What do you think of the work of David Hatcher Childress, Christopher ...

February 15, 2008 By gizadev
    Well, to some extent, I've already answered that in the previous response. I'm a great admirer of Childress' and Dunn's work. Dunn, in particular, has crafted a very careful argument around reverse engineering the Great Pyramid. Many have criticized his work from the perspective of conventional physics, by maintaining, for example, that the Great Pyramid would only be capable of a very small power output, on the order of a few milliamps, for example. I don't personally think this is being entirely fair to his argument, since he himself clearly implies that a non-conventional physics may have been at work (he suggests a "Tesla" connection for example), and he also clearly implies that there are "missing components". The latter point is particularly important, as it indicates that Dunn knows that a full understanding of the structure cannot be had merely by reverse engineering the remaining components at Giza.

    David Childress is a bit different, as he approaches Giza from a wide personal experience and from actually having visited many of the world's megalithic and anomalous sites, and accordingly paints with much broader strokes. Even so, his picture remains essentially the same and I believe he would tend to the view that the Pyramid does exhibit machine-like properties. In his recent book Atlantis and the Power System of the Gods, he offers the intriguing speculation that obelisks may have originally been components in some type of power system as envisaged by Dunn. If that is the case, then one can only say that we are at the very initial stages of understanding, and that it will take years of intensive research to understand these things completely.