1650 replies to this topic

[the L]

Abramelin, on 26 May 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

And why is it, L/M/N, that you start a dozen of new threads while everyone else knows of older threads covering the same topics?

You could have added your posts to those older threads, right?

If this kind of thread is started before with same startin points I wish admin merged them. btw my name is L.

[the L]

Abramelin, on 26 May 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Because Kmt's use of language is a bit too... sophisticated for you? Maybe? Hmm?

This is actually good joke. I laughed. Yes Kmt english is way better then mine. I have russian/japanese accent.

[Abramelin]

the L, on 26 May 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

This is actually good joke. I laughed. Yes Kmt english is way better then mine. I have russian/japanese accent.

It's not about his use of the English language, it's about the scientific lingo he uses in his posts.

__


Russian/Japanese accent?? You from the Kurilen Islands??


I always thought - by what you yourself posted - that you are a Croat or a Serbian.



.

Edited by Abramelin, 26 May 2012 - 08:52 PM.

[the L]

Abramelin, on 26 May 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

It's not about his use of the English language, it's about the scientific lingo he uses in his posts.

You didnt understand. I was defeated by him too. If that is right word. But one of my hard cores points were dissmissed by Shadowsot. He made biggest impact on me. Others too. I learned from Kmt,QM,and even you as many others.
Are we finish with me?

[the L]

Abramelin, on 26 May 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

I always thought - by what you yourself posted - that you are a Croat or a Serbian.

.

Lol. You made my bad day better and for that I thank you. Im having temperature all day and its first day of my vacation.

[ShadowSot]

Abramelin, on 26 May 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Because Kmt's use of language is a bit too... sophisticated for you? Maybe? Hmm?

I defeated somebody?

What?

Wish someone had told me.

[the L]

ShadowSot, on 26 May 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

I defeated somebody?

What?

Wish someone had told me.

I just did.
I often used wrong words since my english isnt that good. But I think my english is becoming better and better,
Maybe defeat is kind misleading. You made biggest impact on me.


EDIT: Although I must say that what Kmt is doing is noble. He is changing world in better place trough his posts.His teachings are full of patientce and effort. And most importantly with very good info. I adore his posts.

So can we all now go back to OP or let admin merged this thread.

Edited by the L, 26 May 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[ShadowSot]

Yeah, I've sort oflost my patience lately. Not due to this forum, but due to life. To which I apologize.

Kmt really is admirable, he's been doing this much longer than I have, as I find when I travel about the web.

[Abramelin]

the L, on 26 May 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

Lol. You made my bad day better and for that I thank you. Im having temperature all day and its first day of my vacation.

Heh, I finally made someone's day better with my rants.

I hope you will feel better soon, and be able to enjoy your holiday.

[lakeview rud]

While there's decent evidence (carbon dating of wood found in mortar)  that the GP dates to the 4th dynasty and Khufu et al, there is precious little evidence that the Sphinx is contemporary to the GP.  The head is NOT that of Khufu no matter how much they try to manipulate it; it most resembles a pharoah from the 17th dynasty as does the nemes (headress).  It (the head) is certainly a cut-down version of something else; no self respecting pharoah would have allowed that ill-proportioned monstrosity.
Trouble with the sphinx is that it has been repaired/updated repaired again for so many times that its hard to see where the original ends and the repairs begin with some claiming that the first REPAIR stones date to the 4th dynasty which ought to make you scratch your head a bit.  Why repair something you just built? I'm not saying that its 12,000 years old; I'm saying that it may pre-date the pyramids by just a bit. Still a good mystery.

[kmt_sesh]

Goodness, my ears are burning. Is this discussion about the Sphinx...or about me? I promise you, the Sphinx and pretty much everything else at Giza is a hell of a lot more interesting than I am.

I didn't even know about this thread, or I would've taken part. Well, I can jump in now.

Prior to Khufu's establishing Giza as a royal necropolis in Dynasty 4, the Sphinx wouldn't have been much more than a small knob of limestone protruding from the Plateau—that is, the protruding knob would eventually become the head of the Sphinx. Most of the stone that would become the body of the Sphinx was not even visible until Khufu, and especially Khafre, quarried that spot for the masonry for their pyramids.

