This Giza Scan Is Causing Chaos

New scans at Giza are claiming something extraordinary. A second Sphinx, buried beneath the sand, hidden for thousands of years. But it's not just that. Beneath it, a vast underground megastructure, chambers, shafts, a network of rooms that could stretch across the entire area. If true, this would be one of the greatest archaeological discoveries in human history. It would rewrite everything we think we know about ancient Egypt, about what was built there, about how much we've been missing from the last 200 years of excavation. But is it true? Or is this just a load of fuss about nothing? Hi guys, welcome back. If you're new here, my name is Michael. I have a degree in ancient history and on this channel, we discuss the unexplainable mysteries of our past. Let's get into it. So is it true? Well, that's exactly what we need to figure out. Because the claim is genuinely fascinating. But the story behind the claim, where it comes from, why it spread so fast, and what it says about how we process these discoveries, well, that might be even more interesting than the discovery itself. The man behind all this is Filippo Biondi. He's an Italian engineer and remote sensing specialist who recently appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience. He's the same guy behind the controversial pyramid scans that caused such a last year. Now, his method isn't a shovel, it's data. Specifically, he's been analyzing satellite radar imagery, a technique called Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR, which can, in theory, detect subsurface anomalies, variations in density beneath the surface, shapes buried underground that would be completely invisible from above. And what he says he's found is striking. According to Biondi, who was speaking on the Matt Bell podcast, the data shows large vertical structures underground, roughly 30 meters in scale, shaft-like features, what could be a network of chambers arranged beneath the plateau, and the shape of something that mirrors the Great Sphinx itself, sitting just in front of it, oriented to face the rising sun in the east. He's also pointed to the alignment patterns across the site, the idea that these proposed structures aren't random, but deliberately positioned in relation to what already exists above ground. And he's referenced something called the Dream Stele. That's a real artifact, not a fringe claim. It's a stone tablet placed between the paws of the Great Sphinx, inscribed by Pharaoh Thutmose IV around 1400 BC. Part of the inscription refers, or possibly refers, to two Sphinx figures. It's genuinely ambiguous. Scholars have debated its meaning for decades, but for people looking for historical evidence of a second Sphinx, it functions as a kind of permission slip. The idea was already there, in the ancient record. Now, to be fair to Biondi, this claim isn't built on nothing. He has a legitimate background in remote sensing. The technology he's using is real, and similar techniques are routinely applied in archaeological survey work. And the broad idea that more lies beneath Giza isn't remotely outlandish. It's actually well within the range of what archaeologists themselves consider likely. Which all raises the obvious question. If this is plausible on its face, and the person making the claim has relevant expertise, why aren't the Egyptologists rushing to excavate? Well, before we get to the problems, and there are real problems, I want to just pause for a moment. Because I think it's worth understanding why this story spread so fast. Why thousands of people shared it without waiting for confirmation. It's not because people are credulous. No, it's because Giza is genuinely, legitimately, mysterious. And people know that. The plateau is vast, large sections remain unexcavated, and over the decades, there have been real surprises. For example, a previously unknown void detected inside the Great Pyramid in 2017, using beyond imaging. New tombs still being uncovered in the surrounding necropolis. Structures that simply weren't on the map. The ground beneath Giza is not fully understood. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just the state of the archaeology. But there's also a psychological dimension that's worth naming. Two sphinxes feels right. Symmetry appeals to us instinctively. And ancient Egyptian monumental art is full of mirrored pairs. Statues flanking temple entrances. Matched obelisks. Dual colossi standing guard. The idea that the Great Sphinx once had a twin isn't aesthetically strange. In fact, in the context of Egyptian architectural logic, it's almost expected. And then there's the deeper pull. The idea that something has been missed. That beneath one of the most studied archaeological sites on Earth, something enormous has been hiding for millennia, right there, just below the surface. That's a powerful narrative. It touches something genuine in people. A feeling, which many carry quietly, that history is bigger than the official story. That the past was more sophisticated, more complex, more remarkable than we've been taught. But here's the thing. That feeling isn't entirely wrong. The past is genuinely incomplete. Preservation is random and biased toward stone. Toward the monumental. Toward the elite. Most of what happened in ancient Egypt will never be recovered. Not