It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The following text is the official press release by Dr. Dominique Goerlitz & Stefan Erdmann, published on March 08th, 2015, on the latest state of what has been called the "Great Pyramid Scandal".
In December 2013 Dr. Zahi Hawass, former Minister of Antiquity under the now discredited president Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, publicly accused Dominique Goerlitz and Stefan Erdmann of “stealing the famous Cartouche of the Pharaoh Khufu inside of the pyramid.” The "Khufu-Cartouche" is regarded as the Holy Grail of Egyptology since it is the “smoking gun” evidence that conclusively proves the ownership of the Great Pyramid to this 4th dynasty pharaoh.
Goerlitz and Erdmann, however, strongly denied that they touched the Khufu-Cartouche, let alone stole or damaged it. They claimed that they had official written permission to enter the Great Pyramid after hours, as well as implied permission to collect only a few milligrams of ancient paint from another inscription as well as some small amount of scratching of ‘black stains’ from the granite beams of the King’s Chamber which they wanted for later scientific testing in an accredited laboratory in Germany. The taking of samples took place under the supervision of inspectors from the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities as well as security officials. Goerlitz and Erdmann later duly returned the paint samples to the Egyptian authorities after these had been scientifically tested in Germany.
Meanwhile, to defend themselves from the malicious accusations made against them by Dr. Hawass, Goerlitz and Erdmann obtained the help from author and investigator Robert Bauval and Professor Robert Schoch of Boston University. The latter provided photographic and video evidence proving that the Khufu-Cartouche had already been damaged between 2004 and 2006 – which, most ironically, was during the tenure of Dr. Hawass as Director-General of the Giza Pyramids. Nonetheless, and in spite of the conclusive evidence provided to the Egyptian authorities by Goerlitz and Erdmann, the accusations by Dr. Hawass had already provoked a violent reaction in the world media, and unfortunately led to legal action taken by the Egyptian authorities against Goerlitz and Erdmann both in Egypt and, indirectly, in Germany. On February 17, 2015, however, the German Courts decided to close the case, and a settlement was reached with Goerlitz and Erdmann that included a minor penalty as compensation to the Egyptian authorities.
The evidence culled from the scientific tests also would explain the mystery of how huge multi-ton blocks were transported and, more intriguingly, how they were lifted and positioned by the Pyramid Builders of Giza, suggestive of a highly advanced technology and the use of iron equipment in the 3rd millennium BCE in Egypt. Goerlitz is preparing an experiment in which he is trying to demonstrate how the ancient Egyptians may have used their iron equipment (Congress in Lennestadt: August 22nd-23rd, 2015).
originally posted by: jonnywhite
I thought there was no mystery and it was all explained? I'm wondering if they're creating a fake mystery in order to introduce their theories of how wrought iron MIGHT have been used.
Was/is it a mystery or was/is it not?
originally posted by: stormcell
There are all sorts of theories of how the blocks were moved:
1. Water was used to soften sand so that the blocks could be hauled along with reduced friction.
2. The stone blocks were placed on wooden (or maybe metal sleds)
3. The stone blocks were placed inside wheels made of four quarter segments with square notches cut out.
4. The stone blocks were rolled along over wooden logs to reduce friction.
A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.
originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: admirethedistance
I would not be so sure about that...
originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Like concrete but indistinguishable from natural formed Limestone.