Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Check out the full episode here: youtu.be/zQ2M_2MR4f0
A viewer raised the aerial photography argument against the second Sphinx claim, pointing to images of the Giza plateau that show no sphinx-shaped structure at the proposed location. Becket Fusik's response is precise: the claim being made by Filippo Biondi's team is not that the second Sphinx is visible above ground in a pile of rubble. The claim is that it is underground, beneath a mound of sand deposited during 1920s excavations, and that you would need to dig approximately 30 feet to reach the top of the head.
Whether the scans are accurate is a separate question and one Becket leaves open. But the aerial photo argument, he notes, does not debunk what was actually claimed, because a structure buried 30 feet below the surface would not appear in any aerial photograph of the plateau regardless of whether it exists.
Check out the full episode here: youtu.be/zQ2M_2MR4f0
A viewer raised the aerial photography argument against the second Sphinx claim, pointing to images of the Giza plateau that show no sphinx-shaped structure at the proposed location. Becket Fusik's response is precise: the claim being made by Filippo Biondi's team is not that the second Sphinx is visible above ground in a pile of rubble. The claim is that it is underground, beneath a mound of sand deposited during 1920s excavations, and that you would need to dig approximately 30 feet to reach the top of the head.
Whether the scans are accurate is a separate question and one Becket leaves open. But the aerial photo argument, he notes, does not debunk what was actually claimed, because a structure buried 30 feet below the surface would not appear in any aerial photograph of the plateau regardless of whether it exists.
