Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


Big Bad Voodoo

Recommended Posts

Still waiting on that IVth Dynasty textual citation. Did you lose it already?

Almost nothing survives from the 4th dynasty.

This pretty much leaves us to project later ideas backward onto them. I choose

to project ideas that are nearly concurrent with their time rather than those from

thousands of years later. I choose to try to deduce which of the ideas are actu-

ally applicable to the builders and might have actually written by the builders than

to simply assume there was no change in the "religion" for thousands of years to

justify the projection of much later ideas.

I greatly prefer theories about the great pyramids that excludes everything from later

times. Skeptics often complain that alts view the great pyramids and G1 in a vacuum

but this might be why their theories adhere better to the evidence. If there were mas-

sive changes in the "religion" or "nature" over the centuries then those theories (Egy-

ptology) that do the most projecting are likely to be the most wrong.

This is all in the hands of the people who scoff and mock everyone who isn't an Egy-

ptologist. They can go out and use 21st century science to prove their contentions or

they can continue to appeal to emotions and the status quo. When the science gets

done then their mocking might hurt but until then they have no clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's all going to shake out in the next twenty years. I think the truth

is going to shock almost everyone. It's going to shock almost everyone

because we are all highly superstitious and set in our beliefs. The truth

is not going to fit anyone's beliefs so we'll all have a lot to get used to. Al-

most everything will be directly affected and nothing moreso than our be-

liefs..

well for me i have long known the truth and the symbolism involved.

i understand why Egyptology has a problem with understanding the truth.

Im really not at all impressive by Egyptology, but i am a trained professional and analyst they are not as well trained.

So the professional analyst can postively said yes its solved and fact, 100 percent.

But somehow i think do to certain other events i wonder about the sub-concious mind and certain other things that

have drawn me into this mystery,

Edited by samspade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you did not understand the sense of my post, or the reason for it. If the pyramidiot in chief needs to resort to such obfuscation and blatant lies about one particular element of AE, then there is nothing about him to be believed. And not one fringe theory has been proved, and likely never will..... Hmm, except mine, in my blog :ph34r:

I don't see your blog.

I don't believe there is a head pyramidiot. I believe we're all created equal and some are

more right than others.

A great deal of real knowledge exists in Egyptology outside their assumptions but every-

thing dependent on those assumptions is wrong. I do not trust the methodology or con-

clusions of most of the pyramidiots but the methodology and metaphysics of Egyptology

is essentially sound. It's merely their assumptions that are wrong. Their main flaw is the

unwillingness to view new evidence outside their assumptions and their refusal to use

modern science and techniques to probe for answers.

What many skeptics forget is that a great deal of knowledge exists outside Egyptology

and within pyramidiocy. There is almost no evidence but the individual pyramidiots bring

a great deal of relevant and experiential knowledge to the field. They can also provide

a different perspective that is often independent of the four assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But somehow i think do to certain other events i wonder about the sub-concious mind and certain other things that

have drawn me into this mystery,

There's more to the world and nature than only the great pyramids.

There are mysteries that will never be unwound though the pyramid isn't one of them.

We each seem to have gotten here by different means. Some are led by the hand and

others stumble over the obvious. Some routes are less direct and more cryptic. Some

may be nearly as surprising as the answers we all seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the erosion occured because it was buried. It was proved that water condenses under the top layer of sand, and over time this water, running downhill around the Sphinx, has caused the erosion within the timeline of the Sphinx being constructed approximately 4 500 years ago

You're both wrong.

The erosion in the sphinx enclosure and on the sphinx itelf is due to capillary action of dew on the stone.

The dew invades the stone through capillary action, dissolving the salts in the stone. As the dew evaporates out during the day, it leaves behind crystals of salt that grow and cause the stone to seperate into flakes, which can be easily brushed off the stone by hand right now, if you have the nerve to visit Egypt these days.

The erosion looks like it comes from flowing water to the untrained eye. What most people don't know or don't think of is that the shape of weathered limestone is determined by the makeup of the limestone itself more than any other factor. Limestone is notoriously non-homogeneous. Parts of the same piece of stone will erode at different rates for various reasons.

The gashes that can be seen in the enclosure might have been enlarged by flowing rainwater, as was already pointed out, but erosion similar in form would still be found on the stone even if not a single drop of rain had fallen since 2600 BC.

At any rate, nobody can date a statue by the amount of erosion that has occured. The fact is, Robert Schoch did not use aboveground erosion appearing at the site for his bogus date for the sphinx. He used subsurface weathering information taken from sonic data that someone else had previously collected for other reasons (IIRC.) Even then, it is impossible to arrive at a date using that method. Schoch tells us that he made the assumption that the rear of the sphinx was finished by Kaphre, and then he extrapolated backward from there, based on the difference in the depth of subsurface weathering between the front and the rear in the floor of the sphinx enclosure.

