BREAKING: New Scans Show Massive Structures Under the Pyramids

This is the best technology that can scan inside of the Great Pyramid that are undiscovered features. Do any of these structures that they're interpreting fly in the face of what conventional archaeology would think exists inside the pyramid? All of it. All of it. All of it. There is also electricity inside of this. Fossilized lightning through these iron veins. What is creating the lack of signature here? There is something. I can't disclose it now. Interesting. Each pyramid is producing a specific chemical and the sequence of these chemicals transforms one product into the next product into the next product. Industrial scale chemical manufacturing. If we do have tubular structures, pillars with coils wrapping around them that go a kilometer deep with the foundation underneath them, that's insane. That's huge. Correct. Yeah. And it's something that needs to be addressed because there's no physical way that these could possibly have been built. Period. Then I'm going with aliens. Like how do we explain that? For over 4,000 years, the pyramids of Egypt have stood as some of the most extraordinary structures ever built by human hands. The Great Pyramid of Kufu on the Giza Plateau contains roughly 2.3 million stone blocks, some weighing as much as 70 tons, arranged with a precision that still astonishes engineers today. The first and most obvious question everyone asks is how these insanely large, sophisticated and astronomically aligned structures were built in ancient times before modern civil engineering. Archaeologists and historians have proposed several main theories. French architect Jean-Pierre Houdain suggests that an internal ramp spiraling within the pyramid structure itself carried the blocks. This is an idea that gained renewed interest after the Scanned Pyramids project detected unexplained voids inside the Great Pyramid. Other proposals involve lever systems, counterweights, and complex lifting techniques hinted at by ancient historians like Herodotus. And then of course you have the Atlantean Acoustic Levitation crowd. Always a good time and I can't hate on them. But the point is all of these theories have serious issues with them and are incredibly speculative. And there's another even more simple question we take for granted and one that's probably even more interesting when it comes to the pyramids. Why were they built in the first place? The most widely accepted explanation is the Royal Tomb Theory. Most Egyptologists believe the Great Pyramid was built for the Pharaoh Kufu around 2500 BC as part of a massive funerary complex designed to help the king ascend to the afterlife. And the Pyramid of Khafra was of course built for the Tomb of Pharaoh Khafra, Kufu's son. But no confirmed mummies or tombs of Kufu or Khafra have ever been found inside of the pyramids. And the interior chambers themselves are surprisingly bare. And so in the last few decades, some very alternative ideas have emerged for what the pyramid's true purpose may have been. One of the most famous of these comes from former aerospace engineer and Joe Rogan guest Christopher Dunn. Dunn proposed that the Great Pyramid might have functioned as an ancient energy machine. In his view, the pyramid's internal chambers, granite structures, and resonant geometry may have all worked together to generate power, possibly through vibrations interacting with quartz crystals inside the stone. Researcher Jeffrey Drum, who runs the amazing Land of Chem YouTube channel, believes the pyramids weren't producing electricity at all. They were harnessing atmospheric electricity and producing hydrogen gas and ammonium-based compounds essential for metalworking and agriculture, something ancient civilizations needed. And my hypothesis for the function of the Great Pyramid is that the hydrogen sulfide gas coming from this subterranean karst cave and tunnel system is the initial reactant in the chemical manufacturing sequence within the Great Pyramid. According to Drum, different chambers inside the pyramid could have served as reaction vessels where chemicals like zinc and acid interacted, generating hydrogen through controlled reactions. These fascinating open questions, how and why the pyramids got built, became infinitely weirder in 2022. That's when a small team of researchers, led by Italian radar specialist Filippo Biondi and his engineering colleague, Corrado Molonga, made one of the boldest claims in the last century involving ancient archaeology. Using a technique called synthetic aperture radar Doppler tomography applied to satellite data, they claimed to have detected eight enormous cylindrical tubular structures going beneath the Giza Plateau, possibly including large vertical shafts and chamber-like formations extending hundreds of meters below the pyramids themselves. We are counting at the moment four plus four cubes that are descending underneath and they are connecting the top, so the base of the pyramid, to something that is located at the bottom. So tonight on American Alchemy, we are hosting a historic roundtable discussion between Geoffrey and none other than Filippo Biondi himself, the man who conducted the scans and created the method that derived the images of these large columns below the pyramids. The result was probably the deepest conversation that's ever been had on the structure and purpose of the pyramids and the vast complex of subterranean structures that might lie beneath them. Modern disclosure might not involve modern technology, but rather ancient technology hidden in plain sight. Without further ado, probably the two best guests I could think of to explore the birthplace of alchemy itself, ancient Egypt, please welcome this week's American alchemists, Geoffrey Drum and Filippo Biondi. Existence cannot longer be denied. When we first started selling merchandise at AmericanAlchemyMerch.com, we had no idea how complicated and annoying selling merch could be. We talked to a dozen different platforms and companies comparing shipping tools, payment options, website builders, and it all felt like way more of a headache and complicated than it should be. We decided on Shopify and within days our store was up. Everything was running cleanly in an automated way so we could just focus on the brand and the vision we had for it. That's when it hit us. Ideas don't scale on inspiration alone. They need a structure, a container. Shopify provides that structure. It quietly powers millions of creators and brands, about 10% of all United States e-commerce. From big names like Gymshark and Mattel to solo creators building from their bedrooms, Shopify made it simple to build a store that actually feels authentic to us, which matters when your brand lives in a niche like alternative tech, UFOs, or fringe science. And when you have a very clear brand vision, plus their AI tools help write descriptions, organize products, even clean up photos so we can focus on what matters and what we care about. Building the best custom merch line possible with the coolest designs like our UFO cowboy tee and the atomic HT. Plus, Shopify handles all of the unglamorous, more painful stuff. Shipping, returns, email marketing, all in one clean dashboard. It's like having a silent partner who never sleeps. Our favorite part of the product is the dashboard, which gives us complete demographic information. We can see where our orders come from, making it easy to know who our most loyal, consistent customers are around the world. That's just one example, but Shopify really makes your life easier. Bring your next idea to life with Shopify quietly handling everything behind it. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start today at Shopify.com slash Jesse. Again, that's Shopify.com slash Jesse, J-E-S-S-E, for a $1 a month trial. It's just $1 a month to try Shopify, the state of the art solution in e-commerce. I'm here with Filippo Biondi, round two with him, and I have brought in an amazing co-interviewer, Jeffrey Drum, who I've become a recent big fan of. Thanks, sir. I just can't wait enough for this conversation. I'm really excited to dive into this because Filippo, as we all know at this point, has through synthetic aperture radar Doppler tomography, he's a scientist, he's a data scientist, 30 years PhD, who with his own method, the Biondi method, has basically figured out through these tomography scans, he's derived what he says looks like these eight four plus four tubular structures with coils wrapping around them underneath the pyramids, not only actually underneath the pyramids, underneath some other structures as well. So it's kind of a bombshell finding. Obviously, it is also a really amazing meme that like took off on the internet. And Jeffrey, more recently, I've become a huge fan of just because he's so rigorous. And I don't know too many people who have a step by step thesis as to what the pyramids actually their function is. You know, it really, it's kind of in a league of your own. And so, you know, I appreciate that. That's a huge vote of confidence. No, I mean, I mean, it's you and Christopher Duck. And so, sure, I'm excited to have you here because I think you can ask Filippo Biondi. Ask Filippo questions that I cannot. Yes, I think I probably accept a lot of things that face value. And so I'm really excited to host this discussion. Yeah. And thank you both for being here. Thank you. Thank you very much for your invitation. So as far as kicking things off, why don't we just go over the core findings just for the audience is context. So what are we talking about here when it comes to these synthetic aperture radar, Doppler tomography scans. And if you could go into the method as specifically as possible, that would be very helpful. Yes. The method is relatively new and not so, let's say, diffused by the other colleagues of mine. But someone I know that is replicating the experiment. So I'm very happy about this. Essentially, I work at a lot of years, maybe 30 years on radar and 20 years on radars installed on satellites. Synthetic aperture radar is an equipment that synthesizes a synthetic. So synthesizes a so-called integration time along the orbit in order to have a very high azimuth resolution. So it is very important for civilian application and other applications. Today is a state of the art because it recasts also in the commercial activities because there are companies that American companies and also European companies. That are building their own satellites. They launch the satellites in the sky, in the space, I'm sorry, and they sell data. So it is very simple to find the synthetic aperture radar data. And what we do is we reprocess this data in order to, and this is the core of our method, in order to retrieve the data. In order to retrieve the superficial vibration of the earth. This superficial vibration we have to consider this vibration like the waves that we can observe on the border of the swimming pool. So those kind of waves contains all the information that it is given by the underground, the undergrads. So we do like that. We estimate the vibration and then we perform algorithms that are able to retrieve tomography. Tomography is, we look inside. It's slicing of the interior. When we use acoustics, because acoustics in the acoustics are very important because they propagate only matter. And we use as a carrier the light. Because in this space we don't have matter, we have, but we don't have matter. And we use the light, it means the radio frequency in the 10 gigahertz, in the 10 gigahertz central frequency, so light, to carry the information of the vibrations. Right. So basically you have synthetic aperture radar, which is a tried and true method. Nobody's arguing with, you know, synthetic aperture radar being effective. You have companies like ISI, Umbra, Capella space that work off this method. They use it for defense and commercial purposes. It's basically a higher resolution radar. And then I think the big update here is the Doppler tomography. And then the other update is you're getting these tomography scans and you have software that is proprietary to you, right? It's the one that I don't know me, because we have a pattern that this, now I am also submitting a second pattern on the first pattern, because I made some improvements of the technique. And so in these days we are submitting in the United States. So the two big updates are the Doppler tomography. And then you get the tomography scans and it's your interpretation of the tomography scans, which is kind of this unique thing. To you. And so that has the world up in flames, the archaeological world where you have people like Flint Dibble coming at you and saying, you know, What an awesome guy for that. Yeah, yeah. And Geoffrey really struck me as somebody who was asking, I think, one step level deeper questions than I could ask about this. And so I kind of want to, you know, just maybe defer to you here as far as, you know, what you think about these claims, because on the face of them, you know, if we do have tubular structures, pillars with coils wrapping around them that go a kilometer deep with the foundation underneath them, that's insane. That's huge. Correct. Yeah. And it's something that needs to be addressed. Sort of my perspective on the new SAR scans. My work focuses on a comprehensive overview of the function of the Egyptian pyramids from the step pyramid, red pyramid, bent pyramid, great pyramid, central pyramid, final pyramid, and also encompasses ancient structures like stone circles, passage chamber reactors, taotu wakan, Japanese pyramids, et cetera. And it's a comprehensive overview of the function of these structures with a basis on mechanisms of operation related to physics and chemistry with the function of the Egyptian pyramids being for industrial scale chemical manufacturing, where each pyramid is producing a specific chemical. And the sequence of these chemicals transforms one product into the next product into the next product. So from my perspective in interpreting and reverse engineering the function of the Egyptian pyramids, we have a known chamber configuration, which inherently any hypothesis on the function of the Egyptian pyramids has to specifically assess all of these specific components in the known configuration. So if there are new components, for example, a lot of people don't know that Filippo and the SAR team actually published their first paper back in 2020, when they scanned the great pyramid. And this paper did not get a lot of attention at the time. And I think a lot of people haven't gone back to look at your original research. And I'll also do my best to kind of summarize in layman's terms, how the beyond the protocol works in relation to the existing SAR satellite radar technology, because this is a conjunction of existing satellite technology with new software that's known as the beyond the protocol that again is interpreting micro vibrations, which you term as phonons, as indicative of internal chambers within the structure and we'll walk through this process. And I think the impetus for this, as you can see here on the screen anybody who's watching the organizers of the SAR teams first international conference was in Malta back in June of 2025. And the organizers of the conference were familiar with my work. Armando and Filippo were familiar with my work. And my wife and I, as you can see there, we had an absolutely spectacular time in Malta. It is gorgeous there. Such a fun conference. We got to meet everybody. And Filippo and I had a really engaging sort of question and answer process going on during this conference winner. That was really why I was invited by the organizers of the conference to come and ask questions based on my knowledge of the existing configuration. And Filippo, you're the man when it comes to SAR technology and you are the creator of this beyond the protocol. So whether you like it or not, you're the only person that has the qualifications to answer these questions. Yeah, I'm the only one. Joe, Joe, ask me the question. Yes, of course. Right, right. I want to say one thing and then I'll defer to you, Joe. I do think it's important because a lot of people, you know, the information space in podcast world is not always the best. And I think a lot of people might Google or chat GPT synthetic aperture radar and get a quick debunk like, oh, you can't penetrate the Earth with synthetic aperture radar. And I do think it's important. Yeah, it is. So this is really important that what you were saying is that there is a kind of phone on to photon conversion. And that these micro vibrations, just like you might be able to read the substructure underneath water through measuring the waves, translates to the electromagnetic radio waves that, you know, get translated to the end of the satellite. Correct. Exactly. But penetration is related only to the information, the entropy, which is the basic of basic of information. I suggest everyone to read the mother paper of information, which is the paper of Shannon and Claude Shannon. And he's the best. And also to back you up, there are other modalities like there's something called cold atom sensing and, you know, gravitometry, which is noninvasive above the surface and you are measuring subsurface stuff. You aren't measuring it with perfect accuracy. Yeah. And that's what's very important. And the reason I'm so excited to have you here is because I think a lot of the first ordered debunks like the one I just mentioned suck and are easy. They're ignorance. As you said, I think, and I don't even want to call it a debunk because it's a friendly conversation. Yeah. But you have thought of other kind of interesting ways to poke at, you know, the theory. Yeah, it's just objective questions out of fascination and interest for the work. And I think that's an important thing in science is when people with different opinions come together, it helps us get closer to the truth. Because diversity builds new things. Of course. And I will agree. There are absolutely things below the Giza Plateau that we do not understand that are the impetus for the construction of the pyramids on the Giza Plateau. They chose the Giza Plateau for a very specific reason. There are very important resources below the Giza Plateau that are directly related to the function of the Egyptian pyramids. So we'll kind of get to that at the end, but let's dive into this so that everybody can just kind of hear. I'm going to read briefly, just quoting the abstract of your first paper. Just to say, I remember in the last interview that I made with Jesse when he came in Corciano where I live, I said, I remember that I said one thing. In the Giza business, let's say business, there is a crucial material that is common in everything. So it's water. Yes. Water. I think that water is very important in this business. Yeah. And for example, we've actually taken samples of the water in the Osiris shaft. And I had that tested in conjunction with an archaeological project that I'm a member of called the Osirion 7 archaeological mission in conjunction with Jim Westerman to investigate the source of the water within the Osirion. So they're doing testing of the water in the Osirion and hydrological evaluation of the Osirion to try to determine a, y and where the water in the reservoir comes from. And there's also intrusive water in one of the central recesses that we're also trying to determine the source of this water. I'm an official member of that archaeological project. And I brought our water samples from the Osiris shaft to have tested in conjunction with the samples from them. And the Osiris shaft is brackish water. It's not fresh water and it's not sea water. It's brackish water. So brackish water is slightly salty water, not fresh water, not sea water. In Italy it's called the salmastra. Yeah. So partially salt water. Yeah. And there's a very independent aquifer located directly below the Osiris shaft that is not connected to the Nile River. So for example, the Nile is way, way back from the Giza Plateau. And because of the high Aswan Dam, there's no more flooding of the Nile River. So the water level inside of the Osiris shaft has not fluctuated since the time of its construction. So there's an independent aquifer located directly below the Osiris shaft. And that system was designed to tap into that aquifer at a very specific level at the bottom of the chamber, which is why the chamber is still filled with water at the bottom of the Osiris shaft today. So there's pockets of independent aquifers all over the Giza Plateau. And there's also subterranean flowing water, which... So there is also subterranean... Moving water. Moving water. Yeah. So there's actually pumps that have been installed near the Valley Temple. So the Kafra Valley Temple near the Sphinx enclosure, the Egyptian government has installed pumps to try and pump this water out from below the Giza Plateau. So there's pumping stations at Giza where they've been pumping out this water from below the Giza Plateau, which is... there's a reason they're doing that. Back in the day, I used to chug coffee like I was prepping for a quantum jump. But then I'd crash like my nervous system got slingshotted through a kaleidoscope. Anxiety spiking or a flickering and REM sleep? Never matter. It was like drinking battery acid on an empty stomach. Then I found mud water. It doesn't fry my circuits or my synapses. I use mud water's original blend over ice. It still has a little bit of caffeine, but it's stacked with adaptogens and eutropics like altheanine, chaga, linemaine, cacao, the whole earth squad to keep you naturally energized and to ensure that you don't wake up with the morning scaries. One sip of mud water and my cells report for duty. Two sips and boom! I'm plugged into the fungal starfleet. All systems go. So are you ready to make the switch to cleaner energy? Head to mudwater.com. That's M-U-D-W-T-R.com and grab your starter kit today. It's M-U-D-W-T-R.com. Right now, our listeners get an exclusive deal up to 43% off your entire order plus free shipping and a free rechargeable frother when you use code Jesse at checkout. That's right. Up to 43% off with code Jesse. That's J-E-S-S-E at mudwater. M-U-D-W-T-R.com. After your purchase, they'll ask you how you found them. Please show your support and let them know we sent you. It's from a sense of archaeological preservation, of course, which is the main justification for everything done in Egypt. We're trying to preserve the monuments. So we want to remove all the water. So they installed pumps to remove water because they already know that there are structures inside. Not necessarily that they know that there are structures, but it's more for the preservation of the pyramids on top to prevent more erosion from below. Because there is, and I'll get to this at the end of the conversation, they know for sure that there are caves and tunnels below Giza. There are a lot of caves. A lot of caves, which are natural geological features. And then we will speak about this. Yeah, of course. We agree on that, right? So we all agree on that. We all agree that the pyramids were likely not conventional tombs. Right. We're all like same page there. And then it sounds like we're on the same page that water is this important thing, whether it's chemical power plant or energy power plant. And we are sure also that they were not built by the Egyptians. That would be my bias. What do you think? What do you think? So by built by the Egyptians, I think they were built by the civilization that lived in Egypt during a period known as the Saharan Hugh. The Saharan humid period, which is from 8500 BC to around 5300 BC. Which well predates what Zahi Gawas, like the Ministry of Culture would say. And during that time period, the Upper Eastern Sahara was being transformed from a desert into a vast area of farmland by sweeping monsoon rains. So there was tons of rain. There was tons of water. There was tons of thunderstorms, which is also directly connected to my hypothesis on the function of the pyramid structures. Directly connected to thunderstorms and lightning, which will get to the power source of the pyramids and why these subterranean structures might be important for capturing and recirculating that electrical current. And you have what seems to be water damage and erosion on the nose of the Sphinx that people like John Anthony West talk about. Yeah, the back of the Sphinx enclosure. Okay. Yeah, the water erosion at the back of the Sphinx enclosure. Okay. Yeah, that's the work of Robert Shock that looks at those vertical fissures on the back of the Sphinx enclosure, which is indicative that the structure was built during a time period where there was significantly more rainfall. Right. And I think it was built by the Egyptians, by virtue of it being the people that were in Egypt at the time, which predates, so I do think it was, so I'm not in the alien camp where I think that these are extraterrestrial. I think they were built by human beings at the end of the last Ice Age in order to reestablish and rebuild humanity after the largest cataclysm that basically destroyed most of the planet and put human beings at risk for extinction. So they're infrastructure projects. You mentioned Robert Shock. Yeah. He and Graham Hancock would say that the Sphinx itself is actually an homage to the former procession. Sure. And that the constellation Lea, which was facing true north, was what it was pointing towards and that the pharaonic headdress is actually retrofitted onto it. Would you agree with that? So I think the Sphinx itself is a dynastic monument that was built on an existing bedrock outcrop within the Sphinx enclosure. Okay. So similar to what they think. Correct. Yeah. Okay. So I don't think the Sphinx monument as a statue is contemporary to the pyramids themselves. Yeah. Two separate time periods. Got it. Yeah. It sounds like we're all on the same page that the conventional archaeological explanation for what's going on is kind of prima facie wrong. And that the gold posts are clearly moving on that. Let's say that we are sure that when I open the history book, school book of my son and I go to the pyramid and I read to 2500 BC. It's not true. Yes, exactly. So let's get into it because I have some technical questions. So the title of their first paper. Again, when I read this at first, I was like, what the hell is going on here? Synthetic aperture radar Doppler tomography detects undiscovered high resolution internal structures of the great pyramid of Giza. So this was their first public scan of the great pyramid before they scanned the Kafra pyramid, the central pyramid. And I'm going to quote briefly from the abstract here and then I'll do my best to, you know, from a layman's interpretation, provide an explanation for exactly what's happening here for people who don't understand the technical stuff. So one problem with synthetic aperture radar is that given the limited penetrating effects of the electromagnetic waves inside solids. One of the problem. Yes. So who says that I'm sorry about it. It's okay. Go ahead. Yeah, please. No, it's impossible because rather can penetrate. This is the main issue. