Who are the people behind the theory?
A critical examination of the main figures: Biondi's connection to Malanga, Drumm's lack of qualifications, and the problems with peer review.
In science, it matters not only what is said - but also who says it. This is not prejudice. It is risk management.
If a heart surgeon advises you to have surgery, you listen. If a car mechanic gives the same advice, you ask for his qualifications.
The Resonance Theory rests on several key figures. We must examine them critically.
Filippo Biondi has legitimate credentials:
His 2022 study in Remote Sensing (MDPI) is a genuine peer-reviewed publication. He is no charlatan.
But then there is Corrado Malanga.
Malanga is Biondi's co-author on the pyramid claims. And Malanga is known for:
This does not mean Biondi's data are automatically wrong. But it raises questions:
Biondi's pyramid claims were presented:
They were not presented:
This is a warning sign. Scientists who make genuine discoveries go through the peer-review process. It is slow, frustrating, and often unfair - but it is the process that ensures quality.
Podcasts and press conferences bypass this process. They allow claims without scrutiny.
Geoffrey Drumm, creator of the "Land of Chem" theory, is transparent about his qualifications:
This alone does not disqualify him. Autodidacts have made important discoveries. Michael Faraday had no formal education. Ramanujan was self-taught.
But:
Drumm's claims have never been submitted to peer-reviewed journals. His "evidence" is based on:
No laboratory has analyzed the chemical residues. No independent confirmation of his timeline.
Christopher Dunn, author of "The Giza Power Plant," is often cited as support for the chemistry theory. He postulated residues of hydrochloric acid and zinc.
The Problem:
Dunn is intelligent and poses interesting questions. But "posing interesting questions" is not the same as "proving answers."
A common defense is: "Peer review is not a guarantee of truth. Many false studies have been published."
That's true. Peer review is not perfect.
But:
Peer review is the best process we have. It filters out obvious errors. It forces precision. It holds authors accountable.
"Mainstream science has been wrong before" is true - but it is not an argument for a specific alternative theory. Each theory must stand on its own feet.
We must also examine the other side critically:
Zahi Hawass has a personal interest in defending classical Egyptology. His career, his reputation, his legacy - everything depends on it.
Snopes rated Biondi's claims as FALSE - based on physical objections. This is legitimate criticism. But Snopes is not a scientific journal.
Biondi claims that the Gran Sasso Laboratory (LNGS - Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso) validated his methodology.
Gran Sasso is a real, respected research laboratory - one of the world's largest underground laboratories.
The Problem:
Until this validation is documented and accessible, it remains a claim.
We cannot say: "Biondi is lying." We can say: "Biondi has not backed up his extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence."
We cannot say: "Drumm is a charlatan." We can say: "Drumm's theory is fascinating, but not scientifically tested."
The truth is: We don't know.
What we know:
It would be nice if the theory were simply "true" or "false." But science doesn't work that way.
The reality is messy:
We must live with this uncertainty. We must accept that we don't know everything - and that people who claim to know it have their own problems.
We have examined the actors. But what about the most speculative claims themselves? Chapters 3 through 6 contain assertions we have not yet critically questioned.
We have examined the actors. But what about the most speculative claims themselves? Chapters 3 through 6 contain assertions we have not yet critically questioned.