Posted by fireblade on 27 Sep 2004 at about 08:46.
That will be at 'exactly' the same time as the intial phase of stonehenge and the garden of eden symbolism. The Capstone was the sun/son on earth come down from the heavens. Giza represents sunrise on midwinter solstice from stonehenge.
ecliptic = (acos 2:3)/2 = 24d 05'41.43" [syene]
azimuth = (acos 5:9)/2 = 28d 07'31.82" [solstice azimuth]
latitude = 30 degrees north [giza necropolis]
Posted by Anonymous on 27 Sep 2004 at about 18:04.
THE THEORY IF THE SPHINX REPRESENTS LEO HAS JUST BEEN CONFIRMED ASTRONOMICALLY...
Ed: If you want to present a website here then no problems. But please present it to other members as part of a discussion, not advertising spam. Also, turn your caps lock key off, because we don't like being SHOUTED AT.
Posted by Anonymous on 25 Oct 2004 at about 10:54.
i am behalo, aka cosmickat, the name came because my friends used to call me the asian Godess or the Sphinx Jinks, check out what I am about at www.msnusers.com/cosmickat, becuase I would be interested to get insight into the origins of the Cosmic Sphinx...
Posted by Anonymous on 27 Sep 2004 at about 21:31.
i only recall it was 500y pefore persians moved to the area - this 500y involved forests dissapparence by dry period volcanic activiti SSW from giza and wind erosion for remaints of previous vegetation - i have no idea when it was.
Posted by Anonymous on 29 Sep 2004 at about 18:36.
China's East-African heritage mappings' Lake 20 000 ago
flooded to Chad and over areas west from Nile to Mediterranean
Starwars 10 000 ago the end of what the pyramids and sphinx were to symbolize; ? 000 ago one of the Egypts emperors dears to visit giza (it was considered as a place of evil or "not to go") and finds a picture series that are not to be get known to people (because of his preferations) so he either removed some or covered the pyramids with extra layers to hide strategical artwork
... perhaps this 1400BC has some addition or index replacement BP Before Persians (arrive Egypt) - perhaps not
Posted by Anonymous on 30 Sep 2004 at about 00:16.
wiev from east
pyramid heigths(number is order from south)
higger-ground(2-smallest(amfibs), 3-tallest(man)) lowwer-ground(4-Medium-*(lowwer-reptilians), 1-lion(you never gess))
*-with-tilted-top(it was ment to be higger the middle one but then orders changed)
Posted by Anonymous on 04 Oct 2004 at about 22:03.
* the 'global flood' was in between 'atlantis' and 'egypt' timelines
* the atalantis was in antarctica
* greeks did go there (how is not important)
+ i recalled some that fits the http://www.creationscience.com consepts and someone has provided also this http://mirrorh.com/
my dating system suggests that 1,400 years might state for x100'000=140'000yBP moreover it close matches appearance of modern human and leaves ~10'000y window from landing to erecting pyramids
Posted by alevangel on 28 Sep 2004 at about 01:05.
Anybody remember the name of the archeologist (?) geologist (?) who determined the wear on the Sphinx was caused by water erosion? Websites (especially legit science ones) supportive of the hypothesis would be very much appreciated! Thanks, guys!
Posted by Anonymous on 01 Oct 2004 at about 20:21.
Ok the egyptologist who first proposed the theory was Schwaller de Lubicz, whose work was later adopted by one John Anthony West and confirmed by geologist Robert Schoch, a Yaley (hopefully you've heard these names before). John Anthony Wests website is jawest.net. While their work is ignored by the mainstream, the case is incredibly convincing and actually accepted by most geologists. Currently he is working on obtaining funding to take a panel of geologists and paleoclimatologists to investigate the site and attempt to settle the matter once and for all.
Posted by neanderthal on 28 Sep 2004 at about 08:18.
Why are journals now using the term "BCE"? I find it confusing. At least the term "BC" was clear (Before Christ). But "Before Current Era" what does that mean? Is that before NOW or before the start of the current era (whenever our famous knowledgable scientists have decided our current era started). Couldn't we just say "7000 yrs ago"? That will work well for anything up to 100 years in the future and by then who cares? Why use fancy language when we have a perfectly good ordinary language?
Please - I am not criticising Daily Grail. You are only following the current fashion. I am criticising the decision made by somebody or other in scientific circles that our way of giving dates is too mundane and has to become more obfuscated.
Posted by Anonymous on 28 Sep 2004 at about 16:34.