With respect to lakeview rud's post, the Sphinx was never meant to represent Khufu but his son Khafre. The idea that the Sphinx is older than 10,000 years is mostly due to the alternative history posited by Robert Schoch. Schoch's failing was in narrowing his argument too closely to the Sphinx while ignoring the geology and archaeology of most of the rest of the Plateau. In short, Schoch missed the mark and has no support among the wider scientific, Egyptological, and historical world. His theory doesn't survive scrutiny.

The most important work at Giza in recent years has been conducted by the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, headed by Mark Lehner. They have spent considerable time examining the Sphinx and how it communicates with the geology and archaeological setting of the Khafre pyramid complex. Along the way the GPMP has settled the issue and demonstrated that the Sphinx was commissioned by Khafre and became an integral part of his pyramid complex, including features of that complex such as the Sphinx temple, Khafre's valley temple, and Khafre's causeway.

The GPMP says it best, so I'll quote the salient facts from the relevant web page:

Quote

So we can say:

• The Valley Temple enclosure wall respects the Valley Temple casing stones.
  
• The Valley Temple therefore predates its now-missing northern enclosure wall.
  
• Part of the Valley Temple enclosure wall was later incorporated into the Sphinx Temple southern wall.
  
• The Sphinx Temple was therefore built later than the Valley Temple.

This becomes even more important when you look at clear evidence indicating that the stones for the Sphinx Temple came from the lowest layers of the Sphinx quarry. We can sequence three of Khafre’s monuments in the following way:

• The Sphinx is carved from the same quarry as the core blocks in the two lower Khafre temples.
  
• The Sphinx Temple was built using blocks from the Member II layer of the Sphinx quarry.
  
• The core blocks of the Sphinx Temple are matched geologically and archaeologically to the lower layers of Member II of the Sphinx quarry, indicating that the Sphinx lower body and Sphinx Temple were part of the same quarry-construction sequence.

There is no current evidence (that stands up to the scrutiny of science) pointing to any other date for the Khafre monuments. The best statement science can make is that with a high degree of probability the Sphinx and the Sphinx Temple were constructed late in the sequence of the Khafre building program during the reign of that king.

Recall first of all that the Sphinx did not exist prior to the quarrying operations of Khufu and especially Khafre. All one would've seen is the small knob that would become the head. And the fact that the head is smallish compared to the body should not be taken out of context: more than likely, that's all the original workers had to deal with when they set to carving.

[kmt_sesh]

lakeview rud, on 01 June 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

While there's decent evidence (carbon dating of wood found in mortar)  that the GP dates to the 4th dynasty and Khufu et al, there is precious little evidence that the Sphinx is contemporary to the GP.  The head is NOT that of Khufu no matter how much they try to manipulate it; it most resembles a pharoah from the 17th dynasty as does the nemes (headress).  It (the head) is certainly a cut-down version of something else; no self respecting pharoah would have allowed that ill-proportioned monstrosity.
Trouble with the sphinx is that it has been repaired/updated repaired again for so many times that its hard to see where the original ends and the repairs begin with some claiming that the first REPAIR stones date to the 4th dynasty which ought to make you scratch your head a bit.  Why repair something you just built? I'm not saying that its 12,000 years old; I'm saying that it may pre-date the pyramids by just a bit. Still a good mystery.

I commented on your post in my preceding post but would like to add a couple of things here. The nemes the Sphinx wears is unremarkable. The oldest nemes is attributed to a statue of Djoser, first king of Dynasty 3, who reigned over a century before Khufu. Rather, some have argued that the plaited form of the Sphinx's false beard represents a style from later periods. While I myself do not find this convincing, it is plausible. But the fact that the Sphinx was altered in later times is not argued, and a different form of beard may have been carved at a later time.

There is no real evidence the Sphinx was repaired in Dynasty 4. As I strived to show in my preceding post, all evidence indicates the Sphinx was commissioned and carved by Khafre in Dynasty 4. As far as I am aware there is no evidence for repairs to the Sphinx prior to Dynasty 18, specifically to Tuthmosis IV prior to his accession to the throne. It's also possible repairs were instituted by Khaemwaset, crown prince of Ramesses II, in Dynasty 19. By this point in time Giza was more or less a "tourist" destination to the Egyptians and Khaemwaset showed a lot of interest in its monuments, which to him were ancient.

