Controversial claim ‘second Sphinx’ has been found guarding pyramids | Science | News
A team of Italian researchers claim to have solved a 4,500-year-old mystery by discovering a second Sphinx buried opposite the famous lion-bodied monument in Egypt.
They claim that a vital clue to its existence is carved into the stone located between the claws of the original Sphinx on the Giza Plateau close to the Great Pyramids.
An ancient slab known as the ‘Dream Stele’ appears to depict not one but two sphinxes standing guard over the pyramids in perfect mirror symmetry.
Engineer Filippo Biondi and his team used remote sensing technology to detect subtle ground signals and trace geometric lines from the Pyramids of Khafre and Khufu, suggesting they point to a ‘small mountain of sand’ in the vicinity.
The team insists that the sand hides not bedrock but a massive burrowed structure beneath the surface. According to the Daily Star.
They claim that initial readings reveal dense vertical features and horizontal passages reflecting known shafts and tunnels beneath the current Sphinx.
Biondi confirmed that he was 80% sure of the discovery and that researchers were preparing a formal proposal to be submitted to Egyptian authorities identifying potential entry points between the Great Sphinx and the Pyramid of Khafre.
Matt Beall revealed on the Limitless podcast that a large shaft allegedly blocked by debris could be the key to uncovering a much larger hidden network beneath Giza.
But convincing officials can be much more challenging. Renowned Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass, former Minister of Tourism and Antiquities, has consistently denied rumors of a ‘second Sphinx’, arguing that the site has been extensively explored for decades without any supporting evidence.
Hawass was equally skeptical of Biondi’s earlier claim last year that a secret underground city existed beneath the Pyramid of Khafre in Giza.
Stating that his opinion was “completely wrong and has no scientific basis”, he called the use of radar “incorrect” and stated that the techniques were “not scientifically validated and validated”.
