According to the known history,the Sphinx was built somewhere around 3000-4000 B.C.But new reports suggest that the litching(or rather distortion) of the the stones of which it is made up of is not just due to the desert sun but presence of ample of water.Now there haven't been heavy rains in Egypt for as long as the 9000 B.C so could the Sphinx have been constructed much earlier than our expectation....By whom.......were the constructors evolved enough for that........
Full Version: The Sphinx
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
I think the word 'evolved' is better replaced with 'intelligent', but anyways...
The main problem with the water erosion theory is that the damage isn't consistent. The places where you find water damage are made up of mostly soft limestone, and the places without damage are made up of hard limestone. Considering that soft limestone can be worn away by wind as much as by water, it brings questions to the water theory that need to be addressed prior to considering it valid.
The main problem with the water erosion theory is that the damage isn't consistent. The places where you find water damage are made up of mostly soft limestone, and the places without damage are made up of hard limestone. Considering that soft limestone can be worn away by wind as much as by water, it brings questions to the water theory that need to be addressed prior to considering it valid.
No one will ever know, until someone is brave enough to attempt time travel. I do believe that it was the Egyptians, but i guess that is only because that is what I was taught.
I kinda do believe it was the egyptians as well, but what is under the sphinx and giza plateu (if they ever go there) isn't egyptian.
QUOTE(malakiem @ Jan 22 2005, 11:37 PM)
I kinda do believe it was the egyptians as well, but what is under the sphinx and giza plateu (if they ever go there) isn't egyptian.
[right][snapback]460656[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]460656[/snapback][/right]
What's under there, then? I actually did go there about 3 1/2 yrs ago, but I don't remember...
I DO remember, though, that the Sphinx was originally meant to be a gigantic standing statue of a pharoah. After they got the head done, though, they changed their minds for some reason, and just attached a lion's body to the head.
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jan 21 2005, 03:09 PM)
I think the word 'evolved' is better replaced with 'intelligent', but anyways...
The main problem with the water erosion theory is that the damage isn't consistent. The places where you find water damage are made up of mostly soft limestone, and the places without damage are made up of hard limestone. Considering that soft limestone can be worn away by wind as much as by water, it brings questions to the water theory that need to be addressed prior to considering it valid.
[right][snapback]459036[/snapback][/right]
The main problem with the water erosion theory is that the damage isn't consistent. The places where you find water damage are made up of mostly soft limestone, and the places without damage are made up of hard limestone. Considering that soft limestone can be worn away by wind as much as by water, it brings questions to the water theory that need to be addressed prior to considering it valid.
[right][snapback]459036[/snapback][/right]
The effect of wind erosion is more lateral and very different from water erosion, particularly rain. The erosion was identified as rain erosion by a Harvard prof of geology with out knowing what the subject was. His subsequent on site investigation of the erosion confirmed for him and by him that it was caused by torrential rains. These rains occurred around 9,000 yrs ago.
I would have placed it at 12,000 yrs ago to fit in the zodiacal age of Leo. It points to the major star in Leo during the beginning of the age of Leo. I could be wrong about the time though. Please correct this if you calculate differently.
QUOTE(jjtss @ Jan 23 2005, 03:20 AM)
The effect of wind erosion is more lateral and very different from water erosion, particularly rain. The erosion was identified as rain erosion by a Harvard prof of geology with out knowing what the subject was. His subsequent on site investigation of the erosion confirmed for him and by him that it was caused by torrential rains. These rains occurred around 9,000 yrs ago.
I would have placed it at 12,000 yrs ago to fit in the zodiacal age of Leo. It points to the major star in Leo during the beginning of the age of Leo. I could be wrong about the time though. Please correct this if you calculate differently.
[right][snapback]460906[/snapback][/right]
It's a bit late here, and I am going to bed, but I wanted to do a quick post, and I'll elaborate later, if you wish me too.
Wind erosion is lateral when it is running in a relatively straight line. The Sphinx is carved into its own little niche, which makes non-standard wind erosion patterns. This is not to say that wind was most definitely the culprit, however. It is entirely possible that the wind scalloped the soft sides of the Sphinx and the box, and thus exarcerbated the damage made by a much smaller, more modern, amount of rainfall.
