Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

[samspade]

Another video

The Mystery Of The Sphinx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ-xh3kedW4&feature=related

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I spoke with one guy last night. He asked what do I think could it be that Sphinx represents sex? Four legs are in fact synonym for couple and in sex they become one. One head. They are united. I remebered how Shakespeare describe sex. Beast with two backs. Well could Sphinx represented Beast with four legs?

[Scott Creighton]

KMT: Moreover, the Sphinx has no real connection with the pyramid complex of Khufu, so it wouldn't be logical for him to have commissioned it. I'm not saying it's impossible, mind you, but the weight of archaeological evidence definitely associates the Sphinx with the pyramid complex of Khafre.

SC: Consensus Egyptology and its apologists have been spouting forth this mere opinion for the better part of 200 years. But it is patent nonsense as a cursory glance of the arrangement of the Giza monuments in relation to the Sphinx will easily demonstrate.

Map Source: Giza Plateau Mapping Project

Notice how, in the figure above, that a circle circumscribed around the three most outer corners of the Giza pyramid field finds the rear of the Sphinx sitting almost perfectly on the perimeter of the circumscribed circle. The chances of this arrangement occurring by mere chance are astronomical. And yet, a random occurrence is what the Egypt-apologists will have you believe of this arrangement. Any evidence that is not explainable to Consensus Egyptology is simply ignored, glossed over and forgotten. They do not wish to probe further into such matters for fear of discovering something that might then upset the cosy paradigm they have deluded themselves into believing. Best just ignore such findings in the hope that it goes away., that no one will notice. But this arrangement is NOT a random occurrence for this arrangement of the site, and of the Sphinx in particular, serves a very specific purpose.

Regards,

SC

Edited October 31, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Harte]

Notice how, in the figure above, that a circle circumscribed around the three most outer corners of the Giza pyramid field finds the rear of the Sphinx sitting almost perfectly on the perimeter of the circumscribed circle. The chances of this arrangement occurring by mere chance are astronomical.

Any three noncollinear points will determine a circle, Scott.

Your lack of geometrical understanding is showing.

The fact that the Sphinx sits "almost perfectly" (whatever thet means) on the circle you randomly chose from random corners of pyramids means only that the Sphinx is nearby.

People that know a minimal amount of mathematics already know this, so there is no "delusion" involved regarding what Egyptology has to say about this. In fact, they have nothing to say about your circle, for reasons I just explained.

Regards,

Harte

[Scott Creighton]

Any three noncollinear points will determine a circle, Scott.

SC: Indeed. We know this.

Harte: Your lack of geometrical understanding is showing.

SC: Really?

Harte: The fact that the Sphinx sits "almost perfectly" (whatever thet means) on the circle you randomly chose from random corners of pyramids means only that the Sphinx is nearby.

SC: I hardly consider the three most outer corners of the Giza pyramid field to be "random" since they all share the common feature of being an outer corner of the Giza pyramid field--the first circle that fully encloses the Giza pyramid field within the circle. Hardly random.

Harte: People that know a minimal amount of mathematics already know this, so there is no "delusion" involved regarding what Egyptology has to say about this.

SC: Well here's a little experiment for all those watching at home, including you. Scatter four pennies randomly to the floor and try and find a circle that connects all four of your randomly scattered pennies. Certainly you will ALWAYS find a circle that that will connect any three non-linear points but to connect FOUR is much more difficult, as you will undoubtedly know.

Now, when we set the fulcrum of the Orion Belt stars over G1 and G3, we also find the following:

The Sphinx sits on the perimeter of the circle and the circle's centre meets the centre of the middle Belt Star, Al Nilam (which corresponds to G2 centre--we can see from the topography of the ground at G2 why the architect moved G2 slightly off its planned Belt Star position). This is a bit like circumscribing the three most outer points of New York City with a circle and finding that the Empire State Building is smack bang in the circle's centre whilst the Statue of Liberty sits on the circle's perimeter. And, of course, it can be shown that using the Belt Stars in a simple and systematic manner, we can easily reproduce the relative proportions of the main Gizamid bases to a very high degree of accuracy. No doubt you'll still be saying it is all just one big coincidence. Dream on.

Harte. In fact, they have nothing to say about your circle, for reasons I just explained.

SC: Well, you would say that, wouldn't you. But still--nice to see that you've removed me from your ignore button. Or perhaps you're just having a senior moment?

