C Wayne Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello,
>
> I see no problem with drilling a hole through the
> slab.
>
> 1.
> I do not accept that it would be an act of
> disrespect. G1 is not a tomb. It is a former
> tomb.


The sarcophagus of Hetepheres was clealry a "former" sarcophagus, but they still considered it important enough to give it a full royal reburial.

We are in no position to judge their spirituality... even if they're all dead.




>
> 2.
> I do not accept that it would be an unusual act of
> destruction to the slab. The front surface of the
> slab is known. The probability of the square-inch
> of rear surface having significance is slight.


These slabs have already yielded up significant information. We don't know yet what we might destroy.



>
> The drilling process was extensively tested prior
> to the previous drilling to assure that it would
> not have any collateral effect on the slab
> regardless of the composition of the slab.


Direct damage is the issue. No one has mentioned collateral damage, except as it relates to air impurities causing the disintegration of items on the other side. Naturally, I don't think there are any items on the other side, so that really isn't an argument I've supported.





>
> 3.
> I do not accept that drilling would be a risk to
> anything beyond the slab.


You can't know that, though. And you also can't know what the slab might have on its exterior side.

What if there's a beautiful inscription referring to Osiris on the backside, but the drill cuts through the name, leaving a vague reference to some Egyptian deity. What if it referred to sAh? Would that then matter?




>
> By definition, the air beyond the slab cannot be
> inert. It probably is not even ancient.
> (Scientists hoped to retrieve ancient air from the
> unopend boat pit but found live bugs within.)


The boat pits are significantly different from these areas behind the plug stones, but I agree that the odds of them preserving "ancient air" are small, to say the least.

However, they do have a level of climate control that will be affected by breaching the plug stone. That is the real issue.



>
> Almost all of the drilling debris falls out of the
> front side of the hole.

Almost all, yes.



>
> The operator of the drill has a real-time view of
> the operation and stops drilling as soon as the
> hole is open. (The process takes about two
> minutes.)


How does he know that? How does he "feel" the lack of resistance to the bit?

Or does he just wait for the debris to stop falling out this side, and figure he's done enough damage and he can stop now?



>
> The camera is active as it enters the hole. Any
> object in front of the hole can be seen prior to
> the probe actually entering the area.

If that's the only sense being provided to the drill operator, then there is little control over the damage being done.




>
> Once the operation is complete, the hole can be
> plugged to restore the barrier.


Have they ever done that before? Is that part of the current plan?

The answer is "no" to either. There is no mechanism involved for resealing these breaches. It's just curiosity, unbridled and unchecked.


> As a further
> precaution, the shaft can be plugged some distance
> from the opening in the chamber.
>


Wayman Dixon took care of that, I'm afraid. We don't even know now which shaft held which artifacts.

But he chiseled out the stone and we got to see what's back there. That makes it okay, right?





> ....Then there is the practical consideration that
> there is probably nothing but core masonry beyond
> the slab.
>

Precisely.

Why chance anything when the odds are about 1000 to 1 that all they're going to find is a solid block of Giza limestone behind one of the last remaining undisturbed artifacts of construction from the pyramid of Khufu?


Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.