits are not found in other areas of the pyramids. There was
some in the horizontal passage and the lower parts of the Grand
Gallery. There is also some in the Subterranean Pit.
In the Giza power plant theory, every architectural element in the
Great Pyramid is integrally linked. Some features can be analyzed
separately, but for the most part, the Queen’s Chamber, King’s
Chamber and the Grand Gallery are the principle features that work
together in unison and they cannot be separated from each other when
considering a piece of evidence.
The features found in the King’s Chamber led me to propose the use
of hydrochloric acid in the Queen’s Chamber. The features in the
Grand Gallery led me to understand the function of the King’s
Chamber. The features in the Queen’s Chamber indicate that a
chemical reaction was taking place there. The hypothesis rises or
falls on the evidence found in these areas. For the theory to hold
together, evidence that is discovered in the future has to support
it. Some evidence, such as what will be found behind Gantenbrink’s
"door", can be predicted by what is found in the chamber and the
Southern Shaft. The power plant will be either vindicated or will be
severely challenged or even dismissed based on what the future
reveals.
I am fully prepared to admit that I am wrong if a search of the
Southern shaft does not reveal another shaft, or shafts, that will
be redirected and eventually lead to a point underneath the pyramid.
I also predicted in my book that on the backside of the "door" the
copper fittings would have connections or would continue away from
the "door" and to a point underneath the Great Pyramid.
My illustration of what may be behind Gantenbrink’s "door" gives a
general idea of what the power plant theory predicts will be found.
Interesting
early reports coming from Egypt!
The Pyramid Robot has measured the
thickness of the so-called "door". The robot equipped with an
ultrasonic measuring device has climbed the shaft and its
feedback indicated that the limestone was 3-inches thick. The
above illustration was created in 1998. Scaling the measurement
of the limestone "door" partition with the dimension of the
shaft, my illustration predicted that the "door" would be 3.64
inches thick. The accuracy of the ultrasonic measurement would
depend on the calibration of the equipment, which is tested
against a piece of similar material with similar thickness.
There have been arguments that the
Queen’s Chamber shafts do not hold water. Mr. Gantenbrink believes
that it is nonsense to propose such an idea. He has good reason to
question this idea. He is in possession of videotape taken within
the shaft that examined every inch of its length. Some of that video
I have seen and there are noticeable gaps between some of the
blocks. Presumably caused by a shifting of the structure at some
point in prehistory.
Before responding to Mr. Gantenbrink’s retort, allow me to explain
my state-of-mind when I examined the evidence before he made his
landmark exploration and discoveries. This state-of-mind compelled
me to proffer my hypothesis.
As my book describes in great detail, features in the King’s Chamber
dictate the creation of hydrogen in the Queen’s Chamber. I had
considered several gasses while researching my book, but hydrogen
was the only gas that fit. It’s wavelength and frequency were in
"tune" with the rest of the pyramid.
Supporting the idea that a chemical reaction took place in the
Queen’s Chamber, (and before the discovery of Gantenbrink’s "door")
my hypothesis relied on the evidence discovered in the chamber by
early explorers as follows:
-
The rough, unfinished floor inside
the Queen’s Chamber.
-
The corbeled niche cut into the east
wall of the Queen’s Chamber.
-
The repugnant odor that assailed
early explorers.
-
Drop in Horizontal Passage floor
level before it goes into the Queen’s Chamber. This would allow
chemicals to pool inside the chamber and "wick" up the
evaporation tower.
-
Corbeled niche in wall of the
Queen’s Chamber. This may have been a means to key the
evaporation tower into the structure.
-
Shafts leading to the Queen’s
Chamber but not quite connected to it. These could have been
supply shafts for chemicals needed in the reaction. The shafts
would allow chemicals to enter the chamber and prevent evolving
gases from escaping.
-
Stone ball, grapnel hook, and cedar
like wood. The wood and hook assembly could have served as a
floating contact to signal the need for more chemical. The stone
ball may have been used to prevent erosion of the "left" as the
channel filled with fluid. (I am not adverse to the idea that
these items were introduced at a later time, but offer this as a
reason for their presence assuming they are contemporaneous with
the building.)
-
Flakes of gypsum exuding from joints
in shafts. This substance probably resulted from the chemical
reacting with limestone (suggesting the use of hydrochloric
acid).
-
Buildup of salt crystals on the
walls and ceiling of the Queen’s Chamber, Horizontal Passage,
and lower level of Grand Gallery. This buildup was likely the
result of gaseous vapor passing over the limestone, reacting
with the calcium in the limestone, and giving up water and
impurities. This was a by-product from the drying of the gas.
-
Well Shaft bored from the juncture
of the Grand Gallery and the Horizontal Passage down to the
Grotto. This was probably either a waste removal shaft or an
overflow shaft.
-
Large granite block at the bottom of
the Well Shaft at the level of the Grotto. Most likely this was
put into place to catch the chemical overflow, thereby
preventing erosion of the limestone.
The strongest argument to support the
use of a fluid in the shafts is that they were not connected with
the chamber. They terminated just five-inches away from the inside
wall. At the time I was researching this part of the book, I was
living in Indiana, which is famous for its limestone quarries. I had
bought some property out in the country and was putting in a septic
system. This led to an in depth discussion with a civil engineer
about the standards and calculations used when putting in a septic
system and seep field. I was particularly fascinated when a
percolation test was run on my property. It was a simple test that
involved time and volume of liquid. A hole is dug, water is poured
into it and time is taken for the water to disappear from the hole.