What Schoch mysteriously "forgot" to mention is that, using his own data and his own method that he used for the front/rear comparison, one will find that the enclosure floor along the sides of the sphinx would actually be older than the front or the back.

In what way, then, does this make any sense?

Harte

Edited by Harte
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more to the world and nature than only the great pyramids.

There are mysteries that will never be unwound though the pyramid isn't one of them.

the mystery of the great pyramid and whats encoded there is the biggest and most interesting as far as i am concerned.

i guess i should be honour to be the first to rediscover its secrets of the truth since the ancient egyptians.

Perhaps its a sign to show mankind its on the path of the knowing more of the subconscious mind.and i say that because of other things that have happened in my life which got me to look into the mystery.

regards

Edited by samspade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

which falls under the chapter discussing with somebody with fingers in his ears squealing as loud as he can: lalala I can't hear you

And some people are so obtuse they couldn't recognize the truth no matter what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost nothing survives from the 4th dynasty.

This pretty much leaves us to project later ideas backward onto them. I choose

to project ideas that are nearly concurrent with their time rather than those from

thousands of years later. I choose to try to deduce which of the ideas are actu-

ally applicable to the builders and might have actually written by the builders than

to simply assume there was no change in the "religion" for thousands of years to

justify the projection of much later ideas.

I greatly prefer theories about the great pyramids that excludes everything from later

times. Skeptics often complain that alts view the great pyramids and G1 in a vacuum

but this might be why their theories adhere better to the evidence. If there were mas-

sive changes in the "religion" or "nature" over the centuries then those theories (Egy-

ptology) that do the most projecting are likely to be the most wrong.

This is all in the hands of the people who scoff and mock everyone who isn't an Egy-

ptologist. They can go out and use 21st century science to prove their contentions or

they can continue to appeal to emotions and the status quo. When the science gets

done then their mocking might hurt but until then they have no clothes.

A rather verbose way of saying you've got nothing, but okay.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it true that even though we are talking about 'sand' the stuff on the Giza plateau pretty rapidly hardens into a more clay-like substance? Wouldn't that prevent any water from reaching the lower levels? Is not that why it took so much time to excavate those tunnel-like tombs in the Valley of the Kings? Wouldn't any theory about water or condensation trickling down from the top of a buried Sphinx have more erosion at the top than the bottom? And why does the Sphinx HAVE to date to Khufu? The face doesn't look like him, it looks more like a New Kingdom pharoah (Amenhotep IV, I think?). The architecture of the Sphinx temple differs significantly from that of all the other structures attributed to the fourth dynasty. Adding it all up there is very little evidence to place the Sphinx exactly to that time. Given its location nearest to the Nile it's likely that it predates the pyramid by a few hundred years but who knows? Perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood will take explosives to it and then maybe we'll finally get some answers (Would be shame if they did...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I will believe people who are properly trained and have spent their lives digging in the sand of Egypt.

Rightly so. You'd think this is simple common sense, yet there is a repeating pattern with fringies: "Egyptology has been wrong for two centuries but I alone know the truth!" When you see something like this, you intuitively know to dismiss the fringie. It's not only vainglorious on a comical level, it is a manifestation of delusions of grandeur. I'll take solid, hard-won, peer-reviewed research any day over delusions of grandeur.

Clearly you prefer this nonsense from "Breaking the Mirror of Heaven" by Robert Bauval and Ahmed Osman.

Quotes about the "murder" of Tutankhamun by being hanged by a mob

Their italics, and see now consensus has to prove a negative to satisfy these morons. And further..

High priest of Aten ????? in year ten of Tutankhamun ????? And this total garbage from one of the high priests of fantasy, the pyramidiot in chief. You believe this if you wish, I hold my nose while reading such (expletive deleted)

And by the way, the reason given for thinking that Tutankhamun was hung, is that his head was detached from his body. Oi! Oi! Oi!, these morons never even bothered to find out how Howard Carter managed to remove the golden mask. See, there is reality from egyptology, even when it is the brutal truth, and there is garbage (being very polite) from pyramidiots and alternaviks

Wow. Goodness. Damn. This is from a book co-authored by Bauval and Osman?

I didn't know they had written a book together. I'll agree with cladking that there really is no pyramidiot in chief, but there's a large tribe of pyramidiots and they all vie for the greatest amount of attention and acclaim in the half-baked ideas they present to their readers. As far as that goes, I personally don't understand how any thinking and reasoning person would take the likes of Bauval or Osman seriously. Still, they have not contributed to fringe whimsy nearly so much (and so damagingly) as either Sitchin or von Däniken. Von Däniken in particular has contributed to human stupidity on a vast scale.

