The Evidence leading to Gantenbrink's "Door"
by
Christopher Dunn
Updated September 15, 2002
On Monday, September 16, 2002 at 8:00 PM ET, FOX television (US) will broadcast live from Egypt an exploration of the Southern Shaft in the Queen’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid. Since 1993, when robotics engineer, Rudolph Gantenbrink made his initial exploration of this 8-inch square 220 ft. long mysterious shaft, millions of Egypt watchers around the world have been waiting for the day when additional explorations would take place and a tantalizing barrier to our past would be penetrated.
This is written as a follow up to a question posed by Don Holeman, biochemical engineer, co-moderator and designer of the Hall of Ma’at message board. In ancient Egypt, the Hall of Ma’at was where honesty and truth was weighed. Symbolically, the Hall of Ma’at depicts a scale with one side of the scale having a feather and the other a man’s heart. In principle, we die with heavy hearts only when we do not conduct ourselves throughout our lives in accordance with truth, integrity and honor. The Hall of Ma’at message board was created to weigh the evidence for alternate history. I am please to put forward my evidence in the Hall of Ma’at so that it may be weighed in an atmosphere of objectivity and honesty. I don’t expect universal agreement, but at least I will go on record for those who have not read my book and wonder how many marbles I have left for making such a bold prediction.
Mr. Holeman asks: [my clarification in brackets, for the benefit of new readers.]
“I’ve seen the thread at gh [the Graham Hancock message board] in which gizapyramid.com [Dr. John DeSalvo’s association website of which I am a member] is mentioned and it reminded me to inquire about the proposition apparently forwarded in your book (which I have not read) and illustrated here http://www.gizapower.com/html/sampleimages/the%20giza%20power%20plant.gif that the QC [Queen’s Chamber] of the GP [Great Pyramid] was at some point a vat full of hydrochloric acid.
“I wonder if you would elaborate on how you think the AE [ancient Egyptians] made hydrochloric acid in the first place and secondly how you think it could exist in a limestone chamber for more than a few minutes without turning the chamber to gasseous CO2 [carbon dioxide] and road salt?”
As a preamble to my response to the question, I would like to take out of my book and place here statements that I believe are pertinent and should weigh in on any discussions of my work.
In ‘The Giza Power Plant’ page xix paragraph 3, I state:
“I began to see the drawings of the Great Pyramid, with its numerous chambers and passageways positioned with such deliberate accuracy, as the schematics of a very large machine. I became convinced that it could not be anything else, and I set about trying to understand how this machine operated. The effort could be considered similar to what is known as the process of reverse engineering. To be successful at this, I knew that I had to find an answer for every single detail found within the Great Pyramid. I could not ignore any evidence or twist it in any way. I was determined to prepare a report that was accurate and as honest as I was capable of making it.”
On page123 paragraph 2, I state:
“In proposing my theory that the Great pyramid is a power plant, I am not adamantly adhering to any one proposition. The possibilities may be numerous.”
On page 255 paragraph 2, I state:
“My theory is that the Great Pyramid was the ancient Egyptians’ power plant. However radical the idea may seem, it is, in my mind, supported by hard archaeological evidence. The artifacts reveal that the ancient Egyptians used advanced machining methods, which supports the deduction that their civilization, and perhaps others, was technologically advanced. Nevertheless, even with the powerful evidence I have presented throughout this book, and the growing support for such ideas, there is still a mountain of evidence – or lack of it – that prevents this theory’s total acceptance. I acknowledge this truth, and I am open to revising my power plant theory if another theory presents itself to explain all the anomalies in the ancient artifacts and pyramids I have examined to build my own case.”
Science and engineering work hand in hand when developing technology. To propose a new and radical approach to generating energy that was fully functional, right out-of-the-box working perfectly correct, would have been a miracle. So I don’t completely, utterly and dogmatically adhere to every aspect of my hypothesis to the exception of reasonable arguments to the contrary. Having said that, I have not been persuaded, so far, to believe that I am on the wrong track, or that the pyramids were designed and built to function as tombs or funerary monuments. I am always aware, however, that evidence may turn up at any time to change my mind. The 21st century exploration of the Southern Shaft and what may be found on the other side of Gantenbrink’s “door” may be an event that either supports my hypothesis or shatters it completely.
