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 -

UFO under the Sphinx?


Unusual Tournament

Recommended Posts

On 11/25/2023 at 4:30 PM, Wepwawet said:

...why is it in a necropolis, and why does a sphinx never appear in a necropolis again anyway. 

It's probably only a sphinx because it looked like a sphinx before they started carving on it.
yardangNimibia.jpg.3265052d01004eebef18ab94d2e61c73.jpg

Harte

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harte said:

It's probably only a sphinx because it looked like a sphinx before they started carving on it.
yardangNimibia.jpg.3265052d01004eebef18ab94d2e61c73.jpg

Harte

Yes, it's more likely I think an existing rock formation that suggested they could make something out of it, and the nature of the formation also may have made it difficult to achieve a perfect shape, which leads to the likes of Temple insisting that because it not exactly like a lion, it cannot be a lion. Perhaps Dr Who can go back in time and tell them to do a better job to satisfy folk in their distant future...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Why does the Sphinx not look like a canine, irrespective of the human head.

This is the strongest argument against "it was Anubis."

Here's the sphinx of Hatshepsut (with her head and titles)
Sphinx of Hatshepsut | Sphinx, Egyptian, Ancient egypt history

 

And here's a typical Anubis from the Cairo museum:

45U185.jpg c5433c3cc0768cf403e93ae122ac4cb2.jpg

 

  • The hips of the Anubis statue protrude above the back... unlike the sphinx, where they're level with the back
  • Anubis' tail is held straight.  It never curves up and around the "knees" like the sphinx
  • Anubis is more slender than the sphinx.  You don't "un-carve" stone.
  • Anubis' paws are thinner than the lion paws and spread further apart.  You can't build a lion from that profile.

You *could* recarve the body of a lion to the body of a jackal... but you couldn't recarve a lion's head into a dog's head.

Note: the Graeco-Roman version of Anubis is different than the original.  However, Greece and Rome did not exist and were not rulers of Egypt when the sphinx was carved at Giza.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

So you are essentially saying that you know better than the kings of the New Kingdom, and why the ridiculous "Yuck".

The default position with them far closer in time to the construction of the Sphinx, around a thousand years away as opposed to our  being around 4,500 years away, and them being of the same culture and with far more records remaining, is that they did know what it was originally, and if you want to try to say that they did not, then prove it, an impossible task of course, so why this pretense that you know more than they did. I can only assume that you are making these statements for the sole purpose that you think the Sphinx had originally been Anubis, therefore have a need to attempt to demolish any argument contra.

Good grief. 

Nobody knows its original name. Sphinx is the human-headed lion in ancient Greek mythology; the term likely came into use some 2,000 years after the statue was built. There are hundreds of tombs at Giza with hieroglyphic inscriptions dating back some 4,500 years, but not one mentions the statue. “The Egyptians didn’t write history,” says James Allen, an Egyptologist at Brown University, “so we have no solid evidence for what its builders thought the Sphinx was....Certainly something divine, presumably the image of a king, but beyond that is anyone’s guess.” Likewise, the statue’s symbolism is unclear, though inscriptions from the era refer to Ruti, a double lion god that sat at the entrance to the underworld and guarded the horizon where the sun rose and set.

Romer:

Quote

All that traditional historians can truly say about this sphinx is that it is an image of a pharaoh and that the shape and proportions of its jawline, ears, and cheeks set its manufacture squarely within [the 4th Dynasty]....It is likely, therefore, that the work upon the Giza Sphinx had started in the decades before Khafre came to the throne; that is in the time of Khufu or his little-know successor, Djedefre. As for the point and purpose of that monument, however, all modern theories from those of crackpots to professors are based on little more than the speculation and literature of later ages. 

Hawass:

Quote

According to traditional scholarship, the Sphinx temple was devoted to a cult that identified the Sphinx with the sun. The German archaeologist Stadelmann and the present author, however, argue that Khufu was the sun god Ra himself and that Khafre worshipped his father Ra within his pyramid complex. I would further propose that the Sphinx itself represents Khafre as Horus giving offerings to his father Khufu, the incarnation of Ra who rises and sets in the temple in front of the Sphinx. I would argue that the location of the Sphinx has significance in terms of the cult that was to be practiced there. This is reflected in the Sphinx's later, New Kingdom name, Horemakhet, 'Horus of the Horizon,' under which name the Sphinx became the symbol of kingship and the nation. The hieroglyphic sign 'akhet' has two horizons or peaks and the sun disk in between. The Sphinx as the sun god can be seen between the horizon peaks of the Khufu and the Khafre pyramids. The Sphinx can also be seen in a similar horizon profile formed by the pyramid of Khafre and the pyramid of Menkaure.