Yeah, well said mate. I understand BCE is essentially the same as BC, in which case it's political correctness disappearing up it's own arse as they're saying the "current era" or "common era" is based on Christianity anyway, so why not stick to "before Christ" and save alot of head scratching. Other cultures don't have any hangups about using their calendars, so why have we got to mess with ours?
(And I ought to point out that I've got no axe to grind for the Christians, being an infidel taoist by philosophy)
Sure, it's based on the Christian calendar, mainly as a result of the dominance of the West in the past century. But saying BCE at least recognises those of other faiths. I wonder how many Christians would be comfortable referring to dates as "Before Mohammed"? Why then should we expect Muslims or others to feel any different?
I use BCE for the above reason. It's simply a nod of the head that we are a world of many different cultures.
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
Posted by kristielee on 29 Sep 2004 at about 05:48.
I'm with you Greg. I think that it was incredibly arrogant and rude to establish dating system by the birth of Jesus (who I suspect was not a real person at all, only an invention to establish mystery religion with judaism). A far higher percentage of the world's population is non-christian and it is the height of bad manners to disregard that fact.
Posted by Anonymous on 30 Sep 2004 at about 03:20.
First off I can care less about BC/BCE. It's all a conspiracy by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Like David Icke points out, Bush is a reptilian from outer space and Kerry is a human. Bush wants to destroy mankind, that is why he masterminded 9/11. Michael Moore points it out succinctly in his movie.
Kerry for President.
Posted by Anonymous on 30 Sep 2004 at about 16:32.
I can understand the sentiment, but Moslems have no problem using their own calendar on their websites, likewise Jews, Hindus, Chinese, etc. I just think it's an unnecessary obfuscation, especially for non-westerners who might be familiar with the term B.C. but unsure of what B.C.E. stands for.
I find your assuption that everyone who reads the "Daily Grail" is xtian to be arrogent and self-assuming from either an immature or closed mind. What are you doing here then? It appears to be for causing trouble.
I for one, do not, will not and would not worship the "'god' of Abraham" in any way shape or form. Why in the world anyone would worship a lesser 'god' of the Cannanite Pantheon is beyond me, but if you must, then do so and don't try to pawn it off on others.
RRE
Posted by Anonymous on 01 Oct 2004 at about 20:24.
He may have existed, he may not have. While the catholics and Christians argue he was an actual person, Christian Gnostics, Bogomils, Manicheans, and Cathars would argue he was merely a manifestation of the Good God, in spiritual form and not a person. Either way, dating should have nothing to do with religion/religious figure. There is no need, and this argument is given weight in light of the fact that his existence cannot be proven.
Posted by Anonymous on 01 Oct 2004 at about 02:05.
7000 BCE is about 3000 years before civilization began! Since the egyptians built it (and by the way they are a civilization) i think it was much sooner then that. 70% of you are dead wrong.
Posted by the shadow on 01 Oct 2004 at about 06:42.
Which particular civilization are you referring to?
The one the scientists say began at a certain date, or the one a lot of other scientists and very smart people say could have begun a lot earlier?
The proof that science has used to date lots of stuff from bones to buildings has proved often to be faulty.
So I'm going with the geologists who say the sphinx is much much older than previously thought.
Posted by Anonymous on 01 Oct 2004 at about 20:27.
Despite the fact that known civilization began in JERICHO in 8000 B.C. A civilization existed sometime before that, been wiped out, and we havn't found much evidence of them except of course our ancient maps which accurately depict the topography of Antarctica (which we've only recently been able to view ourself with developing seismographic technology) as it looked when it was free of ice. The earliest time allowed for this to have ocurred is 10,500 B.C.E. the last time Antarctica was free of ice.
Posted by Anonymous on 01 Oct 2004 at about 21:51.
from sea floor topography it was possible to read out some of "it"'s history + mixing it with my memories we have ? a loads of ... (what just trying to melt your controls to get you into ? ,ha) - so we have this: as the events i recall for !human history or mans' history! are far more close than relative geologic record shows - luckily i recall a key to such from (now) late '70s where /can we say this, we energized the earth (loc.1 -not earth ourselves & this RET)to higger altitudes of ooof guff ? (the word...) reality,excistence/ JMP loc.1 / stopped the time in lowwer realities so ... something went not so and we falled back loosing / 15 y of this reality layers time ... so such has happend in severe time before what makes unique dating a bit complicated
Posted by Anonymous on 02 Oct 2004 at about 12:14.
