There have been many books written about the Great Pyramid that put forth numerous points of view, beliefs or hypotheses regarding its construction, origin and purpose, but they all seemed to leave more nagging unanswered questions. The Giza Power Plant was written to present a new perspective not previously given and, hopefully, fill a void in our understanding of this enduring enigma.
After over 20 years of gathering evidence and studying the discoveries of other explorers, I ultimately concluded that only by operating on the premise that the Great Pyramid was a huge machine, would all the pieces fit. While Egyptology is not considered to be a hard science, scientific standards should be employed when trying to explain this edifice. Arguments should follow the rules of evidence and conform to scientific principles. While Egyptologists may say the tomb theory is unassailable, my view has been that if the tomb theory cannot follow logical scientific arguments, and be subject to radical revision when new data emerges, then it fails. These are the standards applied to alternate theorists, such as Hancock, Bauval and myself, so we should expect no less from those who teach and support the accepted view. Moreover, the theory should be predictable. What was discovered behind Gantenbrink’s “door,” though not yet brought into full view, was not predicted by Egyptologists and does nothing to support the theory that this edifice was originally a tomb.
I am happy to discuss my work in a cordial and professional manner. My objective is to search for the truth, not my truth. In preparation for this discussion, I would appreciate participants reading the following passages from my book, so they understand my attitude and objectivity are not new developments.
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
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, 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” could have been an event that shattered my hypothesis completely. It didn’t.
THE POLITICS OF SCIENCE AND THE SPIRIT
Pure creativity and invention is the result of a spiritual force that moves in ways that the scentific method would deny exists due to a lack of evidence. Religions have denied the existence of scientific discoveries, because they contradicted established dogma. Thus a dichotomy and polarization exists wherein all that is spirit is good, and all that is material is not quite as good – or even bad. Yet one springs from the other. They are inseparable.
If I am anything, I am first and foremost a spiritual being. My own career has taken me through every level of manufacturing, and materially and mentally I am a different person than I was 40 years ago. The greatest leaps in my career came when I learned that ideas did not originate in my own brain, and that I could select and deselect ideas and thinking patterns as I recognized the value they brought to me. This way of thinking also gave me an objective and somewhat dispassionate view of the ideas that I express. (Really it’s a nifty way of saying that if my ideas are wrong, it’s no big deal because they weren’t mine to start with.) But, seriously, the scientific method and the search for spiritual truths demand that we are critical of all ideas, regardless of the source from which they come.
Scientific and social progress demands that we all be skeptics and question the accepted mores and theories that have been handed to us. Alternate views need to be discussed. Indeed, they should be welcomed by anyone who is serious about learning what flaws may exist with their own ideas.
Christopher Dunn ~ October 2002