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just going to deal in the paper. This is in the abstract there. They're proposing one of the main problems and then the resolution to the problem is the implementation of your new software system. So again, let me just so people can understand what's going on. So one problem with SAR radar is that given the limited penetrating effects of electromagnetic net waves inside of solids, the capability to in image inside distributed targets is excluded. So under these circumstances, imaging activity is only given on the surface of distributed targets. Absolutely. This paper describes an imaging approach based on the investigation of micro movements on the surface of the K'num Kufu pyramid, the Great Pyramid, usually generated by background seismic waves. So essentially what the technology and the beyond the protocol is again, Filippo, please correct me if I'm wrong and then agree if I have this interpretation correct. So we have existing synthetic aperture radar satellite technology. And what you've done is developed a new software that works in conjunction with these existing satellites to detect micro movements on the surface of the structure, which you have termed as phonons. And those phonons and the differences between the structure and the cavities are indications of chambers and hidden structures inside of the pyramid. Everything is encoded on these micro movements. Correct. If you have a chamber, the micro movements are like that. Right. If you don't have the chamber, the micro movements are different. Correct. Present on the surface. Right. Yeah. So the whole revolutionary and novel approach of the beyond the protocol is it's utilizing these surface micro vibrations to tell us what's going on on the inside of the structure. Yes. So again, to clarify, there's been some discussion in the community that, you know, SAR technology is old and it's vetted. It is 100%. SAR technology has been around for a long time, but what Filippo has done is developed a new approach to use these existing satellites. Existing data. Correct. Yeah. Existing data. To do something a little different. Right. So we're now going to be using these micro vibrations, which again, they've called phonons. Yeah. Is the term utilized? So again, if you're reading the paper, if you're hearing a technical discussion, when you talk about phonons, you're talking about these micro vibrations that are being detected by the radar. Yes. Okay. I please ask you to go a bit up at the previous slide, please. On the abstract. So I have some, oh, this one here. Yeah. And there is written very clear that Krum Kufu becomes transparent like a crystal when observed in the micro movement domain. Yes. It's written there. Yeah. Based on this novelty, we have completely reconstructed the internal object observing and measuring structure that have never been discovered before. Yep. The experimental result are estimated, estimated by processing series of SAR images. So this is the SAR. The SAR give you an image, existing image. And then we process those images. And by, in that case, it was the 2020 second generation Italian Cosmos Sky Med satellite system. A week ago, we put in orbit a third satellite of Cosmos Sky Med second generation. So now Italy has three satellites of Cosmos Sky Med second generation. Yep. It's very good. And I'll show all of the images from this paper so people can see what you've discovered inside of the great pyramid and all of those diagrams. Okay. So this is from the Malta conference, which fast forward a couple years later, we're in Malta. And this just gives some additional information for the people watching so they can understand when we say phonons, they'll understand that those are the micro movements. Phonons are micro movements. Correct. When we deal with light, light is composed by photons. Correct. Yeah. The vibrations of this table at any frequency is a vibration of the matter and the vibration of the matter is composed by phonons. Yep. Okay. Yeah. So in this slide here, and this is where I have some questions about the process of the radar scan itself. So you have... I'm here. I'm here to explain everything about this everywhere. Yeah, of course. So the satellite is going around the Earth. Yes. The flat Earth people are going to go nuts when I do this, right? No, there is the Pacman theory. Right. So again, this... The satellite goes... It goes around like this. It goes outside the Pacman theory and... It comes back around. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, magically. Right. So again, the satellite is going around the Earth, right? Yes. And you're making passes over the target object. So the satellite's going around like this. And you're imaging the great pyramid, for example. Yes. What is the square footage? The square footage. Or the square meters, the footprint on the ground. The footprint of the... Yeah, that's the correct word. Yeah, what is the size of the area of the target scan for the radar? Five kilometers times five kilometers, let's say. Okay. So is this... Is that a standard footprint? It depends. Or can you adjust the size? It depends on the so-called geometry. Okay. There is a low that is a standard that belongs on radar. The more the resolution, the less the footprint. The more resolution, less footprint. Right, yeah. Because the smaller the footprint, the more accurate it is. The more dense information inside the small. It's like a light when you focus the light, the footprint on this table. Yes. So if you focus the light, you have more information inside the footprint. Right. So you also use the phrase tomographic line. Tomographic line, yeah. Which is a slice. A slice. Of the internal system. Yes, and you extract the vertical curtain. Correct, yeah. So to create these scans, the raw data, how many times does the satellite go around and over the target object? So it's only one scan. 15 seconds. 15 seconds of integration. Okay. It is in the signal processing language a sufficient statistic. Okay. Or have a tomographic analysis. You can use also series of interferometric data. Yep. I have to explain what is an interferometric data. It is, you are observing this target here. The satellite passes. You catch a snapshot of this target. Yes. When the satellite goes another time on this target, you will never see it in the same geometry. It means same incidence angle, same incidence angle. Because the earth is moving while the satellite is turning around the earth. Right. So you have to wait the so-called orbital procession. Orbital, I don't remember the name, but orbital, then after I will remember it. That in Cosmos Chymid is 16 days. You have to wait 16 days in order to observe the same target in the same geometry. That was going to be my next question. There you can collect 15 seconds, 15 seconds, 15 seconds, 15 seconds, 3 months of observation persistently on the target. Yes. And you can collect n times 15 seconds of observation. Right. But one image is a sufficient statistic in order to retract tomography. Okay. So that was actually my second question. Because are these composites of multiple passes and then all of them are put together for one image? Why you are speaking about multiple passages? We said that one image, 15 seconds of integration in order to perform the synthesis of the image is a sufficient statistic. So with one 15 seconds, you have an image. Okay. And that's, yeah, so just to clarify, again, I'm just curious about how the process works. So the data shown in the first paper and in the scans of the Kufu pyramid and the pillars below, that's collected from a single scan 15 seconds. With a single synthetic aperture rather image. Okay. 15 seconds of integration. Yeah. So we'll talk about the scans of the OSIRIS shaft as well. Also that. And that's why you remember I went to the Giza Plateau to investigate the area around the OSIRIS shaft. And this is when I was asking you about the footprint, the area of the scan. So when you scanned the OSIRIS shaft, was the footprint of the area in terms of meters by five meters, length by width? Was that also five kilometers? Or did you make the scan area smaller? We use it only one available product of synthetic aperture data given by Cosmos Skymed, which is called Spotlight 2, the civilian application of Cosmos Skymed. And that ensures five kilometers times five kilometers in that resolution. And the space resolution is sub-metric, nearly one meter plus one meter. One meter times one meter. And I'll show the scan data from the OSIRIS shaft. And the reason I'm asking about the footprint is because it's a two-dimensional image. Yes. Right? Tomographic line times depth. Correct. So you're taking a five by five kilometer scan and compressing it. No. No. You choose the pixel that you want to invert. You can choose any pixel, the image. Maybe this is the image. This is the image. You choose this pixel and this other pixel. You draw a line and you extract the vertical curtain. Okay. You can go anywhere on the image. Okay. Interesting. The reason I'll get to it when we look at the scan data, because on the left side of the OSIRIS shaft, it's picking up something else there. All right. Yes. Yeah. I tell you this. And that's why I was interested. Because we're on the same, yeah, of course, yeah. Thank you for this question. Of course. Before we get into that, can I just say one thing? We're scared of the OSIRIS shaft is used often as evidence by your team for at least some validation. It's not blind validation. It's validation because we know perfectly the shape. Because you know the structure and you use this same method to derive that structure. Yes. Indeed, I like to show the GranSasso laboratory because it's very nice in my personal opinion. Well, there you go. Yeah. I also, I have that too. So we can show everybody the proof of concept. So again. The GranSasso laboratory. You see also the interferometer that is on the end of the structure. Yeah. And I thought, I thought those proof of concepts. So again, it's proof of concept. To establish the precedent and the viability of the technology. To scan existing structures where we have a known configuration. And this technology was very good at accurately detecting the known structures within these modern facilities that were scanned. But also the OSIRIS shaft too. We'll talk about that. I have a question. I've learned some hard earned lessons in life. For example, I've learned the hard way that comfortable clothing usually means comfortable for 15 minutes and then spending the rest of the day subtly irritated. The rough fabric, the chafing, the lack of flexibility. It all just sucks. That's why I've been wearing chubbies. Their everywhere pants are the rare pants that actually move with you. You've got real stretch. The elastic waistband is genuinely comfortable and they still look really put together. I'll wear them on a recording day, running around doing a million things. And I'm not thinking about my clothes at all, which is kind of the point. Same with their shorts and swim trunks that I have right here. They're lightweight, they're stretchy, they fit just right and you're not dealing with that old scratchy mesh situation down there. You put them on and you're done. For a limited time, Chubbies is giving our listeners 20% off with code Jesse at chubbiesshorts.com. That is 20% off your order with code Jesse. Give your thighs the VIP treatment they deserve with Chubbies. Support our show, use our code and tell them we sent you. Thank you so much to Chubbies for sponsoring today's episode. I imagine the question that you want to ask me that we will arrive. But I anticipate you that any measurement, technical measurement is affected by errors. Errors, right, of course. If you have something and aberration, because you are watching in a crystal that it's made of stones, you can have aberration on the results. So background noise. And interference. And aberration is due by the not constant density of the matter. Sure. While you are dealing with vibrations. Vibrations penetrates inside the matter. But the matter, vibrations are a travesty matter with a speed that it depends on the density of the matter in where they are traveling. Correct. So if the matter is not, has different densities, so you have aberration on the results. Sure. Yeah, so to reinterpret what he just said is the penetration and the signature of vibrational analysis depends on the density of the material. Because the more dense the material, the less vibrational signal. The velocity changes. Correct. You have interference. Sure. Yeah. And real quick, just for the audience, because I want them to kind of visualize and have context for this. Yeah. Why don't you answer? Yeah, I'm going to answer. Yeah. So the OSIRIS shaft is a three level structure located on the eastern causeway leading from the central pyramid down to the valley temple and the Sphinx. And it's 33 meter underground triple chamber system, not triple chamber, three different levels. You have a shaft that goes down to the primary level. You have another shaft that goes down to the secondary level where there's six housings that have some containers of different material, one's dacite, one's black basalt. And then you go down to the third level where there is four pillars. This is the area that's tapped into that subterranean aquifer. It's literally calibrated to just tap the surface of the water in that underground aquifer. And there's another container down in the third level. And what is the Grand Sasseau laboratory? Yes, the Grand Sasseau laboratory is located in 1.4 kilometers below the earth starting from the aperture of the Grand Sasseau, the top of the mountain. And it is very huge, very, very big. And it is always in a live. It means that there are ventilators, there are facilities, electrical components inside. So it is in a live. What are they? Is this like a... It's a physics lab. So it's like one of the national labs in the US like Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore or something like that. I tell you what is the principal core of the Grand Sasseau. It is called the Gerda experiment because they didn't find it, still find it. The so-called Majorana particle. The Majorana particle is very important because it demonstrates that there are particles that are antiparticles of their self. And so in the Grand Sasseau, the Grand Sasseau was made purposely to demonstrate the existence of the Majorana particle. The existence of antiparticles? That is antiparticle of him. So particles and antiparticles are the same thing. And so that's opens a lot of things. So like because now in particle theory, now you have electrons and positrons. But what exactly are you saying? We are dealing with subneutrinos. Well, like quarks and... Yes, neutrino. Oh, you're literally neutrinos. Okay. It's just a neutrinos. Subparticles, subatomic particles. And neutrinos for people that don't know are very hard to detect. They're very elusive. And they seem to penetrate through all. And so, yes, they built the Grand Sasseau laboratory in order to have a stable environment. Very silent environment because there is all the mountain that makes as a filter. It's an insulator for the detecting equipment. They built it inside of a mountain. Yes. And there is a specific detector that has been built to recognize this myronoparticle. Very cool. Okay. Yeah. And I'll show that in just a second so people can see the scan of the lab. Sweet. So again, I'm just going to introduce, we talked a little bit about the abstract, the development of the technology and how it was implemented in this first scan. So what we're looking at here is one of the first... Yes, this was the first. Yeah, the raw data images. It's a bit noisy, but the technique is a lot better. So, Filippo, you kind of already know my questions. Looking at it. Okay, you recognize it. Because now you're five years, six years removed from the first paper. And from what I understand, the satellites that you're using now are superior to the ones that you were using during this initial scan. And now you're using... The algorithm is superior also. Yeah. And now you're using multiple satellites where this one was only collected with a single satellite. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So what are we looking at here? Yeah. So basically here on the left, so let's start with on the right. On the right is the raw scan data image. On the left is an overlay of the configuration of the great pyramid, overlaid on top of the tomographic results. I have to make a remark when you speak about raw data. These are dealing always with focus at the data. Because also in the vibrational domain you have raw data and focus data. So raw data is the data that you have before the so-called fast Fourier transform. I tell you, if you have a camera, a camera like that, that camera, and you make a picture with that camera, you see the image. Correct. Okay? If you disassemble the camera and you separate the optics by the body of the camera, you can make a photo also using only the body of the camera. The result is that you see a picture, but you don't see the picture focus it because the focusing procedure is done by the optics. So like developing the image. So a comparison to photography is like old cameras where you have to develop the photo. The photo is there, but it requires a process to focus the image. And in that case, the process is made naturally by the lens because the lens performs Fourier transform. Okay? What do you want to see? So is this image on the right? Is this not focus? Focus at? It is focus. Yes. So it's the process. It's the process. Yeah. So not raw data. But the focus data. And when you use the beyond the method with your software, are you using an inversion of the focused data or the raw data? You use the raw data. That's interesting. So this is the final product of what you actually want to look for? No, there's called final noisy problem. But you use the unfocused raw data? We don't have to confuse the SAR image, the optical image with what we are retrieving on the vertical curtain. So when we retrieve something, when we extract the tomographic line, also there you have raw data and you have to focus it also. Got it. But you have to focus everything. Any instrumental measurement equipment that makes photo, you have to focus this photo. And you have to focus it before you use your beyond the method or is it after? So the beyond the method itself is what receives these micro vibrations. So then that raw data that receives those micro vibrations is processed to create this focused image. So there's nothing particularly unique or proprietary about turning the focused SAR data into an image. Is that correct? No. Yes. That's very basic. His proprietary process is just the retrieval of the micro movement that allow this imaging to be possible. Okay. So let's start to remark the fact that beyond the protocol is composed by two steps. The first step is called synthesis and the second step is called analysis. In the synthesis, we retrieve the vibrations on the pixel composing the tomographic line that we want to invert. The second process is called analysis, the inversion, which is a fast Fourier-draspho, the lens of the camera because you see nothing. So again, this is a good preparation for everything that you're going to face coming up because now the work is going to get even more popular and you're going to have more people asking questions like this that are trying to better understand. So moving forward, so people can understand what they're looking at with the next set of focused images. Here on the right, we have the scale. So this is the concentration or intensity of the vibrations. One normalizer. Correct. Yeah. So you see everything in blue is the normal body of the structure or the background air, etc. Right? So as it goes up the scale, we have more intense vibrations that are being registered by this satellite radar. Just so everybody can understand the coloring. Correct. Yeah. And the intensity of the vibrations that are detected. So looking back on it, are you still confident and proud of this data? Absolutely, yes. Or would you rather go back and try to clean it up more? Yes. We can manage to clean it up more. Absolutely, yes. But these results give you a lot of information. Right. But we didn't use only one result. We had a plethora of results in order to retrieve the 3D that you will show. Yes, I have everything. Yeah. I have to say something about my technique that we have to... When you extract a vertical curtain, it is normal that... So you're saying vertical curtain. Curtain, yes. Curtain. Right? So like the sheet or the layer or the slice, the vertical curtain. Okay, yeah. So just in case people didn't understand, vertical curtain means the slice that's being extracted from this... This is important that the vertical curtain is not perfect. Maybe if a very bright target is located here, you can see it. You have to move a lot the vertical curtain. Right. You don't see it again. Yes. Because it's like a cone of sensitivity. Because every antenna has a cone of sensitivity. Yes. So if you are perfectly in the line of sight, okay, you will see things that are mainly located on the line of sight. Yes. But if you have bright targets that are located also having a certain angular of deviation, you can see it. Yeah, and we'll talk about... That is what I've been there. What you will anticipate me in the questions of the OSIRIS shaft is true. You can see also things that are located here. Yes. Right, exactly. Yeah, yeah. And we'll talk about this cone of sensitivity when it comes to the Muon scanning. Hey, also there you have things because also there they have raw data. Also there they have to perform fast Fourier transfer. I know everything about it. Yeah, so I included some so we can get your opinion and feedback. So for people that don't know Muon scanning is using cosmic ray absorption to do a similar process to detect interior structures. They use that method like the camera, like my camera. You have to always focus data. You have to always perform fast Fourier transfer. Yes. And you have to always perform tomographic inversion. Right. Also there. Yeah. So I have some information here about that and I would love to hear your opinion on that because they use... It's a pleasure for me to... Yeah, of course. And so again, my objective here is just to get to the bottom of it because there's conflicting data between what the Muon scanning team has reported and what your team has reported. So I wanted to get your interpretation for why that's the case