The ancient Egyptians called the monument 'Hu' or protector. From early times tradition held that a secret chamber existed under the Sphinx.
Hu (a god of wisdom) was one of Ra’s attendants, traveling the night voyage and had a place in the Hall of Two Truths, the judgment hall. Auf, (Efu Ra) was a ram-headed god who wore the solar disc and traveled at night through the underworld to reach the east in time for a new day, also was an aspect of the sun god Ra. His boat was crewed by the gods Hu, Saa and Wepwawet.
If the solution to the riddle is astronomical for the time the sphinx was made, it may refer to the position of the sun on the horizon, or in the zodiac. The Zodiac of Denderah, oddly opening with the sign of Leo or Lion, registers the entry into a new cycle between 10,959 and 8,800 B.C.
The Sphinx could be a monument that foretold something that began with a symbol of the Virgin and ended with the symbole of the Lion. It may also represent the two races of mankind, the "heavenly man" (those who came/fell from the sky) and the antipode part "earthly man" (animal man). Of course we could go into the Sitchen information.
Interesting the name for the sphinx has been faded in history.... here is an interesting look
It seems to make the most sense,there really is some compelling evidence to support that.Throughout time people have had many different theories about many different things.Whatever the general consensus views as fact the people who aren't in agreement with that theory are always looked upon as crazy.Its always been this way and due to human nature were always probably going to be that way.I suggest to everyone to educate themselves,and investigate things that they believe to be true and come to a logical conclusion about it.Keep an open mind,always.
that you are limiting our choices according to you own narrow prejudices
Why do you not offer an option to vote for "less than 2400 BCE" ?
Especially in the perspective of Anatoly Fomenkos theory it is not at all clear that the sphinx should be that old, it might be much more recent.
Don't forget: Herodot wrote that the great pyramit was built only 700 years before his time - later historians naturally tried to top his numbers; the mechanisms to create those artificially high year counts is IMHO quite clear, and Herodot is more believeable than his later competitors.
Please deduct my vote from the 2600-2400 cathegory and add it to the "post-2400 BCE" cathegory.
Posted by the shadow on 03 Oct 2004 at about 00:14.
Herodotus was only a tourist.
His aim was to collect historical information so that he could determine the cause of war.
He was no more informed about the age of anything on the Giza Plateau than anyone else at the time and collected his information from the local people.
Posted by Anonymous on 03 Oct 2004 at about 04:15.
Always it comes down to what the evidence tells us.
Which is more credible?
The Geologic evidence of heavy water erosion?
The suppositions of Archaeolgists who have formed a conclusion and now reject any evidence that contradicts that conclusion?
Since the physical evidence of the Sphinx itself is the best evidence i.e., it exists, can be examined, and observations compared to other known data then if one is intellectually honest one has to go with the best evidence.
There is no doubt the Sphinx shows signs of heavy water erosion.
By comparing the extant and depth of the erosion to other examples of verifiable age we can make an approximation of how much water over how long of a time it would take.
We know from the climatological record that the last time the Giza Plateau experiened heavy and frequent rains was prior to 7000 B.C.
The Rainfall since that time has been of Desert Climate Zone frequency and volume - insufficient to have caused the observed erosion.
So which are we to believe?
The verifiable physical evidence or the suppositions of Academics unwilling to examine the evidence? Why are they unwilling to examine the evidence?
Motivations here are important because they tell us something about the integrity of the researcher/academic.
The physical evidence very strongly points to a pre 7000 B.C. construction.
And an additional Item: The Architectural Style of the Sphinx's Enclosure is dramatically different than that of known later Egyptian Styles and even of that which would appear contemporaneous with the Pyramids.
So, it is not what "Pet Theories" we wish to support for whatever reason but what does the EVIDENCE tell us?
I have presented this question to Dr. Schoch and never received a response. (He is a busy man) Concerning the water erosion theory that surronds the Sphinx... is it possible that the Sphinx could have been the center piece of a water fountain and that the Great Pyramid could have actually been a water pumping device. The "causeway" or "duct" runs from the back of the Sphinx to the base of the GP. Water sprying up, out of the back of the Sphinx and falling back down could create this same type of erosion scenario. Any thoughts?
Posted by ice9melting on 10 Oct 2004 at about 23:02.
