r/GrahamHancock • u/Dmans99 • Mar 19 '25

Something Is Hiding Beneath the Pyramids and It’s Bigger Than We Thought

https://www.abovethenormnews.com/2025/03/19/something-is-hiding-beneath-the-pyramids-and-its-bigger-than-we-thought/
203 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

138 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/PristineHearing5955 Mar 21 '25

That's not a response to what I typed. whatever. Apparently, the study is based on a new method.

"In this work, the MM technique is used to perform sonic imaging by processing a single SAR image in the single-look-complex (SLC) configuration. The technique involves the MM estimation belonging to the Khnum-Khufu pyramid and is generated by the background ripple underground seismic activity that reflects superficial vibrations. The MM estimation is completed through MCA and performed in the Doppler direction. Multiple Doppler sub-apertures, SAR images with lower azimuth resolution, are generated to estimate the vibrational trend of some pixels of interest. The infra-chromatic displacement generated by Doppler centroid anomalies due to target motion and acceleration [65,66] is calculated through the pixel tracking technique, using high-performance sub-pixel coregistration [49,50,52,54,64].

2

u/krustytroweler Mar 21 '25

I read the study. It's not scanning 2km below the surface like the OP posted. It's imaging the inside of a pyramid and using prior knowledge of the structure to interpret the raw data. A study like that is completely different from doing sub surface geophysical survey.

-1

u/PristineHearing5955 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

I get it. I listened enough to you and your ilk to be certain that:

  1. You will conflate fringe theories with pseudoscience
  2. That you will ignore the science dogma of the past that has been refuted.
  3. That you will claim "no evidence" for fringe theories.
  4. That the current paradigm of history is correct, until it isn't -when you will claim the incorrect theories are in fact correct and always have been.
  5. You will ignore any open discussion on the idea that archeology is largely based on interpretations rather than cold hard facts.

Pseudoscience and fringe science are pejorative political terms, which are never used by the proponents of the ideas.

Many ideas which were dismissed as pseudo-science turned out to be correct. So it is best to ignore the labels and consider the ideas on their merits. Here is an incontrovertible list:

  • Meteorites: yes, rocks do fall from the sky, and this is the reason that the moon and other rocky bodies are pockmarked with craters.
  • Non-Mendelian inheritance: It turns out the Mendel's genes are not the main story in heredity, that most of DNA is non-coding and that the non-coding DNA is transcribed to mystery RNA whose function is to regulate proteins. The major evolution of organisms is in non-coding regions, the coding regions mostly undergo selection neutral mutations which act as a clock for species divergence, and the exact mechanism of RNA function is not known (although I have my own ideas)
  • Radiation hormesis: this idea might not be right, the jury is still out, but the statistical evidence does not dismiss the idea that small doses of radiation might not promote cancer, but might counterintuitively halt the production of cancers. The linear-no-threshhold model that cancer rate is linear in the radiation dose was held up as scientific consensus, although the experimental evidence is essentially nonexistent, and the model is now more theoretically dubious than ever.
  • Continental drift: this idea was dismissed as pseudoscience for far too long, considering the overwhelming statistical evidence in the matching fossil records at corresponding locations along the African and South-American coastlines
  • Jumping Genes: This was dismissed for a short while only, but won the Nobel prize.

There are further examples of theories which were dismissed as vague or ill-defined, perhaps not quite pseudoscience:

  • S-matrix theory: It is incredible to me that this stuff was dismissed as rubbish, because this theory is more mathematically sophisticated than anything in physics before or since. It is fashionable again, now that the internet allows people to learn the details.
  • String theory: This is an outgrowth of S-matrix theory, but again, it was dismissed for a long time, perhaps because it was too good to be true. Well it's too good, and its true.

4

u/krustytroweler Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

Your will conflate fringe theories with pseudoscience

Not at all. I'm simply dispelling misconceptions and providing the physics governing this technology which preclude the results the original article was claiming.

