Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

1,651 posts in this topic

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. :lol:

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:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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?

SC: It's called 'evidence' (actual, physical evidence). Not that the Egypt-apologists on this Board seem too familiar with such terms.

WOH: 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.

SC; If the hat fits.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hint – check the geology of the site.

Kindly elaborate.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

You might have noticed, Scott, that I rarely bother to reply to your posts nowadays. Let's look at the above as an example. Of the six paragraphs in your post, five were ridiculing either Egyptology or me personally. In the fifth paragraph you played the usual game of "There's something there if only you'd look to see it" (meaning: "You have to see things my way!")

I've done my research, more than twenty years of it. I can corroborate my sources. You make it up as you go along.

I'd be glad to debate you, Scott, but I no longer see the need. I don't deal well with juvenile and nasty attitudes. Nor do I deal well with the tactic of ridiculing a respected field of study while offering nothing grounded to substantiate your own beliefs.

Kindly do not respond to my posts any longer.

Best wishes, indeed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally have read statements from kmt and have done further research to corroborate his statements. I've done thus as a starting off point to further research. In every case unless specifically stated as opinion I have found sesh's statements to be honest and backed by mountains of data. Quite frankly I believe sesh could over whelm us with fact based data on any topic he addresses. In my opinion he has allowed for my own personal learning with which I am able to research further on my own without taking his word for granted.

SC YOU HAVE FAILED TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO PRODUCE ANYTHING OF ANY VALUE. Your do more research ditty is a farce. Present something we can research further on... unfortunately you are grossly unequiped for this task. But hey your goal is to sell your fiction so of course you have to attack orthodox peer reviewed research. But that's OK right because anyone not in line with your own thoughts is simply an apologist. There will be no yes men when you cannot substantiate a single claim you make $C.

ADB: good day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: It's called 'evidence' (actual, physical evidence). Not that the Egypt-apologists on this Board seem too familiar with such terms.

Listen, I'm probably the most open-minded skeptic here, so what's you're evidence? The most convincing "Sphinx is older then believed" argument I've heard is connected to the water erosion and how the erosion on the head seems to differ to that on the body.

SC; If the hat fits.

LOL, if only I had the followers that Cayce does. Or the money Erich does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might have noticed, Scott, that I rarely bother to reply to your posts nowadays. Let's look at the above as an example. Of the six paragraphs in your post, five were ridiculing either Egyptology or me personally. In the fifth paragraph you played the usual game of "There's something there if only you'd look to see it" (meaning: "You have to see things my way!")

I've done my research, more than twenty years of it. I can corroborate my sources. You make it up as you go along.

I'd be glad to debate you, Scott, but I no longer see the need. I don't deal well with juvenile and nasty attitudes. Nor do I deal well with the tactic of ridiculing a respected field of study while offering nothing grounded to substantiate your own beliefs.

Kindly do not respond to my posts any longer.

Best wishes, indeed.

You know THAT'S it Kmt. Who do you think you are, some bottom line history major final answer. WRONG, you weren't there to see., nor were your buddies there either, who like to kiss your butt just to respond in every other thread. So do us all a big favor and come down off that know it all ever increasing biased high horse attitude, that everyone wants to set you upon and welcome yourself back to planet earth, PLEASE. Just because you sound like a repeat lesson from the new age encyclopedia with all the answers doesn't make you correct or accurate at all. In fact you are wrong, while Scott and 'L' are right. NO ONE can provide PROOF no matter how hard they try. The Sphinx outdates the pyramids, ALL of them. Say what you want and get all the support from the suck ups available, neverthess this still changes NO truth or facts behind anything.

Telling someone to 'quit replying' is like admitting that you lost the debate. That's a fact here and Scott made it, so deal with it and leave well enough alone.

Good point Scott, your reasoning doesn't fall on deaf ears, no matter how many 'fans' Kmt has in his ever increasing over biased 'fan club'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You know THAT'S it Kmt. Who do you think you are, some bottom line history major final answer. WRONG, you weren't there to see., nor were your buddies there either, who like to kiss your butt just to respond in every other thread. So do us all a big favor and come down off that know it all ever increasing biased high horse attitude, that everyone wants to set you upon and welcome yourself back to planet earth, PLEASE. Just because you sound like a repeat lesson from the new age encyclopedia with all the answers doesn't make you correct or accurate at all. In fact you are wrong, while Scott and 'L' are right. NO ONE can provide PROOF no matter how hard they try. The Sphinx outdates the pyramids, ALL of them. Say what you want and get all the support from the suck ups available, neverthess this still changes NO truth or facts behind anything.