Verner:

Quote

Egyptologists disagree not only regarding the precise date of the Sphinx's creation (that is, in the time of Khafre or Khufu), but also about it's meaning. The word Sphinx derives from a distorted Greek translation of the Egyptian word shesep-ankh, "living image". But an image of whom? Of the sun god Re-Atum? Or of King Khafre (or Khufu)? Some experts think it represents the pharaoh presenting a sacrificial offering to the sun god, while others see in it the mythical guardian of the royal tombs in Giza.

As early as the New Kingdom, the ancient Egyptians began to interpret the Sphinx as an image of the sun god.  

Oops. That's weird. But you just told us as fact: "Nobody knows just what purpose the Sphinx serves, except that it a solar symbol." What happened? The only one claiming to know more than the (New Kingdom) Egyptians, not to mention Egyptologists, is you. 

Again, there is no evidence the Sphinx was a solar symbol prior to the NK the least of which in the OK which is exactly why even the possibility it was originally related to the sun is debated and hardly the "fact" you present it to be which as usual only the opposite. This is the "proof" which the readers will note you offer no actual evidence to contradict this and instead resort to personal comments and manipulative argumentative tricks. What did they know in the NK exactly? By your own admission: "The only texts that describe who the Sphinx is are on the Dream Stela[sic], where it is named as Hor-em-akhet." Nowhere does this give any indication the Sphinx was known to them since it was made as a "solar symbol". 

Quote

In your thread on the Sphinx, while presenting arguments that may have looked good at face value, were not cogent, and many questions remain.

As we have seen time and again, you are hardly the arbiter of what is "cogent" or not. Once again, for no reason, you make things personal, like this typical crap "I can only assume that you are making these statements for the sole purpose that you think the Sphinx had originally been Anubis, therefore have a need to attempt to demolish any argument contra.", and then will cry wolf to the moderators when you get called out on it. Just stop. Argue the facts and save the BS. 

Quote

I'll settle for the moment with asking just these three.

Why does the Sphinx not look like a canine, irrespective of the human head.

This was discussed at length in the thread. 

Quote

Why is it situated on the eastern edge of the necropolis, when Anubis "magically" guards the necropolis from "his hill" on the western edge, from where the scavengers come.

"Hill" refers to the necropolis and the Giza plateau is a "hill", as is Saqqara, in relation to the Nile. Regardless, this isn't required as there is is no explanation as to what this "hill" ever was, nor is he depicted in contemporary tombs sitting on a hill, nor is there any indication this was to be taken literally. Sitting on a hill also implies symbolically one of stature that looks down, or guards, others.       

Quote

Why is it facing the rising Sun, something that is nothing to do with Anubis at all.

So what. Anubis does not have to be associated with the rising Sun as the whole complex, as do all pyramid complexes, faces east which also to the east is the Nile which is what people would have seen. How'd that be to have a big 'ol a$$ facing you as you floated by? 

e23e9f9937d016d2fae1878c9fbdd9cc.jpg

Given everything is oriented this way anyways why not have Anubis in symmetry as well as it doesn't matter which his orientation is also dictated by the sloping topography regardless.  

And instead of evidence what we get are nebulous circular reasoning questions (and negative personal comments and innuendo) as if not being able to answer them, which they easily are, is therefore the answer itself.  

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

This is the strongest argument against "it was Anubis."

Here's the sphinx of Hatshepsut (with her head and titles)
Sphinx of Hatshepsut | Sphinx, Egyptian, Ancient egypt history

 

And here's a typical Anubis from the Cairo museum:

45U185.jpg c5433c3cc0768cf403e93ae122ac4cb2.jpg

 

  • The hips of the Anubis statue protrude above the back... unlike the sphinx, where they're level with the back
  • Anubis' tail is held straight.  It never curves up and around the "knees" like the sphinx
  • Anubis is more slender than the sphinx.  You don't "un-carve" stone.
  • Anubis' paws are thinner than the lion paws and spread further apart.  You can't build a lion from that profile.

You *could* recarve the body of a lion to the body of a jackal... but you couldn't recarve a lion's head into a dog's head.

Note: the Graeco-Roman version of Anubis is different than the original.  However, Greece and Rome did not exist and were not rulers of Egypt when the sphinx was carved at Giza.

History repeats itself: #17. I took you to task for using an example made 1000+ yrs later and gave contemporary examples yet you just do it again. The same 1000+ yr later example. 

