I: Thank you very much for your replies. With your explanation, I now see that the vehicle is approximately 12 cm wide, 12 cm high, 40 cm long, and 45 kg.

But I wonder how the designer of the vehicle could fix the size of the vehicle without having clear idea about the interior condition of the shaft. As Petrie says in his report, it was in a clogged shaft that the vehicle was discovered.

Suppose it was a "battering ram" to clean out the shaft, do you acknowledge that it has been made in an appropriate size and shape to serve that purpose? The size of the vehicle (12 cm x 12 cm) covers only 36 percent of the shaft (20.5 cm wide x 21.5 cm high). Moreover, if it was used for battering, how come there is no board in front like that of, say, a bulldozer?

Suppose it was made by Petrie, he was aware of the rigid regulation from the Egyptian Government that he had to follow in order to get permission for excavation. For all that, why would he dare to leave the vehicle there?

Judging from its structure and the climate of Egypt, the Mankiller tunnel is considered to have been in a drying condition for the past few hundreds years. It says in Petrie's as well as in your reports that the air was filled with flying sand almost like a mist. How did the vehicle get so badly eroded in such environment?

Why nobody else has ever reported on this vehicle in the past? If it was not Petrie, then who would have left it there?

It is described that there is a scratch made by a steel rope on the shaft floor, but was it really possible to make a scratch in a plugged shaft?

These are the questions I am left with. I believe that it is necessary to make an investigation to find out who has made the vehicle. What do you think?

RG: The vehicle certainly is a product of modern times! We will not get anywhere by continuing the argument like this! I know that you will be happy to conclude it as an ancient product though.

My fifth inquiry
I: In my view, it is necessary to investigate who has made the vehicle, but at the same time I also feel it is hardly possible to find further information. Thank you very much.

Well, like this, I inquired him about it so many times that I finally ended up offending him. However, after half a year, an Australian engineer (still a student at that time), Ronnie, also had an open discussion with Gantenbrink in the same website, and it finally became clear that it was not Petrie who has made the vehicle. Moreover, Ronnie considered that the vehicle has been moved up and down through the shaft by a rope attached to it, and pointed out that there was the same kind of scratch found not only in the upper northern shaft but also in the lower southern shaft. In response to this, Gantenbrink asserted that the vehicle must be a product of modern times to all appearances, and that it was impossible for the rope 3-4 mm thick to be made in those days as there was no technique to make iron material in ancient Egypt. In addition, he regarded the scratch as a mark made by a saw. The description of the lower southern shaft can be found in the following address. The seventh and eighth pictures are the images of the scratches. http://www.cheops.org/startpage/thefindings/thelowersouthshaft/lowersouth.htm

Reference:
The report on the "four-wheeled vehicle" can be found in THE SECOND 1992 CASMPAIGN of his website. Click the address below. The fourth picture is the image of the four-wheeled vehicle.
http://www.cheops.org/startpage/theupuautstory/thesecond1992campaign/second92.htm

Here is the website of Rudolf Gantenbrink stated below. You can go into the site simply by clicking the "ENTER" written on a stone-button down the screen. Then choose CYBER DRAWING, and click OK button for security warning. In a little while after clicking CHEOPS SHAFTS or other item, you will receive the drawing. You can try conducting the buttons on the top several times at first, and learn the operational procedure of the drawing.
http://www.cheops.org/

Translated by Maiko Noda