mk.ru
Massive Underground Complex Discovered Beneath Giza Sphinx
Italian researchers claim to have found a massive shaft leading to the Sphinx and two deep chambers beneath it using Doppler tomography, suggesting a vast underground city predating the dynastic era and potentially rewriting ancient Egyptian history.
- How do the researchers' interpretations of ancient Egyptian texts, specifically the "Book of the Dead," support their hypothesis of a lost city beneath the Giza plateau?
- The researchers' findings, based on Doppler tomography, reveal structures under the Sphinx mirroring those found beneath the pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure. This similarity suggests a unified architectural design predating the dynastic era, potentially dating back to 36,400 BCE, according to the researchers.
- What evidence supports the claim of a vast, previously unknown underground complex beneath the Giza plateau, and what are the immediate implications for our understanding of ancient Egyptian history?
- Italian researchers claim to have discovered a massive vertical shaft leading to the Sphinx and two chambers beneath it, using advanced radar technology. These findings, presented at the recent Space Summit, suggest a vast underground complex potentially indicating an extensive subterranean city under the Giza plateau.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of confirming the existence of this extensive underground structure, and what challenges might researchers face in gaining the necessary permissions and conducting excavations?
- The discovery of potential chambers exceeding 4000 feet deep could link to the legendary Hall of Records, although no proof currently exists. The researchers hypothesize that a cataclysmic event, perhaps an asteroid impact 12,000 years ago, destroyed a highly advanced civilization, leaving the pyramids as the only surviving megastructure. They now seek permission to excavate.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately present the researchers' claims as potentially revolutionary, creating a strong framing bias. The article uses language that emphasizes the extraordinary nature of the findings and downplays the skepticism of the majority of archaeologists. The sequencing of information, presenting the researchers' claims first and foremost, reinforces this bias.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotive language to describe the researchers' findings, such as "extraordinary," "colossal," and "potentially rewriting history." This loaded language influences the reader's perception of the claims. More neutral alternatives could include phrases like "significant," "large," and "potentially altering our understanding.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the claims of the Italian researchers, giving less weight to the skepticism of most archaeologists. It omits details about the methodology's limitations and potential flaws, and doesn't cite specific criticisms from the archaeological community. The lack of counterpoints from established experts creates a potential bias by omission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as either the researchers' extraordinary claims are true, completely rewriting history, or the established understanding of ancient Egypt is correct. It ignores the possibility of alternative, less dramatic explanations for the findings.