> You talk as if traditionalists knew any of those
> voids were there all along.
Nope they are a new discovery, the idea that their might be unfknown places in Pyramids IS old but they had no idea where they might be. This is cool.
Give the guy a break.
Why? When I come here I see you guys attacking orthodoxy on a daily basis - and declaring it overturned, yet you then do exactly the same thing the next day....puzzling
> At least he was open-minded enough to propose that
> there was something more than what untold
> thousands of traditionalists missed over many
> centuries about the truth of what's up there. If
> you're keeping score, looks like cladking has the
> lead at this juncture -- one guy after a few years
> of casual armchair musing.
Nope he predicted a massive statue inside the NE corner of the pyramids a void in about the center doesn't quite match that....
> Even the scientists that did that study haven't
> pinpointed where that void is yet. Is it above
> Campbell's chamber? Is it lower, at the top of the
> GG? Is it angled parallel to GG? Is it angled to
> the opposite incline of GG? How much east-west
> tolerance is there in the data? Why not throw
> stones at Nagoya while you're at it? After all,
> they're the ones that claimed the expertise in the
> technology in the first place, and tehy
> still can't say for sure exactly where or
> what that void is, and after spending how much on
> the study so far?
No idea what you are ranting about
> And why not reprimand the Egyptologists who
> criticize the guys whose expertise lie in the
> physics of muons, while they (Egyptologists) focus
> on the languange and religion that have nothing
> whatsoever to do with these scientific findings?
You guys seem to do a good job at that - as a matter of fact instead of building your own theories up you spend most of your time attacking the orthodox position. Rather boringly if I might addd. I'm still awaiting your detailed study that outlines your view of the ancient world.
> I can't wait to see how the traditionalists squirm
> to shoehorn these new scientific findings into the
> orthodox narrative in an attempt to keep it
....ah a new place in G1 wouldn't really change anything - it's what might be in it that might. I think we'll have to wait until someone takes a look first. I predict rocks, dust and few daubs of ocher paint
'Self-consistent' - an.....dude have you looked at the recent state of the fringe narrative? Really? lol