This is nothing more than bad statistical analysis. It would be neat if I'm wrong. But until it's verified it's just a distraction. And something like this would be relatively easy to verify with Horizontal Directional Drilling.
I think the method is valid by the way, but how the experiment is conducted, how the pixel tomograms are selected, how depth is reconstructed, and how natural voids can be separated from artifical and architectural ones are all details buried in the heavily technical aspects of Synthetic Aperture RADAR signal processing. As in all science investigations, reproducibility is a must. An independent team must be able to reproduce the data before we can even begin to know if what was observed represents true voids made by someone, anyone. https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1345370,1346568#msg-1346568
From another post
For me, the depth came when I spend the time with Biondi's mathematical model of the geometry of the system from platform to pixel and back. The problem is that Biondi does not completely explain how he turned the math into his string of signal processing commands and we think we know why. I am sure you can put two and two together. https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1345370,1345488#msg-1345488
This is nothing more than bad statistical analysis. It would be neat if I'm wrong. But until it's verified it's just a distraction. And something like this would be relatively easy to verify with Horizontal Directional Drilling.
I think the method is valid by the way, but how the experiment is conducted, how the pixel tomograms are selected, how depth is reconstructed, and how natural voids can be separated from artifical and architectural ones are all details buried in the heavily technical aspects of Synthetic Aperture RADAR signal processing. As in all science investigations, reproducibility is a must. An independent team must be able to reproduce the data before we can even begin to know if what was observed represents true voids made by someone, anyone. https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1345370,1346568#msg-1346568
From another post
You asked all the right questions. For me, the depth came when I spend the time with Biondi's mathematical model of the geometry of the system from platform to pixel and back. The problem is that Biondi does not completely explain how he turned the math into his string of signal processing commands and we think we know why. I am sure you can put two and two together. https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1345370,1345488#msg-1345488
This is nothing more than bad statistical analysis. It would be neat if I'm wrong. But until it's verified it's just a distraction. And something like this would be relatively easy to verify with Horizontal Directional Drilling.
I think the method is valid by the way, but how the experiment is conducted, how the pixel tomograms are selected, how depth is reconstructed, and how natural voids can be separated from artifical and architectural ones are all details buried in the heavily technical aspects of Synthetic Aperture RADAR signal processing. As in all science investigations, reproducibility is a must. An independent team must be able to reproduce the data before we can even begin to know if what was observed represents true voids made by someone, anyone. https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1345370,1346568#msg-1346568