Iron Discovered inside the Great Pyramid of Giza!

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.

Website source : grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.blogspot.co.uk...

Youtube Interview : youtu.be...

Starting a New Thread ?... Look Here First. ***ALL Members Read!***

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

How much is safe to quote from external articles?

Thanks for the interesting read =)

a reply to: PickledOnion

I love and am fascinated by these topics. I love, though don't entirely believe (or disbelieve really), the version of history as proposed by people like Schoch, Bauval and Hancock, but sadly the skeptic in me cannot accept a youtube video and a blog as credible sources. Are there any other sources?

Thanks for the thread

so these gents are the perpetrators of pyramid vandalism....with permission from the Egyptian authorities because they payed the required amount of money to do the filming and sampling...

they had permission because they paid...

they had permission.....

that's what I get from the interview....

But where is the rest of the evidence?

Following the link given by the OP, here....:
grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.blogspot.co.uk - Great-Pyramid-Scandal: German Archaeologist Reaches Settlement Out of Court and present Discovery of Iron in the Great Pyramid of Giza ...

...I noticed this:

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).

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 (or bunk) of how wrought iron MIGHT have been used.

Was/is it a mystery or was/is it not?

This smells bad to me. Like tabloids-bad.

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?

I can see why you'd think it was explained with the ridiculous way that 'leading theories' are hammered into people like 'fact'.

a reply to: PickledOnion

If you are going to tempt us with a mention of iron in the headline, it would be extremely nice if you were to make the material that you offer in the thread be pertinent to that point. I'm really not much interested in a court case about paint chips, etc.

a reply to: Aliensun

If you watch the video it would be made more clear, it's iron magnetite.

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.

The page is an ad for crowdfunding of the guy's book for God's sake.

The only actual meaning anyone can derive from the webpage is the author can't write well enough to convince a publishing house to publish his book.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Lol. You can find a publisher for just about any drivel fairly easily these days, and this guy has to turn to crowdfunding. That's doing bad...

I've never been a big fan of Dr Hawass. I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog. I've always believed that Ancient Egypt is the key to understanding our history and where we came from.
They're all trying to out-currupt each other at every turn. While this is going on, the truth gets hidden behind more layers of crap.

a reply to: stormcell

I thought it had been confirmed that the blocks where made in place a type of concrete mix..

originally posted by: rhynouk I've always believed that Ancient Egypt is the key to understanding our history and where we came from.
.

You should probably google Mesopotamia

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: stormcell

I thought it had been confirmed that the blocks where made in place a type of concrete mix..

Not at all. In fact, we know where nearly everything was quarried from.

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.

5. Geopolymers made with 'Khem'icals' were used to make the stones.
Like concrete but indistinguishable from natural formed Limestone.
No dragging or cutting necessary plus razor precision as a bonus.
(we get our word chemical from the ancient land of Khem which means
they must have been pretty good at them)
www.geopolymer.org...

a reply to: admirethedistance

I would not be so sure about that...

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.

www.livescience.com...

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: admirethedistance

I would not be so sure about that...

The proposal would more than double the amount of man hours of work to accomplish the feat.

That's more than enough reason to dismiss it.

After all, they didn't "pour" the granite beams over the King's Chamber, did they.

Harte

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak

Like concrete but indistinguishable from natural formed Limestone.

Really?

Complete with bedding, fossils, non-calcareous sand, fractures etc etc?
Why bother when there is surplus material readily available, complete with quarries?