Don't forget to mention that the Harvard professor, once shown that it was the Sphinx he was looking at, promptly shut up and refused to comment any further. He did not do an on-site investigation. Subsequent interviews had him saying that he felt like he had been tricked. Any given expert is willing to help out people with questions, and if they bring pictures of erosion, they will give their opinion without qualification. After all, they are not presenting a formal study on the matter, they are simply having a question and answer with a curious person. A scientist studying erosion knows that one cannot draw a conclusion based on nothing but pictures. The land, its history, and the makeup has got to be taken into consideration, otherwise, the results can only be a best guess.
I don't really know a great deal about astrology, but I am curious, did the constellation of Leo mean anything to the Egyptians? Wasn't it a Greek constellation?
http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/2003/Summer/Osiria
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/sphinx2.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Path-sphinx.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/catbox.htm
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/mor...orningstar.html
http://www.messybeast.com/freak-face.htm
http://www.messybeast.com/winged-cats.htm
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ezekielnotes.htm
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/kerub.htm
http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine...marcahuasi.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/ArtTrad.html
http://www.mt.net/~watcher
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/mars.html
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/antimars.html
http://www.raphaelonline.com/Marsface.htm
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/7808/se...x-Complete.html
http://www.osirisweb.com/egypt/disc1/0000028a.htm
Wow too much to read and little people willing to invest so much time to learn 
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/sphinx2.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Path-sphinx.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/catbox.htm
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/mor...orningstar.html
http://www.messybeast.com/freak-face.htm
http://www.messybeast.com/winged-cats.htm
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ezekielnotes.htm
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/kerub.htm
http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine...marcahuasi.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/ArtTrad.html
http://www.mt.net/~watcher
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/mars.html
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/antimars.html
http://www.raphaelonline.com/Marsface.htm
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/7808/se...x-Complete.html
http://www.osirisweb.com/egypt/disc1/0000028a.htm
Wow too much to read and little people willing to invest so much time to learn
Aquatus: constelations never had hybrid forms, they were depicted like these due to the forms of hyperdimensional beings in invisible realms not the opposite. 
The sphinx was a bathroom... During festivals and parties all the Egyptians got together and urinated on it to honor their pharaoh.
Or
Whenever Egypt got conquered a bunch of drunk occupying soldiers got together and urinated on it for some laughs and fun.
That explains the water damage...
Or
Whenever Egypt got conquered a bunch of drunk occupying soldiers got together and urinated on it for some laughs and fun.
That explains the water damage...
QUOTE(chinitial @ Jan 24 2005, 03:37 PM)
Aquatus: constelations never had hybrid forms, they were depicted like these due to the forms of hyperdimensional beings in invisible realms not the opposite.
[right][snapback]462297[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]462297[/snapback][/right]
I'm sorry, I don't understand the relevance. Leo isn't a hybrid form; it is all lion, and it was Greek, not Egyptian. Likewise, there is nothing to indicate a seperate existance or dimension for either Egyptian or Greek deities; they were both considered to be inhabitants of Earth, in places inaccessibale to the average man, such as Hades, or Mt. Olympus.
You didn't think I would understand this, did you?
how could people build something so perfect and big with such primitive tools?
Ahhh, the Sphynx isn't that big, relatively, and it is a far way aways from being perfect.
QUOTE(star_child @ Jan 22 2005, 06:04 PM)
No one will ever know, until someone is brave enough to attempt time travel. I do believe that it was the Egyptians, but i guess that is only because that is what I was taught.
[right][snapback]460326[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]460326[/snapback][/right]
Sooooo, what is under there??
I saw a TV programme once that claimed that the sphynx was originally carved onto a naturally occuring rocky outcrop and then covered in the limestone where nesessary and that accounted for the water damage as the rock had been there forever and the Egyptians had come along years later and carved the sphynx.
QUOTE(Monster_Detective @ Jan 21 2005, 04:13 AM)
According to the known history,the Sphinx was built somewhere around 3000-4000 B.C.But new reports suggest that the litching(or rather distortion) of the the stones of which it is made up of is not just due to the desert sun but presence of ample of water.Now there haven't been heavy rains in Egypt for as long as the 9000 B.C so could the Sphinx have been constructed much earlier than our expectation....By whom.......were the constructors evolved enough for that........