and then we can... I'll show the data here in just a second. So we have three red squares. So we have a focus at three for who is reading to give the readers help how to interpret it. Correct. Yeah. So on the far right, you can see the edge of the pyramid there. With all of that yellow and red, that is the surface external casing of the great pyramid with all of that red and yellow, very intense vibrations because it's closer to the surface. When you see it, it's very... My best experience is very nice. It's a result. Okay. Yeah. And then moving on the inside, we have one, two and three. One being the area around the king's chamber. Yes. Two being the queen's chamber. And three is the subterranean chamber. And here, I will say that the detection of the queen's chamber at two. And you can see here the overlay of the queen's chamber in the center with the raw scan data. The queen's chamber always has a very good signature, a very strong vibrational signature. Yes. Right. The queen's chamber is a benchmark because we can see it. And it would also help you determining the most effective curtain or slice. So if you have a strong signature on the queen's chamber, you know that your tomographic line is lined up accurately for the objects of interest in the particular scan. In terms of the configuration, I'll show some diagrams and everything in the great pyramid is aligned right on top of each other. So again, this is just showing the first overlay. I guess we'll go back there. Yeah. This is a super stupid question. Yeah. It's like I'm looking at the raw tomographic result. Yeah. And I'm looking at one, two, three. And maybe I see something a little around one, but two and three look mostly like in the sort of blue range. Like how do you convert one to the other? So let me explain here. Is this a failure to detect or is this a positive detection of the queen's chamber? So let me clarify. So all of these images are screen shots directly from the paper. And here on the left is a standard diagram of the great pyramid. This is not one of their models, which I'll show their models here in just a second, where they actually interpreted the focused scan data into new 3D models. So this is a known standard diagram on the left, overlaid with the focus data. And I would agree with that statement that one and three, you can see the highlight, they're super encouraging in terms of the detection in this particular slice. So for example, at one, I don't see a clear signature there for the king's chamber. And down at three, if you look at the overlay of the diagram on top of it, it's not picking up the subterranean chamber either on the far left. You can't see a glow, which is indicative of these vibrations from the subterranean chamber. Do you agree with that? Or do you agree that it's missing the subterranean chamber and the king's chamber? Yes, I agree. Yes. Okay. Yeah. And so again, this just establishes a way for us to discuss this. It is not mathematical that we can see in that tomographic line using that radar image that we can detect things. It's not mathematical, sure. We are not sure. We have to do different measurements in order to have the results. But I guess my again, super dumb question, and I think I'm probably jumping ahead with it is if we fail to detect certain chambers in the pyramid, why are we high confidence in structures going a kilometer deep underneath the pyramid? Yes, because in the Kauffre research that we made a few years later than this, we changed the day approach. So we used very different geometries on the satellite data. So with very low incidence angle, that means that the layover of the radar images were very high. But that kind of acquisition, when we use low incidence angle, the power of the photons are very high, is very high because you see things like that. So you have a direct interaction with the earth. That kind of increasing of power allowed us to see deeper. And in that kind of configuration, we were able to measure the structure that were underneath. Did you ever redo the great pyramid and accurately detect these chambers with the lower angle of incidence? Yes. This was a medium angle of incidence. So when you say the angle of incident, let me try to interpret that for the layperson. So when the satellite starts scanning, this 15 seconds of scanning time, the process starts lower as opposed to scanning up here. So you're scanning from lower on the horizon as opposed to trying to scan from the top. I give you the answer about this. So we have to do a bit less on now of how data are quiet. Let's say that this is the target, that I want to, this is five kilometers times five kilometers. Which is a huge area to scan. It's very generous. I want a picture here. This is the satellite. The satellite flies on an orbit. Correct. A curved orbit. So if I want an image here, in the radar field we say, I don't want it squinted. So it means that the sense, we trace here a vertical line. We start the sensing here minus seven seconds plus seven seconds, 15 seconds, 7.5, like that. So here we begin acting our sensing and here we release the sensing. We have the image. But SAR is a side looking sensor. So we have to tilt. This is the zero Doppler. We have to tilt on the incident's angle. Because it's a side looking. And we can scan. Let's say, never Nadiral because it doesn't work. So from here like that to here. So we choose a very low incidence angle, which is the angle belonging to Nadir of our image and the line of sight. This angle. This is the incidence angle. Low incidence angle. High layover. High incidence angle. Low layover effect. And now I tell you what is the layover. Like that to like that. For the CAFRE research project, we use it. Low incidence angle. Why? Because the photons that are transmitted here on the earth has high power. Because the probability that the photons that are right here are retransmitted into the deep space is low. So you have the scattering energy is higher than this. That is lower. Because we wanted to go inside because we wanted to see targets very bright. Because here the Doppler effect is more. We are more sensitive in the Doppler effect with low incidence angle. With respect to the higher incidence angle. And all the validation you've done has been at lower incidence angle. Yes. Okay. And so... Yes, lower incidence angle is better. In this case, we wanted to see we were focused on the pyramid. On the pyramid at the beginning in 2020. And if we were using low incidence angle data, the pyramids are layover. It means that imagine the pyramid. You see the pyramid. The pyramid is smashed on the layover. It means that you see the pyramid like that. The pyramid is smashed like that. And so it is difficult to see the details inside the pyramid. But we were interested in the recent research that we did on all the Giza Plateau. To see... Okay, the pyramid I don't care about a lot. I want to see what is below the pyramid. I don't know if I understand this. If I am explaining better this. So we use it... Principally we use it at lower incidence angle. But not everywhere. So we use it. Let's say different incidence angle. Got it. And then you triangulated the truth from the different incidence angles. And are you highly confident that if you used the same methodology on the Great Pyramid again with the different incidence angles and triangulating them... We did it. But it was not to retrieve things that we did in 2020. But it was focused to see what was deep below the Kuhnun Kuhnun. But did you ever... I don't know if I am... You know it's super clear. Did you ever try to redo just the pyramid itself to make sure that the accuracy on the chambers was correct? No, but we can do it. But you can do it. Okay. So also you haven't seen any of this yet. The first paper data. There's way more. Oh yeah. And they did. There are a lot of results. Oh yeah, of course. And I'm going to show all that so everyone can see. I think it's important for everyone to see it because they did different scans that show it sometimes. So we'll get to that now. We can go ahead and go ahead. So for example, this next one is this image from this same scan. It's just a focused image. Yes, yes. Something good. So this one... I think we would... This is the Queen's Chamber. Right. So I think we all agree that the imaging of the King's Chamber here is not great, but we do have a very promising image of the Queen's Chamber. I would say that this is actually... And you can even see... So look at C down there on the bottom right. You can actually see the horizontal shaft coming out of the Queen's Chamber is detected, I would say fairly accurately. So I think this is... Again, I kind of like to look at the positives and the negatives, objectively analyzing the data. Yes, Jeff, I tell you this. The important of the future of this technique is the velocity of the... To obtain the result. The result. So the speed of the radar? No, the speed of the synthesis. Okay. Okay. I have the sorry image. You have to perform. You have a tomographic line, you have to perform synthesis. To perform synthesis, you need days, days and days, because it is time consuming, consuming the processing. You've been in Corsiano, I showed you the computer, big computers, but you need time. And the best thing to do now is to increase the speed. So decrease the time that I have to wait in order to obtain a tomography. And so to make it also, let's say, similar real time. What does it mean? That this is the procedure that I'm thinking that we will do it in the future. I think that the future of this technique is this. You have an image. You have a tomographic line, but this tomographic line, you can move it in real time. And on a monitor, you will see... To see, yeah, like a CT scan. Like where you move through the sections... And see all the different layers. Because I remember when we did, but also on the carpet, you have a... You launch a process. You have to wait 15 days, and I forgot what we are watching. So it is a bit, no, a bit not so useful for... It is for research, okay? So you want to be able to do... We did the paper, we did the paper. But if we want to do several scans, you have to wait a lot to have the results. So in my personal opinion, now the thing that we are doing is this. We have to reconner the software. We have to use a rise of GPU. A rise of GPU. Maybe we can also multiply the processing power also for, I don't know, I can say 10,000. It means that 15 days will become 30 seconds. It's good passing from 15 days into 30 seconds. But to do this, I need investments. We need... I can't do it. But in my personal opinion, the future of this... Because here the problem that... And thank you for giving me a rise in these problems. That we are having now is related to the processing time. Because this is only one tomographic line. If you move in real time on a plethora of adiash and tomographic lines, you can see everything. Everything. And you do it real time. Like when you go to the doctor, you make a scan of your... I don't know whether it's CT scan or MRI, but where they can literally move through the... I think it's a CT scan. Where you can literally move through the sections in real time. But it's also, like you said, it requires super high processing power. And this is just the initial... It's possible to do it. Of course, yeah. This is 1.0. You can move also. Right, that's what I was going to say. But it's not for me. On my... I don't know. I think the burning question people have now is what gives... If this is just one tomographic scan, you have to wait 16 days, is that the same method outside of the angle of incidence that you used for detecting the substructures below the... It's the same method. It's the same method. Absolutely, yes. And has been improved in terms of details of the method. Mainly angle of incidence or anything else? We have used different incidence angle scanning the below the earth. Not... It's the same. Okay. And all the validation that you've done at Gran Sasso, Osiris, was that with the multiple angles of incidence and the triangulating? I tell you, I tell you. Okay. Because the Gran Sasso, it is very high. It is nearly 3,000 meters, 2,990 meters, 93, I think. And there the layover effect is massive present on the Sari image. So I had to, let's say, order different images in order to choose the best one. For me, the best one, maybe other image could be also better in order to retry the laboratory, to detect the laboratory. So here's another different scan of the King's Chamber. Yeah. Yeah, so when they say Z chamber, they're referring to what's conventionally called the King's Chamber. And this scan image looks qualitatively different than what we see here. It's not the same tomography. Correct. Yeah, a different tomographic line. So you've gone in and taken a different vertical slice. As I told you, if you have speed, you can do it real time. So you will, in real time, choose the best one to show to the customer. And so in my interpretation here, so you see the horizontal signatures. These are the granite beams that are part of a structure known as the relieving chamber, which is a structure located above. You can see the diagram on the left. Again, this is a known archaeological diagram of the King's Chamber, not a 3D model of their interpretation of the new stuff. So these overlays are just taking known diagrams, overlapping it with the tomographic data, so we can see where these things correspond. And if you look there on the right, you can actually kind of see the slope angle of the triangle at the top. You see kind of it picks that up to a little bit on the right. You see that slope that aligns with the top of the chamber and the horizontal signatures of these granite lentil beams. So we do have, again, the red is indicating a very strong vibrational signature from inside of the structure. And I will say that this one is pretty good. I was, when I saw this original, I was like, oh, this is promising for detection of the King's Chamber. But you also have to keep in mind the King's Chamber is made of granite. So there is a qualitative difference in the material of construction that's specifically related to the quality of the detection. So for example, the surrounding mass is all limestone, but the King's Chamber is made of granite, which is maybe one of the reasons why we're getting such a good signature on this particular tomographic line. Would you agree with that, Filippo? Absolutely, yes. I think that we are detecting also the so-called sarcophagus, which is not a sarcophagus that is inside the King's Chamber. Yes, that facility there. Okay, cool. So the only questions I had on this one, so the big red signature at the bottom, is just background interference. But you have the floor, the floor, no? There is a floor. Okay, and I'll get back to that in just a second regarding the bedrock. So the conventional explanation of the bedrock foundation below the Great Pyramid is that it stops somewhere near the grotto at the base of the pyramid. But in my opinion, the bedrock mound is actually much taller than we think. And one of your other scans shows what may be the true level of the bedrock. And in my opinion, the King's Chamber is sitting on top of a bedrock foundation within the pyramid, which is what? Yeah. That we are detecting something that... Right. So this is a good one. This is a promising signature. You know, there are some tracers that go outside of the limits of the known chamber, but this is pretty good. Okay, so the next one here, this is where things got really interesting for me with the first paper. So again, we're looking at the Queen's Chamber. And what they have here at the bottom is a scan of the Queen's Chamber in the center of the pyramid. And it has been anecdotally reported and documented from the original excavations of the Great Pyramid that there is a shaft and chamber system located below the Queen's Chamber. So they excavated this. They found a pit in the Queen's Chamber that was filled with rubble and dirt. They excavated down into it and they found a shaft and tunnel system and chamber system located below the Queen's Chamber. It is now completely covered up and sealed with modern blocks. They covered up the hole permanently. Again, reported anecdotally and in some of the documents regarding the original excavations. And what they're showing here is actually the presence of a shaft system coming out of the bottom of the Queen's Chamber. So that's very promising. And I proposed the same thing based on these archaeological reports in my book that there is an extraction shaft and chamber system located below the Queen's Chamber. So again, when I saw this back in 2020, this was very promising and encouraging for me because they are corroborating hidden structures that are now completely covered up, which may actually exist inside of the pyramid. So I was very excited when I saw this originally. And they did a great model, which I'll show here in just a second, that shows that complete shaft and chamber system coming out of the Queen's Chamber. So I wanted to highlight this as a very possible substantiation of something that was reported in the late 1800s, early 1900s when they were doing the original excavations, but has now been completely covered up and ignored and dismissed as not possible. But they are showing that potentially it could exist. And I just have to remark the fact that in this tomography, we are not observing the corridors, the Schoenig corridors. Yes. There are two reasons. And maybe they can be both of them. The first one is that in order to detect those corridors, we have to be very sure that the tomographic line goes into intercept those corridors. Okay. And in that case, we need speed. We need the real time facility. Yeah. Okay. The second is that probably it's not possible because the corridor is too small. Okay. Okay. But I am orientated to the first one, to the first one that the tomographic line we used is not perfectly oriented on the corridor because the corridor is very small. Yeah. Yeah. And I'll show a vertical diagram of the alignment of the chambers so that we can all take a look at that in relation to the discussion of the tomographic line. My only other point on this one is, again, the subterranean chamber that's embedded in the bedrock is not detected in this scan, which is a similar issue to what you had with the CAFRA project, is that it's not able to detect this bedrock excavated chamber, which is an issue when you extrapolate scanning into the bedrock to detect structures a kilometer underground. I tell you, a piece of corridor, it is possible to detect and possess this. Here, I can do it here. Yeah. So basically what he's pointing at is sort of this line here. Yes. Yeah. Right. But how can you differentiate from a scientific perspective between all of the background interference? When you're dealing with light, it is very important. Yeah, because there's a lot of background interference here. Yes. Yes. When you are dealing with light, you have a laser. The laser travels the free space and goes to the target. You see the target very well because the light travels only the empty space and not the matter. Here, the acoustics are traveling in the matter and matter is a mess. It's the matter that is underneath that is a mess, not the acoustics that we are using to detect the matter. I don't know if I am explaining well. So the composition of the bedrock itself is interfering with the register of the signal. Yes. Okay. That's problematic. Because especially if you're trying to scan into a kilometer of bedrock. You can do it this. Here, we are dealing to retrieve information of things very small. Very small changes. Sure. Very small. Yeah. The passage is small going down into the subterranean chamber. You can see them. Yeah. But the background is composed by other targets. But, Filippo, maybe can you address the basic point Jeffrey is making that the composition of the bedrock is important for the veracity or accuracy of the findings that you get. And so if there's any issues with certain bedrock in these readings where granted is better than limestone and you're trying to go through a kilometer deep of the bedrock. Yeah. Limestone bedrock. Limestone bedrock. Then how are you able to be so confident? But in that case, we have detected, this is very nice. Yeah. In that case, we have detected things that were really predominant with respect to the bedrock, I would say, background detection. We will arrive to the overall results. Yeah. I have everything. Okay. So I included everything to make sure that people could see all of the information. But I think we have to do part one and part two. I get what he's saying, which is like, if you control for the background micro vibrations being created by really like, these are large megastructures. And so if you're trying to find a small chamber and then you could have issues on bedrock, even if the whole thing is happening superficially. Sure. Whereas if you're looking at megastructures. And this is also very different. The bedrock, yeah. The process in scanning from space as compared to the vetted technology of muon scanning, which is done inside with detectors inside of the structure. You have to anticipate some flexibility in the ability to detect small components that, because again, you're scanning from space. So there's some, I mean, another really interesting question is all of your cases of validation involve structures that might be below the surface of the earth, but not this far below. Do you have validation that exists in the case of things? I mean, obviously, like, if you're scanning from space, you're scanning from space. I mean, I think there's a lot of structures that might be below the surface of the earth, but not this far below. Do you have validation that exists in the case of things? I mean, obviously, like, it's hard to go a kilometer plus deep just generally, I think very, you know, very few mining and excavation sites have done that. But do you have any validation? No, I have. That's gone that deep. I did a lot of pilot tests with companies. And more than 100% successful. But really, that's another case because here we are dealing with the geology. When you say pilot tests with companies, so this is used in a commercial context. Yes, we are moving in commercial. Yes, absolutely. Got it. Okay. And this is like mining and mining. Okay. Then these are, I assume you have to be somewhat cheeky about this because you're under NDA or sort of thing. I am under NDA, so I can't say. But you have 100% success. Like no one... More than 100. More. How do you go more than 100? They fold me every five minutes. Okay. So they're really pumped to work with you. But I can't say more than this. I mean, I will say the mining and metallurgical applications of the technology are directly applicable to the specific geology. There's metal or mineral deposits all over the Giza Plateau. Yeah. You're familiar... I don't know if we've talked... I'll do a speech about this because this is very interesting. I'll show it in just a minute because there's iron or metal mineral deposits all over and below the Giza Plateau. Yeah. We have chemical analysis data from these iron veins, hydrothermal mineral deposits embedded in the bedrock that are permeated with rare earth elements, gold, silver, things like platinum and titanium. Have been discovered in these metal ore veins embedded in the bedrock of the Giza Plateau. So there's a direct correlation between the applications that he's describing for this technology and the investigation of the truth of what's really below the Giza Plateau. Yeah. We may differ on our interpretation about that, but we absolutely agree that there is something down there that is absolutely important to understand. I always... How are you getting with you? Yeah. I think that's when I bump up against the limits of what Filippo can say because I do feel confidence coming from him that there's like a lot that isn't quite open source that, you know, both commercially and defense wise that he just can't really talk about. Sure. Yeah. We've talked privately about that as well. Yeah. No, no, it's okay. It's okay. But yeah, again, unless you're like a great con man, which I don't think you are. Yeah. And my only question is in regard to this is the... I think you're going to be a queen, some look. Yes. But... But... But what... Look at that corridor. But what about... That is the story of that corridor. But what about the Grand Gallery and the... But that's good. But we're completely missing the Grand Gallery and the King's Chamber. I tell you why. So you have one out of three. Well, let him... Okay. So why... We go back into the things that I told... That we were discussing five minutes ago. In this tomographic line, you don't see the Grand Gallery. But the Grand Gallery is good that I don't see it because I can see the air that is inside the Grand Gallery. It's