Regards,

SC

Edited October 31, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

It's interesting how there's a mismatch between Scott's claim and a Quickbird view of the Giza Pyramids and Sphinx:

Of particular note is the fact that the part of the circle intersecting the rear of the Sphinx, per Scott's picture actually intersects the back of the neck in the Quickbird satellite photo. Not remotely "almost perfect".

cormac

Edited October 31, 2012 by cormac mac airt

[Harte]

It's interesting how there's a mismatch between Scott's claim and a Quickbird view of the Giza Pyramids and Sphinx:

Yeah, but not as interesting as his false claims used to be.

Guess we're getting used to it.

Scott, you did choose points at random. There is no reason to pick the northern and easter pyramids as "outermost." That is, regarding the Menkaure Queen pyramid, the eastern of the three could as easily be thought of as "outermost, " and for the Khufu triplet, the center pyramid is more "outer" than the other two, when looked at with a different perspective.

The three points associated with these pyramids would also make a circle, but that circle would miss the sphinx altogether.

So, the lesson is that, first you pick a circle to touch the Sphinx, and then are astonished when your chosen circle touches the Sphinx!

Regards,

Harte

Edited October 31, 2012 by Harte

[questionmark]

It's interesting how there's a mismatch between Scott's claim and a Quickbird view of the Giza Pyramids and Sphinx:

Of particular note is the fact that the part of the circle intersecting the rear of the Sphinx, per Scott's picture actually intersects the back of the neck in the Quickbird satellite photo. Not remotely "almost perfect".

cormac

Now, don't be so critical, he just is using a little "poetic license"

Edited October 31, 2012 by questionmark

[kmt_sesh]

Aside from exaggerations over "exact" measurements on an imagined circle, when Khufu built his Great Pyramid there was nothing to the south of it. Khafre's pyramid did not yet exist, Menkaure's pyramid did not yet exist, nor did any of their queens' or satellite pyramids. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to me to try to assign the Great Sphinx to Khufu based on a circle encompassing major monuments that did not yet even exist.

But that's Egyptology for you. Always using reason and logic. How dare they!

[cormac mac airt]

Now, don't be so critical, he just is using a little "poetic license"

Is that what it's called. Smells more like bullflop.

Using the tail end of the Sphinx as a measure, here are the points (end of red lines) the circle would actually have to meet:

cormac

[questionmark]

Is that what it's called. Smells more like bullflop.

Using the tail end of the Sphinx as a measure, here are the points (end of red lines) the circle would actually have to meet:

cormac

Oh, anybody who has seen the actual topographic map of Giza only once would scratch his head at the dimensions of the above graph provided by Mr. Creighton. But most have never seen one

[cladking]

Scott, you did choose points at random. There is no reason to pick the northern and easter pyramids as "outermost." That is, regarding the Menkaure Queen pyramid, the eastern of the three could as easily be thought of as "outermost, " and for the Khufu triplet, the center pyramid is more "outer" than the other two, when looked at with a different perspective.

This is mere semantics.

The fact is you can't get farther from the center of the system than those points he has chosen.

[cladking]

quote name='kmt_sesh' timestamp='1351714281' post='4525015']

Aside from exaggerations over "exact" measurements on an imagined circle, when Khufu built his Great Pyramid there was nothing to the south of it. Khafre's pyramid did not yet exist, Menkaure's pyramid did not yet exist, nor did any of their queens' or satellite pyramids. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to me to try to assign the Great Sphinx to Khufu based on a circle encompassing major monuments that did not yet even exist.

This is assumptive. I believe the evidence contradicts it.

We can't know what was there but as you yourself have pointed out there were a few

tombs in the region. There's no way of knowing what was there since the builders

stripped the area to bedrock but it's quite apparent something existed over the grotto

of G1 and some larger object may be showing up on the gravimetric scan to the NE. Any-

thing under any of these major monuments you list would be unknown to us today. Indeed,

in only very recent years has the existence of a tenth pyramid become known. There's no

reason to be certain that other objects weren't built over or torn down and rebuilt. It

is Lehner's belief that this was a greenfield site but we know this isn't true because

of at least one existing structure under G1.

Perhaps the site was mostly undeveloped but it would have been heavily traveled since it

appears roads were in the area and it is adjacent to areas of high population densities.

Just as finding a body in the pyramid due to tomb robbers might be unlikely, finding any-

thing in an area stripped to bedrock is nearly impossible.

[cormac mac airt]

This is mere semantics.

The fact is you can't get farther from the center of the system than those points he has chosen.

Want to try again, since evidently you weren't paying attention?

Also, for Scott's position of the Sphinx to be accurate then here's what we see:

It appears his circle is deformed.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

This is assumptive. I believe the evidence contradicts it.