[right][snapback]458826[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]458826[/snapback][/right]
That is a very interesting point. Mainstream Egyptologists have advanced the theory that the water erosion was due to the annual flooding of the nile on the giza plateau but, I am almost a hundred percent certain that I have never read one article that describes the same kind of erosion patterns on any of the other structures built on the plateau. Now if they(they being the buildings on the plateau)were all supposedly built at around the same time why dont they exzibit the same erosion patterns. They would have been affected by the same weather patterns so why not the same erosion patterns?its a mystery all right. But I think its just one more piece emerging for the argument for a human prehistory.
acrheologists believe that the Sphinx was actually consturcted from survivors of Atlantis, or of course the ancient egyptians!
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jan 21 2005, 11:09 AM)
I think the word 'evolved' is better replaced with 'intelligent', but anyways...
The main problem with the water erosion theory is that the damage isn't consistent. The places where you find water damage are made up of mostly soft limestone, and the places without damage are made up of hard limestone. Considering that soft limestone can be worn away by wind as much as by water, it brings questions to the water theory that need to be addressed prior to considering it valid.
[right][snapback]459036[/snapback][/right]
The main problem with the water erosion theory is that the damage isn't consistent. The places where you find water damage are made up of mostly soft limestone, and the places without damage are made up of hard limestone. Considering that soft limestone can be worn away by wind as much as by water, it brings questions to the water theory that need to be addressed prior to considering it valid.
[right][snapback]459036[/snapback][/right]
What about wind erosion? Wind, mixed with sand, makes a kind of sand blasting effect. And Limestone could not keep its shape long while this is going on. Could that be it? That good ol Mother Nature is responsible for the erosion? Just a thought
Thanks
Most definitely. In fact, the shape of the carve out where the Sphynx is located, makes for some interesting updrafts which change the wind erosion patterns into something that needs to be looked at carefully prior to recognizing them for what they are. It also makes for some interesting upskirts from the tourists ladies who don't know about it, but that is neither here nor there.
Another problem with the continous water flow theory is that two openings, or rather, wells, have been found by the Sphynx, both, apparently, for construction purposes, and neither had water infiltration marks. While a sealed well would easily be able to witshtand the occasional rainstorm, it is unlikely that it would have remained waterproof with a river running on top of it.
Another problem with the continous water flow theory is that two openings, or rather, wells, have been found by the Sphynx, both, apparently, for construction purposes, and neither had water infiltration marks. While a sealed well would easily be able to witshtand the occasional rainstorm, it is unlikely that it would have remained waterproof with a river running on top of it.
so you are obviously a fan of the cheops is responsible for the sphinx theory
Can't say I am or am not. Egyptian history isn't my forte. I merely point out inconsistencies in the arguments.
what is your forte?
Scientific Methodology.
Interesting discussion. I used to be into the ancient Egyptians for a while. Personally, as I stated previously, that wind is responsible for the strange erosion of the sphinx. Is it possible that water had a play in it all? Sure it is! I wouldn't rule it out at all. Wasn't ever big on the sphinx though. I was more into their culture and way of life, than what they built. But that's just me
Thanks
Thanks
whern you consider the story of the sphinx the main word should be inconsistent. There is no mention of the shpinx in any ancient text which also includes the pyramids. THERE IS NO MENTION OF IT ANYWHERE, if this wasa creation of a pharoh there would proclamations to the world claiming responsibility, but there isn't
it is only after the fact.
it is only after the fact.
http://www.arab.net/egypt/et_sphinx.htm
http://www.sis.gov.eg/sphinx/html/sphnx003.htm
that second link may shed alot of light on the age and weathering of the sphinx
http://www.sis.gov.eg/sphinx/html/sphnx003.htm
that second link may shed alot of light on the age and weathering of the sphinx
To answer to the best of my ability the question of what is under the sphinx: underground chambers.
Fairly new technology coined "ground radar" was used to create a map of the underground of the sphinx, and they found a room. There is a tunnel leading from this room diagnally to the Great Pyramid, and it keeps going in the opposite direction of the great pyramid.
It puzzles me as to why they didn't proceed to dig and uncover the tunnel - it interests me greatly. Perhaps the government prohibited them or something crazy like that.
Fairly new technology coined "ground radar" was used to create a map of the underground of the sphinx, and they found a room. There is a tunnel leading from this room diagnally to the Great Pyramid, and it keeps going in the opposite direction of the great pyramid.
It puzzles me as to why they didn't proceed to dig and uncover the tunnel - it interests me greatly. Perhaps the government prohibited them or something crazy like that.