Telling someone to 'quit replying' is like admitting that you lost the debate. That's a fact here and Scott made it, so deal with it and leave well enough alone.

Good point Scott, your reasoning doesn't fall on deaf ears, no matter how many 'fans' Kmt has in his ever increasing over biased 'fan club'.

:w00t: oh God you have me rolling right now...

Oh wait you were serious... hrmmmm OK you know the answers then first describe how orthodoxy works (hint: how it changes)

Next answer me this since you so adamantly made the claim of the sphynx's age... how old is it and what brought you to this conclusion... and no psychics or anything like that... show me... by the way you may not be able to read German and in short my name means out of the box skeptic so I am open to new facts... (less Braun or of but my name was already to long)

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know THAT'S it Kmt. Who do you think you are, some bottom line history major final answer. WRONG, you weren't there to see., nor were your buddies there either, who like to kiss your butt just to respond in every other thread. So do us all a big favor and come down off that know it all ever increasing biased high horse attitude, that everyone wants to set you upon and welcome yourself back to planet earth, PLEASE. Just because you sound like a repeat lesson from the new age encyclopedia with all the answers doesn't make you correct or accurate at all. In fact you are wrong, while Scott and 'L' are right. NO ONE can provide PROOF no matter how hard they try. The Sphinx outdates the pyramids, ALL of them. Say what you want and get all the support from the suck ups available, neverthess this still changes NO truth or facts behind anything.

Telling someone to 'quit replying' is like admitting that you lost the debate. That's a fact here and Scott made it, so deal with it and leave well enough alone.

Good point Scott, your reasoning doesn't fall on deaf ears, no matter how many 'fans' Kmt has in his ever increasing over biased 'fan club'.

You're in the same boat Scott is. Like he, you've never offered anything in the way of evidence to substantiate your "timedrive" idea, so please stop preaching to me or anyone else like me. You hop between friendly demeanor and silly tirades and frankly I've grown weary of it.

It's practically impossible to have a reasonable, level-headed, and rational discussion or debate with people like you and Scott because you throw mountains of make-believe at us and cop the attitude that you're in possession of some kind of private, secret, arcane knowledge that can trump two centuries of solid, hard-won scholarship. So you throw a fit when I present information from the orthodox perspective and spend more time whining about me than you do trying to support your claims. Good show, that.

I asked Scott not to reply to my posts, if all he has is vitriol, condescension, and ridicule. I extend you the same request. No, I have no control over what you post or what you say to me, but if the above is any indication of only more of what's to come, I have better things to do than dealing with it. I don't do well with juvenile behavior.

This is a tough day for me. It marks the one-year anniversary of my mom's passing, so I came to UM to do some posting and discussion. I wasn't intending to get involved in a silly flame-war, and if you look back through this thread, you'll see things were pretty light, open minded, and civil until you and Scott lurked in.

Frankly, I hope a Mod comes in and clears away all this crap. Thank you, Time Spy (and Scott) for spewing your toxicity and ruining a perfectly decent discussion.

Good night.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're in the same boat Scott is. Like he, you've never offered anything in the way of evidence to substantiate your "timedrive" idea, so please stop preaching to me or anyone else like me. You hop between friendly demeanor and silly tirades and frankly I've grown weary of it.

It's practically impossible to have a reasonable, level-headed, and rational discussion or debate with people like you and Scott because you throw mountains of make-believe at us and cop the attitude that you're in possession of some kind of private, secret, arcane knowledge that can trump two centuries of solid, hard-won scholarship. So you throw a fit when I present information from the orthodox perspective and spend more time whining about me than you do trying to support your claims. Good show, that.

I asked Scott not to reply to my posts, if all he has is vitriol, condescension, and ridicule. I extend you the same request. No, I have no control over what you post or what you say to me, but if the above is any indication of only more of what's to come, I have better things to do than dealing with it. I don't do well with juvenile behavior.

This is a tough day for me. It marks the one-year anniversary of my mom's passing, so I came to UM to do some posting and discussion. I wasn't intending to get involved in a silly flame-war, and if you look back through this thread, you'll see things were pretty light, open minded, and civil until you and Scott lurked in.