Without regard to the detail of BC VS.BCE, and without noting references (because if you've been reading TDG long enough, you should have them and come to your own opinions on the matter), I personally believe the Sphinx and the three great pyramids were built prior to 7,000 years ago. Mr. West, Buvaul and friends have put forth accumulating evidence for weather errosion and astronomical allignments as well as the constant arguments as to how the pyramids were built with the LIMITED skills and tools that our sientist attribute to ancient Egyptians.
So here is my theory:
I think the founding fathers of egyptian society as we know them were a nomadic people who came across "an empty house", so to speak, and decided to settle in. Repainting the motiffs to suit their beliefs and providing maintenence to the "property" when needed. It may even be that some of the original builders (call them Atlantians or whatever) may have survivde to be "landlords", for lack of a better term, and may have influenced the cultural beliefs and helped to educate the new "tenants". Hence, they would attempt to build REPLICAS of the 3 pyramids they had found, but would never be able to match the perfections.
Well, that's my 2 cents worth. I'll give a penny for you're thougths though.
Posted by the shadow on 10 Oct 2004 at about 23:39.
Great theory too ice9melting,and it's something I had never considered.
I like the idea of the nomads coming across the empty house.
Do you think though that they would have been frightened by what they found?
It is certainly an enigma, and one that the scientists have failed to explain satisfactorily to me.
Have you suggested the nomad theory to Hancock and others?I would like to see someone take this theory further.
Posted by ice9melting on 11 Oct 2004 at about 14:49.
I've not takin that particular thought any further than my own imagination at this point... but yeah, maybe Graham would like it. I'm sure he reads TDG once in a while too. Anyone is freet o take the thought to him.... or maybe invite a responce here from him.
Good thoughts, ice9 - and not just because they parallel my own. Somewhere in my reading, I came across a reference to the relative size of the Sphinx's head, and how it seems too small for the body. With the penchant royalty has for putting their stamp on things, I wouldn't put it past Khafre to say "put my face on that".
Chris Dunn's treatise, although relegated to the lunatic fringe by the traditionalist archaeo-ostriches, makes a lot of sense in many ways. The fact that it totally destroys the pet theories of many people with a bunch of letters after their names, holds it up to ridicule.
Too many unanswered questions plague the Giza plateau, and the stock-in-trade, temple-or-tomb definition is wearing thin. Imagine a city with mostly graveyards and churches - not bloody likely. Form follows function, in my experience, so I'm not buying the classic version of how the Pyramids were built, and what they are.
Regards,
khefre
"History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten."
George Santayana
The Egyptians inherited the pyramids. They were there when they arrived and will be there when their gone. Their dating system begins with Muhammed and anything nefore 2400 years ago does not exist. They will never concede that the Pyramids or Sphinx pre date that time. Not to mention that you have "One of their Own" in the center of the hunt to try and find a true and acurate date, Zawi Hawass. If Zawi were to find an artifact that predated the 2400 scenario, the public would never know or be misinformed. Civilizations on this planet have come and gone. Should we dig down deep enough we may find our future.
Posted by deepdarksecret on 08 Nov 2005 at about 02:03.
You're onto something here. I'm thinking the great pyramids were given to humans as a stimulating toy for our species' development, and that the ancient egyptians inherited them (as they claim). The toy may even be meaningless but more likely they explain the creation of the universe. I suspect time is an illusion: we've made no progress in understanding the pyramids over 6000 years. In my opinion anyway.
Posted by Anonymous on 17 Oct 2004 at about 10:16.
The sphinx was built by a civilization in the age of Leo. Was this civilation "advanced" to the point of understanding "timelessnes"? Or ego-centered? - with the reason for building the Sphinx lost in the sands of finite time. I think it is the latter.
But the Pyrimids were built behind the Sphinx much later, because the truly advanced culture who "created them"* wanted timeless knowledge passed on through the up (stable elements) and down (floods, ice ages)cycles of nature through time. (To me the whole pyrimid complex is a time-capsule repository of knowledge - both physical and meta-physical)They chose the Sphinx as a location because it was the last vestage of the earlier cvilization thus a logical point of interest to future civilizations.
* They didn't have to build the pyrimids just plant the seed in the minds of those who did the actual building. (Like the every seven year Uffington Horse cleaning partys - on schedule since time began.)