Fairly new? I was hearing about this alleged "ground radar" twenty years ago. As to why they are digging it up, it because the Sphynx crumbles everytime you look at it wrong.
[COLOR=green] I watched a documentary on The History Channel about the sphinx. It explained that one of the theories is that the sphinx was originally a lion. It was there long before the Egyptians came. They also showed other evidence of this ancient culture that worshipped cats/lions. In this show they said that an egyptian pharaoh had workers/slaves carve his head out of the lion head. I thought this could be true since the head is unproportioned to the body and it looks newer than the body. I don't think we'll ever know for sure, but it sure is interesting!
I have read a few storys that suggest that records from Atlantis are in the room under one of the paws. And to date the Egyptian government has not given permission to open it up. Probably afraid it will conflict with what is now recorded as History!
Scientists and politicians ,lawyers and Doctors all hate to be proved WRONG!
Alternatively, they simply may be hesitant to carve up a millenia old monument that is so delicate it is falling apart as it is, based on a single report from a psychic claiming to have 'seen' a room under it while asleep, containing documents from a civilization that all archeologists and literature scholars agree bears no more link to a real city than Lilliputia.
Unless something a bit more solid than that was found in regards to evidnece, I wouldn't blame the scientific community for forming a lynch mob to deal with anyone who attempted to desecrate the Sphynx in that manner for that reason.
Unless something a bit more solid than that was found in regards to evidnece, I wouldn't blame the scientific community for forming a lynch mob to deal with anyone who attempted to desecrate the Sphynx in that manner for that reason.
20 years, which is why i said fairly new, not new. Underground maps are way more credible than psychics and still they refuse to dig it up.
I don't understand why you try to argue every point.
Oh, also, the sphinx crumbling nonsence is just that - nonsence - becasue as I said in my earlier post there are also what looks like tunnels going to the great pyramid - why don't they dig those up, see where they lead, etc?
As the egyptians say - "The sphinx is the soul of Egypt" If suddenly it was found that the Egyptians really didn't build the sphinx - well, that would steal their soul
Muhahahaha!!... uh yeah, anyway, assuming that's what they'll find, which I'm not quite sure about, I just want to know what's under there, where those tunnels go, etc.
I don't understand why you try to argue every point.
Oh, also, the sphinx crumbling nonsence is just that - nonsence - becasue as I said in my earlier post there are also what looks like tunnels going to the great pyramid - why don't they dig those up, see where they lead, etc?
As the egyptians say - "The sphinx is the soul of Egypt" If suddenly it was found that the Egyptians really didn't build the sphinx - well, that would steal their soul
Muhahahaha!!... uh yeah, anyway, assuming that's what they'll find, which I'm not quite sure about, I just want to know what's under there, where those tunnels go, etc.
They have been digging in egypt for countless of years and suddenly there is one spot in Egypt that is off limits. Why is it okay to desicrate and taint thuosands of sites but this one is so taboo. It is a very scary proposition to discover something that might undermine your life's work. Typical human self preservation
I like to argue incorrect points. It's my thing.
In this case, the thing in question is the xistance of these underground maps. While you can find references to them throught the entire net, I think you will be hard pressed to actually find any evidence that any such maps existed in the first place. Like I said, twnety years ago people were talking about this radar that mapped an underground room. The story hasn't changed. Today people still talk about this radar that mapped an underground room. Everyone takes it as a given that it happened. No one checks to see if it actually did or not.
As far as the two tunnels that you are referring to, I can only imagine that you are talking about the tunnel at the rump of the Sphynx, and the tunnel towards the rear of the left paw of the Sphynx. They don't need to dig them up because they are already dug. They were simply covered up with a flat stone. The one in the rear goes down a little over eight feet, and was most likely used to hold a brace during the construction of the Sphynx. The other is a little deeper, and seems to have served the same purpose. At a little more than a foot wide and less than ten deep, they cannot really be reffered to as tunnels, but rather as holes. I'm more interested in how they were dug, although I don't expect anything mysterious about the explanation.
Oh, and the Sphynx is delicate. They tried spraying it with a sealant about a decade ago, now it turns out that sealant is taking bigger chunks out of the limestone. The restoration has been halted until they can figure out what to do.
I like a good msytery as much as the next person, but really, why create one where there isn't? There's plenty of stuff out there, especially in Egypt that still as mysterious as it was at the turn of the century.
