Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

[Oniomancer]

This is not the symbol. The Egyptians would not have mistaken a triangle for an arch.

Orthodoxy doesn't know the origin or function of any of the symbols, icons, or sceptres.

Any claim to the contrary is simply speculative.

Cultural referents, clad...

[cladking]

There's no pyramid here;

I don't deny there might have been something here before, such as primeval

mounds perhaps but this seems to support Scott Creighton's thesis much better

than orthodoxy's.

[kmt_sesh]

SC: Your snooty arrogance is surpassed only by your complete inability to grasp the substance of this particular discussion. This is not a discussion about Lehner supporting my views or not or his views on the Giza-Orion concordance. It is about whether the geometry we observe between the structures at Giza was intended by the builders or whether it is simply the result of random chance. Clearly Lehner and Goedicke take the view that the ‘Lehner-Goedicke Line’ they first observed was fully intended and could not be the result of random chance. Any reasonable thinking person not obsessed with pixel-perfection would concur with that.

What Dr Lehner and Dr Goedicke failed to realise, however, were the other two lines—the lines I have termed ‘inter-quarter lines’. These inter-quarter lines are also perfectly definable in the same way that the Lehner-Goedicke line is and is subject to the same implementation constraints as the Lehner-Goedicke line, to wit:

So, when you write:

SC: Well, it was “real-world archaeological efforts and research work” that discovered the Lehner-Goedicke Line so I presume that given you “…follow the research and conclusions of Egyptology” you accept the veracity of this line i.e. that Drs Lehner and Geodicke do not consider it to be the result of some random fluke? So, given the veracity of the Lehner-Goedicke Line, do you also accept that the inter-quarter lines I have discovered are as geometrically valid as those of Lehner and Goedicke i.e. they are not some random fluke? Or is it your view that “…geometry [that] stems from your imagination…” is only valid when discovered by Consensus Egyptologists and not when discovered by anyone outside of Consensus Egyptology?

SC

Goodness. So I'm displaying "snooty arrogance" because I demonstrated an obvious flaw in your agenda? Do not point an accusing finger at the person who points out the mistake—own up to the mistake, revise your approach, and move forward to correct it. In other words, for pete's sake, man up for once.

As I wrote at the beginning of my previous post, I was not going to deal with the specifics of your agenda but only with your continuing usage of Mark Lehner's material. That's exactly what I did. You opened the door wide when you wrote in Post 998:

Since Dr Lehner has never made comment upon my premise you cannot possibly know if Dr Lehner concurs with it or otherwise. So your statement is presumptive.

You frequently quote-mine Lehner's material to try to bolster your agenda, which is a common tactic of fringe writers in general (selective quoting, that is), so I was in the mood to show the error in this approach. To that end in Post 1001 I cited just three of Lehner's books or papers, while excluding any number of other examples in order to cut down on the length of my post. Lehner's own written work clearly expresses some basic facts about him:

• Lehner does not agree with an Orion alignment on the Giza Plateau.
  
• Lehner views the Giza Plateau as a work in process through several generations of kings, each of whom built a pyramid complex in turn.
  
• Lehner cites Geodicke and his theory about the NE-SW alignment in reference to the Heliopolis temple, not in reference to anything to do with Orion. If you return to my previous post and read those excerpts again, you will in fact see how Lehner describes similar alignments in pyramid complexes at Abusir and Saqqara, so Giza is not unique in this regard.
  
• Lehner flatly disagrees with the idea that Giza represents a unified plan from start to finish.
  

You're the one who opened the door. It's not my fault if the door got slammed back in your face. You were caught in the attempt to misrepresent a respected Egyptologist—an Egyptologist whose work you've been quote-mining for a long time. Your suggestion that Lehner would abandon years of dedication and research if only he'd read your PDFs and internet posts, is plainly and simply unrealistic. Of course he's read that sort of stuff from other writers, and he disagrees.

The gist of this is, stop the quote-mining. It's too easy for any number of people to spot the errors. And stop blaming those of us who spot your errors. They're yours, after all. Not ours.