Frankly, I hope a Mod comes in and clears away all this crap. Thank you, Time Spy (and Scott) for spewing your toxicity and ruining a perfectly decent discussion.

Good night.

Easy now Kmt. I have told you before that I respect your opinion and I like your attitude. That is a fact. I am seriously reconciled with you and deeply sympathize with at the anniversery of the passing of your Mother/, SERIOUSLY. However, you got to admit, you have a reputation. I admit it You are a walking Egyptian encylcopdia. I've said it before. However, sometimes history is recorded innacurately and those who honor the so called 'facts' don't stop to admonish the truth. This is so in this thread. The Sphinx is ancient beyone the GP. I know you don't agree, but you should give it more thought, since you're open to discussion, and respect more the opininon of others at times. That's all I'm saying.

Also I apolegize for upsetting you know matter our diagreements. Regards to this day and may peace abound with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time spy you may have missed my post directed to you above. If so I will await a response. I really hope you do want to further the discussion. I would hate for you to invalidate yourself from all future discussions due to Making hasty baseless claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy now Kmt. I have told you before that I respect your opinion and I like your attitude. That is a fact. I am seriously reconciled with you and deeply sympathize with at the anniversery of the passing of your Mother/, SERIOUSLY. However, you got to admit, you have a reputation. I admit it You are a walking Egyptian encylcopdia. I've said it before. However, sometimes history is recorded innacurately and those who honor the so called 'facts' don't stop to admonish the truth. This is so in this thread. The Sphinx is ancient beyone the GP. I know you don't agree, but you should give it more thought, since you're open to discussion, and respect more the opininon of others at times. That's all I'm saying.

Also I apolegize for upsetting you know matter our diagreements. Regards to this day and may peace abound with you.

Thank you, Time Spy. I knew you would understand. I apologize for my own temper in that last post. I actually came back in here to delete it and type something else, but I saw your new post and decided to leave it as is. Hopefully the vitriol is out of the way now—for all of us.

I reacted so strongly because I felt pounced upon and do not know why. Go back to my Post 26 and Post 27. I don't see where I insulted anybody or was uncivil to anyone, so I simply don't understand Scott's nasty reply in Post 29. There was just no call for it. It was beyond the pale.

I don't mind that you sided with Scott. That's absolutely fine. What I didn't understand was the unfriendly tone your post took—directed at me. Yes, I've spent years studying the ancient Near East, but am I to apologize for it? Am I to feel sorry that I feel so passionate about orthodox scholarship? I can't apologize for that, nor will I change. Any more than you will about those things for which you're passionate.

I've said it before: I am far from perfect. I do not know everything. I can and have been wrong. I've been called on it here at UM, and proven wrong. So be it. I live and learn. All I ask is that if you think I'm wrong about some point I've made, present me evidence to the contrary that I can evaluate and review, a source written by someone with the credentials to know the topic. I don't think this is unreasonable of me to ask.

And it's better than all of us flying off the handle and offending everyone (my fault, too). I appreciate your apology, and I accept it. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well timespy don't worry about posting in regards to my question. I don't usually come on the weekends to um because its family time for me.

In short orthodox views change as new evidence surfaces. Meaning its very pliable when new facts are introduced. If you have felt its the same old info being repeated its because no new evidence has come to change current understanding but know we are all waiting for anything new. In fact its exciting when new evidence surfaces.

as to the sphynx... what sesh posted is the current evidence we have to go by. What he posted was quite thorough also in regards to typical response. If you have any new evidence to provide please do so as it is welcomed.

Have a good weekend timespy. Until next week then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

KMS: You might have noticed, Scott, that I rarely bother to reply to your posts nowadays.

SC: Your choice. I don’t lose sleep over it. 'First they ignore you' and all that.

KMS: Let's look at the above as an example. Of the six paragraphs in your post, five were ridiculing either Egyptology or me personally.

SC: I disagree. Nothing in my post was personal. I am questioning only your opinions with regard to Egyptology and in this particular instance, your comments regarding the Sphinx. And I will continue to challenge Egyptology and its apologists. As I said to you before – you should be welcoming someone like me, asking all those pesky, irritable questions in order that you can thoroughly test your theory. Isn’t that what it’s all about? We're in this thing together, folks. I'm here for you.

KMS: In the fifth paragraph you played the usual game of "There's something there if only you'd look to see it" (meaning: "You have to see things my way!")