In this case, the thing in question is the xistance of these underground maps. While you can find references to them throught the entire net, I think you will be hard pressed to actually find any evidence that any such maps existed in the first place. Like I said, twnety years ago people were talking about this radar that mapped an underground room. The story hasn't changed. Today people still talk about this radar that mapped an underground room. Everyone takes it as a given that it happened. No one checks to see if it actually did or not.
As far as the two tunnels that you are referring to, I can only imagine that you are talking about the tunnel at the rump of the Sphynx, and the tunnel towards the rear of the left paw of the Sphynx. They don't need to dig them up because they are already dug. They were simply covered up with a flat stone. The one in the rear goes down a little over eight feet, and was most likely used to hold a brace during the construction of the Sphynx. The other is a little deeper, and seems to have served the same purpose. At a little more than a foot wide and less than ten deep, they cannot really be reffered to as tunnels, but rather as holes. I'm more interested in how they were dug, although I don't expect anything mysterious about the explanation.
Oh, and the Sphynx is delicate. They tried spraying it with a sealant about a decade ago, now it turns out that sealant is taking bigger chunks out of the limestone. The restoration has been halted until they can figure out what to do.
I like a good msytery as much as the next person, but really, why create one where there isn't? There's plenty of stuff out there, especially in Egypt that still as mysterious as it was at the turn of the century.
I got my information on the chambers and radar used to uncover them from a nova (i think it was nova) in any event - a show from the discovery channel - which i think is pretty credible, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not disputing the fact that the sphinx is delicate - it's made out of soft limestone. I'm merely saying thats no reason why they shouldnt dig up the other tunnels - which you said they already did. Could you post some links, i would be intrigued to read more about this.
I'm not disputing the fact that the sphinx is delicate - it's made out of soft limestone. I'm merely saying thats no reason why they shouldnt dig up the other tunnels - which you said they already did. Could you post some links, i would be intrigued to read more about this.
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Feb 10 2005, 11:40 PM)
I like to argue incorrect points. It's my thing.
In this case, the thing in question is the xistance of these underground maps. While you can find references to them throught the entire net, I think you will be hard pressed to actually find any evidence that any such maps existed in the first place. Like I said, twnety years ago people were talking about this radar that mapped an underground room. The story hasn't changed. Today people still talk about this radar that mapped an underground room. Everyone takes it as a given that it happened. No one checks to see if it actually did or not.
As far as the two tunnels that you are referring to, I can only imagine that you are talking about the tunnel at the rump of the Sphynx, and the tunnel towards the rear of the left paw of the Sphynx. They don't need to dig them up because they are already dug. They were simply covered up with a flat stone. The one in the rear goes down a little over eight feet, and was most likely used to hold a brace during the construction of the Sphynx. The other is a little deeper, and seems to have served the same purpose. At a little more than a foot wide and less than ten deep, they cannot really be reffered to as tunnels, but rather as holes. I'm more interested in how they were dug, although I don't expect anything mysterious about the explanation.
Oh, and the Sphynx is delicate. They tried spraying it with a sealant about a decade ago, now it turns out that sealant is taking bigger chunks out of the limestone. The restoration has been halted until they can figure out what to do.
I like a good msytery as much as the next person, but really, why create one where there isn't? There's plenty of stuff out there, especially in Egypt that still as mysterious as it was at the turn of the century.
[right][snapback]483065[/snapback][/right]
In this case, the thing in question is the xistance of these underground maps. While you can find references to them throught the entire net, I think you will be hard pressed to actually find any evidence that any such maps existed in the first place. Like I said, twnety years ago people were talking about this radar that mapped an underground room. The story hasn't changed. Today people still talk about this radar that mapped an underground room. Everyone takes it as a given that it happened. No one checks to see if it actually did or not.
As far as the two tunnels that you are referring to, I can only imagine that you are talking about the tunnel at the rump of the Sphynx, and the tunnel towards the rear of the left paw of the Sphynx. They don't need to dig them up because they are already dug. They were simply covered up with a flat stone. The one in the rear goes down a little over eight feet, and was most likely used to hold a brace during the construction of the Sphynx. The other is a little deeper, and seems to have served the same purpose. At a little more than a foot wide and less than ten deep, they cannot really be reffered to as tunnels, but rather as holes. I'm more interested in how they were dug, although I don't expect anything mysterious about the explanation.