[Scott Creighton]

Goodness. So I'm displaying "snooty arrogance" because I demonstrated an obvious flaw in your agenda?

SC: You demonstrated nothing of the sort. Your snooty arrogance was in regards to your “…No, as far as I know, Lehner has never commented on your ideas. I rather doubt he ever will.” (Emphasis mine). Dr Lehner felt compelled to comment on Bauval’s ideas so why do you think he will never comment upon mine? What makes you so sure? I rather suspect it is just your snooty arrogance at play here. I am not the first to point this out to you, here and even on your own forum, and I rather doubt I’ll be the last.

KMT: Do not point an accusing finger at the person who points out the mistake—own up to the mistake, revise your approach, and move forward to correct it. In other words, for pete's sake, man up for once.

SC: The mistake here is all yours, dear boy. You have entered into this sub-discussion about the geometry of Giza, twittering on about what Lehner thinks of Bauval’s theory which is completely IRRELEVENT to discussion of geometry and, in particular, the geometric theory and evidence I present--an entirely new and different theory which Dr Lehner has, as far as I know, never yet seen. Got it? Has it sunk in yet?

KMT: As I wrote at the beginning of my previous post, I was not going to deal with the specifics of your agenda but only with your continuing usage of Mark Lehner's material. That's exactly what I did. You opened the door wide when you wrote in Post 998:

SC: I’ll type this s-l-o-w-l-y for you. The Lehner material I quoted was in direct relation to the GEOMETRY of the site and the ACCURACY of said geometry. Got it? Comprende? Geometry and accuracy of the geometry. For the best part of a week I have been discussing this geometry and its accuracy with this Board’s prime eejitologist who started off completely denying the geometry of the Lehner-Goedicke Line and did so because it was not accurate enough for him (although it was good enough for Lehner and Goedicke). Eventually the eejitologist accepted it and did so only because of Lehner's comments regarding the line in his TCP. He could hardly do anything else. You then wander into the discussion “not going to deal with the specifics” when it is precisely the “specifics” that are the core of this discussion. Your attempt to shift the debate elsewhere has not gone unnoticed. I will discuss the geometry and its accuracy and Lehner’s comments regarding that geometry—if you want to discuss something else, take it elsewhere.

[snip]Irrelevant waffle. Lehner has NEVER been presented with my argument or the evidence to support it. Positions can change when new evidence comes along.

So let me ask you the questions relevant to this particular discussion—do you accept:

1) The abstract Lehner-Goedicke Line was intended? (Yes or No).

2) That the accuracy of the abstract Lehner-Goedicke Line is (as Lehner pointed out):

"…out by just about the amount that we would expect from methods of sighting and measuring using long cords across a kilometre of sloping plateau."

- Mark Lehner, TCP, p.106

(Yes or No).

3) That the two inter-quarter lines I present are as geometrically significant as the abstract Lehner-Goedicke Line. (Yes or No).

4) That the accuracy of the two abstract inter-quarter lines I present are, as Lehner pointed out for the Lehner-Goedicke line:

"…out by just about the amount that we would expect from methods of sighting and measuring using long cords across a kilometre of sloping plateau."

- Mark Lehner, TCP, p.106

(Yes or No).

We will get to other issues such as unified site planning if and when we can agree on the above.

SC

Edited November 8, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Idano]

Dr. Shockley (sp?) postulates that the wear and tear on the sides are from water run off. The last time that could have happened was about 10000 yrs ago, interesting theory....

[lakeview rud]

Another fellow suggests that in ancient times the Sphinx enclosure was often flooded for ceremonies..supposedly not very deep. (remember the little boat rides at the amusement park?) Nobody has come up with an adequate explanation for the four little platforms that extend out from the Sphinx; perhaps they were part of the ritual? You can even make an argument that the Sphinx enclosure was somehow periodically "washed down" to remove the sand that would inevitably collect there. There is some photographic evidence that water from the enclosure may have flowed past the Shpinx temple at one time. No real solid proof on any of this but the water erosion does seem to be a strong argument for something odd and the resistance to that proof is astounding considering there's no valid argument for wind erosion. Also consider that for most of its existence the Sphinx was buried up to its neck in sand so wind erosion is kind of a weak response.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

This is not the symbol. The Egyptians would not have mistaken a triangle for an arch.