I asked a civil engineer if he had ever performed a percolation test
in the limestone bedrock. He said yes and that the principle is
still the same. The square footage required for a septic system is
calculated from the percolation results, whether the hole is dug
into limestone, clay or regular soil. From my discussions with him,
I learned that air would not pass through that five-inch plate of
limestone that separated the Queen’s Chamber from the Shafts, but a
liquid would. I also learned that the percolation rate would be
precise as long as the head pressure, which is determined by the
weight of the column of liquid, remained the same.
Because other evidence in the Great Pyramid suggested hydrogen as a
gas, I consulted with a chemical engineer to find out what
chemicals, when brought together, would produce hydrogen gas. I was
told that diluted hydrochloric acid coming in from one shaft and
hydrated zinc feeding in from the other when combined would produced
hydrogen. Joe Drejewski, my consultant, also affirmed that the
boiling off of hydrogen when the chemicals mixed would create salts
on the limestone (calcium carbonate) walls and ceiling of the
chamber.
The shafts inside the Queen’s Chamber were not discovered until
1872. In 1993 I was glued to the television while Upuaut II climbed
the Southern Shaft. I had heard many rumors before then about what
had been found. Most of them were wrong. As I watched this
exploration, though, I believed I was seeing real evidence of the
action that a dilute hydrochloric acid solution would have on
limestone.
The lower parts of the shaft were eaten up by erosion. As Gantenbrink’s robot traveled through the shaft it was as though it
was traveling through a cave (below image).
Early explorers noted that gypsum was leaching from the walls and
oozing from the joints.
For an example of what the previous
paragraph describes, please use the links within the text. For Mr. Gantenbrink’s report, go to
Gantenbrink’s website.
Further up the shafts, other evidence came into view of a section of
the floor that had been eaten away. As you can see in
below image, the erosion happened after
the shaft was constructed because it extends beneath the block that
forms the side walls and ceiling. The rounded irregular undercut is
clearly not manufactured and seem to have been produced by eroding
elements after the shaft had been constructed.
Upuaut’s camera also reveals what
appears to be erosion patterns in the wall. Considering the camera
angle and direction, the erosion pattern on the wall appear to be
"tide marks". As though the surface of a fluid had left a horizontal
impression at certain locations along the wall. See "tide" marks in
below images.
Finally, Upuaut came to the infamous
"door" with its copper fittings. Again we have clear signs of
erosion on the copper. The bottom of the left fitting had broken
off. This, in my mind, is significant. Without any previous
intrusion from mice or man, this section had broken away from the
parent copper material.
You will notice, also, that the copper is tapered from the upper
part down to its tip. Was it intentionally manufactured this way? Or
is this is another sign of erosion? Considering that the left
fitting had broken away, it would appear that the copper was subject
to some sort of action, whether chemical or mechanical, after they
were installed. Along with the signs of erosion in the lower parts
of the shaft, the tapering of the copper is crucial to understanding
what happened.
In The Giza Power Plant, I propose that these copper fittings
were
part of an electrical circuit which closed when the shaft was full
of chemical. As long as the circuit was closed, the necessary head
pressure, assuring a consistent and predictably flow into the
Queen’s Chamber, would be maintained. When the level dropped below
the level of the copper electrodes, the circuit opened and a signal
was transmitted so that more chemicals would be delivered to the
shaft.
The action of the dilute hydrochloric acid eroded the copper over
time. Because the upper part of the copper was covered with chemical
for a shorter period of time than the lower part, as the fluid was
always falling, the lower part of the copper was eroded more that
the upper part. This resulted in a taper of the copper and the
ultimate failure of the left electrode.
Gantenbrink’s "door"
Because the feed into the Queen’s Chamber would not have been a
great torrent or even what a normal faucet would produce,
replenishing the shaft with fluid would not require a large orifice.
The notched corner as seen in the bottom right corner of the block
would be all that was needed to maintain the fluid level.
With respect to Mr. Gantenbrink’s
assertion that the shafts do not hold water, I respectfully suggest
that they were not intended to hold water but to transfer a fluid
from one point to another. Similarly today, we use conduits that are
not water tight to convey water from one point to another. Sewers
and field tile come to mind. It is noted, also, that gaps in the
lower limestone blocks may be problematic. However, it should be
noted that the shaft is only 8-inches square and on a television
screen, traveling through this space looks the same as traveling
through the 42 inch square Ascending Passage.
They both fill the screen, consequently
perspectives within the confines of this small shaft can be somewhat
exaggerated. Moreover, so far there is no knowledge of how the
masonry that surrounds the shafts is constructed, or what sealing
methods may have been employed underneath the shaft blocks.
Nonetheless, the evidence of an erosion causing fluid occupying
these shafts at some time in history is forceful enough to allow the
speculation that either a water tight seal was not necessary or that
one exists that has not yet been discovered.
Why the lower parts of the shaft were eroded more than the upper
parts may be explained by evaporation of the water leaving a
stronger concentration of hydrochloric acid as the level gradually
fell. These ideas are speculative and are offered in the spirit of
inquiry into anomalistic features that heretofore have not been
explained.
The foregoing explains the reasoning behind my prediction of what
will be found on the other side of Gantenbrink’s ’door’. The
prediction has been in my book since 1998 and on this website since
2000. Science needs to be verifiable and predictable. After the dust
settles on the Pyramid Rover following its peek beyond the "door,"
in whose corner will the weight of evidence rest……
Go Back
|