Oh, and the Sphynx is delicate. They tried spraying it with a sealant about a decade ago, now it turns out that sealant is taking bigger chunks out of the limestone. The restoration has been halted until they can figure out what to do.
I like a good msytery as much as the next person, but really, why create one where there isn't? There's plenty of stuff out there, especially in Egypt that still as mysterious as it was at the turn of the century.
[right][snapback]483065[/snapback][/right]
They tried spraying sealent and it took bigger chunks of rocks out??? now im not good at science but shouldnt that rock need like another "component" before that would happen like im probably wrong but soft lime stone shouldnt deteriorate like that
Nova is a pretty introductory sort of show. They basically throw a lot of things out to the audience, but don't bother to explain how credible or correct they are. It's pop archeology, and considering how often it is used in classrooms, I would like to see a little more critical analysis. They reported the ground radar as well, but again, they simply assumed it has been done and that it showed evidence of rooms and tunnels.
Now, don't get me wrong, it may well have been done, and there may well be rooms and tunnels, but I haven't been able to find any credible sources indicating so.
Here is a picture I have of one of the holes found, the one in the rump. Each of these blocks is about two feet wide and one foot high, to give you an idea of the scale.
Soft limestone deteriorates fairly readily when exposed to the elements, particularly with the increased pollution in that area. In this case, what happened is that the rock was already crumbly, and what they were hoping to do with the sealant was bind it together. It worked, however the deteriorating limestone, while bound to itself, was not bound to the unaffected limestone, and gradually began to pull away, in larger, binded, chunks.
Now, don't get me wrong, it may well have been done, and there may well be rooms and tunnels, but I haven't been able to find any credible sources indicating so.
Here is a picture I have of one of the holes found, the one in the rump. Each of these blocks is about two feet wide and one foot high, to give you an idea of the scale.
QUOTE
They tried spraying sealent and it took bigger chunks of rocks out??? now im not good at science but shouldnt that rock need like another "component" before that would happen like im probably wrong but soft lime stone shouldnt deteriorate like that
Soft limestone deteriorates fairly readily when exposed to the elements, particularly with the increased pollution in that area. In this case, what happened is that the rock was already crumbly, and what they were hoping to do with the sealant was bind it together. It worked, however the deteriorating limestone, while bound to itself, was not bound to the unaffected limestone, and gradually began to pull away, in larger, binded, chunks.
They showed the maps created by the radar on the show.
Also, have you found any links for me?
Also, have you found any links for me?
Links to the discovery of the holes? I'll check the archeology pages, but I suspect the search engine will return dozens of pages full on nothing other than these underground maps. It possible they showed maps on Nova; it's been years since I last watched the show, but the Hoagland has also shown many maps of Cydonia, and many of them were commissioned by him from CG artists for his video; I would suspect Nova has done the same thing on more than one occasion, but, again, as I haven't seen these maps (ever), I can't really say.
I'll check and come back.
I'll check and come back.
http://www.catchpenny.org/passages.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/sphinxschematics.html <-------dunno how accurate that is but sure is impressive
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~hazey/Sphinx.html
that should be helpful and aquatus id like your impression of the middle one pls dunno that i believe it but as i said it is impressive
http://www.crystalinks.com/sphinxschematics.html <-------dunno how accurate that is but sure is impressive
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~hazey/Sphinx.html
that should be helpful and aquatus id like your impression of the middle one pls dunno that i believe it but as i said it is impressive
Yes, that was most helpful. The picture I posted was the restoration hole dug back in the 1920's.
In regards to the middle one, I will have to do a little checking. Like I said, there is little more than claims that it has been done. It is an impressive drawing, but ultimately, it is only a drawing, until something a bit more objective is found to support it.
In regards to the middle one, I will have to do a little checking. Like I said, there is little more than claims that it has been done. It is an impressive drawing, but ultimately, it is only a drawing, until something a bit more objective is found to support it.
Sorry aqu - I should have been more specific.
Links to information about the "support structures" that they dug up around the sphinx.
Links to information about the "support structures" that they dug up around the sphinx.
They are mentioned in Et's first link. I haven't had time for an in-depth search (and I am not confident that I would find anything either. After all, what's so sexy about ten foot holes?). I actually hadn't heard of the other holes, particularly the one on the top of the Sphinx's head.