Orthodoxy doesn't know the origin or function of any of the symbols, icons, or sceptres.

Any claim to the contrary is simply speculative.

And obscurantists of pseudoscience know even less than Orthodoxy. I never saw so much obscurantism as on this site, and in this thread.

As for Akhet. I am not certain there was a need for such accuracy in depiction. Maybe at Giza were two mounds that were used to observe the Sun rising and setting on the horizon, and may have given rise to the hieroglyph, or not, we don't know and never will. GP must have been given name Akhet Kufu for a reason. And nobody read the pdf I posted? or is the theory that arrangement of Giza complex is more about horizons than stars, taken as being correct....

Here is an approximation that suited at the time. If this Akhet was good enough for Akhenaten, then it is good enough for me

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Another fellow suggests that in ancient times the Sphinx enclosure was often flooded for ceremonies..supposedly not very deep. (remember the little boat rides at the amusement park?) Nobody has come up with an adequate explanation for the four little platforms that extend out from the Sphinx; perhaps they were part of the ritual? You can even make an argument that the Sphinx enclosure was somehow periodically "washed down" to remove the sand that would inevitably collect there. There is some photographic evidence that water from the enclosure may have flowed past the Shpinx temple at one time. No real solid proof on any of this but the water erosion does seem to be a strong argument for something odd and the resistance to that proof is astounding considering there's no valid argument for wind erosion. Also consider that for most of its existence the Sphinx was buried up to its neck in sand so wind erosion is kind of a weak response.

Water did indeed cause the erosion, but not water freely flowing past Sphinx in some fantasy complex. The water erosion occured precisely because the Sphinx was buried up to it's neck. In 1980s geologists, not fantasists hyped up on Edgar Cayce, determined that overnight condensation and absorption by capillary action caused the erosion. They found that though the sand was very dry on the surface, it could be wet only a few cm under the surface. Paul Jordan has laid this out in his book "Riddles of the Sphinx". He completely destroys the obscurantists and fantasists.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[cormac mac airt]

This is not the symbol. The Egyptians would not have mistaken a triangle for an arch.

Orthodoxy doesn't know the origin or function of any of the symbols, icons, or sceptres.

Any claim to the contrary is simply speculative.

Speculation on my part, but they wouldn't have had to mistake one for the other. Khufu and Khafre could just as well have seen the mounds on the Giza Plateau, knowing of the belief in the mound of creation, and co-opted each for the base of their pyramids. Thus, symbolically, making themselves lords of creation. This also wouldn't require some grand "Pre-existing Unified Plan".

cormac

[cladking]

And obscurantists of pseudoscience know even less than Orthodoxy. I never saw so much obscurantism as on this site, and in this thread.

Orthodoxy hides far more facts than any of the alternative theories.

As for Akhet. I am not certain there was a need for such accuracy in depiction. Maybe at Giza were two mounds that were used to observe the Sun rising and setting on the horizon, and may have given rise to the hieroglyph, or not, we don't know and never will. GP must have been given name Akhet Kufu for a reason. And nobody read the pdf I posted? or is the theory that arrangement of Giza complex is more about horizons than stars, taken as being correct....

It astounds me that people won't even consider that the Egyptians lived down in the

Nile Valley where the true horizon was obscured by the valley walls. The "horizon"

might simply be the plateau.

Here is an approximation that suited at the time. If this Akhet was good enough for Akhenaten, then it is good enough for me

I'm not certain of your point here.

[cladking]

Water did indeed cause the erosion, but not water freely flowing past Sphinx in some fantasy complex. The water erosion occured precisely because the Sphinx was buried up to it's neck. In 1980s geologists, not fantasists hyped up on Edgar Cayce, determined that overnight condensation and absorption by capillary action caused the erosion. They found that though the sand was very dry on the surface, it could be wet only a few cm under the surface. Paul Jordan has laid this out in his book "Riddles of the Sphinx". He completely destroys the obscurantists and fantasists.