Some of this confusion comes from the so-called Inventory Stela, evidently found in the nineteenth century in the ruins of a small temple of a G1 queen's pyramid that had become a temple to Isis. The stela speaks of Khufu repairing the Sphinx and other local monuments, so it's led some people to take it at face value. However, proper analysis of the stela and especially the language of its inscription proves that it dates not to Dynasty 4 but to Dynasty 26. It is not an historical document and has to be understood in its proper context to time and place.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

the L, on 26 May 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

I never read anything debunks Sphinx being 10 500 BC. In fact I always believed that Sphinx head was made far after original Sphinx was built. It looks that way.

All the evidence I've seen that contradicts the current head design being not part of the origianl deisgn suggest that it's not a replacement head but a radical remolding of the origianal one after erosion took it's toll.

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 01 June 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

I commented on your post in my preceding post but would like to add a couple of things here. The nemes the Sphinx wears is unremarkable. The oldest nemes is attributed to a statue of Djoser, first king of Dynasty 3, who reigned over a century before Khufu. Rather, some have argued that the plaited form of the Sphinx's false beard represents a style from later periods. While I myself do not find this convincing, it is plausible. But the fact that the Sphinx was altered in later times is not argued, and a different form of beard may have been carved at a later time.

There is no real evidence the Sphinx was repaired in Dynasty 4. As I strived to show in my preceding post, all evidence indicates the Sphinx was commissioned and carved by Khafre in Dynasty 4. As far as I am aware there is no evidence for repairs to the Sphinx prior to Dynasty 18, specifically to Tuthmosis IV prior to his accession to the throne. It's also possible repairs were instituted by Khaemwaset, crown prince of Ramesses II, in Dynasty 19. By this point in time Giza was more or less a "tourist" destination to the Egyptians and Khaemwaset showed a lot of interest in its monuments, which to him were ancient.

Some of this confusion comes from the so-called Inventory Stela, evidently found in the nineteenth century in the ruins of a small temple of a G1 queen's pyramid that had become a temple to Isis. The stela speaks of Khufu repairing the Sphinx and other local monuments, so it's led some people to take it at face value. However, proper analysis of the stela and especially the language of its inscription proves that it dates not to Dynasty 4 but to Dynasty 26. It is not an historical document and has to be understood in its proper context to time and place.

Quote

KMS: …all evidence indicates the Sphinx was commissioned and carved by Khafre in Dynasty 4. As far as I am aware there is no evidence for repairs to the Sphinx prior to Dynasty 18…

SC: What complete and utter tripe - and then some! How on earth can you be so gullible? How can you so brazenly misinform people? What – did you read this in some orthodox Egyptology book somewhere? So, because you read this in some mainstream Egyptology book means it must be correct and so it then becomes fact? Are you listening to yourself? When will you wake up and smell Vyse’s cordite?

WHERE’S THE CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE FOR YOUR STATEMENT? Obviously you are not "aware".

It really doesn’t take a lot of searching to discover that the Sphinx dogma you happen to subscribe to and happily espouse forth on this Board is nothing but the prescribed narrative mainstream Egyptology has been using to hoodwink us all for decades, if not centuries. But will you look beyond what you think you know?  Probably not because you already think you have all the answers (from the books).  As the old adage goes - what you fail to realise is that he who thinks he has all the answers has not been asked all the questions.

Just how long exactly have you been perpetuating this hidebound, closed-minded nonsense on this board – and getting away with it? You're talking absolute nonsense. Want to know why?

Hint – check the geology of the site - that should offer you some actual scientific facts that cannot be disputed. And I am NOT referring here to the erosion of the Sphinx question vis-à-vis West/Schoch, but rather something much more fundamental and obvious.

As I have told you before – do your research (before espousing forth your disinformation).

Best wishes,

SC

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Scott Creighton, on 01 June 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

SC: What complete and utter tripe - and then some! How on earth can you be so gullible? How can you so brazenly misinform people? What – did you read this in some orthodox Egyptology book somewhere? So, because you read this in some mainstream Egyptology book means it must be correct and so it then becomes fact? Are you listening to yourself? When will you wake up and smell Vyse’s cordite?

And where do you get yours? The dreams of Edgar Cayce? The channelled messages from the inhabitants of Zeta Ridiculi? The hashish fever of some passing semi-ascended master?
Frankly, I'll take the word of someone who takes the time to qualify as an expert over the ravings of any passing madman who happens to agree with what I believe.