because it's hidden, but because it's gone. So when someone says we haven't found everything at Giza, that's just true. However, and this is where it all gets complicated. That justified sense of incompleteness can also make us vulnerable. It can make a claim sound like confirmation, when really it's just possibility. It can make us hear the data suggests, and register it as they found. So let's talk about what the evidence actually shows, or rather, what it doesn't. The first and most fundamental problem with Biondi's claim is this. There has been no excavation. No one has dug. No physical evidence has been recovered from the ground, where this second sphinx supposedly is. No independent team has gone to the location with equipment, and confirmed that what the radar suggests is actually there. In archaeological and geophysical survey work, a scan is a starting point. A hypothesis. It tells you where something might be worth investigating. It does not tell you what you've found. You don't announce a discovery when you have an anomaly. You announce it when you've confirmed what the anomaly is. The second problem is peer review. Biondi's analysis has not been published in or validated by any mainstream archaeological or geophysical journal. Now, that doesn't automatically mean he's wrong. Plenty of unconventional ideas have faced criticism before gaining acceptance, but it does mean the work hasn't yet been subjected to the kind of independent scrutiny that allows scientists to assess whether the methodology is sound, whether the data supports the interpretation, and whether alternative explanations have been adequately ruled out. The third problem is the technology itself, and this one is important. Ground-penetrating radar and synthetic aperture radar are powerful tools. They're genuinely useful in archaeological survey work, but they have well-documented limitations, particularly at significant depth. Resolution decreases as you go deeper. Signals bounce, scatter, and interact with each other in complex ways. Natural geological features, variations in rock density, moisture content, ancient riverbeds, cavities created by nothing more dramatic than centuries of erosion, can all produce anomalies that look, on a scan, remarkably like deliberate structures. And the fourth problem is something pointed out by many on X that this mound did not exist in 1929. How could it be a second sphinx if it didn't exist 100 years ago? None of these are niche concerns. Ambiguous signals are not structures. They are ambiguous signals, and they require follow-up work to establish what they actually are. It's also worth asking who's behind this. The same team previously claimed to detect two kilometer deep structures beneath Caphras Pyramid using SAR, a result that's never been substantiated. And for this study, they didn't just scan blindly. They used the dream stele to decide where to look, despite it being carved around a thousand years after the pyramids. Their logic, therefore, is two sphinxes on the stele implies symmetry, so draw lines from the sphinx and the pyramids and scan there. But there's no clear justification for linking the sphinx to Caphras in the first place, and no consensus on who it was built for. Plus, what they actually detected were fissures and voids in limestone, a naturally porous material. And from that, they claim an 80% probability of a second sphinx without explaining how that figure was calculated. Why 80%? It just appears to be a random number. They also didn't compare the data to scans of the existing sphinx, which seems like the obvious baseline. So the findings are questionable, and what's worse is how quickly they've been reported without proper verification. Headlines plastered all over news outlets and X with zero verification on whether anything substantial backs up the claims. And finally, the last problem is expert response. The Egyptian authorities, who oversee Giza and must approve any excavation on the plateau, have not endorsed this claim. Former Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass, who has spent decades working at the site, has consistently dismissed radar-based claims of hidden megastructures in the past. Now that doesn't make the authorities automatically right. Institutions can be slow, conservative, and territorial. But when the people with the deepest familiarity with a site show no urgency about a supposed discovery, that is a meaningful signal. So none of this means Biondi is wrong in bad faith. But collectively, these problems mean one thing clearly. The evidence, as it currently stands, does not support the conclusion that's being reported. And the uncomfortable truth is that this isn't the first time. If you follow the archaeology of Egypt over the last few decades, you'll recognize a cycle. It's almost predictable. New technology becomes available. It gets applied to a famous site. Anomalies are detected. Those anomalies are interpreted as structures, chambers, or passageways. The findings get released, often outside of peer review, often directly to journalists, or at public events rather than through academic channels. Headlines go out, the story spreads across social media, and millions of people believe a discovery has been confirmed. But then nothing. No excavation follows. No independent verification is published. The