This is not possible. Only a few feet under the surface there would be no daily temperature change.

Any erosion caused by such forces would be more pronounced at the top.

[questionmark]

This is not possible. Only a few feet under the surface there would be no daily temperature change.

Any erosion caused by such forces would be more pronounced at the top.

unless you are dealing with sand.

[Scott Creighton]

It astounds me that people won't even consider that the Egyptians lived down in the Nile Valley where the true horizon was obscured by the valley walls. The "horizon" might simply be the plateau.

Hi CK,

Khufu = 'protect'

Akhet = 'flood'.

I think the meaning and true purpose of the Gizamids may reside in the term 'Akhet Khufu' ('Flood protect'). Another interesting little fact here is that in modern Egyptian-Arabic the word ufu'k (a variant of Khufu in reverese) means 'horizon'. Seems to me that something got lost in translation somewhere along the line.

Regards,

SC

Edited November 8, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I'm not certain of your point here.

You said that the Egyptians would never have mistaken a mound for a triangle. This seems to say that they would then never have approximated the shape of a pyramid with the akhet hieroglyph. I posted the photo of the notch in the cliff at Akhetaten to show that they did not need exactness. A notch for the rising/setting of the Sun is all that would have been required, whether squared off on a clifftop, two mounds or formed by two triangular pyramids. Is the information in the pdf I posted wrong?........

Edited November 8, 2012 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Hi CK,

Khufu = 'protect'

Akhet = 'flood'.

I think the meaning and true purpose of the Gizamids may reside in the term 'Akhet Khufu' ('Flood protect'). Another interesting little fact here is that in modern Egyptian-Arabic the word ufu'k (a variant of Khufu in reverese) means 'horizon'. Seems to me that something got lost in translation somewhere along the line.

Regards,

SC

"Flood protect" Now I heard everything Please, give "correct" translation of Akhenaten and Akhetaten

[questionmark]

"Flood protect" Now I heard everything Please, give "correct" translation of Akhenaten and Akhetaten

No you have not. Just go back a few years in threads and it gets much better yet.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

No you have not. Just go back a few years in threads and it gets much better yet.

Likely, but I think a few drinks first. Or is that the people making those posts had a few drinks (or something) before posting their nonsense......

[cladking]

Speculation on my part, but they wouldn't have had to mistake one for the other. Khufu and Khafre could just as well have seen the mounds on the Giza Plateau, knowing of the belief in the mound of creation, and co-opted each for the base of their pyramids. Thus, symbolically, making themselves lords of creation. This also wouldn't require some grand "Pre-existing Unified Plan".

I believe anything at all on this site that pre-dates the pyramids is more supportive

of SC's theory than orthodoxy. I would agree that this support would be more tenuous

if the object in question is natural in origin. But even if it's natural there would be an

implication that this site was in use for some purpose.

[cladking]

Hi CK,

Khufu = 'protect'

Akhet = 'flood'.

I think the meaning and true purpose of the Gizamids may reside in the term 'Akhet Khufu' ('Flood protect'). Another interesting little fact here is that in modern Egyptian-Arabic the word ufu'k (a variant of Khufu in reverese) means 'horizon'. Seems to me that something got lost in translation somewhere along the line.

Fascinating.

How well supported do you believe this is?

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

It astounds me that people won't even consider that the Egyptians lived down in the

Nile Valley where the true horizon was obscured by the valley walls. The "horizon"

might simply be the plateau.

The Akhet is not meant to be the horizon in general terms. Akhet is were the Sun rises and sets. Valley cliffs, mounds, pyramids, a sea of reeds, a sea of sand, anywhere that the Sun can be seen to rise and set is Akhet.

[cladking]

The Akhet is not meant to be the horizon in general terms. Akhet is were the Sun rises and sets. Valley cliffs, mounds, pyramids, a sea of reeds, a sea of sand, anywhere that the Sun can be seen to rise and set is Akhet.