We can't know what was there but as you yourself have pointed out there were a few

tombs in the region. There's no way of knowing what was there since the builders

stripped the area to bedrock but it's quite apparent something existed over the grotto

of G1 and some larger object may be showing up on the gravimetric scan to the NE. Any-

thing under any of these major monuments you list would be unknown to us today. Indeed,

in only very recent years has the existence of a tenth pyramid become known. There's no

reason to be certain that other objects weren't built over or torn down and rebuilt. It

is Lehner's belief that this was a greenfield site but we know this isn't true because

of at least one existing structure under G1.

Perhaps the site was mostly undeveloped but it would have been heavily traveled since it

appears roads were in the area and it is adjacent to areas of high population densities.

Just as finding a body in the pyramid due to tomb robbers might be unlikely, finding any-

thing in an area stripped to bedrock is nearly impossible.

Archeologists and other specialists at Giza do not see something previously existing under the Great Pyramid. This premise you favor is something seen in fringe circles, but not in real-world analyses of the site.

My post was not assumptive. It was a reflection of what we know from decades of archaeological work at Giza. I favor archaeology, not the fringe.

[cladking]

Archeologists and other specialists at Giza do not see something previously existing under the Great Pyramid.

I don't know why not but more importantly I don't know why anyone would suggest

an area stripped to bedrock couldn't have had something on it before being changed.

The fact is that the stone courses visible above the grotto do no correspond to the

courses seen elsewhere at the same level. Everywhere else throughout the entire py-

ramid every course appears to be the same unifornm or regularly nonuniform across the

entire course. This strongly suggests there was something here long before construction

began. There's also the fact that a silo is built through the pebbly marl at this point.

There are a few implications here but chiefly that this was at the point of a depression

in the desert floor before any man made changes. The fact that a silo would be construc-

ted also suggests that two existing points were being connected AFTER the pyramid was be-

gun. This is reinforced by the fact that they tunneled through 15 courses of constructed

pyramid to access the lower (partly natural) passages.

You can also see on the gravimetric scans they they built the NE corner of the pyramid sig-

nigficantly lighter than any other part. We're talking hundreds of thousands of tons light-

er. The most likely reason would be to avoid crushing something in this area. One might

suggest the cause was to avoid stressing the weakened cliff face at the line of the natural

fissure but much of the fissure is to the west and the pyramid is actually heavier here.

Also the fact is that this lighter area extends virtually to the top of the pyramid toward

the SW which is far enough away from the cliff face and the fissure to be inconsequential.

The only alternative here seems to be that the this region was light accidently which is not

in keeping with the precision and accuracy of the rest of the structure. Perhaps there's

merely a large void under this area of which we are unaware but how would they know if all

our fancy equipment can't detect it.

The bottom linme would seem to be it's far more likely there's something under here they did

not want to crush. Logically it would be man made since any natural formation would be strong

enough to support the pyramid or it would be removed like everything else was down to bedrock.

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

This premise you favor is something seen in fringe circles, but not in real-world analyses of the site.

I've encountered surprisingly few people who suggest there was anything here earlier and they

seem to be mostly of the orthodox persausion. It surprises me just how uncommon this idea is

given the evidence and the high population density in this area. Every indication seems to be

that there was even a road to the Fayuum that might have gone right over Giza but was at least

nearby in the gully to the north. It seems highly unlikely that the area which also commands

a view of the entire delta to the north and is the most northern point to cross the Nile would

be a greenfield site anytime in the last 14,000 years.

[Scott Creighton]

CMA: It's interesting how there's a mismatch between Scott's claim and a Quickbird view of the Giza Pyramids and Sphinx:

Of particular note is the fact that the part of the circle intersecting the rear of the Sphinx, per Scott's picture actually intersects the back of the neck in the Quickbird satellite photo. Not remotely "almost perfect".

SC: I have told you before of the folly of using satellite images but you simply do not seem willing to learn the lesson. It is simply not advisable to use such satellite images to make such measurements for a number of reasons. Not least is the fact that the Earth's atmosphere acts as a lens and distorts satellite images. There is also the angle the images are taken at to take into account (i.e. the skew) and also the fact that some of these satellite images are composits of numerous images knitted together. Quite simply, it is better by far to use an actual survey plan of the Giza site such as the hi-res Giza Plateau Mapping Project drawing that I have used (see further images below). I cannot emphasise this to you enough. The GPMP hi-res map (which I use) is the most recent survey of the Giza site that has been released to date but unfortunately the raw data for the plan has never (yet) been published by Dr Lehner’s team.

And if you look closely at your own Quickbird rendition (below) you will observe that the NE corner of G1 has been clipped slightly and the northern boundaries of G1’s satellites are completely wrong. You even have the northern boundary of G1b extending beyond the boat pit between G1a and G1b.

