What We Don't Know

At the end of every journey stands a reckoning. Not what we want to believe, but what we really know.

The Resonance Theory is fascinating. It connects chemistry, physics, archaeology, mythology, and consciousness research into a coherent narrative. But fascination is not proof.

Here is an honest accounting.

What IS VERIFIED

These facts are scientifically established and not disputed:

These building blocks are real. The question is whether the connections between them that the theory makes are also real.

What IS PLAUSIBLE

These claims are scientifically discussed but not definitively proven or disproven:

What IS SPECULATIVE

These claims go beyond established science and require new assumptions:

What IS NOT SUPPORTED

These claims have no supporting evidence:

The Open Questions

Some questions we can answer with today's technology - we just don't:

Testable Questions:

1. What chemical residues actually exist in the pyramids? A laboratory analysis would bring clarity.
2. Do the structures Biondi described exist? Independent SAR measurements or drilling could test this.
3. Does Schumann Resonance have measurable effects on biology? Controlled studies would be possible.

Non-testable Questions:

1. Was there a high civilization before recorded history? No direct method of verification.
2. What was the original purpose of the pyramids? The builders are dead.
3. Is there a primal intelligence in the universe? Metaphysics, not science.

The Correlation Dilemma

The theory is seductive because it shows many correlations:

• Kemet means "black land" AND sounds like "chemistry"
• Ammonia odor exists AND fits the chemistry theory
• The Maya were astronomically precise AND that correlates with precession
• Ancient texts mention "pre-moon time" AND the moon stabilizes Earth

The Problem: Correlation is not causation.

It is possible that all these connections are coincidental. It is possible they are all linked. We don't have enough data to decide.

The Confirmation Bias Trap

The greatest danger of this theory is not that it could be wrong. It is that it is so elegant that we stop examining it critically.

If every new piece of information is interpreted as confirmation:

• "NASA finds water on moon" = Confirmation (somehow)
• "New chamber found in pyramid" = Confirmation
• "Study shows brain wave synchronization" = Confirmation

Then the theory is not falsifiable. And a theory that cannot be wrong is not a scientific theory - it is belief.

What We Certainly Don't Know

Let's be honest about the fundamental uncertainties:

1. We don't know how the pyramids were built. Mainstream explanations are plausible, but not proven. Alternative explanations are speculative.

2. We don't know why they were built. Tombs? Probably. But maybe also more.

3. We don't know what is under Giza. ScanPyramids found the "Big Void." Biondi claims more. Who is right?

4. We don't know if there was a lost high civilization. No direct evidence for it. But none that definitively rules it out either.

5. We don't know what consciousness is. Penrose-Hameroff's Orch-OR is speculative. Mainstream neuroscience has no complete answer either.

The Intellectually Honest Position

Neither blind acceptance nor blanket rejection is appropriate.

The honest position is: We need more data.

• Chemical analyses of the pyramids
• Independent verification of Biondi's claims
• Controlled studies on Schumann effects
• Archaeological investigations with modern technology

Until this data is available, the theory remains what it is: a fascinating, coherent, but unproven hypothesis.

The Conclusion of Chapter 7

We have taken the criticism seriously:

• Mainstream archaeology has solid arguments
• The physical objections are real
• The key figures have credibility problems
• Many central claims are not supported

But we have also seen:

• Some building blocks are verified
• Some questions are testable but untested
• The mainstream explanation doesn't explain everything either

The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Perhaps the pyramids were tombs AND had other functions. Perhaps there is a kernel of truth in the Resonance Theory, even if the details are wrong.

We don't know.

And that's okay.