I am one of several theorists who have published ideas on what will be discovered “beyond the door.” To my knowledge, I am the only theorist who uses the Great Pyramid’s entire inner design to support my prediction. I discussed this subject with a knowledgeable and staunch believer of the tomb theory on the Ma’at message board, and he insisted that it doesn’t matter what may be found behind the “door”, unless it is an alien spaceship, it will support the tomb theory. Even a vertical shaft that goes down into the bedrock would be incorporated into the tomb theory because, “If the Pharaoh wanted a vertical shaft, he could have one.” His reason was that Egyptology is not a hard science and does not need to conform to the same standard.
Enlightened though I am with that discussion I did not learn anything that would change my mind regarding the analysis of the Great Pyramid. The evidence of science and technology in its construction is quite obvious to those who are schooled and experienced in construction and industrial arts. The stones themselves reach across the centuries and the story they tell is, unlike the translation of ancient text or art, unambiguous.
As my stated mission in analyzing the Great Pyramid was to leave no detail without an explanation, the first misunderstanding I would like to clear up regarding Don Holeman’s question is that I did not propose that the Queen’s Chamber was a vat filled with hydrochloric acid. However, Don brings up a good point when he mentioned the chamber turning into salt as the result of interaction between hydrochloric acid and the calcium carbonate (limestone) composition of the chamber. This chamber is the only chamber that was noted to have a build up of salt on the walls and ceiling. It is reported to have been built up to about an inch thick in places. In ‘The Giza Power Plant’ I present the results given in 1978 by the Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology who did a chemical analysis of this salt. They found it to be a mixture of calcium carbonate (limestone), sodium chloride (halite or salt), and calcium sulfate (gypsum, also known as plaster of paris). Patrick Flanagan, Ph.D, collected the sample and certified its origin.
While it has been suggested that this build up of salt was the result of the great flood, there would need to be many great floods to deposit salt on the walls to such a thickness. Moreover, similar deposits are not found in other areas of the pyramids. There was some in the horizontal passage and the lower parts of the Grand Gallery. There is also some in the Subterranean Pit.
In the Giza power plant theory, every architectural element in the Great Pyramid is integrally linked. Some features can be analyzed separately, but for the most part, the Queen’s Chamber, King’s Chamber and the Grand Gallery are the principle features that work together in unison and they cannot be separated from each other when considering a piece of evidence.
The features found in the King’s Chamber led me to propose the use of hydrochloric acid in the Queen’s Chamber. The features in the Grand Gallery led me to understand the function of the King’s Chamber. The features in the Queen’s Chamber indicate that a chemical reaction was taking place there. The hypothesis rises or falls on the evidence found in these areas. For the theory to hold together, evidence that is discovered in the future has to support it. Some evidence, such as what will be found behind Gantenbrink’s “door”, can be predicted by what is found in the chamber and the Southern Shaft. The power plant will be either vindicated or will be severely challenged or even dismissed based on what the future reveals.
I am fully prepared to admit that I am wrong if a search of the Southern shaft does not reveal another shaft, or shafts, that will be redirected and eventually lead to a point underneath the pyramid. I also predicted in my book that on the backside of the “door” the copper fittings would have connections or would continue away from the “door” and to a point underneath the Great Pyramid.
My illustration of what may be behind Gantenbrink’s “door” gives a general idea of what the power plant theory predicts will be found.
The Pyramid Robot has measured the thickness of the so-called “door”. The robot equipped with an ultrasonic measuring device has climbed the shaft and its feedback indicated that the limestone was 3-inches thick. The above illustration was created in 1998. Scaling the measurement of the limestone “door” partition with the dimension of the shaft, my illustration predicted that the “door” would be 3.64 inches thick. The accurace of the ultrasonic measurement would depend on the calibration of the equipment, which is tested against a piece of similar material with similar thickness.