story quietly disappears from the conversation, and the same process starts again with the next scan, the next technology, the next extraordinary claim. We've seen it with the hidden chambers inside the Great Pyramid, multiple rounds of scanning, multiple rounds of global headlines, and results that remain genuinely inconclusive. We've seen it with the mysterious Hall of Records, the supposed vast library of ancient knowledge said to be buried beneath the Sphinx, a claim that resurfaces every decade but consistently fails to produce confirmable findings. We've seen radar announcements about underground rivers, buried temples, secret tunnel networks, all of which have faded without resolution. Now, the cycle makes a certain kind of sense. Scans are relatively inexpensive to conduct. They're publishable, or at minimum, tweetable. They generate enormous attention. And because the extraordinary claim is never quite proved or disproved, it never fully dies. You can always say, the excavation just hasn't happened yet. But what the cycle really reveals is something about the gap between scientific process and public perception. We confuse possibility with proof. We hear the data suggests, and we mentally upgrade it to they found. We skip the distance between anomaly and confirmation, because the story is so much more satisfying when we do. And the media gives us the story we want, because engineer claims radar anomaly might indicate subsurface feature of uncertain geological or origin is not a headline, but second Sphinx found beneath Giza is. Now, I want to be honest about something at this point, because I think it's where these conversations usually start to lose the plot. It's easy, and honestly a little satisfying, to sit in the debunker's chair. To list the methodological problems, note the absence of peer review, point to expert skepticism, and to say not proven case closed. But that's not quite the right conclusion either, because the people who share these stories aren't foolish. And the instinct driving them, the sense that the official account leaves something out, that the ancient world was more capable and more complex than we've acknowledged, that instinct has real merit. Giza is genuinely incomplete. We are almost certainly missing things. The bias in what survives archaeologically is enormous. We find stone, we find monuments, we find the traces of power. But the everyday life, the practical knowledge, the vast texture of human experience in ancient Egypt is largely gone. Not buried, gone. The things that weren't carved in granite didn't make it. So when someone says there's more under Giza than we know, they're probably right, in some general sense. The uncertainty is real. The official map is not complete. But the question is whether general uncertainty can support a specific claim. And the answer is no. The fact that we don't have the full picture doesn't mean every theory about what's missing is correct. Absence of complete knowledge is not evidence for any particular alternative. There's a version of intellectual honesty that holds both things at once. We don't know everything. And this specific claim is not currently supported by the evidence available. That's a harder position than either pure belief or pure dismissal. But it's the more accurate one. So let's go back to where we started. A second Sphinx, buried directly in line with the first. A vast underground megastructure beneath the plateau. Radar scans that suggest something anomalous is down there. Is it possible? In a loose sense, yes. Giza has surprised archaeologists before, and it may still turn out to be true. Subsurface survey work at the site is genuinely incomplete, and the history of the plateau is not fully understood. But is it proven? No. Not even close. There's no excavation. No peer-reviewed analysis. No physical evidence. No endorsement There are radar anomalies, and an interpretation of those anomalies, but one that hasn't been independently validated and hasn't been treated as urgent by the people with the most direct knowledge of the ground. But I think the most interesting question in all of this isn't whether there's a second Sphinx beneath Giza. But it's why we desperately want there to be one so badly. Because what that desire tells us is something real. A hunger for the past to be larger, stranger and more magnificent than our theories allow. A feeling that ancient people were more capable, more mysterious, more knowing than the standard narrative admits. A sense that the story isn't finished. I, obviously, have genuine sympathy for that feeling. The ancient world was remarkable, and the gap between what they achieved and what we can fully explain remains very real. The things we've lost are genuinely immeasurable. But filling that gap with unverified claims doesn't honour the past. It just replaces one incomplete picture with a slightly more exciting one. And the excitement wears off when the excavation doesn't come. Then the next announcement arrives and the cycle starts again. So the second Sphinx, for now, lives exactly where these stories always live. In the space between what the evidence shows, and what we wish it did. Thanks so much for watching guys. If you enjoyed this video, please consider leaving a like, a comment or subscribing to my channel down below. I'll see you next time.