Comments
5 May 2004
4 years 24 weeks
That will be at 'exactly' the same time as the intial phase of stonehenge and the garden of eden symbolism. The Capstone was the sun/son on earth come down from the heavens. Giza represents sunrise on midwinter solstice from stonehenge.
ecliptic = (acos 2:3)/2 = 24d 05'41.43" [syene]
azimuth = (acos 5:9)/2 = 28d 07'31.82" [solstice azimuth]
latitude = 30 degrees north [giza necropolis]
bearing from stonehenge to Giza = 28d 07'31.82" south of east
or same as azimuth midwinter sunrise from Giza.
http://www.archaic.freeserve.co.uk/azimu...
THE THEORY IF THE SPHINX REPRESENTS LEO HAS JUST BEEN CONFIRMED ASTRONOMICALLY...
Ed: If you want to present a website here then no problems. But please present it to other members as part of a discussion, not advertising spam. Also, turn your caps lock key off, because we don't like being SHOUTED AT.
i am behalo, aka cosmickat, the name came because my friends used to call me the asian Godess or the Sphinx Jinks, check out what I am about at www.msnusers.com/cosmickat, becuase I would be interested to get insight into the origins of the Cosmic Sphinx...
26 July 2005
3 years 14 weeks
Pardon?
i only recall it was 500y pefore persians moved to the area - this 500y involved forests dissapparence by dry period volcanic activiti SSW from giza and wind erosion for remaints of previous vegetation - i have no idea when it was.
he has a xxxxxx NWWWWWWWWWWW ? wondering
...
sinevawe it seems the egyptians were good at poetry as i can't get more than 2004+ 1400 from BC ? no such option, ha
China's East-African heritage mappings' Lake 20 000 ago
flooded to Chad and over areas west from Nile to Mediterranean
Starwars 10 000 ago the end of what the pyramids and sphinx were to symbolize; ? 000 ago one of the Egypts emperors dears to visit giza (it was considered as a place of evil or "not to go") and finds a picture series that are not to be get known to people (because of his preferations) so he either removed some or covered the pyramids with extra layers to hide strategical artwork
... perhaps this 1400BC has some addition or index replacement BP Before Persians (arrive Egypt) - perhaps not
wiev from east
pyramid heigths(number is order from south)
higger-ground(2-smallest(amfibs), 3-tallest(man)) lowwer-ground(4-Medium-*(lowwer-reptilians), 1-lion(you never gess))
*-with-tilted-top(it was ment to be higger the middle one but then orders changed)
error goes -250y added the one for eruption time ? so it will be geologically correct
& why it doesn't fit TDG
* the 'global flood' was in between 'atlantis' and 'egypt' timelines
* the atalantis was in antarctica
* greeks did go there (how is not important)
+ i recalled some that fits the http://www.creationscience.com consepts and someone has provided also this http://mirrorh.com/
30 April 2004
51 min 20 sec
Because I don't like people spamming websites. Please provide context for the link if you want it to remain, don't just post the link on its own.
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
28 January 2005
3 years 46 weeks
my dating system suggests that 1,400 years might state for x100'000=140'000yBP moreover it close matches appearance of modern human and leaves ~10'000y window from landing to erecting pyramids
1 May 2004
5 weeks 6 days
Anybody remember the name of the archeologist (?) geologist (?) who determined the wear on the Sphinx was caused by water erosion? Websites (especially legit science ones) supportive of the hypothesis would be very much appreciated! Thanks, guys!
alevangel
5 May 2004
4 years 24 weeks
The old website of Dr Robert Scoch is dead
http://www.robertschoch.topcities.com/
The new website of Dr Robert Schoch is
http://www.robertschoch.net
He has links & research info available on site.
[FAO ED. you might want to update your link if you have one]
Ok the egyptologist who first proposed the theory was Schwaller de Lubicz, whose work was later adopted by one John Anthony West and confirmed by geologist Robert Schoch, a Yaley (hopefully you've heard these names before). John Anthony Wests website is jawest.net. While their work is ignored by the mainstream, the case is incredibly convincing and actually accepted by most geologists. Currently he is working on obtaining funding to take a panel of geologists and paleoclimatologists to investigate the site and attempt to settle the matter once and for all.
1 May 2004
1 year 6 weeks
Why are journals now using the term "BCE"? I find it confusing. At least the term "BC" was clear (Before Christ). But "Before Current Era" what does that mean? Is that before NOW or before the start of the current era (whenever our famous knowledgable scientists have decided our current era started). Couldn't we just say "7000 yrs ago"? That will work well for anything up to 100 years in the future and by then who cares? Why use fancy language when we have a perfectly good ordinary language?