SC: Your attempt at twisting my words and reading into them something that simply isn’t there, will not crack it. There are no contemporary records that tell us why the early, giant pyramids were built. And yet Egyptology insists they were tombs. Once that particular paradigm is set then everything else has to be made to fit. Back in the day when that particular tomb paradigm was agreed upon by consensus opinion (which doesn’t mean it’s correct), the people who came to that conclusion could not conceive of a non-tomb paradigm, an alternative paradigm that actually fits the extant evidence (e.g. pyramids, temples, causeways, empty, nameless sarcophagi etc, etc) just as well (if not better) than the paradigm they had agreed upon. So, I see things my own way – you see what someone else has told you to see. I look at the extant evidence, read what the experts have to say about it, weigh it up, and come to my own conclusions. You just accept uncritically what you are told and that’s the real problem here. You expect others to do likewise – just take the medicine, accept what you’re told. They’re all tombs – end of story. Hell will freeze over first before I take someone else’s ill-founded opinion over a considered opinion of my own.

KMS: I've done my research, more than twenty years of it. I can corroborate my sources. You make it up as you go along.

SC: I can corroborate my sources too. How many posts/threads would you like me to show you where I can also present my sources? And from where I stand what I make up are questions for the Egypt-apologists that they cannot answer. No surprise there.

KMS: I'd be glad to debate you, Scott, but I no longer see the need. I don't deal well with juvenile and nasty attitudes.

SC: Well, from where I stand what I see as the real problem here is that you cannot actually deal with someone who asks pesky, irksome questions; someone who asks for real evidence to prove that these early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs. But that figures. You seem to me to be much more in your comfort zone when dishing out from up high the mainstream mantra to some unsuspecting soul with alternative ideas who idly wonders in here whereupon you and your cabal of co-dependent reactionaries sets upon the poor soul with what can only be described as the intellectual equivalent of a mugging. And then you all pat each other on the back – a job well done and retire back to your tombs.

But when someone comes along and dishes as much back at you, oh my - the toys are thrown out the pram, you spit the dummy, take the ball and say you’re not playing anymore because of the nasty big boys. How very grown up.

KMS: Nor do I deal well with the tactic of ridiculing a respected field of study while offering nothing grounded to substantiate your own beliefs.

SC: First of all, I don’t actually give a hee-haw how well you deal (or not, as the case may be) with my criticism of Egyptology and its apologists. I have no respect for a field of study and its apologists that presents a theory (without any real evidence) and expects people to accept it on faith (small ‘f’). Egyptology has ridiculed itself – I merely outline how it has done so.

KMS: Kindly do not respond to my posts any longer.

SC: Oh yes, I forgot – it’s your ball and you’re not playing any more. Hate to break it to you bub, but your ball has a puncture and I will post here as often as I like and for as long as it takes in order to show you and the other Egypt-apologists here the precise nature of that puncture. And how to fix it.

KMS: Thank you, Time Spy (and Scott) for spewing your toxicity and ruining a perfectly decent discussion.

SC: Yes, I’m not surprised in the least that difficult questions becomes “toxicity” to you. And it’s only ever a “perfectly decent discussion” for you when it’s going your way and there are no dissenters. Welcome to the real world.

Haste ye back.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC:There are no contemporary records that tell us why the early, giant pyramids were built. And yet Egyptology insists they were tombs... They’re all tombs – end of story.

Todays Egypotology dont think and insists that pyramids are just tombs. Neither anyone. It was back then. Something like Church and evoultion big bang story. Or like story of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Everything is self correcting. Egyptologists dont claim that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the GP built 10,500 BC ? No.

Was the Sphinx built 10,500 BC ? I think there is tentative evidence that the Sphinx was in existence before the first Egyptian empire, it seem's to show evidence of having being remodelled by the Egyptians themselfs but! it still ain't 10,500 years old. The bigger mystery is who did build it, if not the Egyptians then who? It certainly weren't aliens as is being postulated in the video, but it is interesting that the constellation of Leo periodically rises between the feet of the Sphinx [originally a lion]. Leo was rising between the feet of the Sphinx when Christ was born! The star described in the gospels as rising in the east as seen by the Zoroastrian Magi must have been rising in the constellation of Leo as in Zoroastrian Mystical culture an event in Leo was always associated with Kingship, a star rising = a new King or Kingdom, a star falling = the passing away of a King or Kingdom.