The hips of the Anubis statue protrude above the back... unlike the sphinx, where they're level with the back

From the last time you said this:

And again, what the 4th Dynasty people themselves thought Anubis looked like:

http://www.andrewcollins.com/anubis khufu kaf lite.jpg

f96350a886856743d498ae98ff14a74c--egypti

Do you see the hind legs rising above the back in the 4th Dynasty examples? No. Compare to the 1000+ year later example you show:

37c5ee77d0317848d7c455febf04ad4e.jpg

1000yrs is not a day. Egyptian Dynastic history spans 3,000yrs which the examples above only reinforce how important it is to rely on contemporary sources of iconography and ideology. 

While the external aesthetics of what we see today obviously are of a lion, argued to be added later, it should be obvious that the unusually narrow body and long legs are far more indicative of a jackal and very unlike a lion either real or depicted by the Egyptian of the time:

f23e7bd46c6aae0145ff3b16653cf890.jpg  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anubis' tail is held straight.  It never curves up and around the "knees" like the sphinx

Again, talked about at length before

This area is heavily built up with bricks after multiple restorations. 

"Looking at the Lehner restoration map we can see the highest concentration of NK "repairs" at this time is in the rear, directly above the tail as well, which I would suggest are not "repairs" but rather the addition of the tail itself." 

rear.jpg

reardet.jpg

Anubis is more slender than the sphinx.  You don't "un-carve" stone.

Again, you mean like this:

f23e7bd46c6aae0145ff3b16653cf890.jpg

Slender enough for you? And you are right, you don't "un-carve" stone, you build it up which is exactly what we see plastered all over the Sphinx. 

Anubis' paws are thinner than the lion paws and spread further apart.  You can't build a lion from that profile.

http://www.aeraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/SM4.jpg

The paws have been heavily restored. I can't find the old excavation photos off hand, but they show just how extensive the build up was from the original bedrock. I would also note, again, that Hawass has shown repairs to the paws done as early as the 4th Dynasty. 

You *could* recarve the body of a lion to the body of a jackal... but you couldn't recarve a lion's head into a dog's head. 

Who is saying this happened? It would be the other way around, obviously, if it were originally Anubis and regardless it wasn't recarved into the head of a lion but of course a pharaoh. 

Did I not just say something about the same people saying the same things over and over again? 

Readers will note that just as in the original thread just as now, the same posters no less, which I said the same things last time, continue to ignore these simple facts:

According to Lehner: "There are no known Old Kingdom texts that refer either to the Sphinx or its temple".

And: "Along with the fact that no titles of priests or priestesses of the Sphinx exist in any of the hundreds of Old Kingdom tombs at Giza, the unfinished state of the Temple suggests that the Sphinx cult may never have been active in the Old Kingdom."

And (myself): 

 "There are no known Old Kingdom texts that refer either to the Sphinx or its temple" and that the DE themselves ubiquitously refer to Anubis as the guardian of the Giza necropolis, not the Sphinx, the latter by all accounts they did not even know.  

Instead we get the same commentary about the minutia of NK statues and NK beliefs and the actual facts are once again ignored...? Sorry, but this does not come from a good place. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking the sphinx’s butt, its definitely had a Brazilian ass lift

 

image.jpeg.4cfa884307ff55ad3182a312e4e3db89.jpeg

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

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This was discussed at length in the thread

About the shape of the Sphinx and that it looks to Temple and you like a canine, and in that thread, and in your reply to Kenemet, lots of words and pictures have not proven the Sphinx to be a canine, your arguments are not cogent, but your opinion, in my view heavily influenced by Temple, and that's fine, but his book on the Sphinx is fringe and contains typical fringe manipulations and exhortations, demands even, for the reader to not only believe what he believes, but to change their way of thinking, vide that Anubis was, in his opinion, not a jackal but a domestic dog. An example of manipulation is his selective quoting from a translation of the Fourth Hour of the Amduat by Piankoff, something the majority of his readers would probably not notice, and that is not arrogance on my part, it's just a matter of for whom these types of books are aimed at.

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

"Hill" refers to the necropolis and the Giza plateau is a "hill", as is Saqqara, in relation to the Nile. Regardless, this isn't required as there is is no explanation as to what this "hill" ever was, nor is he depicted in contemporary tombs sitting on a hill, nor is there any indication this was to be taken literally. Sitting on a hill also implies symbolically one of stature that looks down, or guards, others.   

Please quote where a necropolis is refered to as a "hill". And, as mentioned before, the Sphinx does not "look down" on the necropolis, but looks out to the rising Sun. The hill that Anubis sits on to guard the necropolis is not of course identified, but it is taken to mean the hills to the west of the , of any, necropolis, from where the threat to the dead come from.

 

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Oops. That's weird. But you just told us as fact: "Nobody knows just what purpose the Sphinx serves, except that it a solar symbol." What happened? The only one claiming to know more than the (New Kingdom) Egyptians, not to mention Egyptologists, is you. 