good. The Grand Gallery is a tube like that. Correct. A rectangular tube. The top of the Grand Gallery. Then you have the air, blue, and then... And then I don't see anything. I see the Queen's Chamber. It's good like that. You move the tomographic line, you integrate, and you perform a 3D reconstruction. But to do this, we need the computer, Jeffrey. Right. We need a rise of GPUs that at the moment I don't have. So what you're using, a rise of GPUs? A rise, no. A ray. A mainframe like that. An array of GPUs. That's what I thought. I'm sorry, I'm laughing. No, it's okay. Yeah, yeah. So you need more compute, essentially. And you need to be able to do this in real time, live. If I have thousands of GPUs, we can do it. So how much out of curiosity, how much money would that require? I can't tell you, I don't know. What if there's an investor in the audience that wants to help you out? Is there a certain amount that would help you? Maybe with, I don't know, millions. Millions. Millions, yes. We can have, we will speak about the foundation that we are standing in Malta, setting up in Malta. We have rented a nice place where we have installed a solar power plant, power station. And inside there, we would like to set up a data center. And there, if we have donators, we can buy a mainframe with an array of GPUs. Well, we should just for humanity. Somebody should do this, not for profit, but just to... No, no, for human. Just to like... The foundation works philanthropically. No, it seems like money well spent. You want to go Carnegie Gospel of wealth. This should be the first on your list. And what you're working on too, by the way. With the three computers that you saw in my house, we can do this. Yeah, yeah. But what do you say, Jeffrey, to... And they are also expensive, right? Yeah. Those computers. Got it. Oh, there you go. Okay, that's established. Jeffrey, what do you say to Filippo's point that the Grand Gallery is actually detected? It's just one vertical slice and you do see the air. Yeah, I'll get to that in just a second. You see that the Grand Gallery is blue because you have air inside of the Grand Gallery. So I guess he's saying here, inside of the Grand Gallery. That's the Grand Gallery, it's vacant inside. So the other things I wanted to point out here, so this signature above and this big signature here. That's the big void. The big void. Yes, and you have detected the big void also. Yes, yes. That's the big void. So you get to that in a comparison between the location of the big void suggested by the Muan team and the position that has been detected by the SAR team. Yes. It's slightly different. In my personal opinion, that is the big void. This one? Because it's located... Or the big one here. The big one there. The big one. Yeah. Okay, so the Muan team is saying that it's located directly above the Grand Gallery. The position of the big void. That they're actually going to be excavating into the Great Pyramid in 2026 to investigate the big void. So an actual exploration is coming up to get a chance to see what's in there. So again, I'm just objectively looking at these things. I do agree there's a fantastic signature here. And we talked about this too, Filippo at the Malta conference, that it's a different in the slice. Yeah. If you move the slice, you might be able to better detect it. So another thing here is tag 17 and 18. That's fantastic in my best sense. Which is... Very nice. I have it again in a slide. Okay, so let's look at the position. So here is the configuration of the Great Pyramid. And this is the vertical alignment of the chambers. So you can see if you were to scan the tomographic line at the far left of the King's chamber. Yeah. You would only pick up the King's chamber and not pick up any of the other stuff. If you scan on the far right of the King's chamber, you should pick up all of the components. Because everything would be aligned in the same tomographic slice. You cannot detect the King's chamber without also picking up the Grand Gallery, Queen's chamber, Subterranean... Multiple... Correct. Correct. So... ...why the array of GPUs. Sure. But this is kind of an explanation for why that may be the case is the different slices that break it down. Could have been on the left. You may do a slice down the middle that picks up the King's chamber and the Queen's chamber here and here, but it doesn't pick up the Grand Gallery. Yep. So this is an explanation for why we get register of certain chambers with different tomographic lines because we're just slicing down the middle and the slice doesn't always land on all three simultaneously. Okay. So the next one here is the discovery of this new passage. Yeah. Right? On the northern side of the Great Pyramid, they just drilled... I have to say this. We discovered it for the first time. So... That's amazing. Is that true? So let me explain what we have here. So we have tag 17 and tag 18, which is showing this little passage here. That's the corridor. Yep. Yep. Right here. And it starts right here under the chevrons, which is where they found this passage. And we have an overlay of the chevrons and the new passage that was discovered. My only issue on this is that the signature actually starts out here. Yeah. Yeah. You know... So reflections of the radar... Yes, multiple reflections. The interaction of the electromagnetic waves from the floor of the pyramid and the pyramid can give you multiple reflections. It's normal. Okay. And that multiple reflections are effects also of the tomographic line. Okay. So you're saying reflections of the radar can create signatures that would appear similar to the signature of an actual chamber. And can be mitigated only having multiple scans. And so you can average your results and you see it absolutely better. Okay. Okay. I'm with you. Yeah. All right. It's simple. The best signature you have, you have it on the chevron. And you are detecting the chevron. Look. Yeah. Here. Right here. Why are you saying you multiple reflections? Because you have the pyramid. Then you have the chevron like that. And you have the other... And then you have such multipath of the radar. Are you saying that Tag 18 wasn't even known by... No, no. It was known. The chevrons are visible on the outside. Tag 17 was not known. Yeah. So they recently... And what is Tag 17? It's just a dead-end shaft. You can see the overlay of it here. A corridor. Yeah. So they recently... That's remarkable that he discovered it basically through the... Is that... Before then... They detected it. Yeah. They were detected by the team in 2020. And they recently went inside of this with a microscopic camera. They drilled in below the chevrons to look into this dead-end. It's a dead-end shaft on the northern side of the Great Pyramid. That's impressive. And if you go to the result and you... If you switch off the overlay, you can detect also the top of the corridor and the floor of the corridor. There are two lines. Yeah. And the bottom here. And you can measure also. And if you compare the measurements with the video because they scan it, are the same. And then you see that it's nine meters long. I don't remember, but it's nine meters long. There is something, a piece of stone that goes... But here you can see what there is over that piece of stone, which is, I tell you... Here. This one. I am waiting for somebody that is discovering that anti-camera. Anti-camera, anti-chamber? What? Anti-chamber. It's a chamber. I call it anti-camera. It's a chamber. Okay. And the chamber goes directly to the Grand Gallery. Okay. And then allows you in my... For me also to go naturally to the big void. That is the real position on the big void. It's that one. Jeffrey, the future will give what she's able to give. So I will say... So you are stating a claim. I love it. So Matt Bell from the Limitless podcast is involved in financing of the development of robotics to investigate the shafts in the Queen's chamber. They're going to be sending a robot up the Northern Shaft to drill in the comparable feature known as Gatenbrink's door, which was investigated in the Southern Shaft. They're going to be drilling through a new piece with a new robot on the Northern side. And they're also collaborating on the investigation of the big void. So they will be... Hopefully. It's been approved, but everything keeps getting pushed back and pushed back and pushed back and pushed back as things happen in Egypt. Hopefully on the table for 2026 that they're actually going to be drilling into and investigating the big void. That's remarkable. And I think it sounds like Filippo is making a prediction there. I also think... I do think it's amazing that Tag 17, this corridor, dead end shaft, he's sort of... They made a claim there and they found it. Yeah. So this was 2020. This was before the recent... I believe this was detected with the Muon scans. The Muon scanning. So the Muon group, the Scan Pyramids Project is the sanctioned and approved scanning team that they have used for these projects. They really only collaborate with this scan pyramids team. We were just talking off camera about how much we're both enjoying this conversation. And a lot of people have misinterpreted my questioning of the... The data as disbelief or an attempt to debunk. But that's not really the case at all. And they just... They don't understand that we have an existing relationship. And again... It is true that we... It's good that we discuss about the... Of course. Because the results is not like a religion. No, it is something that... No, I love... We can discuss. I love that. First, the fact that you're saying it's not a sacred cow or third rail, it's just the thing you can talk about. You can criticize and you can defend. And it's all good. That's a beautiful thing, that commitment to the kind of... Socratic process. But I was also... Jeffrey and I were talking... I think a lot of these discussions go into... It's like it's always framed as adversarial. Yeah. It's always skeptic and debunker versus person making some bold claim. And then the person... The skeptic doesn't even look at the assertions and make first principles arguments. Turns into this kind of... It devolves into ad hominems and you get into these high level heuristics of probabilistically this thing can't be true or whatever. And what I love about this conversation is... And then we can get out of the meta and get back into the first principle. But it's that you are really just asking questions that I think everybody wants to know that are at the first principles level. And they're reasonable questions. I'm captivated by this process. And when I found this in 2022, I was like, this is super important. Whether it's true or it's not, it's the development of new technology and an approach that could eventually be implemented into something very significant, which is the purpose of all the videos that I've made about this have prefaced it with saying, this is the type of technology we need. We're on the precipice of a greater understanding using unique methodology to understand the structures that's going to get us to the deeper understanding. And Filippo, you said during the conversation that it's still in the initial stages and there's improvements that can be made with the technology, further investigations that need to happen. We need hardware. We need a lot of hardware. Hardware and power. Can I ask one thing actually before we get back into this, which is, speaking of skeptics, I did watch Flint Dibble's video about you and I found a lot of it to be a little ridiculous. But there were certain points he made, which I think were valid. We can discuss now if you remember. I do remember one point which I found very valid. One of the points was like it's too hot to build that deep. It's too hot to build artificial structure. So that felt reasonable and we can get to that. If it is connected to the heat, it is connected to our research project, the third part of this research going in situ, but we will discuss at the end of this conversation. Okay. Sorry, my little teaser there. No, no, no. So yeah, let's definitely circle back on that. And then the second one, which I think relates more to this discussion we were just having around the commercial use cases of this technology, is he said you let your patents expire? Is that true? Yes, my initial patent at the moment is expired. Absolutely, yes. Maybe we can recover this in the United States. We give you a grace period in order to recover this patent. Maybe we will do it. But I have submitted a second patent, which I can't disclosure the things, but I have submitted a second patent that deals, is connected to the first patent and gives huge novelty, but I can speak about this. Fair enough. Yeah, you definitely should. Because it's a disclosure. Yeah, no, no, no. Don't telegraph your IP. I think the question I would have is if the first patent is in some way related to the second patent, and it might be a gateway if I'm a scientist and I figure out what's going on in the first patent, which you have telegraphed, it is in the USPTO, I read it, it helps me figure out the second patent. Why wouldn't you also try to maintain the first patent and just keep enforcing it? Yes, but I tell you, Jesse, the question of patent or in the commercial or in the philanthropic, I want to work on the philanthropic and also in the commercial because I like to work with my technique. It's for me, it's very exciting. Yes, the patent will give you the rights to be only alone, to only give me the rights to commercialize exclusively this technique. Okay. But the important thing is also the technology that is behind the software. The software is crucial in this deal. Got it. Yes, patent or patent, but you need the software. Okay. Yeah, and that's a good answer because you speak to most people in fields of aerospace or kind of hard science, and they'll always say patents are barely enforceable. It's really about trade secrets, and it's about knowing how to do something that no one else is going to figure out. It's not really about the patent, so I appreciate you addressing that. It's not so important, but now we have a second patent, but the crucial point here is the technology, and the technology is made by hardware and software. Yeah, it's funny. It's like, I don't know why would you go out and make a YouTube video and just in this shrill way start yelling at you instead of just be like, hey, Filippo, my name's Flint. Why did you let your patents expire? Because that answer, you have a reasonable response there, so I don't know. It's interesting. But Jeffrey, I think you should continue with your kind of first principles, question. Well, I think this is why this conversation is working because we're friends. We've met before, and we've spent personal time together. The important thing for me, as I've shown in this presentation, is that if we do have novel structures, it's critical that they can be interpreted into a functional hypothesis. For example, the shaft system below the queen's chamber, it's been reported in archaeological documents, and you should have a model that interprets that into the function of the structure, which I've shown it's part of the extraction shaft system that was used to remove the product solution from the Great Pyramid. So I have done that in my work is entertain these ideas, although speculative at this point because we haven't done actual archaeological excavations to prove any of this yet. I've taken it and incorporated it in a hypothetical working model where these new structures actually fit with what I've proposed. For example, the big void, it's in a perfect location for a heat exchanger. Right? Anytime you have exothermic reactions within a structure or an operating chemical manufacturing apparatus, you want a mechanism that can remove some of that thermal energy from the system. And the big void, although it's shown by the Muon team in a little bit different position, located above the Grand Gallery is the ideal position for a heat exchanger that would remove some of that thermal energy from the reaction in the Grand Gallery, which we can get into much deeper depth, you know, whether which one comes out first, we don't know quite yet, but we'll get into much more depth on the function of the Great Pyramid and how this new void, it's definitely real, right? We've detected it with the Muon scanning. You've found it already and they're 100% going to go in there and investigate it. Now we're investigating which is the exact shape of the where it is exactly, meter on the left, meter on the right, but there is a big void. So that's actually a good transition. But it's very probable. So you know, we've talked about the initial scans here on the left is the first of the 3D models. So before what we had is an overlay of the processed focus data on top of existing archaeological diagrams. What we have now are the new 3D models that Filippo, can you explain how these 3D models were developed? Who made these and how were they created? The 3D model was done by the authors of the paper. So it was done by Corrado and me, right together. So basically what they've done is take the focused data and interpreted it into a new model showing all of these features that they've discovered, which we'll get into that now. So talking about the position of the big void. Okay. So again, the scan pyramids project and this Muon scanning. So Muon scanning involves cosmic ray absorption. These cosmic rays that come down from the atmosphere. There's a series of detection devices that are put inside the pyramid. You can see them here in the Queens chamber and they also have some on the outside of the pyramid on the northern side. And essentially these Muon detectors detect the absorption and diffraction of these Muon rays that are passing through the pyramid structure. So these cosmic rays actually do permeate the structure. The chambers will reflect them in different directions and the detectors monitor the difference between the body of the pyramid and the chambers of the pyramid. Which by the way, I will say it's an energy matter conversion that's going on there too. And so it's similar for the people who are like, you can't derive matter through energetic means like somewhat analogous technique. So in this instance, they're just using natural energetic electromagnetic energy that's coming from the atmosphere. Muons. Yeah, cosmic rays. Cosmic rays, not electromagnetic. Okay. So can you clarify the difference? But it's the same. It's the same. The principle is the same. Right. Is it cosmic ray, not electromagnetic? No, no, no. Electromagnetics are photons, light. Cosmic rays are particles that are very small that penetrates matter. Like I think I associate cosmic rays with neutrons. Is that roughly? The neutron is very big. Or cosmic radiation. It's very big. It's very big. Neutron is like a bullet. It's very big. And it is the principle of... So what particles would you associate with? Cosmic rays. Neutron is a big bullet. Big one. That is the principle actor of the fission in nuclear energy production, reaction. Cos the neutron goes to another atom that splits the atom of uranium. It splits and generates other three neutrons that goes to split other atoms. And so the chain reaction is activated after a so-called critical mass of uranium 235 that has been enriched at least from 25% up to 90%. It depends on the application. In the civilian application, so in civilian, so atomic power plants, not nuclear, atomic power plants are 25-28% of enrichment. Now for self, maybe less 15% enrichment. I don't remember exactly the number. And then you can go also in 90% for other kind of application. Moons are smaller, so they penetrate the huge mass of the pyramid. But while they are traveling along a line of sight, when they find, avoid the law of refraction, they can change slightly the orientation of the pet. Like that. And so the detectors can will detect in a history of these moons while are traveling the pyramid. The good thing is that the moons are free because they are the cosmic ray and they are very, they are, it is like a transmission that is parallel because they come from very far. And so they are parallel. It's a parallel transmission. So it is like a plane wave in the electromagnetic. In the term of signal processing, I can do it blind though that signal process is a very basic signal processing that they use. On the detectors are detecting the moons. And so you have a history, a history of integration because I think that they, that they has to be there months. Yeah, it sits there for a long time. Yes, correct. So you have an integration of months. The difference between moons and my technique is, it's not so different because you have to, you have to focus the road data there. You have to do an FFT in order to retrieve the tomographic slides that belongs between. The tomographic line is, is due by the detectors that are built, that are in the, in the chamber. And what do you see is the vertical curtain that starts from the detector to the end of the pyramid. That's the, the, your, your tomography only there. Yeah. And in six months, I don't know how many tomographic slides you can retrieve. It depends on the, on the detector width that you have inside the chamber. Yeah. So this muon technology is the accepted and utilized archeological procedure for detecting these internal chambers. And as you can see here, they had these muon scanning devices and the detectors set up in the queen's chamber and they were investigating the presence of this big void. And you can see here a big, so again, to clarify the difference, the muons actually do penetrate the body of the structure and the detectors are measuring the difference in the reflection and the absorption of the rays as they pass through the various chambers. And they only show, so they don't show like Filippo's work does a two dimensional slice. So it doesn't have the same tomographic line capability. The raw data that they show in this paper is only a top down view because that's the way the detectors are looking, right? So they're looking up. But because they don't know how to do it. Because you can, I don't, I don't say anything now because you can do a sort of more with that. Okay. They don't know how to do it. Okay. Because you can do, but I don't, I don't say things that they, then they, they can replicate. And that's why I incorporated this because I wanted to hear your professional interpretation and opinion on this accepted technology and the reason why there might be a difference in what they're showing versus what you are showing because there's, there has to be an explanation. That's a two dimensional horizontal plane, not vertical plane, but it's good. We can, we can interpret it like that. But you can do also using muons, also tomography. You can do it. Can we get a little context on who's doing the muons scans and when? So this has been going on. So I'm certainly no expert in this. This paper is published by, they work with a Japanese team that's been sponsoring and providing the funding for all of this, working in conjunction with the Ministry of Antiquities. And I think this was published, I don't have the publishing date, but this was a muon detection generally in the context of the great, great pyramids or the Giza Plateau rather would date back to like the 70s, I believe. Yeah. So they actually, so they, they muon scanned the central pyramid back in the 70s and I have that paper in here as well. So we can discuss the muon scanning of the central pyramid compared to the new SAR scanning. And this was done. So I'm not, I'm again, I'm not an expert in the technology. That's why I would defer to Filippo to answer the questions. You went into detail about this paper because you are now explaining me how, how we can read their data, their results. Sure. That is important. Yeah. And again, I wanted to be as transparent as possible. Yeah. In the conversation where I present all of the information that we have to analyze all of it in conjunction with what the SAR team has presented. And this is just the opposing technology that has been conventionally accepted. Because again, SAR is new, it's controversial, people are either loving it or hating it. But this is the accepted technology. As the aridopo-tomography is. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And the muon scanning is accepted within the archaeological community as the established methodology for scanning internal chambers. And just to add a little context, I think the original guy was Luis Walter Alvarez, who is not only extremely high up in the Manhattan Project and instrumental in, you know, nuclear fission and creating the atom bomb. But he and his son actually developed this theory that dinosaurs were wiped off the face of the earth due to an asteroid impact. And it wasn't really accepted for a long time. I think I want to say this paper. I'll look at the name sounds familiar. Yeah. And he may be the author of this because it was during the 1970s. Yeah. When they move on scanned the central pyramid. So this was this idea that 66 million years ago you had this, you know, big asteroid impact and it wasn't really respected until until later on. And so I do think the muon scanning was always a little bit more accepted, but it is it is interesting, you know, that things start stigmatized and then they they often. Yeah. So this technique you can't separate. And this is important that I have to do. It's good. I love this technique. But you can't separate vertical liars. So you see you are watching here the sum of all the vertical liars composing the pyramid, the layers, the layers, yeah, vertical. No, no, sorry, horizontally, vertically, right, right. Yeah, the vertical is some of all the horizontal liars that the sensitivity, probably a cone sensitivity. Yes, the detectors are watching. Correct. And they also mentioned this in the other paper, the cone of detection is mentioned in the paper regarding the central pyramid scan. So what we're looking at here is again, it's the focused, processed data of the muon detection process. Yes. And what we have here at A, they can detect a pseudo vertical sensitivity by using two or more observations. So you put a detector here. Correct. Yeah, you can see the two. You put the detector there. Yeah. And you perform photogrammetry in the muon domain. With photogrammetry, they can, let's say, with an approximation that twice the approximation of the position of the big void, because they are not sure, because you have a base of difference of difference in viewing in the muon domain. Yeah, so the view angle of the muon detectors, you can see here that the one placed inside the queen's chamber is looking up, and then they have the second detector on the northern face so that it's looking up in this direction and then into the structure so that they can do a comparison between what's detected on scanner A and scanner B to come up with a composite image of the location of this new void. So again, I thought this was important to include, and this is the data. So A is the signature on all four of these of the king's chamber. B is the location of the grand gallery, and here is the detection of the new void. So they're showing it again. This is not very reassuring either. I don't understand. Yeah, exactly. I'm sorry, Jeffrey, but my results are better than this. Well, no, Filippo, that's why I put this in here, was for the exact reason. You said that during the presentation, and I still have no idea what it is. I tell you, I will translate, but to all the Italians, it's e come chied alloste selvina bono. It's like asking the owner of the restaurant if his wine is good. So that's why I include tomography over muons all day, muon detection. So that's why I put this in here, is for the lay person who's looking at Filippo's data, and they're saying, I can't understand anything of what I'm seeing here. It just looks like a bunch of mess. If you look at this, this looks like a bunch of mess too. You really have to have an expert at that particular scanning technology do a detailed assessment of what we're actually looking at here. The reason I put this in is this is the data that they have used to justify the archaeological excavations that will occur to investigate the big void. This is what it looks like. It's like, what the hell are we looking at? It's a nice void. Big void. Yeah. So when I pulled this up after I did Danny's show. A big mess. Yeah, a big void. Because we were talking. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. No, it looks like abstract. It looks like a nice album cover to me. Yeah. Because I wanted to see, I'm a stickler for looking at the raw data. I don't like looking at the models. I don't like, you know, I want to see the actual, show me what the scans show. Like we were talking about with the labyrinth and Huwara scan. Yeah. Show me the actual scan. Well, this was, I mean, I don't want to get too off course. Side discussion, yeah. We'll bring this up in our one-on-one. But you mentioned to me right before the podcast, I was like, what about the 40-meter long tic-tac-shaped object in the labyrinth and underneath Huwara? And you were like, that was only written about in a blog post. And to be honest, I'm a fan of Ben Van Kirkwijk. So that was the first time I had heard. And he was kind of pouring a little cold water on your stuff as if that was less tested than. So it's a tic-tac-shaped object, but it's been interesting. This feels more legit to me if that's from a blog post. It's been interesting to see the reaction of the community. Yeah. And people on, because we're all in this community of alternative ancient history. Yeah. And the reaction of some people, again, has been complete rejection immediately. Some people love it, 100% no objections, but there's nobody that's really taking a middle ground on this and asking honest objective questions. It's like, I'm kind of honored to be in the position to be here to have this conversation because I've invested a lot of time in trying to understand this. I've read the papers. I've looked at the conventional scanning stuff. I've investigated the Muon data. And this is super important to my overall work is making sure that we really understand what's going on here. Love it. Let's keep going. It's just been weird to see the reactions of people in the community where they're either debunking it or they're on board 100%. And there's nobody that's really... Well, it's just ego. You liked your identity gets wrapped up in a position and then you pre-crystallized knowledge you end up engaging in bad thinking. Instead of being like, oh, damn, I don't want that to be true, but just the facts seem like it's true. Yeah. If I can add something constructively, I may say this. If a mutual collaboration between the Scampi Rami project and maybe our research team will be possible, I think things will go better. So Muon's plus... Mass... Mass... Mass... It's hard to apply tomography. Plus, mass, Muon, maybe things will be better. Sure. Sure. Well, I think it would also be a way because Muon's are more tried and true and accepted in a conventional scientific sense. For them, that would be like, oh, this pattern matches. What we are deriving from the Muon detection, I think where it gets tough is trying to get a kilometer deep with the Muon. I think that's... But once... Yes, that's true because you have to go one kilometer deep and install the detector and then you see what the reason is. And for that, you need the Ministry of Culture to let you go down there and do that. With a collaboration, not the separation, a collaboration. So I work with you, you work with me. We share what we have and we share our knowledge and our gaps. Love it. Okay. Yeah. And so sharing knowledge and gaps, I think things will work better in my personal opinion. Yeah. So my next question here, and as we'll see in just a moment, the SAR team has detected some features that go around the King's Chamber. Filippo, you were... So that is the King's Chamber. Yeah, here A. They say that A is the King's Chamber. Correct. And as I'll show, you know what I'm talking about. The features that go around... The King's Chamber. Yeah. So why do you think that they haven't shown that when you're picking it up on your data? And I'll fast forward a little bit here. This 3D diagram. Yes. So here is the big void. Yeah. You're showing it more transverse. Transverse like that, yes. They're depicting it as more longitudinal. Their scans show it north to south. Yeah. Yours is showing it east to west. Yeah. And you're detecting these features that are possibly connected into the big void that go around the King's Chamber. This is the King's Chamber here at the center. No, that's the center. The top of the King's Chamber. The top of the King's Chamber. Correct. Yeah. And then you have this feature here. We can also overlap the results of the M1 with the DET. Right. Right. Yeah. We can put it one on. So my question is, why is nothing like that shown here when you are detecting it on your data? I don't know why, because they are not able to detect things. Jeffrey, in that results, I'm a scientist. So I am very used to read the mess. Yes. The formation inside things that... There, I'm seeing nothing there. Can I ask it differently? I'm sorry, but I'm seeing nothing. No, I agree. This is very difficult to read. Can I ask it differently? Sure. Are there other examples of things where Muon detection fell short as far as predicting a structure that we know existed? We know the structure existed. Muons fell short. There's another comparison coming up here in just a moment of the scan results, where it's not showing something. That the SAR team. So again, there hasn't been much competition in the archaeological space where we're comparing these different technologies. So now we're in a unique position where there is a competitor technology to the Muon scanning, where we're saying, okay, this is showing this. This isn't showing it. Sometimes this, you know... But I mean in any archaeological or scientific context, because that would be really helpful, because if it's like, Muons never miss. Then I'm like, okay, you got a false positive on the Sardopler demography. If it's like, but there are a few times where Muons do miss in these other cases. I do think that's illustrating. Sure. Yeah, yeah. And again, I would love to see some control. Yeah, so we have a King's Chamber here and I could move the... Oh, that's the King's Chamber. King's... This is the King's Chamber A. And this is the Grand Gallery here. And what Filippo's team is detecting is a structure that goes around the King's Chamber here. And... But I think as I saw in those results, in these horizontal pictures, more pictures, which I repeat, is the sum of all the horizontal layers that I tell here publicly, the research team of Muon team, there is a method to discriminate different layers. Right. They are not applied. To pull slices. Yes. They're just looking at the composite image. At the sum. Correct. You can do it. Okay. They can do it. Okay. Maybe I can move it. Yeah, yeah. Go for it. Go. So this is the top of the Z. Correct. Yeah, so it's looking down at the top of the pyramid, correct. Okay. This is the... Let's say is the King's Chamber. Correct. A is the King's Chamber and these images, yeah. Then this is something related to the Grand Gallery. Correct. B, the arrow pointing to B is the Grand Gallery, correct. On the other hand, they are detecting the Queen's, the King's Chamber on another view angle. Yes. Yes. Obviously, B, this is the Grand Gallery. Yep. Okay. So we have two different view angles, this geometry and this geometry. Very good. And also other geometries. This and also this. The important thing that I am observing that here you have two things. This and this. Yeah, that's the new void. The await. Yes. And this. Yep. Here you have only this. Why here you have only this and here you have this and this? Which is the difference? Because the orientation seems similar. Why? There's written on the paper. Yes. Why? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because I tell you what is, they are confusing something. The text why is so hard. Yeah, so here are the explanations of the positioning. Okay. And this breaks down the whole graph and then here on this side are sort of the are sort of the. Oh, yes. The reflectivity. Okay. Yeah. Can we go to the previous slide please Jeffrey? Okay. It can be that this is the grand gallery top roof and this is the grand gallery floor. And they are in Italy we'll say taking cazzi per contra bassi. No. Taking cut. What do you mean? No, no, no. Taking. Taking little things. No, don't say it. Don't say it. Taking things to other things. They are confusing. It is possible that this is the floor of the grand gallery because our parallel same shape and this is the roof of the grand of the grand gallery because it's very high. The grand gallery. Sure. Of course, yes. In my personal opinion. And look Jeffrey. This is the grand gallery. This because it has a shape, a rectangular shape. Maybe, maybe look this or this. They have to do other measurements. This is not the grand gallery. This is the top roof and the bottom of the same structure. So the grand gallery. Okay. So you are you saying they might have misinterpreted? Yes. There is absolutely. Interesting. That's fascinating. Well, sometimes. Why I have to build a big void parallel. They say the big void is parallel to the grand gallery. Why? Why I have to go? I have to, I have to, I have to build an inclined so-called big void. And we are detecting the void where they are detecting the real big void. So let me clarify. Yes. Their results are suggesting that the big void is not parallel, but it's directly above. You see this area with the positive. So this is where they're picking up the signature of the big void. They are misinterpreting the photogrammetry that they are doing. So that's why I included this. Is because I wanted to get your opinion on these results and compare them. Again, what he's showing on his team is an east to west transverse big void that's located more down here. And parallel. Because the floor and the roof are parallel. Yeah. What the Muan team is suggesting that the big void is here. And declined. Directly above with the same angle as the grand gallery. They basically described it as a copy of the grand gallery directly above it. So there's just a difference between these two things. And we haven't verified in either direction. The only way to figure it out is to go in there. Yeah. Which they're going to do. And we're going to see exactly what's what. I can't believe. Hopefully in 2020. Because if you go in there and you figure out who's right Muan or Sardalbo tomography. That lends a lot of credence to the substructure readings of Sardalbo tomography. If you find a positive result. Sure. Now the thing is the Egyptian ministry of antiquities believes in this so much. Yeah. That they are willing to do the excavations based on this data. So to me that is staggering. What's your take. Because when I look at this I have the same reaction as Filippo. Oh really. Is how how could you possibly say with any certainty that what you're detecting here is real. Base you know it's the same argument. How big is the community of experts that know how to read Muan. Well that's the whole thing too. Right. Yeah. That's why we're having a conversation with an expert. Because the community in ancient alternative history. Yeah. We are not experts in radar. My question is when it comes to reading Muan scans that seems like us expertise or specialty. Have you been have you read a lot of these and are you good at that or are there people out there that are good at that. You're just basing their misinterpretation off your result. Okay. I in this moment is the first time thanks to Jeffrey that explaining me how to read the data. Okay. Okay. I got it. Okay. So we are in front of results. Based on these results they are doing a drill. They are they are. Should we should we show this to somebody who's read a lot of Muan scans and I will say that in the paper like you guys did they also presented all of the mathematical analysis of the data detection but I didn't put that in here because it's it's way beyond. It's as I said. Jesse but it's a question of geometry. Please. Yes. Please. Look if you watch the dimension of the king's chamber and the top of the ZA so the distance the horizontal distance of that. So these things should actually be connecting. You know this should be connected into this. So so that's an that's an error. Well it also depends on again like he's saying it's a composite of horizontal layers. Right. The only part of the grand gallery that connects into the king's chamber is on the top layer. As you go down in the structure the integration between the king's chamber anti chamber and grand gallery there is no more connection between the two. So basically what Filippo is pointing out here is this signature and this signature here. And he's saying that instead of this secondary signature being reflective of a new chamber it's actually part of the grand gallery. Got it. That's where this is the top of the chamber and this is the lower portion of the chamber. Got it. Yes. Okay. Got it. Yeah. Okay. So I just I wanted to show what the existing technology was. Yeah. So that the lay person can see the difference between the two what the data looks like and see how much of a it's a difficult process to understand what is going on with any of this stuff. This is so esoteric. If you are not an expert in that particular scanning technology. Well we should send this to people who are good at reading move on scans but you're saying Jefferies we know that they do get that disconnection wrong. That little point. We know for sure. Well again as Filippo said it could be a byproduct the same way with SAR technology. Well the slicing. Where it doesn't pick up all of the chambers because of the particular slice. Right. This may not be vertical slices but horizontal layers. Yeah. Where they're not picking the layer where the grand. They're picking the sum the vertical sum of all the layers. So it should have it if it's a sum of top to bottom. Yes. It should integrate all of that into one and it should show that because the king's chamber connects into the anti chamber which connects into the top of the grand gallery. So if this is actually and you can kind of see it here. So why are they missing that. So let me let me show it here. So here they actually do kind of show you could see what would be the anti chamber here. Yeah. The king's chamber here. You know and this is the grand gallery. Okay. This would be the anti chamber and this is the king's chamber and that's accurate to the configuration. So in this one they actually do. I mean where is the big void to that. So this doesn't show necessarily the big void. To me it's not visible in this image. But this is the mathematical detection of it here on the right. It is possible to read the results of the analysis of shintillation. It is another shintillation. So this explanation down at the bottom gets way deep into the technical weeds where it would take an in-depth discussion with an expert to understand what's simulated data. No no those are simulated data. Simulated data. Simulated data. No no no simulated data are are are. Similar data. It's not real. It's a simulated. It's a simulation that simulated data. So you're saying this is a simulation. So it says simulation. It's not real that. Corrected image. See it's not real. The real one is the is the we have this one. That that. Right. Yeah. So is there a process like you said with your data of focusing. So is that what they're doing here is focusing and correcting the image. That's a simulation. Our numbers are synthetic numbers are not real measurements. Okay. So it's not real. Okay. It's just to to show the the processing that are doing. It's not real data. Okay. And again there's I only picked the data images for this presentation because I just wanted to compare and contrast the raw data from your team in comparison to the raw data from the Muon team. Who knows which one of these is right. And again we're having a conversation with an expert on SAR technology. The next person we should have in this round table is an expert on Muon technology. So that we could all understand exactly what's going on. And not like. Oh of course. Yeah. He was today now here. Maybe we could explain one to each other. Yeah. Other results. No it would be so helpful. And I do have the whole paper but I would have to close this. And then it would be a huge tangent for us to look at the math. Present it in the paper. No no let's not do that. So there's a whole paper about this. If anybody wants to do a deep dive into Muon technology. They wrote a deep paper the same as with your first paper. That includes all the mathematics. In the scan processing. So to TLDR here is that you have some discrepancies between the Muon reading and the Saradopo tomography reading. Sure. And definitely tried and true method Muon detection in many cases. And then at least in the case of that one kind of cul-de-sac shaft we tried and true as well. So my only point with this is. Yeah. From the perspective of the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities which is the sanctioned body for investigating the structures. They used this to find the shaft that we just saw that your team also found. And they're using this data to justify the excavations into the big void. So this is one of the first times that they're going to do a major excavation into the great pyramid. So there's only been a few other instances where they've actually drilled into the structure. So that's a major project to be approved by the Ministry of Antiquities. They don't do that lightly. It's a big decision when they decide to excavate into the structure. So they do believe in this enough for them to justify this project. But again, who can make sense of what's what on either one of these things? You really have to have an expert a la Filippo here or an expert on the Muon technology to really explain exactly what's going on. Yep. So next, I really want to get to the, because again, this could turn into a six hour long discussion and we'll be here for the rest of the night. Now we move it fast here. Yeah. Yeah. So I can skip through this. The reason I wanted to show this section of the paper is because the SAR team is finding other structures like tag one here on the right is the data shown in tag one here in the model. So this feature here that goes down into the bedrock. Then there's this step like feature here. Again, yeah. So they're interpreting this data over here on the right into a model to show their interpretation of what this signature actually is. So that's all I'm trying to show here is the presentation and the development of the model itself. So you'll see these different tags, tag one, tag seven and tag four. Tag seven is this transverse east to west beam like feature. And then you have these step like features here. I actually proposed in my video a while back in 2021. So there have been researchers that have proposed that there was a system of locks, hydraulic locks that were used to move blocks up into the pyramids. So an interesting interpretation for some of these features could be construction related features that are still encased in the body of the pyramid that are remnants of the construction process like water locks where they were using water locks to float these stones on rafts up into the pyramid body. So again, it's important for any researcher who's analyzing these things to be able to have an interpretation of the function. That's kind of my job in this investigation is when I see stuff like this, I either have to assess it from the perspective of the operation of the structure or possible vestiges of the construction process. And it would make sense even if it was like the internal ramp, for example, you would have remnants of that internal ramp inside of the structure. If it was water locks, you would also have remnants of the vestiges of the water lock system encased in the final structure. So this is just showing some of the things that the SAR team discovered inside of the great pyramid that are new undiscovered features. So we have data on the right and model on the left. Again, this is just going through showing these linear features here and the different tags that are represented in the model here. So tag number two is the feature on the other side. So you have one here and then two over here. Okay. Okay. Same thing with... Yeah, yeah, yeah, this you see it very well. Yeah, here we go into some more where... There, the grand gallery, you see it. Here, yeah, yeah. So I was going to point that out here. So this is the grand gallery. And you see also the superior part of the grand gallery. That's... And you go up there. There are features that are connected to do the King's Chamber. The anti-chamber. Yeah, the anti-chamber here. Now this is very clear, you see it. Yeah. So again, this is... I'm just showing to everybody who hasn't seen this yet the raw data on the right and the extrapolation of the raw data into the 3D model. Yeah. So they're just interpreting the features that they see here into this model. Can I ask you a question? Yes. Do any of these structures that they're interpreting from the raw data fly in the face of what conventional archaeology would think exists inside the pyramids? All of it. All of it. All of it. Okay. All of this is the only known vetted chambers of the Great Pyramid. King's Chamber, Queen's Chamber, Grand Gallery, and Subterranean Chamber. You have four chambers connected by a system of shafts. We're obviously going to get way deeper into your