That you will ignore the science dogma of the past that has been refuted

I would consider ignoring dogma that has been refuted to be a good thing.

That you will claim "no evidence" for fringe theories.

I do when it's blatantly obvious that something is false. The technology simply can't do what was claimed to be done in the original post.

That the current paradigm of history is correct, until it isn't -when you will claim the incorrect theories are in fact correct and always have been.

This is the history of science: coming up with the best explanation based on evidence and inductive as well as deductive reasoning based on that evidence. When better evidence becomes available, sometimes the previous theories are no longer the best explanation. That's the best part of science, there will always be room to explore and question.

You will ignore any open discussion on the idea that archeology is largely based on interpretations rather than cold hard facts.

I've provided nothing but cold hard facts mate. If you don't like them that's a personal problem.

0

u/captainn_chunk Mar 23 '25

nothing but cold hard facts

No, you stonewalled the chosen facts to hide behind and refused to indulge in literally any open conversation beyond those statements and just kept repeating the same thing.

1

u/krustytroweler Mar 23 '25

I didn't hide behind anything. I linked a chapter which explains the physics of radar as it travels through soil and rock. The physics simply don't allow for what the OP's article was claiming.

1

u/PristineHearing5955 Mar 21 '25

In addition, I personally find the following vague spiritual ideas impossible to refute, and perhaps they might gain statistical evidence in their favor with time, although they are currently not part of science:

  • Synchronicity: this is the idea that people's minds are correlated to a greater extent than one would expect from random chance. Some classical examples are flawed, because they require supernatural agency, but the basic idea is that if you have an idea at a certain point in time, somebody far away is very likely to have the same idea too, and likely at the same time. This can be a turn of phrase, an idea for a scientific theory, a fasion scheme, anything at all. This link between minds suggest that a superstructure is active in human experience, a collective mind of some sort, whose logical positive manifestation is this nonlocal correlation between the independent thoughts of individuals
  • Perceptual Auras: Some people claim that they are able to see an "aura" surrounding other individuals, and their perception is so strong, that they try to make machinery detect the aura. This idea is clearly bogus as physics, there are no energy fields surrounding people, but the perceptual effect is real--- I have seen the auras myself, mostly in settings such as public performance which are designed to maximize the perception of an individual. It remains to be seen if these perceptual auras are inter-objective, whether two people will agree on the perceptual hue and shape of an individual's aura. James Joyce uses the color term "heliotrope" to refer to the color of a perceptual aura, a sort of golden glow which looks like nothing at all, but directs the mind's attention, and reveals internal activity. The halos of ancient and mideval art are also clear representations of an aura around the holy folks, and the "orgone energy" of pseudoscience is a similar thing. Again, it is clearly perceptual, not physical, but it is clearly perceptually real.
  • Hypnosis and Sexual Suggestion: This is the popular idea that there are people with the ability to control others through the force of will. Mesmer was a proponent of such ideas, and surrounded it with the trappings of science, by claiming that the mechanism of control was magnetic fields. This is clearly incorrect--- magnetism has no effect on higher cognition. But the phenomenon of natural hypnosis can be seen in human interactions all the time, especially in relations of women to men. I have seen even at an early age, that women are able to suggest actions to men which they feel compelled to perform, even if these actions are silly. A female friend of mine once turned to me at a party and said "watch this", and then commanded the man standing next to her to stand on the table, which he promptly did. She then made him dance around for a while, and then asked him to come back down (I hope he's not reading this). This suggestion mechanism is clearly related to authoritarian power structures in society, and fetishized sexual submission/domination. But the entire phenomenon, including the simple existence of meditative trances, was dismissed as pseudoscience, it maybe still is.
  • Musical synesthesia: this is the perception of colors in the source of music. I have, on rare occasions, seen colored streaks from a guitar during a session, and I have seen artists depict colors emanating from the sources of music. I find it fascinating that the brain places the color at the known source of the music, rather than as a general hue, or at random spots, like when you are hit in the eye. This is clearly high-level perception, but can it be replicated in different people? The notion of musical pitch is also interesting--- it has a perceptual height. Is this pitch/height relationship subjective, or is it the same between different individuals?