Back to the drawing board for you, I’m afraid.

Regards,

SC

Edited October 31, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

Harte: Yeah, but not as interesting as his false claims used to be.

Guess we're getting used to it.

SC: I guarantee you, bub, that I can back up any claims I have made. That you might disagree with my claims does not make them false. Two different things, dear boy.

Harte: Scott, you did choose points at random. There is no reason to pick the northern and easter pyramids as "outermost." That is, regarding the Menkaure Queen pyramid, the eastern of the three could as easily be thought of as "outermost, " and for the Khufu triplet, the center pyramid is more "outer" than the other two, when looked at with a different perspective.

SC: You’re talking nonsense. Ask yourself the question – what is the circle with the smallest radius that will enclose ALL the Giza pyramids within said circle? Are you saying you could come up with a different circle to the one I present? If so, let’s see it.

Harte: The three points associated with these pyramids would also make a circle, but that circle would miss the sphinx altogether.

SC: Of course they would but it would not have ALL the pyramids at Giza within such a circle.

Harte: So, the lesson is that, first you pick a circle to touch the Sphinx, and then are astonished when your chosen circle touches the Sphinx!

SC: See above. If you can find a circle that fully circumscribes ALL the Giza pyramids that has a smaller radius than the one I present, I’d like to see that lesson.

Still off your Ignore List--I am truly honoured.

Regards,

SC

[Scott Creighton]

KMS: when Khufu built his Great Pyramid there was nothing to the south of it. Khafre's pyramid did not yet exist, Menkaure's pyramid did not yet exist, nor did any of their queens' or satellite pyramids. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to me to try to assign the Great Sphinx to Khufu based on a circle encompassing major monuments that did not yet even exist.

SC: Are you for real? Have you never heard of a PLAN?

KMS: But that's Egyptology for you. Always using reason and logic. How dare they!

SC: Reason and logic? Really? And it has never heard of a PLAN? I guess that is Alternative Egyptology for you. How dare we!

SC

[kmt_sesh]

SC: Are you for real? Have you never heard of a PLAN?

...

I've heard of many plans, so I suppose it might help for you to elaborate. Still, I have a feeling you're talking about a plan that the entirety of Dynasty 4 Giza was conceived as a unified plan before the first stone block was even cut.

I'm only guessing at your intentions, but if this is it, you of course would be quite remarkably mistaken. Dynasty 4 chronology and site development alone disprove the idea.

Editing to add: Dear boy.

Edited November 1, 2012 by kmt_sesh

[cormac mac airt]

SC: I have told you before of the folly of using satellite images but you simply do not seem willing to learn the lesson. It is simply not advisable to use such satellite images to make such measurements for a number of reasons. Not least is the fact that the Earth's atmosphere acts as a lens and distorts satellite images. There is also the angle the images are taken at to take into account (i.e. the skew) and also the fact that some of these satellite images are composits of numerous images knitted together. Quite simply, it is better by far to use an actual survey plan of the Giza site such as the hi-res Giza Plateau Mapping Project drawing that I have used (see further images below). I cannot emphasise this to you enough. The GPMP hi-res map (which I use) is the most recent survey of the Giza site that has been released to date but unfortunately the raw data for the plan has never (yet) been published by Dr Lehner’s team.

And if you look closely at your own Quickbird rendition (below) you will observe that the NE corner of G1 has been clipped slightly and the northern boundaries of G1’s satellites are completely wrong. You even have the northern boundary of G1b extending beyond the boat pit between G1a and G1b.

Back to the drawing board for you, I’m afraid.

Regards,

SC

On overlay of the wireframe topographical map (from GPMP) on top of the Quickbird Satellite photo shows the same thing. The position of the Sphinx in your photo is NOT where it's supposed to be. So two different photo's suggest you're wrong.

Since the data to support your claim hasn't been released then you're left with just a nice picture of what you're convinced yourself is accurate.

Edit to add: While it's obvious that the satellite photo is slightly skewed to the north that does not, nor can it, explain why the position of the Sphinx in your photo is skewed even more so to the east. Nearly 2/3 the length of the Sphinx. Lensing is not an excuse you can use for that.

cormac

Edited November 1, 2012 by cormac mac airt

[Scott Creighton]

I've heard of many plans, so I suppose it might help for you to elaborate.

SC: I defer you to this thread. Little point in repeating it all again for you since you didn't take up 'The Challenge' I presented last time round.

KMS: Still, I have a feeling you're talking about a plan that the entirety of Dynasty 4 Giza was conceived as a unified plan before the first stone block was even cut.