theory in our solo episode. But does any of this comport with the functionality that you think the pyramid... I've integrated all of this into a functional hypothesis. So I have Filippo. I've entertained all of these speculative features in a model of my hypothesis for how the structure works. For example, the heat exchanger system that goes around the King's Chamber and above the Grand Gallery, the extraction shaft connected into the Queen's Chamber, which is that shaft leading out of it. And I also have a hypothesis for how these... Again, I have a number of different interpretations for what these vertical features below the pyramids might be. I've not publicly yet, but I do have an interpretation on what those could be. The reason I haven't come out publicly yet is because I think there's still more investigation that needs to be done to verify the configuration of the structure. So again, we have more... Yes, it is a bit confusing. It's very confusing. Some of the basic confusion around the pyramids, its perennial debate and question is how they were built. And you have people like, I think John Pierre Houdin and France who say that there's something about internally the blocks get pulled up or something. Could any of these structures deal with how the pyramid was constructed? Well, that's what I was saying. So it's like a pulley or something. For example, in the model, these could be remnants or vestiges of a waterlock system that were used to move blocks up into the pyramid. Interesting. It certainly could be. My only issue with this is the extrapolation from the data into the model. Yeah, sure. That is things that we discussed previously. Those are two tomographic lines. If we had the chance to see the video belonging to tomographic lines, things could be perfect. Because you are watching something dynamically and you recognize very well the structures. So for example, in this one on the top right, there's so much going on with this over here. A lot of false alarms. False alarms. I may wear that you have false alarms, but it is only one. You have others. Right. So you agree that in all of this raw data, it's very difficult to say with any certainty based on all of the interference and background data that the model itself, so the data is clearly picking up something. It's difficult for me to be on board with the model given what I can see in here. What would you say to that, Belipo? Is the level of intricacy given the fact you want to go back one slide? Yeah. Yeah. Just given how in detail and intricate the model is, the 3D model that you guys have derived, and then also given what you just said, which is there's a lot of noise in the raw reading, do you really think you can stand behind that 3D model? Yes. Absolutely, yes. And why is it? 100%. Wow. Because we have interpreted really a lot of results on a table. So you're basically saying you're like a pro at removing the noise? Like you know what's noise, you can delineate the noise? Because you said there's a lot of noise here. It's not, there is a so-called vertical strip noise and we have removed it now in the new tomography, so that kind of noise. So there is not any more problems. Well then to me it's like the Moodline scans, like I don't know. You're one, right? You could be looking at both of them. And I think Filippo's point about a synergy between the two technologies, whether they're merging the two techniques, is probably the best course of action for really getting closer to the truth. Yes, because you are detecting things and then you use another method, a complete other method to try and detect the same thing. Yeah, so for example Filippo, you said that the scan happens once and it's 15 seconds. And inside of the structure, there are going to be micro vibrations that are happening just based on the geology and the seismic movements or anything. So is it possible that some of these detections of micro movements are simply the nature of the structure itself, where it's going to pick up something inside of the structure that's producing these micro movements? Yeah. So these images aren't necessarily even background noise, but it could be just foundational elements of the pyramid with tiny little shifts of the block or the slight movement of the earth producing these micro vibrations that are producing a signature that's picked up on the surface. So it's the difficult thing, and this is his job because he's the expert, is differentiating between background noise, normal vibrations within the structure, and actual chambers. So that's critical in really understanding this data, is the differentiation between each and trying to separate out which is which. But you feel confident in your ability to differentiate. I have to say this also, everything we put, we insert in the 3D model, we analyze it, a lot of results. So we are, I can't say sure, but very confident that probably things that we insert in the 3D model are the reality, are effective there. Okay. So let's go to the final 3D model. Yeah. So this is another good one. I look how nice. So again, this is the queen's chamber here, and we have the shaft going out of the queen's chamber. Look that you can see everything. The red signature here. And also below, there is something. Here. Yes. Or here. Yeah. So again, he's the expert in interpreting what the actual data is showing, and this is the model that they've created from this perspective. Can I just say that the 3D model looks absolutely wild. Like it looks like an advanced contraption. It does not look like something that we would normally associate with being built. He's a nice storm. 4,000 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago. Yeah. Yeah. It's crazy. So the model is wild. Wild. And again, my only caveat to the model is like, I don't see how you get to the model from the data. But it's your job as the creator of the software and the developer of the project to take the raw data and turn it into something that the people can understand. Because the... But not only one result with a pre-etonaut. Can I ask you a question? When you measure the Grand Sasso laboratory, go back to that other image. Are you getting that level of granularity with it? Are you getting these instruments and all that stuff? When you see the Grand Sasso laboratory, are you getting that level of... When I say granularity, that level of specificity? I tell you yes. Really? Yes. So I want to show you, and this is an important part of the conversation, the proof of concept. So it's nice, but we also have like tons of mess. This is all in here. Because I have to integrate also in the vertical dimension of this tomogram. If I integrate like that, I will have absolutely less false alarms. But they are not false alarms. They are true alarms because the soil, the ground, it is a mess. So the result is the reality. So because the sound does not propagate into the free space, but only... But it is propagating inside the matter. And the matter is complicated. So look, you have that mess. I don't know if I... No, no, no. I understand. But again, from a person who... My entire body of work and anybody who's interested in the function of the Egyptian pyramids, if there is a new novel approach to detecting internal chambers, we want to see consistency of the detection of the known structures, which in here, we do have a great signature down here. The queen's chamber in this one doesn't have a great signature. We have background data here. Yes, that's the problem of the layover of the radar. Yes, that's the problem. It's obscuring the view of any signature from the king's chamber or the grand gallery. But I guess, Filippo, would you know that that's a problem from the layover of the technique? Would you know that if you didn't know the structure? Would you be able to say... Yes, yes, yes, that's the layover, yes. Really? You say that that pattern matches, that's obviously... I know very well the... Okay, yeah, fair enough. If I do a report, that's the layover and then those are real structures. And then the queen's chamber, like in other cases... Yeah, you don't have only one, but you have a plethora of results. So you are able to track into the tomographic dimension, the different targets. And you're sure you just missed the queen's chamber because it was too small? Yes. Okay. And you've missed... It is small, but in that particular slice, you don't have it. Because you... Maybe I don't remember now this case, but because we did a lot of... Okay. ...slides, I don't remember the case, but probably we did not align the tomographic slice on the... Got it. ...on the queen's chamber. Okay. That's good. And again, what I found really compelling about this one is the signature of this tag here. Ah, yes. Going down from the queen's chamber down here into tag 15, which is represented by this blue line here. Yeah, that is interesting. So this has again been reported in the archaeological excavation that there is something like this below the queen's chamber. And did you know... It's covered up now. Felipe, did you have any context on that in the historical record before you made this measurement? That's really crazy. That's pretty cool. So that... Again, you know, again, I have some... No, I am listening. It's just that story. So there's some positive... Wow. There's some positive things about it. And there's also some questions and some negatives where we don't get a conclusive answer. So my objective with this is try to parse through what we can see and what we can't see to try to make a conclusive determination about what structures are actually there. And this is an instance where the anecdotal archaeological reports substantiate the idea of there being a shaft and chamber system below the queen's chamber, which is certainly looks like there is something coming down from the queen's chamber here. So this is again, when I initially looked at this paper four or five years ago, this was the part that I found most compelling. The shaft system below the queen's chamber. So now I think we can move on. This was another interesting one for you. This is interesting. Yeah. Look, look, look. So we were talking about this here. You're a young man and I know this. Right. So this large... Don't care about that. So you don't... Well, let me ask a question real quick. This is the Z. Look how nice it is. Sure. This is the Z. Look. And this is the Grand Gallery. Yeah. This I like it a lot. I like a lot of this thing here. This is the Z. It is very clear. Look how nice it is. These are not simulated data. They are real data. This is the Grand Gallery. And probably we are detecting... I don't know if we are detecting also the big void, but somewhere here has to be. But maybe in this tomographic line we don't see it. But we see very, very nicely the Grand Gallery that is this and the Z. And also the square structure that is surrounding the Z, which is this. Look, look, Jeffrey. This. Yeah. Yeah. This one here. There's the slide of that in the next one. Yeah. And the Grand Gallery is here, like that. We should see also the big void, but I have to retrieve the original tomography, the high resolution. Here we are not seeing the big void. So you have it labeled there at tag 19. Yeah. So in this one. Ah, big void. Yes, yes, yes. You have it labeled over here. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I'm sorry. Thank you, Jeff. Yeah, yeah. Thank you for this. Thank you for this. This helped. So... Are my results about... I did it six years ago, no. So I don't remember exactly how we managed to... So my question about this one was this signature at the end. No, it's the Lejave. You don't think... No, the Lejave is something ready to... to synthetic aperture rather. So it's my job. But... Okay. Do you think so we know that the pyramid is built on a mound of bedrock? No, that's not... Could this possibly be a signature of the bedrock? No, that's the signature of the Lejave. Okay. So it is something that the radar retune is so strong that you retrieve... You retrieve that signature also in the vibrations. Okay. It is something that... I can explain it to you scientifically, yeah, if you want. But... No, no, I just... I just... I need something... There wasn't any explanation for what this was in the paper. So I wanted to ask you... An aberration due by Lejave is well known to me. Okay. Okay. But inside the aberration, inside things, you can see very clear the... The... The... Grand Gallery, the Z and other facilities, and also the Big Boy, the Tug 19 here. Yeah, okay. Okay. That's the panoramic view of what we are dealing. Look there. We just need, I think, you, Filippo, to create known standard conventions for what is layover noise and what is, you know, empty space and what is, you know, physical material of XYZ density. I think all of that needs to be laid out in some sort of taxonomy by you. Yes. So that the open scientific community can kind of corroborate and check your work. Yes. But I thank Geoffrey that invite, and you also, Jesse and Geoffrey, you invite me here and we are... And I am giving you additional explanation of our technique. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. So today we spoke about the incidence angle, how to see deeper, how to see only the pyramid, the layover noise, that's because of the layover. Okay. It's a false alarm, but we know it. It's there. Okay. We don't consider it because we are rather experts. Okay. Would an average radar expert be able to tell between layover and, you know... An average radar expert, yes, can distinguish the layover and the forest shortening and the shadowing that are the three main issues of the radar. But in the Doppler tomography domain, you have to connect these things and so read this problem. So you have to create new like conventions for kind of digesting this stuff and processing it. So I just wanted to show these last diagrams, the final diagrams. The top view of the big void connected into this square structure around the king's chamber. I suggest you to grab this image and overlap this image on the moon scanning results. Do it. And then let me know. You will see also the big void like that. Interesting. So again, the comparison of what we were looking at is that they're showing it's a north to south orientation. Here he's showing it as a more of an east to west orientation. Connected into these other structures around the king's chamber. Then we have kind of the final schematic with measurements. So they took... Now you are on this. So what they did here is they took the data and they measured all of the data and they interpreted the specific measurements of the signatures that were received by the radar and they incorporated the measurements and all of the unique features into a complete model that incorporates all of the new features. So we have the big void here. We have this chamber system and shaft system that goes around the king's chamber here. We have the shaft system below the queen's chamber and a possible connection point, as Filippo mentioned, between the newly discovered feature on the northern face that connects into the grand gallery. So this is a complete reconstruction, including measurements that were taken from the raw data and put into the model. So now let's go to the new paper. The new paper. The new paper. We established a foundation of the first paper and I think have done probably an overly in-depth analysis. But I think it's important that we have the discussion. So there's one main question I have about the new paper. At this point, everybody's already, I'm going to assume everyone's already seen the raw data images. So we're going to, this is the scanning of the Kafra pyramid, the central pyramid. And this is the data that they are showing of potential new structures located above the existing chambers inside of the central pyramid. Yes. And I'll show you a diagram here in a moment that compares the known chambers to what we have here. And this is their reconstruction of these vertical pillars. I know everybody's seen that at this point. So let's get to the proof of concepts that were presented during the Malta conference. So these were scans of modern structures that are intended as proof of concept that this technology can read the micro-vibration surface signatures of internal structures. In terms of signal processing information, you penetrate. Yeah. So my main question, so we hear we have the Carlin tunnel and this is the scan. Okay. So, Philippo, can you explain so the qualitative image here, same thing with the grand sasso. This is the raw, the processed data showing the tunnel here. These are all the scumming. And this is the grand sasso, the physics laboratory. So here, here we have the configuration of the laboratory and here on the left is the data. Yeah. Yeah. Real, not simulated, real. Right. Okay. Can you explain why this? Yes. Looks completely different from this. Yes. What is the difference between what is going on here in the proof of concepts? It's a signal processing procedure. There we are dealing with something let's call the wide and wide area. The grand sasso is big. Wide array. Yeah. And the focusing procedure of the phonons are different. So we use something different that we can see very wide. I can say you the details, but the details are that there the focusing process is done to see. Okay. I want to see wider. Okay. Focus wider. And there we are observing the grand sasso because it's big at the grand sasso. Okay. It's big. So what is the footprint again? So we said that when you were scanning the pyramids, you have a 5K by 5 kilometer footprint. Yes. Area of the scan. The footprint of potential tomographic lines. But if you want to scan the tomographic line, you put it on the cap. Sure. Sure. When you scan the grand sasso, is it the same 5 kilometer by 5 kilometer? The same. So it's the same footprint. Yes. If the focusing technique for this scan produced this quality of an image, why are we using this to image inside of the pyramid? Can you explain the technical reason? Because I thought these were not inside the pyramid, under the pyramid. Well, both. Okay. Right. So this is a scan of what's inside of the pyramid. Yeah. Yeah. And this is a completely different type of signature than what is shown here. It's a good question. Because these things... So there's a very big difference between these two things. Yep. So can you explain what the difference is between the process and the end result? The first thing is that this is black and white look. And the other one is another kind of colors. You see red and blue. Red and blue. So it is a different representation. So again, we have here the tunnel. Look, blue, white. White, blue. Okay. And there you see is red and blue. In the case of the Grand Sasso, I used a different processing technique. It was like an experiment. Why here I am seeing it in a different color? Because here I attempt to do different processes of different tomographic lines. Like that. Because I wanted to mitigate the noise in the vertical direction of the tomographic line. Like that. So to average pixel by pixel the noise. And we see that the results are very good. Yes. But I spent at least two months of processing time. Okay. Why didn't you do the same thing? That's why it's not something that you can do it every day. Because I went to my friend and he was like, can I use your computers? Okay, yes, but I can't use his computer forever. No? But it sounds like that's a superior technique. So why wouldn't... It's a superior technique, yes. So why wouldn't you use that on the most important five days? Because I didn't have the computers. I am poor. Oh no. Well let's get you the computer. I have my instruments. But you have to understand how to like random person in the audience, they're thinking like, Filippo, why don't you use your friend's computer? Yeah, because of the better processing. So for example, this proof of concept also wasn't presented in conjunction with the original paper either. So this is new from the Malta conference, which was in 2024. This proof of concept is newer compared to their original scans in 2020. So to me, this is far more convincing than anything that we've seen thus far with the original scans. That is the... The rapportado. How much would it cost you to do the equivalent of this, but for the coffer appearance? Substructure. My project in the future is to do it real time, and Jesse, I want to do it real time. How much would that cost you? I don't know. A lot. Okay. But I can't see you. I don't know. But yeah. Millions. Let's say millions. How much of the validation... I do think it's important because you're saying that the processing was slightly different here versus... So when you're citing this as validation, how many of the other examples like the OSIRIS shaft or other things, did you use this kind of more rapid than the SLICE technique? Everything that you are... I have all of them. The black and white. Yeah, I have all of them. Okay. Right. So again, from my perspective, somebody who is super focused on discovering the true configuration of these structures, why would we even publish the initial results if the capability existed to do something superior that could eliminate all of the background noise and confusion? So in your first paper, you made the statement, transparent like a crystal. Right, yes. Those images from the first paper are not transparent like a crystal. I'm not... I don't take it in. This is transparent like a crystal. So why would we not use... This is good. This is really good. This is way better, Filippo. Yes, I know. And that's why this is like super important. When I was watching this in Malta, I didn't want to get into too in depth of a conflict. But when I was looking at this, I was like, this is actually something that very much resonates with me as being a very powerful technology. What you showed in the first paper, the differentiation between background noise and layover and everything... The first paper, the word says the first paper, it was the initial of our research. So going back in time, six or seven, we began two years before the papers in 2018, nearly 10 years now, eight years there. So the software was the initial software. Right. Things we did, it resonates like a crystal because it is transparent with noise. One was the last. Okay. And all the crystal, let's say. Okay. I can call the crystal. Yeah. Well, it's not a crystal. It's limestone, right? Limestone. Yeah. So limestone is not a crystal, but this, the qualitative processed image of this is very much transparent like a crystal. I thought this was spectacular. Yes. And when you're presenting this data to an academic community that is going to be extremely rigorously trying to tear this apart, the background noise, the layover, the inability to detect certain structures because of the tomographic line, I would scrap all of that and go with this. No, this is very nice. I like it. Let's get... I mean, seriously, I mean, this is going to drive me insane. See, this is what I wanted to show you this. Well, let's get you crowdfunded the money so that you can get this level of quality on the actual Coffer Pyramid substructure. I thought so better. What's that? Oh, let's get you better. I thought so better. Let's get you better. But even this would be... Because I do think there's an issue if you're like, all the validation looks like that and then you're reading on the Coffer Pyramid looks like the way you... And then it's like we have to... We're basically taking your word for it. Not all my soft signaling is like, you're legit. But like, that's me. I'm one person and like, you know, I also would love for there to be like an energy grant under the pyramid. So I think we need this level on, you know, the actual Coffer Pyramid. And we will... I... It... It will be done. It will be done. Okay, amazing. See you soon. Now, if we work in the right procedure, we will establish a foundation and emulta. There we will install the computers and maybe we will do something better, also better than this. And hopefully today I wanted to give you some feedback as a friend for ways that you can improve the presentation to the academic community. Because the questions that I have are the reasons that they have immediately rejected all of the data because there's a lot of questions. But if you lead with this, there can be less objections to the data. This I thought was spectacular. When I saw this emulta, this really caught my attention. And it bothered me that you went from this, which is transparent like a crystal. I think this is fantastic. The scan, the scan of this structure here, you can even see it here from far away. You can see the triangular, the transverse tunnel. You can see the mountain and you can see the inside of the laboratory. Filippo, I love this. This is the best proof of concept that you have access to a technology that can scan inside structures. But then you go from this to