Now this is a fun story that was shared by Mr. C.S., and I simply have to report on it, and offer my two cents' worth (and it's not worth much more than that) of high octane speculation. Here's the article:
And here's the meat of the story, for according to an 18th century European source, there was a fourth major pyramid at Giza:
On page 120 of his book Voyage d’Egypte et de Nubie (Travels in Egypt and Nubia) Norden describes the mysterious Pyramid:
“The principal pyramids are at the east, south-east of Gize …..There are four of them; that deserve the greatest attention of the curious,; for tho we see seven or eight others in the neighborhood, they are nothing in comparison to the former. ……. ……..The two most northerly pyramids are the greatest and have five hundred feet perpendicular height. The two others are much less, but have some particularities, which occasion their being examined and admired.”
It is s without coating, closed and resembles the others, but without any temple like the ﬁrst. It has however, one particular deserving remark; which is, that its summit is terminated by a single great stone, which seems to have served as a pedestal…the fourth pyramid has been made, upwards above the middle, of a stone more black than the common granite, and at least as hard. Its summit is of a yellowish stone. I shall speak elsewhere of its top, which terminates in a cube. It is, moreover, situated out of the line of the others, being more to the west…it makes a series with the three others.”
As the article points out, the standard explanation - or rather, explaining away" of Norden's comment is to assume he simply mistook one of the smaller satellite pyramids of the plateau with a fourth major pyramid. But as the article points out, the text presents a problem with that
However, this is contradictory as Norden precisely describes the Pyramid being made of a stone BLACKER and HARDER than granite. The satellite pyramids are all made of sandstone.
Interestingly, the description and illustrations of Norden are of superb quality, and they position the fourth, black pyramid at some distance from the three pyramids of Giza.
It was precisely these two statements that caught my attention here, for if one recalls my comments during the Libya fiasco (you know, the one where the Sith apprentice Darth Hillary showed up cackling, "we came, we saw, he died,") I noted that prior to the fiasco, there was a story about how satellites using radar tomography had found a number of anomalies beneath the Sarah sands so to speak that indicates ancient artificial structures (I am reminded of the expression in monte Lybico... for those paying very close attention to my books), and I speculated at that time that, beyond the usual stuff about the intervention being about oil, or Qaddafi's plans for a gold-backed currency, that there was also an "ancient artifacts covert recovery" agenda in play.
So let us speculate wildly here: let us assume that Norden is reporting accurately on what he saw, and that, moveover, his positioning of this fourth "black pyramid" on the map is more or less accurate. Note that in the map accompanying the article, there is a clear reference to the "mountains of Libya" (Montagnes qui separent l'Egypt de la Lybie, "mountains which separate Egypt from Libya"), and that, of the four pyramids depicted, the mysterious fourth "black" pyramid lies the closest to these mountains.
This suggests that if there is indeed a fourth pyramid, that it might be (or in my view, probably already has been) imaged with radar tomography,
And if that's the case, then it is - if I may be permitted an unusual application of the "argument from silence" - extremely interesting that nothing has been said about it, which means, either (1) it doesn't exist, or, (2) They haven't found it or (3) they don't want to talk about it if it does, and if they have found it.
See you on the flip side...