Please - I am not criticising Daily Grail. You are only following the current fashion. I am criticising the decision made by somebody or other in scientific circles that our way of giving dates is too mundane and has to become more obfuscated.
Neanderthal
Yeah, well said mate. I understand BCE is essentially the same as BC, in which case it's political correctness disappearing up it's own arse as they're saying the "current era" or "common era" is based on Christianity anyway, so why not stick to "before Christ" and save alot of head scratching. Other cultures don't have any hangups about using their calendars, so why have we got to mess with ours?
(And I ought to point out that I've got no axe to grind for the Christians, being an infidel taoist by philosophy)
?,?
30 April 2004
51 min 20 sec
Sure, it's based on the Christian calendar, mainly as a result of the dominance of the West in the past century. But saying BCE at least recognises those of other faiths. I wonder how many Christians would be comfortable referring to dates as "Before Mohammed"? Why then should we expect Muslims or others to feel any different?
I use BCE for the above reason. It's simply a nod of the head that we are a world of many different cultures.
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
29 September 2004
5 years 4 weeks
I'm with you Greg. I think that it was incredibly arrogant and rude to establish dating system by the birth of Jesus (who I suspect was not a real person at all, only an invention to establish mystery religion with judaism). A far higher percentage of the world's population is non-christian and it is the height of bad manners to disregard that fact.
First off I can care less about BC/BCE. It's all a conspiracy by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Like David Icke points out, Bush is a reptilian from outer space and Kerry is a human. Bush wants to destroy mankind, that is why he masterminded 9/11. Michael Moore points it out succinctly in his movie.
Kerry for President.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard anyone say,lay off the LSD.
1 May 2004
10 weeks 4 days
The part about Kerry being human?
10 January 2005
1 year 38 weeks
totally ridiculous!!Your reply is funny!!
..then use B.P (Before Present) rather than a Christian based calendar masquerading under a different name (i.e. BCE)
I can understand the sentiment, but Moslems have no problem using their own calendar on their websites, likewise Jews, Hindus, Chinese, etc. I just think it's an unnecessary obfuscation, especially for non-westerners who might be familiar with the term B.C. but unsure of what B.C.E. stands for.
31 August 2004
7 weeks 11 hours
I find your assuption that everyone who reads the "Daily Grail" is xtian to be arrogent and self-assuming from either an immature or closed mind. What are you doing here then? It appears to be for causing trouble.
I for one, do not, will not and would not worship the "'god' of Abraham" in any way shape or form. Why in the world anyone would worship a lesser 'god' of the Cannanite Pantheon is beyond me, but if you must, then do so and don't try to pawn it off on others.
RRE
We as Americans are mostly Christians and rule in Domination the world. So BC it must be.
He may have existed, he may not have. While the catholics and Christians argue he was an actual person, Christian Gnostics, Bogomils, Manicheans, and Cathars would argue he was merely a manifestation of the Good God, in spiritual form and not a person. Either way, dating should have nothing to do with religion/religious figure. There is no need, and this argument is given weight in light of the fact that his existence cannot be proven.
I can't vote cuz I need another option, namely "Dunno"
7000 BCE is about 3000 years before civilization began! Since the egyptians built it (and by the way they are a civilization) i think it was much sooner then that. 70% of you are dead wrong.
24 June 2004
2 years 40 weeks
Which particular civilization are you referring to?
The one the scientists say began at a certain date, or the one a lot of other scientists and very smart people say could have begun a lot earlier?
The proof that science has used to date lots of stuff from bones to buildings has proved often to be faulty.
So I'm going with the geologists who say the sphinx is much much older than previously thought.
shadows
Despite the fact that known civilization began in JERICHO in 8000 B.C. A civilization existed sometime before that, been wiped out, and we havn't found much evidence of them except of course our ancient maps which accurately depict the topography of Antarctica (which we've only recently been able to view ourself with developing seismographic technology) as it looked when it was free of ice. The earliest time allowed for this to have ocurred is 10,500 B.C.E. the last time Antarctica was free of ice.
from sea floor topography it was possible to read out some of "it"'s history + mixing it with my memories we have ? a loads of ... (what just trying to melt your controls to get you into ? ,ha) - so we have this: as the events i recall for !human history or mans' history! are far more close than relative geologic record shows - luckily i recall a key to such from (now) late '70s where /can we say this, we energized the earth (loc.1 -not earth ourselves & this RET)to higger altitudes of ooof guff ? (the word...) reality,excistence/ JMP loc.1 / stopped the time in lowwer realities so ... something went not so and we falled back loosing / 15 y of this reality layers time ... so such has happend in severe time before what makes unique dating a bit complicated
The ancient Egyptians called the monument 'Hu' or protector. From early times tradition held that a secret chamber existed under the Sphinx.