Anyway, the above hypothesis has to be one of the most idiotic ever presented about Tutankhmaun (not the most idiotic, but it's up there). Gees. If anything this reveals how poor such fringe writers are at research, how out of touch they are with current research and theory, and in general how poorly informed they are. Few mummies have been studied as extensively as Tut's. Had he been hanged—which, by the way, was not a means of assassination or execution for the Egyptians to begin with—there would be evidence on his body. No, the cervical vertebrae might not be broken if the hanging was very slow and methodical so as to cause prolonged suffocation, but the delicate hyoid bone almost certainly would've been broken; this is common in strangulation deaths.

You caught the reality behind the accidental removal of Tut's head during his mummy's autopsy by Howard Carter's team, which reinforces how poor such charlatans are at basic research. Either that or they know the truth and are just trying to spin a lurid story to sell their book. How ridiculous.

You also caught the reality behind the "high priest of the Aten." Tut died ten years after his coronation, by which time there was no longer a high priest of the Aten. We know some of the Aten's estates were still functioning, and probably some people were still living at Akhetaten, but the governmental and religious infrastructure at the site was well defunct by that time. So, again, this reinforces how poor such charlatans are at basic research.

Did Bauval or Osman even mention the severe compound fracture to Tut's left distal femur? That was almost certainly the cause of death. Or did they just conveniently ignore this fact?

Like you said: Oi!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Bauval or Osman even mention the severe compound fracture to Tut's left distal femur? That was almost certainly the cause of death. Or did they just conveniently ignore this fact?

No mention of the fracture, but they cover this by saying he was tortured - before being hung - by the mob of enraged ordinary Egyptians - led by the high priest of Aten :wacko:

They also say that when his wrappings were being removed it became evident that his body had been dismembered before wrapping, and that all the injuries were the result of torture. So again, they have not read, or more likely, cynically ignored the reality of Carter's unwrapping and autopsy.

Published earlier this year. The book is clearly aimed at an audience that will not have too much knowledge, or any, of AE. The subtitle on the cover says "The conspiracy to supress the voice of ancient Egypt", clearly aimed at conspiracy fans. The supposed purpose of the book is to show how, mostly foreigners, have usurped AE for their own purposes over the millenia and constructed lies about "reality". Actually the real purpose of the book is to launch a sustained and vitriolic attack on Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner, and partly against the modern Egyptian state founded by Nasser. I know Hawass doesn't have too many friends these days, and certainly there are issues around him, mostly his personality, but they make him to be some sort of Hitler, and Mark Lehner as, perhaps, a "useful idiot" to propagate and lend credency to Hawass. It is a deeply unpleasant book, full of false information and bitterness. For me it was only saved by the section on Tutankhamun, which is so bad that it is very funny...

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No mention of the fracture, but they cover this by saying he was tortured - before being hung - by the mob of enraged ordinary Egyptians - led by the high priest of Aten :wacko:

They also say that when his wrappings were being removed it became evident that his body had been dismembered before wrapping, and that all the injuries were the result of torture. So again, they have not read, or more likely, cynically ignored the reality of Carter's unwrapping and autopsy.

Published earlier this year. The book is clearly aimed at an audience that will not have too much knowledge, or any, of AE. The subtitle on the cover says "The conspiracy to supress the voice of ancient Egypt", clearly aimed at conspiracy fans. The supposed purpose of the book is to show how, mostly foreigners, have usurped AE for their own purposes over the millenia and constructed lies about "reality". Actually the real purpose of the book is to launch a sustained and vitriolic attack on Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner, and partly against the modern Egyptian state founded by Nasser. I know Hawass doesn't have too many friends these days, and certainly there are issues around him, mostly his personality, but they make him to be some sort of Hitler, and Mark Lehner as, perhaps, a "useful idiot" to propagate and lend credency to Hawass. It is a deeply unpleasant book, full of false information and bitterness. For me it was only saved by the section on Tutankhamun, which is so bad that it is very funny...

They obviously didn't do their homework. I actually have a copy of Howard Carter's "The Tomb of Tutankhamun" and nowhere in it is Tut described as having been dismembered prior to being wrapped in linen.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They obviously didn't do their homework. I actually have a copy of Howard Carter's "The Tomb of Tutankhamun" and nowhere in it is Tut described as having been dismembered prior to being wrapped in linen.

cormac

Not the worst one around here, 'bout a year back we had an expert here that did not even recognize the Great Gallery despite claiming having been in Egypt to "study" the pyramids.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it true that even though we are talking about 'sand' the stuff on the Giza plateau pretty rapidly hardens into a more clay-like substance? Wouldn't that prevent any water from reaching the lower levels? Is not that why it took so much time to excavate those tunnel-like tombs in the Valley of the Kings? Wouldn't any theory about water or condensation trickling down from the top of a buried Sphinx have more erosion at the top than the bottom?