There have been arguments that the Queen’s Chamber shafts do not hold water. Mr. Gantenbrink believes that it is nonsense to propose such an idea. He has good reason to question this idea. He is in possession of videotape taken within the shaft that examined every inch of its length. Some of that video I have seen and there are noticeable gaps between some of the blocks. Presumably caused by a shifting of the structure at some point in prehistory.
Before responding to Mr. Gantenbrink’s retort, allow me to explain my state-of-mind when I examined the evidence before he made his landmark exploration and discoveries. This state-of-mind compelled me to proffer my hypothesis.
As my book describes in great detail, features in the King’s Chamber dictate the creation of hydrogen in the Queen’s Chamber. I had considered several gasses while researching my book, but hydrogen was the only gas that fit. It’s wavelength and frequency were in “tune” with the rest of the pyramid.
Supporting the idea that a chemical reaction took place in the Queen’s Chamber, (and before the discovery of Gantenbrink’s “door”) my hypothesis relied on the evidence discovered in the chamber by early explorers as follows:
Drop in Horizontal Passage floor level before it goes into the Queen’s Chamber. This would allow chemicals to pool inside the chamber and “wick” up the evaporation tower.
Corbeled niche in wall of the Queen’s Chamber. This may have been a means to key the evaporation tower into the structure.
Shafts leading to the Queen’s Chamber but not quite connected to it. These could have been supply shafts for chemicals needed in the reaction. The shafts would allow chemicals to enter the chamber and prevent evolving gases from escaping.
Stone ball, grapnel hook, and cedar like wood. The wood and hook assembly could have served as a floating contact to signal the need for more chemical. The stone ball may have been used to prevent erosion of the “left” as the channel filled with fluid. (I am not adverse to the idea that these items were introduced at a later time, but offer this as a reason for their presence assuming they are contemporaneous with the building.)
Flakes of gypsum exuding from joints in shafts. This substance probably resulted from the chemical reacting with limestone (suggesting the use of hydrochloric acid).
Buildup of salt crystals on the walls and ceiling of the Queen’s Chamber, Horizontal Passage, and lower level of Grand Gallery. This buildup was likely the result of gaseous vapor passing over the limestone, reacting with the calcium in the limestone, and giving up water and impurities. This was a by-product from the drying of the gas.
Well Shaft bored from the juncture of the Grand Gallery and the Horizontal Passage down to the Grotto. This was probably either a waste removal shaft or an overflow shaft.
Large granite block at the bottom of the Well Shaft at the level of the Grotto. Most likely this was put into place to catch the chemical overflow, thereby preventing erosion of the limestone.
The strongest argument to support the use of a fluid in the shafts is that they were not connected with the chamber. They terminated just five-inches away from the inside wall. At the time I was researching this part of the book, I was living in Indiana, which is famous for its limestone quarries. I had bought some property out in the country and was putting in a septic system. This led to an in depth discussion with a civil engineer about the standards and calculations used when putting in a septic system and seep field. I was particularly fascinated when a percolation test was run on my property. It was a simple test that involved time and volume of liquid. A hole is dug, water is poured into it and time is taken for the water to disappear from the hole.
I asked the civil engineer if he had ever performed a percolation test in the limestone bedrock. He said yes and that the principle is still the same. The square footage required for a septic system is calculated from the percolation results, whether the hole is dug into limestone, clay or regular soil. From my discussions with him, I learned that air would not pass through that five-inch plate of limestone that separated the Queen’s Chamber from the Shafts, but a liquid would. I also learned that the percolation rate would be precise as long as the head pressure, which is determined by the weight of the column of liquid, remained the same.
Because other evidence in the Great Pyramid suggested hydrogen as a gas, I consulted with a chemical engineer to find out what chemicals, when brought together, would produce hydrogen gas. I was told that diluted hydrochloric acid coming in from one shaft and hydrated zinc feeding in from the other when combined would produced hydrogen. Joe Drejewski, my consultant, also affirmed that the boiling off of hydrogen when the chemicals mixed would create salts on the limestone (calcium carbonate) walls and ceiling of the chamber.
The shafts inside the Queen’s Chamber were not discovered until 1872. In 1993 I was glued to the television while Upuaut II climbed the Southern Shaft. I had heard many rumors before then about what had been found. Most of them were wrong. As I watched this exploration, though, I believed I was seeing real evidence of the action that a dilute hydrochloric acid solution would have on limestone.