Hu (a god of wisdom) was one of Ra’s attendants, traveling the night voyage and had a place in the Hall of Two Truths, the judgment hall. Auf, (Efu Ra) was a ram-headed god who wore the solar disc and traveled at night through the underworld to reach the east in time for a new day, also was an aspect of the sun god Ra. His boat was crewed by the gods Hu, Saa and Wepwawet.
If the solution to the riddle is astronomical for the time the sphinx was made, it may refer to the position of the sun on the horizon, or in the zodiac. The Zodiac of Denderah, oddly opening with the sign of Leo or Lion, registers the entry into a new cycle between 10,959 and 8,800 B.C.
The Sphinx could be a monument that foretold something that began with a symbol of the Virgin and ended with the symbole of the Lion. It may also represent the two races of mankind, the "heavenly man" (those who came/fell from the sky) and the antipode part "earthly man" (animal man). Of course we could go into the Sitchen information.
Interesting the name for the sphinx has been faded in history.... here is an interesting look
http://ancientegypt.hypermart.net/substi...
28 November 2004
19 weeks 3 days
It seems to make the most sense,there really is some compelling evidence to support that.Throughout time people have had many different theories about many different things.Whatever the general consensus views as fact the people who aren't in agreement with that theory are always looked upon as crazy.Its always been this way and due to human nature were always probably going to be that way.I suggest to everyone to educate themselves,and investigate things that they believe to be true and come to a logical conclusion about it.Keep an open mind,always.
26 July 2005
3 years 14 weeks
Trouble is in this life it is their path to tread!
1 May 2004
15 hours 11 min
that you are limiting our choices according to you own narrow prejudices
Why do you not offer an option to vote for "less than 2400 BCE" ?
Especially in the perspective of Anatoly Fomenkos theory it is not at all clear that the sphinx should be that old, it might be much more recent.
Don't forget: Herodot wrote that the great pyramit was built only 700 years before his time - later historians naturally tried to top his numbers; the mechanisms to create those artificially high year counts is IMHO quite clear, and Herodot is more believeable than his later competitors.
Please deduct my vote from the 2600-2400 cathegory and add it to the "post-2400 BCE" cathegory.
24 June 2004
2 years 40 weeks
Herodotus was only a tourist.
His aim was to collect historical information so that he could determine the cause of war.
He was no more informed about the age of anything on the Giza Plateau than anyone else at the time and collected his information from the local people.
shdows
Always it comes down to what the evidence tells us.
Which is more credible?
The Geologic evidence of heavy water erosion?
The suppositions of Archaeolgists who have formed a conclusion and now reject any evidence that contradicts that conclusion?
Since the physical evidence of the Sphinx itself is the best evidence i.e., it exists, can be examined, and observations compared to other known data then if one is intellectually honest one has to go with the best evidence.
There is no doubt the Sphinx shows signs of heavy water erosion.
By comparing the extant and depth of the erosion to other examples of verifiable age we can make an approximation of how much water over how long of a time it would take.
We know from the climatological record that the last time the Giza Plateau experiened heavy and frequent rains was prior to 7000 B.C.
The Rainfall since that time has been of Desert Climate Zone frequency and volume - insufficient to have caused the observed erosion.
So which are we to believe?
The verifiable physical evidence or the suppositions of Academics unwilling to examine the evidence? Why are they unwilling to examine the evidence?
Motivations here are important because they tell us something about the integrity of the researcher/academic.
The physical evidence very strongly points to a pre 7000 B.C. construction.
And an additional Item: The Architectural Style of the Sphinx's Enclosure is dramatically different than that of known later Egyptian Styles and even of that which would appear contemporaneous with the Pyramids.
So, it is not what "Pet Theories" we wish to support for whatever reason but what does the EVIDENCE tell us?
3 November 2004
40 weeks 5 days
I have presented this question to Dr. Schoch and never received a response. (He is a busy man) Concerning the water erosion theory that surronds the Sphinx... is it possible that the Sphinx could have been the center piece of a water fountain and that the Great Pyramid could have actually been a water pumping device. The "causeway" or "duct" runs from the back of the Sphinx to the base of the GP. Water sprying up, out of the back of the Sphinx and falling back down could create this same type of erosion scenario. Any thoughts?
