News Roundup: Luna's "Interdimensional" UFOs and Biondi's "Second Sphinx" Scan

​Rep. Anna Paulina Luna claimed yesterday that a new batch of UFO files will be released by the end of the week, and in reporting this, Luna alleged that her “witnesses” had told her that flying saucers come from another dimension. “I think in a week or so, there’s going to be another tranche of documents and/or footage. But, you know, it’s one of those things that we won’t tell you what to believe. You can look at it and review it for yourself. I think a lot of people realize, yeah, maybe we’re not the only thing on this planet. But I don’t like to speculate other than, you know, our witnesses have told us some very interesting things. They did not use the word ‘extraterrestrial.’ They use the word ‘interdimensional.’ And then look at the stuff for yourself and make your own conclusions.”

​Her comments, which almost certainly refer to unevidenced speculation from people like Eric W. Davis and Hal Puthoff, presuppose the existence of other dimensions, which science has not confirmed. The existence of proof of another dimension would one of the greatest breakthroughs in human history, and yet no ufologist claiming interdimensional beings has ever published proof of other dimensions.
 
Luna’s comments sparked excitement on social media, where X’s Grok AI and many users immediately misreported them as indicating that the next batch of UFO files would contain evidence of interdimensional UFOs.
 
Meanwhile, on the other end of the pseudoscience spectrum, Italian ancient astronaut theorist Filippo Biondi gave a presentation at a conference in Italy on Sunday in which he presented scans that supposedly show a second Great Sphinx buried beneath the Giza Plateau in a spot that records show was long used as a dumping ground for debris from modern excavations on the plateau. The images supposedly depict a nearly exact duplicate of the Giza Sphinx (Biondi claims a 96% correlation), with a slightly larger head, but these images, presented as “scans,” are not the raw data but rather computer-generated interpretations of the data, combining dozens of cross-sections into a not-fully-convincing set of blobs around which one might draw a Sphinx or some other shape.

Filippo Biondi's presentation slide, as seen on his social media accounts.

​About 1,000 people gathered at the Centro Congressi Artemide in Castel San Pietro Terme to watch Biondi present his scans for three hours. As the video of the conference is entirely in Italian and has not yet been offered in English, I’m afraid I haven’t sat through the whole thing.
 
Some of the composite images Biondi showed depict a perfect outline of the Great Sphinx, with a level of detail that no extant technology produces. Somehow, they captured facial features on a longitudinal cross-section of the Sphinx, including the eye, nose, and mouth—despite these facial features not being on the same plane on the original statue. (That is, if you cross section an eye facing the statue’s right side, you are in front of the nose, which would therefore not be cross-sectioned.) As we have previously discussed, Biondi’s synthetic-aperture radar technology has not been proven to do what he claims it can do (particularly the high-level precision he claims he can achieve from space for buried features), and many of his charts and diagrams have the high polish of computer enhancement. Indeed, the raw scans he showed have much less of a resemblance to the Sphinx to the computer enhanced versions, as seen in photos of the slides posted by George Howard on social media.

​Biondi’s images are confusing since they are combinations of scans rather than raw data but also purport to be longitudinal slices that also claim to show 3-D features that are not in the same plane. And beyond that, Biondi had promised that his scans would reveal the Sphinx with “millimeter precision” that allowed for “facial recognition” in earlier interviews, but even a generous interpretation of the scans is that they are a few stitched together heat-spot blobs heavily interpreted by obviously biased researchers. They are convincing only if you accept Biondi’s efforts to correlate the blobs with a hypothetical Sphinx, an effort that was governed by his own ideology more than the evidence.