EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE FLOOD AT GIZA?
When V.T. sent along the following article, I knew instantly that I would be blogging about it; it's one of those rare times when an article someone sends me gets immediately slotted into the "finals" folder for blogging. In this case, the article proposes that there has been evidence of a massive flood on the Earth at the Giza plateau, and it's been right out in the open, staring us in the face all the time. It's one of those "obvious-but-of-course!" sorts of things that one often encounters doing this sort of alternative research. In any case, here's the article:
Master Exothermic Core-Mantle Decoupling – Dzhanibekov Oscillation (ECDO) Theory
Now before we proceed with what intrigued me about this article, I must first enter it on the record that I am not endorsing the macro-theory - a "slippable mantle over an exothermic core - any more than I endorse Zechariah Sitchin's macro-theory of Nibiru that is the context for his otherwise many fascinating observations. Like Sitchin, it is not the macro-theory that grabs my attention, but rather, some of the details marshalled as evidence for the theory.
And that is where it gets very intriguing (and we'll find out why it gets intriguing in just a moment). Basically, this detail suggests that the Giza Plateau was partially under water for a prolonged period of time, and was so in its recent history, precisely because the two large pyramids (and particularly the second pyramid of Kaphre, the one some people think is the Great Pyramid) show distinctive signs of having been partially submerged for a prolonged period of time:
We propose that the unique features observed on the Khufu and, most notably, the Khafre Pyramids indicate a prolonged period of oceanic displacement, lasting between 50 and 400 years, that submerged the Giza Plateau in antiquity. This inundation stabilized at a height of
576 feet above current sea level, leaving a distinctive ocean water karst erosion band near the top of the Khafre Pyramid. The sustained and stable nature of this inundation strongly suggests that it was caused by a change in the georotational dynamics of the Earth sometime within the last fourteen millennia. This constitutes ‘dead body’ evidence, and it must be addressed. This evidence, along with its supporting predictive observations, have been neglected through a malicious scientific embargo which exploits professional buffoonery.
And to buttress this argument, the following picture is produced:
What I find so incredibly intriguing about both this picture and about the quotation is that firstly, if the author's chronology is correct, then this evidence of flood damage on Kaphre could be almost 14,000 years old, and thus, the two large pyramids would have to have been built before that, and thus are not the products of earliest dynastic Egypt: they predate Egypt, and therefore the compound - as many of us in the alternative community have argued, myself included - the compound was later occupied and "claimed" by Egypt, and a narrative concocted to integrate the compound into that history (or alternatively, the Egyptians re-occupied a compound after a cataclysm). But secondly, I not only find the interpretation of the well-known faces of the Second Pyramid (the Pyramid of Kaphre) to be compelling not only for its obvious structural suggestions of flooding, but for another "historiographical" reason: it oddly corrorborates those ancient texts that mention a faint waterline could be seen on the Great Pyramid about halfway up the structure, a comment again suggesting that moderns are not the first to notice such things.
In any case, if this new/old interpretation of the faces of the Kaphre pyramid should gain currency in the "alternative Egyptology" community gain traction (as I suspect it will), then the real question becomes one of what caused that flood? From the standpoint of ancient literature and lore, we know the answer to that already. But from the standpoint of models, we now have two contenders: the crustal displacement model, of which the linked article is an example, and the exploded-water-bearing planet model of the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern, astronomer for the naval observatory. And when we enter the exploded-planet model, we come chin-to-chin with the problems of the various models that Dr. Van Flandern proposed for exploding planets, including the one he was driven to, and very reluctant, to acknowledge: deliberate action...
... that is to say, a war.
What will be interesting to watch - as far as this hypothesis of a massive and prolonged inundation of the Giza plateau is concerned - will be to see if any underground passageways show similar evidence of having been submerged, or if, indeed, there are underground passages that do, and some that do not, show evidence of such flooding, and at what depth these passages occur. My own prediction is that, yes, the deeper and deepest layers will show such evidence, and that more shallow passages will not (thus indicating a post-inundation period of construction).
See you on the flip side...
(If you enjoyed today's blog, please share it with your friends.)