I could agree to this slightly less than obvious point if any Egyptologist would agree with

the obvious observation that the horizon might have been up out of the river valley where

the true horizon could be seen.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I could agree to this slightly less than obvious point if any Egyptologist would agree with

the obvious observation that the horizon might have been up out of the river valley where

the true horizon could be seen.

Reading many of the posts here I thought my point needed to made clearly. What is a "true" horizon? surely the horizon is different to different people at different heights above the ground. Standing at base of GP horizon is perhaps four or five miles distant on clear day. From top of GP it will be approximately 30 miles. Which is true horizon? Besides, the word horizon is a confusion, hence my previous post. What is important is the Akhet, and it does not matter were it appears, it matters that it does appear. Perhaps in all Eygpt, Akhetaten is the 2nd most perfect place for the Akhet, and it is down the valley... Most perfect was perhaps Giza, the Akhet Khufu

[cladking]

Reading many of the posts here I thought my point needed to made clearly. What is a "true" horizon? surely the horizon is different to different people at different heights above the ground. Standing at base of GP horizon is perhaps four or five miles distant on clear day. From top of GP it will be approximately 30 miles. Which is true horizon? Besides, the word horizon is a confusion, hence my previous post. What is important is the Akhet, and it does not matter were it appears, it matters that it does appear. Perhaps in all Eygpt, Akhetaten is the 2nd most perfect place for the Akhet, and it is down the valley... Most perfect was perhaps Giza, the Akhet Khufu

If the world were perfectly flat then a 6' man would see about 1.7 miles and he would see

a very true horizon. When the sun came up it would light his eyes ~ 6 seconds before ligthing

his feet. It would come up at the exact same moment for everyone on the same longitude.

The world isn't truly flat even at sea. If you are west of a mountain it can be mid day before

you even see the sun. Near the poles a mountain can extend the six weeks of night by weeks.

If you can't see rthe true horizon then you can't measure the time of sunrise for that longitude.

You are blind to the sun until it is high enough to shine over the obstacle.

I believe it's apparent that this is the meaning of "horizon" to the ancients. It was the place that

sunrise and sunset were not obscured and one could see "to the edges of the earth". Only here

could the heavens be studied and the cycles of the earth measured. Giza was probably an "ob-

servatory" long before being a necroplois. There seems to be evidence that there were even ear-

lier, later, and concurrent functions as well.

I like your sig-line by the by.

I've often considered putting this relevant and important line from the PT in mine;

"among the followers of Re who make the way of twilight mount up"

That the corners align at sunset on the solstice seems more than mere coincidence.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I like your sig-line by the by.

I've often considered putting this relevant and important line from the PT in mine;

"among the followers of Re who make the way of twilight mount up"

And with my avatar perhaps I should have written "Justified" and not "Existing". Hmm, perhaps this is too esoteric for this site

A pity that Heliopolis is under modern Cairo, for it would be interesting to see what monuments were there and how they may have interacted (or not) with what was/is at Giza. What views are there from west of giza looking to the east, what lines up with what. I never looked into that. Though I think all was to do with death and the west.

[Scott Creighton]

Fascinating.

How well supported do you believe this is?

Hi CK,

I do not think there is any real argument over what 'Khufu' and 'Akhet' have been interpreted as, 'protect' and 'flood'. A quick glance through any good Consensus Egyptology book will confirm their interpretation as will good ol' Wiki. Of course, it is not an interpretation that Consensus Egyptology and its apologists like to entertain even though it is a perfectly valid interpretation. Furthermore, it is an interpretation that has some support from the early Arab chroniclers such as Al Masudi, Murtadi, Firouzabadi, Ibn Abd Alhokim (and others) who transcribed ancient Egyptian texts that tell of how the ancient Egyptians constructed the pyramids to protect ('Khufu') and preserve all that was important to their culture from an anticipated flood ('Akhet') that the AEs believed would drown all of Egypt.

Needless to say, this function for the pyramids is given short shrift within Consensus Egyptology. They have decided, without any primary evidence to support their theory, that these early, giant pyramids were tombs. And damn anyone who disagrees with them.

Regards,

SC

Edited November 8, 2012 by Scott Creighton