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.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Hawass has openly refused to date pieces of wood that were discovered in the shafts of the GP. There is wood (pieces of a rod that's become part of the Dixon Relics) that is still lodged there. The small pieces recovered by Dixon went missing in England (go figure) and then were traced to a museum in Aberdeen in 2001, but it hasn't been located yet...(go figure)
On the remaining piece that's still there Hawass had this to say:
Some suggest that carbon dating the wood would allow accurate dating of the Pyramid because wood must have been left in the shaft when the Pyramid was constructed (given that the shaft was sealed) but I contend that this is not absolute. Wood may been placed in the shaft after construction via the shaft’s exit, if one exists.
In his own words.
Why not date it anyway just to be sure? Prove his assumption right why don't he....He relies on the highly anomalous results from the dating of itty bitty pieces of wood/charcoal from the outside of the GP to promote his case, but dating wood found inside a sealed shaft is suddenly not absolute? Bogus.
From another site: Here
He (Gantenbrink) discovered a long wooden rod whose shape and general appearance seemed identical to that of the shorter piece found by the Dixons in 1872 at the bottom of this shaft. The wood could, of course, be carbon-14 dated and provide further insight as to the age of the Great Pyramid. So far the wooden rod has not been retrieved by Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Director-General of the Giza monuments, in spite of the many requests for him to do so.
Why not? What's he waiting for? What's he hiding?
As a side note: I brought this up in one of Scott Creighton's recent threads, and he said he'll look into any possible results from tests conducted on any wood taken from inside the GP. Waiting to hear back. As such I haven't been able to locate any of these results, even on Google Scholar.
Originally posted by spacevisitor
Originally posted by Harte
See if you can find out before you blame Hawass, that's all I'm saying.
Well Harte, what you saying here is fair enough for me so I try to find out.
And after searching for the “some reason” why Gantenbrink was banned from resuming the exploration and opening the door in the shaft I found this.
The first link doesn’t work in the reply but this one does.
There are very interesting remarks in this article, true or not, I can’t proof it of course.
If this is the way it really happened, I come to the following conclusions.
That it looks that the blame I put on Hawass is wrongful.
But that I was right about the reason of secrecy, in a way “Forbidden Egyptology”, because there was indeed an attempt to a cover-up by others named in the paper in my opinion.
But I hope you and others will read it too and give also an opinion about it.
Originally posted by diablomonic
see this is why I think there is a coverup. How can you be an egyptologist and NOT want to open a hidden door found inside the GP? how can you NOT want to test wood found inside? you can spout all the ridiculous excuses about rules regulations politics etc etc you want, but the fact of the matter is this is obviously a cover up, as far as I'm concerned.
If it turned out to be from the same time period as from other tests done, I doubt the fringe would believe it anyway.
We deserve answers, we just don't deserve rushed or incorrect ones. Still, I would also like to see these questions answered.
Maybe so, but I guess it can be agreed that there's no good reason for not dating this material. It could certainly help his case an maybe even convert some fringe to the dark side (hehe) if the results were inline with what egyptologists have assigned the GP.
Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Wood found in the air shafts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't waterlogged wood throw off a C-14 test?
While I'm not sure it qualifies as a conspiracy, there are a few things I wish Hawass would get on with.
Originally posted by Hanslune
"I'm going from memory here so correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't these the shafts that were opened in modern times? "
Answered my own question: 1610 and 1872, perhaps Hawass considers these to items from modern exploration?
Three artifacts were discovered inside the shafts: a small bronze grapnel hook, a bit of cedar-like wood, and a "grey-granite, or green-stone" ball weighing 8.325 grains thought to be an Egyptian "mina" weight ball.