6 May 2004
1 week 5 days
Without regard to the detail of BC VS.BCE, and without noting references (because if you've been reading TDG long enough, you should have them and come to your own opinions on the matter), I personally believe the Sphinx and the three great pyramids were built prior to 7,000 years ago. Mr. West, Buvaul and friends have put forth accumulating evidence for weather errosion and astronomical allignments as well as the constant arguments as to how the pyramids were built with the LIMITED skills and tools that our sientist attribute to ancient Egyptians.
So here is my theory:
I think the founding fathers of egyptian society as we know them were a nomadic people who came across "an empty house", so to speak, and decided to settle in. Repainting the motiffs to suit their beliefs and providing maintenence to the "property" when needed. It may even be that some of the original builders (call them Atlantians or whatever) may have survivde to be "landlords", for lack of a better term, and may have influenced the cultural beliefs and helped to educate the new "tenants". Hence, they would attempt to build REPLICAS of the 3 pyramids they had found, but would never be able to match the perfections.
Well, that's my 2 cents worth. I'll give a penny for you're thougths though.
24 June 2004
2 years 40 weeks
Great theory too ice9melting,and it's something I had never considered.
I like the idea of the nomads coming across the empty house.
Do you think though that they would have been frightened by what they found?
It is certainly an enigma, and one that the scientists have failed to explain satisfactorily to me.
Have you suggested the nomad theory to Hancock and others?I would like to see someone take this theory further.
Regards,
shadows
6 May 2004
1 week 5 days
I've not takin that particular thought any further than my own imagination at this point... but yeah, maybe Graham would like it. I'm sure he reads TDG once in a while too. Anyone is freet o take the thought to him.... or maybe invite a responce here from him.
1 May 2004
5 years 4 weeks
Good thoughts, ice9 - and not just because they parallel my own. Somewhere in my reading, I came across a reference to the relative size of the Sphinx's head, and how it seems too small for the body. With the penchant royalty has for putting their stamp on things, I wouldn't put it past Khafre to say "put my face on that".
Chris Dunn's treatise, although relegated to the lunatic fringe by the traditionalist archaeo-ostriches, makes a lot of sense in many ways. The fact that it totally destroys the pet theories of many people with a bunch of letters after their names, holds it up to ridicule.
Too many unanswered questions plague the Giza plateau, and the stock-in-trade, temple-or-tomb definition is wearing thin. Imagine a city with mostly graveyards and churches - not bloody likely. Form follows function, in my experience, so I'm not buying the classic version of how the Pyramids were built, and what they are.
Regards,
khefre
"History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten."
George Santayana
3 November 2004
40 weeks 5 days
The Egyptians inherited the pyramids. They were there when they arrived and will be there when their gone. Their dating system begins with Muhammed and anything nefore 2400 years ago does not exist. They will never concede that the Pyramids or Sphinx pre date that time. Not to mention that you have "One of their Own" in the center of the hunt to try and find a true and acurate date, Zawi Hawass. If Zawi were to find an artifact that predated the 2400 scenario, the public would never know or be misinformed. Civilizations on this planet have come and gone. Should we dig down deep enough we may find our future.
8 November 2005
4 years 18 weeks
You're onto something here. I'm thinking the great pyramids were given to humans as a stimulating toy for our species' development, and that the ancient egyptians inherited them (as they claim). The toy may even be meaningless but more likely they explain the creation of the universe. I suspect time is an illusion: we've made no progress in understanding the pyramids over 6000 years. In my opinion anyway.
The sphinx was built by a civilization in the age of Leo. Was this civilation "advanced" to the point of understanding "timelessnes"? Or ego-centered? - with the reason for building the Sphinx lost in the sands of finite time. I think it is the latter.
But the Pyrimids were built behind the Sphinx much later, because the truly advanced culture who "created them"* wanted timeless knowledge passed on through the up (stable elements) and down (floods, ice ages)cycles of nature through time. (To me the whole pyrimid complex is a time-capsule repository of knowledge - both physical and meta-physical)They chose the Sphinx as a location because it was the last vestage of the earlier cvilization thus a logical point of interest to future civilizations.
* They didn't have to build the pyrimids just plant the seed in the minds of those who did the actual building. (Like the every seven year Uffington Horse cleaning partys - on schedule since time began.)
michael yaeger
michae@michaelyaeger.com