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 6
T.U.M

Science Proofs: Sphinx is 800K year old

144 posts in this topic

32 minutes ago, toast said:

There is esoteric. And there is science. But there is no esoteric science, never has been and never will be. Period.

In your opinions, buddy! In yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T.U.M said:

In your opinions, buddy! In yours.

I didnt provided an opinion, buddy, I provided a fact.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, back to earth said:

They do !    It is sorta a fashion statement too ... like high heeled ugh boots   ( ugh ! )   .

But the good old Aussie is a dying breed amidst all this new fangled technology.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSINX_iyHF0Jdi5bVdwyrB

That only took 150 years to think up !     :)

Wait! I'm sure Joan Collins wore one of those on Dynasty in the 80's.  Did she.....never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

54 minutes ago, Khaemwaset said:

Wait! I'm sure Joan Collins wore one of those on Dynasty in the 80's.  Did she.....never mind.

OMG   worst film ever !   yes they made a film of that here and got me to work on it - 'Dynasty Revisited' , how absolutely embarrassing !

 I remember  talking to props  girl ;   " What's that you got there ?  "

" A 'mobile'  phone .   :)  "

marty_cooper.jpg?itok=_u2HtqNv

 

 

Hopefully it never made it out the can ! 

(just checked , no listing ... thank god !  )

Edited by back to earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, T.U.M said:

 

Hi Tum, I  tried to watch your video up there but the beginning has  an old film countdown, the image kept pixelating , all sorts of interference seemed to be breaking up the picture and it started  switiching from one half formed image to another , so I had to turn it off.

You might want to fix that . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, T.U.M said:

- Ancient astronauts: famous and used some esoteric science, missing facts to proof its right.
- Ancient races: from New age movement and 18th centuries scholars.

Btw, what's ever theories can prove. I think, there're truly the "old-one" before mankind.

These ideas do not explain the many species of humans that lived on the planet or the geological and archaeological evidence.

 

The only way they work is if they pretend that the evidence for ancient humans (Denisivonians, Neanderthals, Erectus, etc, etc) and ancient settlements do not exist.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

These ideas do not explain the many species of humans that lived on the planet or the geological and archaeological evidence.

 

The only way they work is if they pretend that the evidence for ancient humans (Denisivonians, Neanderthals, Erectus, etc, etc) and ancient settlements do not exist.

Yeah well that is easy to do....snap they are gone!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yeah well that is easy to do....snap they are gone!

Or they were dead end experiments of the Annunaki that lead to failure and homo sapiens sapiens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, toast said:

There is esoteric. And there is science. But there is no esoteric science, never has been and never will be. Period.

I have respectfully respectfully disagree. There certainly was esoteric science in the late 16th and early 17th Century. It ultimately wasn't particularly useful/predictive and so early in the Scientific Revolution it was dropped for better-working methodologies. 

The historian Frances Yates has several books on the effects of esoteric thought on the development of modern thought, should if you'd like specific sources.

 

--Jaylemurph

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semantics.

"Science" has a broader meaning than the process of conducting the scientific method.

I've got fried chicken down to a science, but I have no hypothesis, data or conclusion on it.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Harte said:

...

I've got fried chicken down to a science, but I have no hypothesis, data or conclusion on it.

Harte

That's because you just go buy it at Bojangles.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fried chicken is a mystery. You go to the holy temple and by some magic process they turn mundane chickens into artery clotting ambrosia. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what   souther fried sphinx is like ? 

 

 

Related image

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm, grilled Sphinx!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that sort of quasi cannibalism? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TUM... English might not be your native tongue, so FYI ... it's facts "prove" not "proof" and "pyramids were" not "was".

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Isn't that sort of quasi cannibalism? 

You getting worried :lol:

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

You getting worried :lol:

jmccr8

Well... Just saying Kmt looks a bit peckish and has been staring. 

Edited by ShadowSot
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harte said:

Semantics.

"Science" has a broader meaning than the process of conducting the scientific method.

I've got fried chicken down to a science, but I have no hypothesis, data or conclusion on it.

Harte

When you bringing some in for the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please sum up for me, without asking me to watch a video, what the scientific proof of this is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

Can someone please sum up for me, without asking me to watch a video, what the scientific proof of this is?

There isn't any.

2 Ukrainians think the Sphinx shows erosion features similar to those created by waves on coastal cliffs*.   Therefore, they argue, the Sphinx must have been on the coast.  And been subject to wave erosion.   The last time sea levels reached the Giza Plateau (possibly, I haven't checked if this is correct) was around 800,000 years ago.   Therefore, so their rather skewed logic goes, the Sphinx must be 800,000 years old**.

And that is it.


* no-one else agrees though

** actually it would have to be even older than 800,000 years. 
 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However ........


I was looking at some of the rocks around the Sphinx enclosure, and I am sure I saw what looked a little bit like some erosion from freeze-thaw action.  And maybe the odd mark left by a glacier.   This means that the Sphinx must have been subjected to glaciation.   The last time Egypt was under an ice sheet was during the Pre-Cambrian.  Therefore, the Sphinx must be at least 650 million years old.   QED.   :D

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Essan said:

However ........


I was looking at some of the rocks around the Sphinx enclosure, and I am sure I saw what looked a little bit like some erosion from freeze-thaw action.  And maybe the odd mark left by a glacier.   This means that the Sphinx must have been subjected to glaciation.   The last time Egypt was under an ice sheet was during the Pre-Cambrian.  Therefore, the Sphinx must be at least 650 million years old.   QED.   :D

Well, when I was last there I saw that some of the layers had no fossils in them meaning of course the Spinx is actually a rare limestone inverted fossilization of a pre-life form which I can firmly date to the Neoarchean period; 2.5 to 2.8 billion years ago.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Essan said:

2 Ukrainians think the Sphinx shows erosion features similar to those created by waves on coastal cliffs*.   Therefore, they argue, the Sphinx must have been on the coast.  And been subject to wave erosion.   The last time sea levels reached the Giza Plateau (possibly, I haven't checked if this is correct) was around 800,000 years ago.   Therefore, so their rather skewed logic goes, the Sphinx must be 800,000 years old

 

But there are two elements to this question:

(a) the age of the stone; and

(b)  the epoch in which the stone was carved.

But, if the limestone from which the Sphinx is carved is nummulite limestone, that makes (at least some of) it ca. 44m. years old, doesn't it?  Not quite as old as your 650m., of course ...

But that doesn't answer the question of when the statue was carved.  Unless, of course, it was the work of Ancient Atlanteans fleeing from a different galaxy 40m. years ago who just happened to land at Giza on a refuelling stop ... 

1 person likes this

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.