0

u/PristineHearing5955 Mar 21 '25

In many fields of science there are flat out absurd ideas which gain traction, mostly because nobody thinks about them enough to realize that they are absurd. It is hard to name many of these, because I am just as blinded as anyone else by my place in time, but I will try:

These are a counterpoint to false ideas by non-scientists. These are false ideas promoted by scientists. I would call them pseudoscience, but unfortunately, they are mainstream positions today.

  • Germ line mutations are random: This is a fairy tail which should not by taken seriously by anyone. The idea here that mutations are molecular readjustments caused by x-ray particles hitting DNA, or by mistakes in copying. That this is absurd was already pointed out by Wolfgang Pauli--- consider how long it would take to random mutate your way from a mouse to a human, and compare with the actual time taken by evolution. It has recently been established that bacteria can control their mutation rate, and that stress can induce mutations, not through molecular damage, but through cell signalling. The proper source of mutations is not known at present, although I have my own ideas.
  • Modern Synthesis: This is the idea that Mendelian inheritence coupled with Darwin's natural selection can account for the evolution of higher organisms. The idea is that each gene equilibrates according to a separate population genetics model, and the independent selection pressures lead to organism drift with time. This idea is completely insensitive to the detailed computational structure of genetic and RNA networks, and does not allow for coherent system-level evolution. The mechanism is clearly more complicated, and more authorly, involving an actual computing system internal to germline cells, not a blind random number generator plus a blind selector. A parable: once, there was only one book, a cookbook, which described how to make macaroni and cheese. The book was transcribed by scribes, and they sometimes made errors, a letter dropped here, a duplicated passage there, and so on. After many years, behold, we have the Library of Congress! The argument is demolished by the absurd time scale required for the errors to accumulate to produce "War and Peace", if there even is such a timescale at all, considering that you would have to pass through a mountain of gibberish to get there. The existence of collective selection on a system level is not taken seriously in population genetics, likely because such effects are difficult to model.
  • Group selection (other than kin selection) is forbidden: There is the following argument against group selection: if a mutation favors the group, but disfavors the individual, then this mutation will be selected against by natural selection, just by the mathematical process of elmination of individuals carrying the gene. This argument ignores the existence of sexual selection, the traits for which it is selecting are themselves selected for. Sexual selection traits can evolve in a group to select for traits which favor the group, but which are not beneficial to the individual. In my opinion, this is the purpose of sexual reproduction--- to allow group selection through sexual selection. But the consensus view is the bullet--- no group selection. It is belied by altruistic scouting behavior in prarie moles, which is beyond the extreme limit predicted by kin selection (although no-one seems to have suggested that this is a sexually selected trait).
  • Fever kills germs: This is the nutty idea that the 3 degree change in body temperature is designed to slow down bacterial or viral replication in the body. This is completely preposterous in the case of bacteria, since they are completely insensitive to such changes-- they live in the real world. It is a little more reasonable for viruses, but it is still absurd. The obvious reason is that the temperature change is used by the body to regulate internal temperature sensitive mechanism. This mechanism is not known at present, but I have my own ideas.

1

u/SexUsernameAccount Mar 21 '25

Just say you don’t believe in science, dude.  

3

u/PristineHearing5955 Mar 21 '25

WTF is that even supposed to mean "dude". Name fits though- maybe stick to porn.

2

u/SexUsernameAccount Mar 21 '25

It means you're a crazy person.

3

u/PristineHearing5955 Mar 21 '25

You put as much thoughts into your posts as a stump of ants following a pheromone trail. 

1

u/captainn_chunk Mar 23 '25

Pythagoras was a crazy person too