this. And I was like, what is going on here? There's such a huge difference between quality A and quality B that it takes away from the credibility of this. And it's not an efficient proof of concept. I know, I agree with your on what you are saying about the results. We can't see the tarbet results. So I would love to see. Do it with the new thing. Because yeah, I would love to see that. The new thing is so easy to read for a layperson that I do think it would just help you, your cause. And I'll defend you here and say the fact that unless you are fabricating that first image, if you're using Sardaropoitomography to Jeffree's point to reconstruct the Grand Sassel Laboratory in that image that we saw on the left. Yeah, here. That is a total proof of concept for the actual technique. That's amazing. That's my point. And then you need to do that for the thing that's going viral that everybody cares about. Now the time you're watching deserves. Yeah, so this was very good. And that's why I wanted to show this. And you see also the faciliaries. Yeah, we can see the facility here, the triangular, and this is where the interferometer is. Oh, the interferometer is fantastic. Yes. Okay, so another caveat on testing modern structures as proof of concept. These are operating systems. There's electricity. There's moving components. There's people. You know, they didn't turn the laptop off for him to scan this. So there are inherent vibrations in a modern operating facility that are producing more readily readable signatures. In an ancient structure, there are no moving parts. The great pyramid is chambers. That's it. There's no ventilators. There's no electricity. There's no moving parts. So my only issue with the proof of concept using modern facilities is there are actual active vibrations, mechanical vibrations within the structure that are producing more intense signatures than an ancient. Yes, but you have 1.4 kilometers on the door. Yeah, right, right. The height of the mountain is way bigger than a pyramid. That's a fair point. And I do think that should be addressed. I think it's at the margins compared to the larger point, which is that this technique looks fundamentally different. And yeah, I think, Felipe, you should definitely do the structures underneath the coffer pyramid, but with this technique that you're showing here. And it's really important for these, you know, you're giving fodder to the skeptics, you know, if you don't do this. So we always say, when you present something new, put your best foot forward because it helps to eliminate objections. But I can see your pride in this. And I felt the same way about it. I was like, okay, this is cool. When I saw this, I was like, he's really possibly onto something. For sure. But then we again, moved on to the rest of the presentation where he's showing the new scans of the coffer pyramid. So here's another one that's another proof of concept of the Mosul Dam. And there are some turbines, two different types of turbines. There's a Kaplan turbine and another circular turbine like this. So this was another proof of concept where they scanned the Mosul Dam. But that's using the raw data that looks like the raw data. The secondary from the coffer pyramid technology. Which I think is that's a good proof of concept then. Yes, but I have to criticize this in the context of ancient megalithics. In this case, the turbines are in movement and they produce. That was going to be my point. These are mechanical moving parts. So of course there's going to be a read. It is a proof of concept, yes. But it is a proof of concept not applicable in megalithics. Because there in megalithics you need a lot of precision, a lot of sensitivity. And what's the word you're using? Megalithic structure. Because these are operating moving mechanical components. The dam is working. For sure. Right, so he's scanning a piece of machinery. But you are. Yes, it's okay. Yeah, to play devil's advocate, if you go one slide back, go on again. That looks like decent. I can't read, sorry, Dalper, tomorrow. Yes, so this is the configuration. Go right slide to the right. That looks like decent to me. That looks like it's good. So let me show here. So this is the configuration of the Kaplan turbine. And then this is the configuration of the spiral turbine. And what we have here is the Kaplan turbine. And this is the Francis spiral turbine. Yeah. So my only question that would help validate this is do you have an engineering blueprint of the Mosul dam that shows that there are these two different types of turbines? They are confined as well. So you're... It's not possible to retrieve the... That was my question. It's like this is great and you're showing two different types of turbines right next to each other. But it's sufficient to say that there's a Francis and a Kaplan. It's sufficient, Jeffrey. You can't have the effective design of the turbine area because... That's a valid point. It's very, very difficult to have it. Sure, sure. But I was just... My question is do you have access to an engineering blueprint that can corroborate this configuration within the dam? That would just... I don't have... Enhance. Yeah, no, it's okay. Yeah, I was just curious if you did because that would be even more evidence to show here is just like we did with the diagrams of the Great Pyramid. You could take the engineering blueprint... But we are speaking on something very simple to obtain because they are mechanically moving. And also the thickness is very low. In the dam. In the dam, yes. It's not... I think 300 meters, something like that. This is very... So the three of us immediately latched onto my entire point of that discussion is that there's qualitatively, vastly superior technology being used for the proof of concepts. The proof of concepts are modern, mechanically operating structures that are very different to imaging megalithic structures where there are no moving mechanical points. So again, I was just when I saw this... Can I say it slightly differently? Which is I don't know that it's qualitative... It looks qualitatively better. The problem is in Filippo's head, it might actually not be qualitatively better. It just looks to... It's qualitatively more digestible, translatable, comprehensible to any average person because you get like a better image for a layman to read. For all I know, if I'm inside his head, he's thinking, I am just as confident looking at those like what look like thermal imaging blotches. So this is the final proof of concept, the Goddard tunnel. Another tunnel. Again, this is the tunnel, this is the mountain range here. So you can see the mountain range here. And the tunnel runs through here. And there's another one that goes underground here. What is Goddard tunnel? So it's just a tunnel through a mountain in Switzerland. Oh, cool. I think two kilometers under the... Right. So interesting. Again, in using the nomenclature from the first paper, transparent like a crystal, this is what I would want to see. Yeah, it's beautiful. And again, it was just frustrating for me when I was going through this. So if you can come to the table with something like that, I think that would silence a lot of the haters. So debunking is an attempt to disprove. So when somebody is a debunker, they're trying to say SAR technology is fake because of X, Y and Z reasons. So that's debunking. And there's a lot of people that have attempted to debunk this to say it's fake. And then there's the other side where people absolutely love it and they really believe it. So that's what we mean by debunking. And again, that's not what I'm here to do. Clearly, I'm interested and I'm fascinated by this. And I have a vested interest in knowing the truth. Yeah, we should come with a new term, which is stress testing. It's not debunking. It's, you know, if there is a there, there, then you try it under all conditions. Constructively stress testing in a positive way, which I think we're doing here. So again, this is another image of the tunnel going through here. Again, the reason I showed these is because yeah, this is supposed to be the proof of concept for the new scanning. But it looks so much different that there's a contradiction between the quality of this and then what is shown. I know you understand it. Yeah, of course, right? But all of us want to see this, especially the people that don't believe in this technology. You have to go back and do it again. You do. You do. You do. And seriously, come up with a number and like I will rally, Jeffrey will rally, everybody with the platform will rally to just crowdfund you the money. Let's try it. We'll get you the money somehow. I mean, it's so important. We do it. We do it. Yeah. Because it's on you though to come up with a number, come up with a figure and we'll get, you know, it's really important. So this is the rest of the presentation is just going into their presentation during Malta when they're showing the new scans from inside the Kafer pyramid. You know, we already talked about the azimuth compression. This is the scan of the OSIRIS shaft. Okay. So this was another proof of concept, scanning a known structure to show that their technology is able to pick up the configuration that we absolutely know is there. But here we're back to the kind of lower res scans. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that is, you know, a good sign of validation. Yeah. So there's been some issues proposed with this. Okay. So this is from a channel called Nightscarab who did measurements that show that the signatures are off and that the measurements don't exactly match the known configuration. What do you say to that? What was your? Well, because any measurement is affected by errors and aberration. You remember that you are watching things that is propagating in matter. So you're just saying this is within the margin of error? It's the best of what we can retrieve today. What was sure. Yeah, of course. Gods. But what was? Humans. So yeah, I had a measurement that we have errors. Out of curiosity, what is the margin of error? Which kind of the? So he was saying that the measurement, four meters, which considering you're measuring from space, using vibrations from underground is a relative. You are telling me you made four meters of error. Does anybody argue that the structure overall doesn't comport with the OSIRIS shaft? Does everybody admit that it basically? So the only caveat to this scan is this structure over here. So I actually went out to the Giza Plateau after the Malta Conference. As soon as we got back, we live in Egypt, so I can go to the Giza Plateau anytime. I think you found something. Yeah, that's why I was asking you about the footprint, the square meter imaging footprint, the area of the footprint. That's not the footprint is very good. It's huge, right? Five kilometers by five kilometers is a huge footprint. And in the vicinity of the OSIRIS shaft, so it's located along the causeway, right? This connector pathway that leads from the Kafe Eastern Temple down to the Valley Temple in Sphinx. And the OSIRIS shaft is located below the causeway. So directly on top of the causeway, maybe 10 to 15 feet away from the OSIRIS shaft opening is another rectangular opening in the causeway that is indicative of another bedrock shaft. There's these big vertical bedrock shafts all along the causeway adjacent to the central pyramid. They're just huge shafts that go down into the bedrock. There is an opening here at the top of the causeway that goes down into something, but like all of these bedrock shafts, they're completely filled in. It's filled in with sand and debris. And then now we show the some shafts of those. Yeah, later in the presentation. There's also another structure to the south of the causeway that appears to go underground. That's again why I was asking about the footprint of the area. Is he measuring any of these? Who? Filippo in these scans. Oh, in terms of the measurements? Yeah. Oh, I don't know. Okay, because that would be interesting if you knew of something specific around the OSIRIS shaft that he picked up. Well, though, that's what I'm saying is we went out there and we found two different structures in the vicinity of the OSIRIS shaft that could be creating this signature here. Okay, interesting. So we actually went out, my wife and I, shout out to my wife, Alexa from Archeo Alchemy, that's been sitting over there patiently watching this whole thing go down. I've been an audience member live on. And this is why we need to go out together. You, me, and Ormando need to go to Giza Plateau and look at this stuff so that I'm so, I know the Giza Plateau like the back of my hand. And anytime we want to look at a structure, I know where there's anomalies and things like that all over the Giza Plateau that can help us get closer to the truth of what we're looking at here. So I did find some structures that are in the vicinity of the footprint of the scan area that could be producing this signature here on the left. So here on the right, we have level one, level two, and level three. But then there's also these other horizontal signatures that go all the way down. This one, this one, you know, all of these different horizontal signatures. Felipe, you don't have a conclusive explanation for what's producing this section here. I want to ask you a question. Yes. You know very well the structure of the Osiris shaft. Yep. The last floor where you have the swimming pool. Here. Yes. Yes. There are some studies, some research that attempt to go and see what there is below the water level. Have they excavated below the water level? Or I don't know, they put the camera to see what or... No, no. As far as I know, the only investigation into anomalies inside the Osiris shaft is some connecting tunnels. There are some bedrock tunnels that connect into the Osiris shaft. During the original excavations, they did pump all of the water out. No, they... Is it possible? No, they did. Ah, they did. Yeah, they did a pump and they pumped maybe not all of it, but they pumped the water out of the Osiris shaft. Yes. And so the water level was going down. Correct. And then, but if they don't pump anymore... It comes right back up. In how much time? Oh, I don't know, but so this was done by Zahi Hawass and team. They pumped all the water out so that they could lift the lid off of the container on the third level. So there's a container on the third level that's surrounded by four pillars. It's like a limestone island in the middle of this water with this big container. And they were going down in this thing, supposed to be the burial shaft of Osiris, and they're going to lift the lid off of this container and find pharaonic burial or Osiris' body in here. Of course, absolutely nothing was discovered when they lifted the lid of this thing. Wow. So they did pump the water out to do this excavation. And then off. After the excavation is done, the water level came right back up. Because as I was saying, there's an independent aquifer directly below the structure here. And the third level of the Osiris shaft taps into the water level in this independent aquifer. So everything that we're showing here is underwater. So nobody knows how deep is the water? No. Oh my God. Yeah. Okay. There's never been a hydrological investigation of the depth of the water below the Osiris shaft. Can I ask a question? Yeah. How big the substructures under the aquifer pyramid that you feel like you're measuring these columns, hollow tubular structures, what is the circumference? Yes. I think I don't remember if we have indicated this, but approximately 20 meters. Each one. The diameter. But each the diameter of each, sorry, not yes, not circumference. What is the diameter? The diameter approximately 20 meters. Of each tube. Yes. And they are this, and they have a distance of about five meters. So each tube is 60 feet. 20 meters. Yeah. I mean that to me, that makes me higher conviction. I have to say, because if you're not measuring the queen's chamber because of some granite, it's too small or whatever, I guess the granite actually helps as far as, so if you're not measuring the queen's chamber because it's too small, and then you have this possible error margin here displayed in the Osiris shaft that's four meters. I do think if you have a 20 meter single column and then that's repeating four plus four, eight times, that somehow feels like the only thing if I were in his position, I could say pretty confidently. And again, we have to get into like, can you penetrate below? So let's get to that. Because I have a pressing question that I'd like for you to answer. I do. Yes. So everyone's seen, so this is some of the raw data. Of their scan of the third pyramid, the Menqara pyramid, showing these vertical signatures below the Menqara pyramid. Same thing here, these are more of the vertical signatures of these structures below the ground. Same thing here, pyramid of Menqara. There's this big signature here of a possible vertical something below the structure. Here is the model that they presented at the end of the Malta conference, showing the entire Giza plateau and these underground vertical features connected into these cube features, the whole model here. So this gets into the question of the water level. Some of the tubular structures are under the sphinx as well. Yes, we have measured, I don't know if we have the slide here. Yes, but the answer is yes. So here on the left in the data, you said that when the image tapers off here... See, we have a cutoff of energy, we discussed in the data. Yeah, yeah, so I'm just explaining to the people. So on the data here in these vertical columns, where the data starts to taper off, is an indication of the water level. And that's reflected in the model. Could be, could be the indication of the level. But the water level is not present abruptly. Do this experiment. Take a dry sponge, a hole on the dry sponge. So you have the dry sponge and the hole on the dry sponge. You put the dry sponge here or into a container. And you put water. You will see that the water goes into the sponge. And for gravity, the water will stabilize somewhere. But the layer that represents the dry part of the sponge and the more wet part of the sponge is not abrupt. But you have the transition. So the permeation of the water is not linear. It depends on the absorption of the material. Abrupt. Right, right. Okay, yes. So I don't know. That is a strange effect that as we discussed before, I can't give you an exact answer. That phenomenon, because I don't know. And that was my question. Is the water level in the model and in the data is approximately a kilometer down. But this is not true. Correct. Because the water level is there. It is. That's the next point. Is that the actual water level below the water table of the Giza Plateau is shown to be approximately 50 meters. Below the plateau. Correct. Is it 15 or 50? So it's 15 meters above sea level, 50 meters below the plateau. Got it. Right. So this is courtesy of ancient architects, another individual in the community who basically debunked the study. He's a debunker, no? He's a debunker, yes. Yeah. So again, I was just curious, what was your explanation for the difference of the water level shown here? The water level, I tell you, you can see it from this tomography. Here? Yes. This line? Approximately. Approximately. Okay. So it's not where the image. But they are not 15 meters. You can see something related to the water level. Okay. Okay. And it's not that, but it's that one. So the tapering of the image here is not because of the water level. Maybe effectively, if you have an effective physical cutoff of something, and then they continue with another kind of structure. So this is, I think this is an example. I don't know. If you ask me why is it like that, you have to go and see effectively. Sure. The measurements are those. Right. So what you're saying is that this is supposed to be a solid object. Yes. Going more than a kilometer down and connecting into these large cues. It's very deep. It's very deep. However, the signature of this solid object does not. Changes, changes. Changes significantly. Yes, significantly. The explanation you had given in Malta was because that the water level was here. But we both agree that this is not the water level that's causing the. Maybe is that, is that. Yeah, this blue line. Yeah, yeah. Right. So if this is a solid object, what is creating the lack of signature here? I don't know. Is the, is, does the lack of signature start a kilometer down or how many, how many meters down is that kind of cutoff where it starts to go from? About approximately 600. Okay. So you, I guess, then if I was you, why? Maybe there is something that I was, but I can't disclosure it now. There is something I can't disclosure it now. Interesting. Okay. Okay. But is there a reason you're saying 600 meters, but like, why did you say it goes a kilometer deep? Yes. Look how nice it is. Yeah. You can see that cutoff. I do see that it maintains. You see the different, different sensors. You see the same cutoff. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But that's what I'm wondering. Interesting. Why, why, why are we saying a kilometer deep instead of 600 meters deep? I don't, well, that was just my estimate. You can read it. So, so this is his estimate. Maybe I am, I am saying something wrong. Yeah. The vertical numbers, you can read it, you can read. So again, here. Yeah. So they're getting a cutoff. A 500, 500, 50 meters. So this is, yeah. So this is 600 meters here. So this is where the image itself and whatever this is, the signature of this starts to cut off. Okay. Here. But that was there, it looks like it cuts off less and does extend to close to a kilometer. It depends on the processing procedure that we are doing. It depends. Okay. Hundreds of meters, you would say confidently, but, and then you don't know what to attribute to Jeffrey's point, that sort of awkward gradient. Because now we are, we agree together that the water levels is higher. Sure. And, and you have a cutoff of the signature. Yeah. And all of, all of these vertical signatures show a tapering of the signature. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So that's, that's an anomaly of these vertical signatures that we don't have a good explanation for if this is a solid object, why doesn't the signature register all the way down? It's not, we've agreed, it's not a result of the water table. There's, there's something else happening with the signature where it's possibly no longer able to detect that deep. Well, do you, do you have an alternative hypothesis or? So again, at this stage, I'm just asking questions. Yep. Maybe we are, we are focusing the attention on something that it is normal to have that kind of result. Do you see an attenuation of signal? No. No, no. Only here. Okay. Only here. So there is something idiosyncratic unique here going on. Okay. That's it. Yeah. So we can see it here in this, this polarized tomographic image. This is again the vertical signatures. I will say the polarized tomographic image, even the raw tomographic image. Nice. It's better. It's super nice. Those look very tubular and like, you know. Same thing here. It has that same, the deeper, the deeper it goes. Even when you get that awkward kind of gradient cutoff, like it still looks like it's maintaining some sort of structure. Look, the water level is here. This. Up at the top. Yeah, yeah. Got it. Okay. So Filippo, would you admit now that you were, you didn't know about exactly where the water level was back then? No. Okay. We can make mistakes. Sure, sure. Yeah, of course. Probably the water level. But no, because the water level is now, it's much higher. Can I ask it, can I ask it a dumb question? Because a lot of this is prefaced on this idea of these structures being man-made and artificial. And so two questions. No, my God. You don't know. No, we don't know. We don't know. But at least a lot of the speculation around them is around. Am I best on the fees? Oh, we don't, they are man-made. But if it's an artificial structure, how would you build something that penetrates that deeply into the water table? And you ask to me? Yeah. Okay, you are asking me this. Yeah. Whoa, how nice. Do you have you speculated about that? I mean, you have to have thought of it. It is something that we, I discuss about this issue with Corrado. Okay. And we agree that it is something that it is man-made. Okay, so somebody built those things there. It can be that once the pyramids were built, so from the top, maybe they dig a hole, they dig it on the bottom, but they are not simply holes. They are built. How can I say? But if they're 20 meters in diameter and they're going a kilometer deep, then I'm going with aliens. Like, how do we explain that? That's pretty hard to explain. That feels harder to explain than the construction of the pyramids themselves, which are really hard to explain. Yeah, but so that's the problem though, is that's where this disintegrates from an academic conversation regarding the actual data to the leap of speculation into alien constructions, which is why the academic community has outright rejected this whole thing, because there's no physical way that these could possibly have been built, period. There's no way. You would say the same thing about the pyramid. I agree with you there. We still don't understand the mechanisms of operation, but it's also a completely different conversation, building something above ground when we're talking about how could you even excavate into the bedrock to be able to build something, the logistics of the engineering. So we were talking kind of off-camera, how the civilization that built the pyramids and associated structures were absolutely able to build components that tap into the existing water level. The Osirion is excavated from the bedrock and constructed to tap directly into the water table below the structure. The configuration of the temple structure is precisely designed so that it hits that water table, again, an independent aquifer that's not connected to the Nile River, because the water level inside the Osirion is the same as it was in the original design, the island and the reservoir surrounding the island. Same thing with the Osiris shaft. They were capable of building structures that go down to the water level and tap into the water level. Now we're talking about going a kilometer below the water level to excavate. The whole thing is filled with water. If they are real, I have a difficult time accepting that there is such a thing that is a man-made structure that goes a kilometer deep. However, the Giza Plateau is the bottom of an ocean for millions of years ago. The Tethys Sea, are you familiar with the formation of the Giza Plateau? Right, it used to be the bottom of an ocean. Millions of years ago. There is evidence of hydrothermal mineral deposits on the Giza Plateau. Hydrothermal vents are vertical structures that can go kilometers deep into the bedrock. We can talk about this here in just a second. I want to walk through one more piece of data. Can I ask one more question? Because it's very related to the logistics of being able to build something that penetrates a kilometer deep. And this is a flint double point. Is it too hot down there? Yes, we had to speak about this. It is very simple to give you an answer. The first thing is it is normal that people could be there. Maybe you can build, yes, to build these structures. People have to go down, down. Yes, that's true. But there are a lot of methods to cool down high temperature. The first one is this. The enormous quantity of shafts that are present on the surface of the Giza Plateau. That are filled with debris. And one of those I show them in the presentation. I don't know if you extrapolate. I have that in here too. There are a lot of shafts. There are a lot of shafts and the shafts can have the function of giving light and so cooling the underground structures that are below. So the answer is, okay, we want to build something like that. Yes, let's begin building this thing. We have a mega structure here by digging and building the cooling shafts. Okay, we start from the shafts. Then once we are downstairs there, we intercept maybe natural horizontal cavities. Okay, and so we build and we start to build. In some way they did it. In some way somebody did these things. So the vertical shafts that you find principally between the Sphinx and the Kafre pyramid, there are four or five shafts that are blocked by debris. And those facilities we are thinking to submit a proposal to the Egyptian government because those shafts can be the entrance of the underground facility. Without doing any kind of drilling, we don't have to drill. Yeah. We only have to clean. Amazing. We only have to clean enough. Well, I hope you get that approval. I guess another question I would have is, are all of the tubular structures a kilometer deep? The ones under the Sphinx as well, they all are hundreds of meters deep. I have the slide. Yes, because head to transport fresh air and light into the structures below. Yes. And idealium. Those, the Tag 47. Here. Yes, those. So this is the causeway here. Yes. Right, so we're talking about the Osiris shaft being located on the causeway. And these bedrock vertical shafts are adjacent to the causeway on both sides. So there's some over here on this side and some on the southern side that go down vertically into the bedrock to an unknown depth. They've never been fully excavated. They were filled with debris and sand. Now also trash accumulation for, you know, decades and all sorts of stuff just completely filled in with junk. Yeah. All the tires that there are of, there is rubbish. So there's evidence even just looking down into these vertical pits. There's evidence of transverse horizontal shafts. So with that I detected. Yeah. Yeah. They showed that. So these shafts go down vertically into the bedrock. And then there's horizontal transverse connecting shafts that link these things. So in my opinion, that's part of the industrial infrastructure of the Giza Plateau. And I have a slide on that here in just a second. So the other pressing question, Filippo, I know you know this was coming. And this is kind of the last question I have for you. So this is the data of the scan of the Kaffra pyramid. And the big objection is the fact that the known chambers are not shown on the data. So this is above the Belzoni chamber here. And the known chambers should be somewhere down here. Yes. So this is, this is the configuration of the Kaffra pyramid, the known internal chambers. And all of these areas that are marked with hash marks here are bedrock excavated chambers. So they're carved directly from the bedrock of the Giza Plateau. And this was the statement. I don't know if you wrote this or if Armando wrote this. But so it states here that the detection issues related to the known structures inside the Kaffra pyramid. The satellite data only reveals the entrance descending corridor in the roof. This is because the structures are embedded in a limestone slab that absorbs the signal. So this is the bedrock of the Giza Plateau from which these chambers are excavated. This is no deeper than 15 meters into the bedrock. And the radar signal is absorbed in that limestone bedrock. According to the quote from your team. Again, I don't think, I think Armando wrote this. I don't know if you wrote this, but this was published on the Facebook page. So can you clarify why the signal is being absorbed in this bedrock? And then how, if it's absorbed in 15 meters of bedrock here, how can it possibly scan any deeper? Okay, yes. The answer is this. Let's start from this matter of fact. We are not detecting the Belzoni. We are not detecting the narrow corridors. Yes, the narrow corridors, because in that tomographic line that we are using, they are not present. Okay, so now we are dealing this problem, being aware that the sometimes targets are not the data. In this case, we think that the exactly what that message was, we wrote that message because the most part of the vibrational energy in that case were attenuated a lot the signal. So we would not be able to retrieve the Belzoni chamber and also other corridors, because no energy. We failed the detection of those known chambers. Okay, okay. But then the next logical question is if you're saying that the signal is getting absorbed and attenuated because of limestone that's just 15 meters deep, then why? Why you are detecting those? A kilometer deep through the same limestone. It is a question of measurements. In those measurements, we were not able to retrieve those structures. Okay, but considering the particular configuration of those huge tubes descending approximately for more than one kilometers, having a diameter of approximately 20 meters, we can see that they are very big. Okay, so you are comparing a very small object with huge structures. So I don't think that this is a point of good comparison point because you are comparing huge structures with something very small. So in this case, the very small things are not detected. And that's a matter of fact. You ask me why we gave that explanation. Okay, because the big rock, we don't have the vibration, but we have the vibrations to detect the huge structure. And we have detected the things very clear. That's the answer. It is obvious that this work, we have to continue to do this work. So we have to continue to scan the Kaffir pyramid. And so I am sure that we will find results that show us also the Belzene Chalde. You got to bring the Grand Sasso improved methodology and do it again. We need it. Yes, this flipo, this is critical because again, to say that the energy and the micro vibrations are absorbed in bedrock 15 meters deep, the deeper you go, the more bedrock there is and the more bedrock there is to prevent these vibrations from being detected. So it's a big issue. And this is the biggest objection that's been proposed in the community. Is this bedrock excavated chamber? There is also another thing that I have to explain you. Why there are things that are very visible and things that are difficult to be detected. It is a question of measurements. Sometimes things are invisible. Sometimes things are very visible, are very bright. We found that if things are anchored on the surface of the earth, so they start from the surface, like the pyramid, like that, like we see it very, very clear. Because the vanishing waves are very energetically on the boundary, so on the surface of the earth. In that case, the shafts are directly connected to the surface of the earth. So why the surface vibrates? We can detect the vibrations. In that case, the Belzoni is something that is not directly connected. I would say it's there. Yes. So we need to scan it more and more. Have you tried doing these scans on any other limestone bedrocks? Yes, we have the shafts. The Osiris shafts. The shafts, but also the vertical shafts. How deep are those? So we don't know how deep they go. He shows that they're going down hundreds of meters. According to the scans. And those are anchored on the surface of the earth, so we can see it. Yes, so the opening of the shaft is actually on the surface. So you can look down directly into the shaft and see that it goes down into the bedrock. So that reminded me of a good point. So another thing we need is control samples. So for example, you provided really good proof of concept in the scanning of the tunnels and the physics laboratory. Those are fantastic. Another thing that we don't have in the studies are control samples. So for example, I have mines. No, no, no. So scan a structure just like a hill where there is nothing there. Oh, okay. To show us a control sample comparison. Oh, you can do it. Yes. Yeah. So that people can see. So this hill, we're going to scan the hill and show what is inside of a hill where we know there's nothing inside and we know there's no big vertical. So this has been another big criticism is that there's no control sample comparison. We will do it. Yes, we can do it. So this is also important in a scientific study. You always want to have a control sample so that you can compare the control sample to the test sample. Can I just ask what, because this touches on what you're asking. In the context, these commercial contexts where you're under NDA, you don't need to talk about any of the specifics, but I would just ask you how many instances are there of these? Because it's not a perfect control like Jeff is sort of describing here, but it is somewhat of a control where you're looking for like minerals and other things and we can kind of pattern match like regular land versus these megalithic archaeological sites. So do you know like how many times have you done this roughly? What? If you had to estimate just the method. Scanning like on anything like is it between 100 and 1000, between 1000 and 10,000? How many sites? Yeah, how many different sites? Yeah, that's a better question. Not a lot, about 10. About 10. Okay, got it. There's sufficient to show things where are present, let's say mines, so tunnels inside tunnels. And we're both assuming things that are more controlled where nothing is present. And we're, so you have difference. Yeah, and we're assuming you've never seen anything like this, anything like these column like 20 meter, you know, diameter are present because you see signatures that are devastating. You see those columns. What are those? There are other times where they've missed structures that are more suspended and not tied to the foundational bedrock of the earth. Are there other examples of that? Yes, yes, yes, I have it. I have those kind of, yes. It's exciting. The experience that's made, that's if these things are incorrect on the surface of the earth is better. Yeah, yeah, no, it's better. I mean, this is exciting because it's, you know, the way I net out is like, you have, you got a lot of work to do, you know, but I don't think, I don't think anything's conclusive in either direction. I think you got to just keep going. It's something new. Is it something? Yeah, that's kind of my conclusion. Yeah. So all the questions and thank you for your question. Of course, yeah. I care about this, Filippo. This is important. I try to give you the best answer. Yeah. So in the position that I am now, I mean, I am a bit tired because of the jet lag. No, I understandably. And maybe this last issue, this is an issue that of the Belzoni. I am thinking always of the Belzoni. Yes. We will solve it. We will solve it. So it has to be investigated. Yeah. We solve also this issue. So the issue is why we are not watching the Belzoni at the moment. What you read is the best answer that we can give you. Right. Right. Yeah. But we, I will ensure you, I assure you that more scans will be done on the kafre in order to find something to detect Belzoni. Okay. So I know you have a big day tomorrow. And I'll wrap this up quickly just so we can get through this. And I know, you know, we both traveled yesterday and I'll just kind of cover this briefly. So we're talking about Luis Alvarez. Yep. I see that. Yeah. Just one thing about the vertical shafts. Yes. The vertical shafts are very important. I don't know why nobody went there to excavate, to excavate to clean. I'm sorry. The bedrock shafts. Yeah. Why? So there's also no good archaeological explanation for what those shafts are for. From the pharaonic burial perspective, archaeology and Egyptology does not have a good explanation for those vertical bedrock shafts adjacent to the causeways. I think we need to stay tuned. Some of them are burials where they've found smaller ones and they've found bodies down inside of these because there have been a plethora of burials discovered on the Giza Plateau. Not in the pyramids, but in structures adjacent to the pyramid structures. So they have found intrusive burials in some of these shafts, but there's not a good consensus for why these things are there. They can. So they've never excavated. They could made it after the original construction. Sure. That's another question is, which came first? And are those bedrock shafts an original part or are they part of the dynastic era construction? So that's always a problem when looking at the layers of building and construction in Egypt. You observed from the internal those shafts and you, I think that you believe me, that are made with squared constructions, one on each other, like that, that goes down. Going down into the bedrock. Yes. And I tell you that for me, the shafts are waterproof. It means that the water that is the water level, if you can see the water level, that is outside the shafts, the water is not able to go inside the shafts. Yeah. So if we clean the shafts, we always find air, not water. Also, we go below a lot. Okay. I don't know if you agree with my idea. Yes, because that also fits with my hypothesis on the function of those systems. Yes. So that would get us into another hour-long discussion on, so you and I should sit down and talk about the function of everything sometime. And so the project proposal that we are submitting, we are thinking to submit these weeks, we are involving the University of Ferrara, we are involving other academic organization. I am out of this project because it's better that I will remain out. And our intention is to use robots, not humans, because it's dangerous to go there, to use robots and clean the shafts. Yeah. I don't know. They should do that anyway, because of all the trash. Let's say we can go below 1 to 5 meters a day. Okay. We just begin to work and every day we go. Yeah, absolutely. So this next thing, I mentioned that there was a muon scanning of the central pyramid. Louis Alvarez, I knew I recognized the name, so he was a part of this. They scanned the Belzoni chamber and the area above the Belzoni chamber. They didn't find anything. So they scanned approximately 19% of the total volume in an area here that was a cone, half angle of 35 degrees from the vertical. So is this cone that they scanned above the Belzoni chamber and they didn't find anything. These are also supposedly located directly above the Belzoni chamber. And we've already kind of had a back and forth discussion about which is the most viable detection method, muon scanning or SAR scanning. Muon scanning says there's nothing. SAR is now detecting something. So again, we don't have to get into a labor discussion about who's right and who's wrong. No, it's better that they work together. Maybe in this case, the old version of muon, because that's a paper. From the 70s. Yeah. The 70s. Yeah. Maybe in that, and I am not criticizing muons because they are fantastic. Maybe in that time, they are detecting nothing on a 35% of aperture. Correct. Do you have an explanation though for why they didn't detect anything above the Belzoni chamber? And you I tell you why. I tell you why. Because the S now we know that the muon scanning are detecting things that is the sum of everything you are watching on the top is the sum like that. And so it is it is it is difficult for me to to see things facilities when you are watching the sum of everything you saw. 50 years later, that paper. So now the modern the modern muon detect us. They are it is highly probability that they are saying that there is a big void on the grand gallery, which is parallel. But in my best opinion, are watching the top and the bottom and the roof, the roof and the and the floor of the big gallery of the grand gallery. Yeah, like that. Like that. Look, they're watching this and that. It means that the technique fails sometimes. And it failed. Maybe it failed also 50 years ago in the in the period of when the paper was was written. Using old detectors. Who knows? There is something that happened and they are detecting nothing. Yeah. And I don't know that any recent muon scanning has been done inside the central pyramid. So they need to go back and do it again. Yeah, they have to they have to do it again. Why do why do they do they why they didn't install detectors inside the Belzoni? Right. Right. No. Yeah. It's a good question. So so just kind of a final note that was that was the end of my questions. Yes. For the SAR project and Filippo, I think you did a really, really good job today. Thank you. In answering to the best of your ability. That I could. Absolutely. Yeah. Sure. Agreed. So the final note here is just a mention of these hydrothermal veins. And iron ore deposits. So here I'm standing in the middle. Look how nice this photo. Look how nice it is. Oh, thank you. There you can you can find the floor of the of the Giza plateau where the pyramids are on. Yes. So this is bedrock here. Yeah. This is limestone paving. This this part here is manmade. It's manmade. This part here. Yeah. This is bedrock limestone bedrock that's permeated with iron ore deposits, metal ore minerals, which is directly applicable to the utilization of your technology for finding metal ore mineral deposits. So this is this is where these two things have a synergy that I think we need to look at further. So here I'm down inside of one of these quote unquote boat pits. And this is an image of a tube, a tube, a metal metal tube. Metal tube. Correct. It's an it's an it's an iron. I saw it is a metal tube. It's an iron ore vein. Yeah. So these are you've never seen this before. That's wild. So this is about a foot and a half long. And a foot deep. And it's a tube of iron ore. Cool. And these veins run all through the Giza plateau. They are hydrothermal metal ore mineral deposits that are embedded in the limestone bedrock of the Giza plateau. So these are the results of hydrothermal vent systems. Sea floor hydrothermal vents that push these metal minerals up from the earth and then they deposit them on the surface and inside the layers of the bedrock. That's how these things form. So here in red, I have depicted these vertical bedrock shafts adjacent to the causeway and the interconnecting transverse shafts. So you could actually look down in this, you know, about 20 meters down and you can see the transverse connecting shafts that aren't that deep. Here we have what Filippo's team is showing, which could be the remnants of some of these hydrothermal mineral vents, these hydrothermal vents coming out from the bedrock with the magma chamber. So again, there's magma down here, which could be these cubic type formations, huge geological formations that are known to go down kilometers into the bedrock. So what do you think about that theory? It is a theory. I accept it. Absolutely. Like I accept very well the theory of Christopher Dunn and the theory of Geoffrey. We have to collaborate all and see effectively what there is and what is the effective purpose of the Giza Plateau. Exactly. That it can be not only mine or yours or also the sum of multiple purposes. Sure. You know? Yeah. Something like that. And I think that understanding the impetus for choosing Giza is critical in understanding the overall function of the Giza Plateau because we have hydrothermal vents. We have metal or mineral deposits. And in this paper, they've also shown that there is a karst cave and tunnel system that is the source of hydrogen sulfide gas coming up from the Giza Plateau. So there's caves and tunnels all throughout the Giza Plateau, natural, that you can also see produce these vertical features located directly below the Giza Plateau. And my hypothesis for the function of the Great Pyramid is that the hydrogen sulfide gas coming from this subterranean karst cave and tunnel system is the initial reactant in the chemical manufacturing sequence within the Great Pyramid. So they picked the Giza Plateau specifically because of all of these features in the bedrock, the metal, the hydrothermal vents, all of it works in conjunction with the system above ground. So there is absolutely something below the Giza Plateau located directly below the pyramids. What would you do with the hydrogen sulfide? Convert it into sulfuric acid. And what would you do with the sulfuric acid? Sulfuric acid can be used for fertilizer applications, but also specifically for mining and metallurgy. Got it. Because we have a huge supply of metal ore directly on the Giza Plateau. So agriculture and mining and metallurgy. Interesting. Also gold mining, right? So the samples of the iron ore deposits on the Giza Plateau also contain gold, silver, electrum, precious metals, rare earth elements, everything that you could think of. We'll talk about it. Love it. I have all the sample analysis data. This is the perfect cliffhanger to end on. And also there is also electricity inside this. So in the veins, we also found fulgorites, fossilized lightning. In these iron ore veins, we have samples that contain fulgorites, which is evidence of high voltage electric current distribution through these iron veins. We'll get into it tomorrow. Oh, wow. Okay. Well, what a cliffhanger. I think we have to do another. Yeah, we do seriously. But this has been amazing. Jeffrey, really appreciate your question. My pleasure. You asked just really detailed first principles, questions, but that were very respectful. And I think this was just this beautiful exploration. And Filippo, I can't say enough about how just open you are to fielding these sorts of questions. A lot of people get very precious about their theories and they don't let them be questioned. Thank you for these questions. You're clearly not that. You're clearly open to updating your own hypotheses, beliefs. And I think we have a lot of action items here. I think maybe the biggest one is getting those thinly sliced, what you did with the Grand Sassow, but for the structures underneath the Copper Pyramid. But this was amazing. And I appreciate you both. Thank you. All right. Awesome.