The lower parts of the shaft were eaten up by erosion. As Gantenbrink’s robot traveled through the shaft it was as though it was traveling through a cave. Early explorers noted that gypsum was leaching from the walls and oozing from the joints.
For an example of what the previous paragraph describes, please use the links within the text. For Mr. Gantenbrink’s report, go to Gantenbrink’s website.
Further up the shafts, other evidence came into view of a section of the floor that had been eaten away. As you can see in the following link, the erosion happened after the shaft was constructed because it extends beneath the block that forms the side walls and ceiling. The rounded irregular undercut is clearly not manufactured and seem to have been produced by eroding elements after the shaft had been constructed.
Upuaut’s camera also reveals what appears to be erosion patterns in the wall. Considering the camera angle and direction, the erosion pattern on the wall appear to be “tide marks”. As though the surface of a fluid had left a horizontal impression at certain locations along the wall.
Please see “tide marks here and here.
Finally, Upuaut came to the infamous “door” with its copper fittings. Again we have clear signs of erosion on the copper. The bottom of the left fitting had broken off. This, in my mind, is significant. Without any previous intrusion from mice or man, this section had broken away from the parent copper material.
You will notice, also, that the copper is tapered from the upper part down to its tip. Was it intentionally manufactured this way? Or is this is another sign of erosion? Considering that the left fitting had broken away, it would appear that the copper was subject to some sort of action, whether chemical or mechanical, after they were installed. Along with the signs of erosion in the lower parts of the shaft, the tapering of the copper is crucial to understanding what happened.
In The Giza Power Plant, I propose that these copper fittings were part of an electrical circuit which closed when the shaft was full of chemical. As long as the circuit was closed, the necessary head pressure, assuring a consistent and predictably flow into the Queen’s Chamber, would be maintained. When the level dropped below the level of the copper electrodes, the circuit opened and a signal was transmitted so that more chemicals would be delivered to the shaft.
The action of the dilute hydrochloric acid eroded the copper over time. Because the upper part of the copper was covered with chemical for a shorter period of time than the lower part, as the fluid was always falling, the lower part of the copper was eroded more that the upper part. This resulted in a taper of the copper and the ultimate failure of the left electrode.
Gantenbrik’s “door”Because the feed into the Queen’s Chamber would not have been a great torrent or even what a normal faucet would produce, replenishing the shaft with fluid would not require a large orifice. The notched corner as seen in the bottom right corner of the block would be all that was needed to maintain the fluid level.
With respect to Mr. Gantenbrink’s assertion that the shafts do not hold water, I respectfully suggest that they were not intended to hold water but to tranfer a fluid from one point to another. Similarly today, we use conduits that are not water tight to convey water from one point to another. Sewers and field tile come to mind. It is noted, also, that gaps in the lower limestone blocks may be problematic. However, it should be noted that the shaft is only 8-inches square and on a television screen, traveling through this space looks the same as traveling through the 42 inch square Ascending Passage. They both fill the screen, consequently perspectives within the confines of this small shaft can be somewhat exaggerated. Moreover, so far there is no knowledge of how the masonry that surrounds the shafts is constructed, or what sealing methods may have been employed underneath the shaft blocks. Nonetheless, the evidence of an erosion causing fluid occupying these shafts at some time in history is forceful enough to allow the speculation that either a water tight seal was not necessary or that one exists that has not yet been discovered.
Why the lower parts of the shaft were eroded more than the upper parts may be explained by evaporation of the water leaving a stronger concentration of hydrochloric acid as the level gradually fell. These ideas are speculative and are offered in the spirit of inquiry into anomalistic features that heretofore have not been explained.
The foregoing explains the reasoning behind my prediction of what will be found on the other side of Gantenbrink’s ‘door’. The prediction has been in my book since 1998 and on this website since 2000. Science needs to be verifiable and predictable. After the dust settles on the Pyramid Rover following its peek beyond the “door,” in whose corner will the weight of evidence rest………. Stay tuned.