Please read this.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the worst one around here, 'bout a tear back we had an expert here that did not even recognize the Great Gallery despite claiming having been in Egypt to "study" the pyramids.

You have to laugh at what some consider research/study. It's quite often hilarious.

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand (in this specific instance), we have the concept the pyramid was designed

and intended to save the enture Egyptian country from starvation and on the other we have

the idea that the pyramid's sole function was to serve as a tomb. I believe "tomb" loses this

particular argument.

Not to the concept of the pyramid being a recovery vault it doesn't.

Please explain to me, how, once the pyramid was sealed shut, they would have been able to put the materials for recovery in the pyramid without destroying the blocks that would have protected those very materials?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to the concept of the pyramid being a recovery vault it doesn't.

Please explain to me, how, once the pyramid was sealed shut, they would have been able to put the materials for recovery in the pyramid without destroying the blocks that would have protected those very materials?

I'm sure there are numerous possibilities but the two that spring to mind are that it

wasn't actually emptied of its contents for the intended purpose or that the contents

were in sealed containers in a lower part of the pyramid.

I personally believe we all pay too much attention to G1 and too little to the nature

of the great pyramids. I believe there is more to be learned and more relevant in-

formation in what they have in common than in how they are different.

Yes, it is ironic that the one commonality they share (other than size) is that they look

like tombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I alone know the truth!" When you see something like this, you intuitively know to dismiss the fringie.

Your statment is foolishly wrong and terribly flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just had to tell you the truth and point out how stupid your statement was,

Why, sam, you sound angry. Don't like the heat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not at all kmt, your post #1285 was response to someone else post, aten.

i just had to post the truth based on your statement.

and based on your statement it was a stupid statement and terribly flawed, and i said that as a professional and analyst.

you sound like you didnt like my reply to you - you cant face the truth on the fact your statement was terribly flawed and stupid.

Edited by samspade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, so just how can alternaviks say they are correct and "consensus/orthodoxy" is wrong, when there so many bizarre and conflicting alternavik theories. There can only be one truth, one reality. It is ridiculous to say that alternaviks are correct, because it is impossible that they are all correct. Though in the Alice through the looking glass world of fantasy and DELIBERATE FRAUD of the alternaviks, anything is possible

Do you ever consider - beyond calling people names and accusing them of various imaginary crimes - that is possible for learned, thinking people to - in good faith - examine the same evidence yet come to astonishingly different conclusions?

Not once during this thread has anyone come up with any conclusive proof - nor any interpretation of the actual evidence that is convincing to any degree - as to who built the pyramids, when they were built, or what they were intended for. Spouting the accepted narrative doesn't count as proof, not matter how many times you do it. Stating things with an air of authority doesn't help either. Back projecting evidence from later AE history is invalid. Repeating stories with an almost religious conviction because you are a devout Egyptian history enthusiast may impress some on here, but it cannot count as scientific, empirical conclusive proof.

The tomb theory is just that - it's a theory. It may well be the right one - it is certainly the obvious one and the most established. But it is completely unproven, as are the other theories. Now, as a "peddlar" of this theory, you are as much a "fringe" thinker as anyone else, because you may be completely wrong in your beliefs. That doesn't make you a bad person. And thinking differently from you doesn't make anyone else a bad person.

As for "There can only be one truth, one reality"... well, I think quantum physics may one day prove you wrong there, but when it comes to history I think we all would like to know the truth. I'd be quite happy to see conclusive proof that the pyramids were tombs, as I don't particularly like unsolved mysteries, but until that day arrives I'm curious to see what other people think they might have been built for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harte, if the dew done did it, wouldn't there be at least some of the similar erosive patterns on the very oldest of the repair blocks on the Sphinx? Supposedly some of these date to the 4th dynasty. If there are erosion patterns on these than I will indeed give up the fight, but I haven't seen any, have you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you ever consider - beyond calling people names and accusing them of various imaginary crimes - that is possible for learned, thinking people to - in good faith - examine the same evidence yet come to astonishingly different conclusions?

Deliberately telling lies for the purposes of selling books to the gullible is fraud in my opinion. Yes yes, caveat emptor etc, but they still tell lies for money. I don't care what anybody believes, no matter now bizarre, but I will call a fraud a fraud when I see one, Von Daniken and those who hang to his coat-tails. Debate about anything, but when money is involved then I will absolutely take a higher moral position than these charlatans. And what names have I called anybody?

Read my blog entries and there will be another side of me......

There is too much not understanding here, to many fixed positions. I am against fraud and pseudoscience

http://humanism.al.ru/en/articles.phtml?num=000010

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.