I'm not saying my idea is correct, but just floating it, but as is always the case in public forums the idea is bound to have a few torpedoes fired clean across her beams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: I disagree. Nothing in my post was personal.

What a complete load of b*ll*cks.

Your personal attacks from the post replying to kmt:

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?
Obviously you are not "aware".
But will you look beyond what you think you know? Probably not because you already think you have all the answers (from the books).
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.

How many uses of the personal pronoun "you" - in direct reference to kmt and NOT the argument kmt was using - are in the above quotes, Scott? Yet you have the sheer nerve to claim you "don't make personal attacks"?

Your self-apologist attitude is your own defence to delude yourself against the fact you are a nasty piece of work. I haven't read a thread in which you have participated where you haven't descended to personal attack and insult.

You are an insult to this forum. Get ye hence from this place.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little detail: That the Sphinx is located in the middle of the quarry used to source the stones for the great pyramid does not make anybody realize its origin?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's practically impossible to have a reasonable, level-headed, and rational discussion or debate with people like you and Scott because you throw mountains of make-believe at us and cop the attitude that you're in possession of some kind of private, secret, arcane knowledge that can trump two centuries of solid, hard-won scholarship. So you throw a fit when I present information from the orthodox perspective and spend more time whining about me than you do trying to support your claims.

This is an absolutely accurate description of the attitudes and purposeful ignorance that these two posters constantly exhibit.

It also describes exactly why both of them have been on my "ignore" list for quite some time now.

While we're on the topic of asking people not to respond (as you did,) may I ask you this Kmt?

Please, can you stop quoting these two ingnoramuses so that I don't have to read their tripe?

You are violating my right to low blood pressure.

Also - you could benefit from the judicial use of the ignore function here. You once commented on my "semi-retirement" from my crusade against ignorance at this website. The ignore function is a key aspect of how you may accomplish this.

This is a tough day for me. It marks the one-year anniversary of my mom's passing, so I came to UM to do some posting and discussion.

I want to express my sympathy for you then, buddy.

Both mine have been gone for a few years now. I miss them too.

There is still good conversation to be had here, pal. Don't you remember? A few months (or was it a year) back I told you to prepare for the fringe flood to come, back when this board was (temporarily) a calm refuge in a raging internet storm of psuedoarchaeology.

Well, I'm still here, and so are you. So is Diechecker, Cormac, Abe, Emma Acid, The Searcher (though not since April, it seems), Questionmark, Wearer of Hats (the grumpy old fart), Kantzveldt, Lightly, Aus Der Box Skeptisch, Oniomancer, Pax Unum, Shadowsot and...., and....

Damn, now look what you've done. You've trapped me. I'm afraid I've forgotten someone (or many)

I'll have to go with the "Gilligans Island" closing..."...and the rest..."

Harte

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a complete load of b*ll*cks.

Your personal attacks from the post replying to kmt:

How many uses of the personal pronoun "you" - in direct reference to kmt and NOT the argument kmt was using - are in the above quotes, Scott? Yet you have the sheer nerve to claim you "don't make personal attacks"?

Your self-apologist attitude is your own defence to delude yourself against the fact you are a nasty piece of work. I haven't read a thread in which you have participated where you haven't descended to personal attack and insult.

You are an insult to this forum. Get ye hence from this place.

Hi Leonardo,

Tsk, tsk. One can hardly avoid using the pronoun "you/your" when referencing 'his' opinions. Now go look at the ad hom from good ol' Harte with his use of the word "ignoramus". For someone who is so apparently ignorant I certainly present questions here that the Egypt-apologists cannot answer. So I guess the Egypt-apologists are as ignorant as I since they cannot provide the answers to my questions.

Though I am sure it would be met with a welcome sigh of relief were I to disengage from this Forum, alas for you, that won't be happening any time soon. You might think the Egypt-apologists around here rule the roost and can bully folks away from this Forum but as I told you before, I am not so easily dissuaded and I certainly won't be bullied away. So, get used to it......

Now, do you actually have any points to make that are pertinent to the actual topic of the discussion?

Very best wishes,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My condolences KMT.

I am very grateful for the measured and accurate wisdom you dole out here, and it must seem a sisyphean task, fighting the long fight against ignorance. The woo does seem to have intensified in the past year, why?, I cannot say, but don't be discouraged.

Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.