I did find an excerpt from Edgar Cayce's prediction of what would be found under the Sphinx. According to him, it wouldn't be a chamber, only a passage that would lead from the front paw of the Sphinx to an Atlantian Hall of Records, somewhere out in front of the Sphinx.
I did find an excerpt from Edgar Cayce's prediction of what would be found under the Sphinx. According to him, it wouldn't be a chamber, only a passage that would lead from the front paw of the Sphinx to an Atlantian Hall of Records, somewhere out in front of the Sphinx.
QUOTE(et's daddy @ Feb 9 2005, 09:47 PM)
http://www.arab.net/egypt/et_sphinx.htm
http://www.sis.gov.eg/sphinx/html/sphnx003.htm
that second link may shed alot of light on the age and weathering of the sphinx
[right][snapback]482063[/snapback][/right]
http://www.sis.gov.eg/sphinx/html/sphnx003.htm
that second link may shed alot of light on the age and weathering of the sphinx
[right][snapback]482063[/snapback][/right]
that second site was great. Level headed and concise!
Kings and Queens in Ancient History were symbolized by animals. Ptah of Egypt was symbolized by the Lion. Zeus by the Bull.
These Symbols also show up in the Bible in the enigmatic prophetic books like Revelation, Daniel and Ezekiel, since they were talking about the two Princes that were sent to Earth to rule it.
The God of Water, Lion, Ea, Enki, Ptah, Poseidon, Jesus.
The God of EArth, Bull, Zeus, Jupiter, Jehovah.
And there are your first two Horsemen of Revelation, having come to EArth in that order. Ea was first, Zeus came and took his kingdom from him.
These Symbols also show up in the Bible in the enigmatic prophetic books like Revelation, Daniel and Ezekiel, since they were talking about the two Princes that were sent to Earth to rule it.
The God of Water, Lion, Ea, Enki, Ptah, Poseidon, Jesus.
The God of EArth, Bull, Zeus, Jupiter, Jehovah.
And there are your first two Horsemen of Revelation, having come to EArth in that order. Ea was first, Zeus came and took his kingdom from him.
Okay.
Aquatus: You're wrong. The idea of constelations was not Greek, in fact Greece imported the idea from other nations including Hitites and Egyptians. In Dendera, Egypt, we can see the constelations did have hybrid forms ands we know are the same hybrid shapes that existed long before them in Sumeria. When you say is a lion alright, is a choosing os specific stars among millions of other to "create" an image in the sky. The idea implicit even in the names indicate they gods were hybrids hence is important to understand comparative religions. It seems you lack that knowledge in high degree. 
.....
.....
QUOTE
Aquatus: You're wrong. The idea of constelations was not Greek, in fact Greece imported the idea from other nations including Hitites and Egyptians. In Dendera, Egypt, we can see the constelations did have hybrid forms ands we know are the same hybrid shapes that existed long before them in Sumeria. When you say is a lion alright, is a choosing os specific stars among millions of other to "create" an image in the sky. The idea implicit even in the names indicate they gods were hybrids hence is important to understand comparative religions. It seems you lack that knowledge in high degree. no.gif ..... w00t.gif
Well, like I said:
QUOTE
I don't really know a great deal about astrology, but I am curious, did the constellation of Leo mean anything to the Egyptians? Wasn't it a Greek constellation?
Now, I understand Ptolemy is credited with the original and classic constellation, but I have been unable to confirm that Leo was one of them. Do you have a source that could confirm that for me? After all, even if they were first, the Egyptians are hardly the only ones to have created constellations.
Now, didn't you say previously?:
QUOTE
Aquatus: constelations never had hybrid forms, they were depicted like these due to the forms of hyperdimensional beings in invisible realms not the opposite. wacko.gif
I assumed, back then, that you were talking about Greek constellations, and so I agreed, because I cannot think of a Greek constellation that is a hybrid. I have no idea if Egyptian constellations were hybrids, but, as you took particular joy in pointing out, I "lack that knowledge in high degree" concerning the Egyptian constellations, so please, share some of your knowledge and point me towards a source where I can see the Egyptian hybrid constellations.
Obviously, the Egyptian gods were hybrids. What is not so obvious to me are two things: First, is the constellation Leo of Egyptian origins, and Second (and irrelevant, but I am curious), did the Egyptians have constellations of their hybrid gods? I eagerly await your links.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.