SC: Indeed.

KMS: I'm only guessing at your intentions, but if this is it, you of course would be quite remarkably mistaken. Dynasty 4 chronology and site development alone disprove the idea.

SC: You say that as if you think Consensus Egyptology has completely nailed down the chronolgy of the early dynastic period. Fact of the matter is, it simply hasn't. Stop kidding yourself that it has.The geometry of the site proves it is YOU and Consensus Egyptology that is quite mistaken. You can ignore the evidence presented if you wish, but that won't make the evidence disappear. Welcome to the wonderful world of Alternative Egyptology.

KMS: Editing to add: Dear boy.

SC: Impersonation--the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you, dear boy.

SC

[Scott Creighton]

On overlay of the wireframe topographical map (from GPMP) on top of the Quickbird Satellite photo shows the same thing. The position of the Sphinx in your photo is NOT where it's supposed to be. So two different photo's suggest you're wrong.

SC: I did not use a "photo" - you did. I used a survey drawing. Which is the only proper way to do this. And the survey drawing I have used proves my point very clearly.

CMA: Since the data to support your claim hasn't been released then you're left with just a nice picture of what you're convinced yourself is accurate.

SC: The survey drawing I use is from the Giza Plateau Mapping Project and uses the data from the most recent GPMP survey. The data upon which the survey drawing was prepared has not been released but the drawing based on the data HAS been released. And it proves my point. I am quite confident if and when the actual survey data itself is released my point here will be vindicated, the Sphinx will be shown to sit on the circumference of this circle as seen in the survey drawing.

CMA:

Edit to add: While it's obvious that the satellite photo is slightly skewed to the north that does not, nor can it, explain why the position of the Sphinx in your photo is skewed even more so to the east. Nearly 2/3 the length of the Sphinx. Lensing is not an excuse you can use for that.

cormac

SC: Yes, as I told you, the satellite image is SKEWED therefore you cannot use it and any results you present from it will be erroneous. Basic schoolboy error. Use the GPMP hi-res survey drawing.

SC

Edited November 1, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

SC: I did not use a "photo" - you did. I used a survey drawing. Which is the only proper way to do this. And the survey drawing I have used proves my point very clearly.

SC: The survey drawing I use is from the Giza Plateau Mapping Project and uses the data from the most recent GPMP survey. The data upon which the survey drawing was prepared has not been released but the drawing based on the data HAS been released. And it proves my point. I am quite confident if and when the actual survey data itself is released my point here will be vindicated, the Sphinx will be shown to sit on the circumference of this circle as seen in the survey drawing.

SC: Yes, as I told you, the satellite image is SKEWED therefore you cannot use it and any results you present from it will be erroneous. Basic schoolboy error. Use the GPMP hi-res survey drawing.

SC

So I used the word "photo" instead of "drawing", sue me. The wireframe topographical map is also from the GPMP and as I said it shows the same thing as the Quickbird photo. And you can't explain away the fact that the Sphinx isn't where the survey drawing places it. Accepting it as "high-resolution" without data to support such a claim doesn't make it a fact. It doesn't matter how confident you are in the accuracy of the survey map, you haven't proven it. Whereas I've shown two different pictures, satellite and topographical, that match perfectly and neither match your claim.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

So I used the word "photo" instead of "drawing", sue me. The wireframe topographical map is also from the GPMP and as I said it shows the same thing as the Quickbird photo. And you can't explain away the fact that the Sphinx isn't where the survey drawing places it. Accepting it as "high-resolution" without data to support such a claim doesn't make it a fact. It doesn't matter how confident you are in the accuracy of the survey map, you haven't proven it. Whereas I've shown two different pictures, satellite and topographical, that match perfectly and neither match your claim.

cormac

SC: I have no interest in suing you. What an odd thing to say. Yes, you used two different means to come up with your concoction--a skewed satellite image and a poor resolution wireframe, computer-generated image of the Giza plateau that completely OMITS the Sphinx. So, what do you have then? A skewed concoction of nothing at all.

Let me tell you again--the hi-res GPMP survey drawing I use is the best survey drawing currently within the public domain and, as such, presents our best hope of determining geometric aspects of the Giza site. The sooner you accept that simple fact the better for you and everyone else who applauds your hapless postings.

Until such time as the actual survey data is made available, the hi-res survey drawing showing the Sphinx sitting on the circle's perimeter stands. Unless, of course, you wish to tell Dr Lehner and the GPMP team that their survey drawing is in error. Good luck with that.

SC

Edited November 1, 2012 by Scott Creighton