The Quotes you make from Romer, Hawass and Verner I am in complete agreement with. Not sure why you even quoted them, however, I'm most certainly not claiming to know more than any Egyptian or Egyptologist, as all I'm doing is pointing out that the Sphinx looks very much like a solar symbol, not least because it faces the rising Sun, something that is nothing to do with Anubis. I also believe that there may be a link between the Sphinx and the pyramid via Atum, which again  excludes Anubis.

 

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The German archaeologist Stadelmann and the present author, however, argue that Khufu was the sun god Ra himself and that Khafre worshipped his father Ra within his pyramid complex

Quoting from Hawass. If this were true, then it would seem to be reflected in the actions of Akhenaten who seems to have seen his father as the Aten. Was Akhenaten imposing his ideas on the OK, or was he taking a lead from Khafre, objects of whom were found in the wreckage of TA21, because written knowledge of those times may well have still be extant in the NK. That cannot be proven either way, but I would suggest that it is far from impossible that records were available for Akhenaten to consult.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Yes, it's more likely I think an existing rock formation that suggested they could make something out of it, and the nature of the formation also may have made it difficult to achieve a perfect shape, which leads to the likes of Temple insisting that because it not exactly like a lion, it cannot be a lion. Perhaps Dr Who can go back in time and tell them to do a better job to satisfy folk in their distant future...

Sutekh the Destroyer laughs at the feeble time lord. 

StheD.thumb.webp.f549c124740f21d4f8943a77020086ca.webp

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Sutekh the Destroyer laughs at the feeble time lord. 

StheD.thumb.webp.f549c124740f21d4f8943a77020086ca.webp

love those early Tom Baker episodes!

Well played.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

…also if the sphinx was/is really originally a lion then why doesn’t it have a ball of twine between its front feet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

History repeats itself: #17. I took you to task for using an example made 1000+ yrs later and gave contemporary examples yet you just do it again. The same 1000+ yr later example. 

We can find similar hips in later depictions of Anubis:

1c7a2c6cd9131bdbeb6b61d00d49b84a.jpg

 

Note that this (and the example you give) are obviously expensive pieces, but they're not from the royal workshop (unlike the one I showed, which is from Tutankhamun.)   The royal workshops had to produce the archetype for gods' images -- local talent could change it to what they liked, but anyone supervised by the palace has to make their art conform exactly to the models sent out.

So there's a lot of non-pharonic examples around with the hips lower than the back.

And yes, I was aware of the repairs.  As you know, there's a nice document out there with the layers and repairs clearly labeled.  None of that repair fits with "anubis."

The odd shape, IMHO, is due to the fissures and cracks in the rock.  The original hoodoo that formed the base was not a solid piece of good limestone and it wouldn't surprise me if they dug into areas and suddenly found a hollow or other flaws; rather than plaster them over, they simply modified the design.

I'm sure you will disagree, but that's my stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

We can find similar hips in later depictions of Anubis:

1c7a2c6cd9131bdbeb6b61d00d49b84a.jpg

 

Note that this (and the example you give) are obviously expensive pieces, but they're not from the royal workshop (unlike the one I showed, which is from Tutankhamun.)   The royal workshops had to produce the archetype for gods' images -- local talent could change it to what they liked, but anyone supervised by the palace has to make their art conform exactly to the models sent out.

This is nonsense. There is zero evidence of one word of this would apply to portrayals of Anubis the least of which the "archetype" had high hips. Give one source that would back up this claim. Its ok, there is none and is not needed regardless because it was a style of the MK and later through the Ptolemaic Period which, oops, was also used on sphinxes:

Hatshepsut, NK: 

tumblr_pkr41mGVuW1ws72bco1_1280.jpg 

Amenemhat III, MK: 

 MerenptahBiografieSphinxTanisMerets.jpg

Your not going to tell us these were not made in the royal workshop I hope. 

Quote

So there's a lot of non-pharonic examples around with the hips lower than the back.

Again, nonsense, but give other royal examples in statuary of Anubis being portrayed this way. There must be others to back up your claims otherwise you wouldn't have made such a bizarre claim in the firs place, no? Regardless, its a silly argument about the hips in the first place. 

Quote

And yes, I was aware of the repairs.  As you know, there's a nice document out there with the layers and repairs clearly labeled.  None of that repair fits with "anubis."

You should be-that post was responding to you. Again. Oh, but you mean this one from Lehner that's been posted by myself and others several times including again in the post you are responding to: 

9a03de37bd0a570cf50afdd35bdf636b.jpg

And I argue, again like it magically never happened, despite the fact I just posted it again to you, again, that in fact it does. 

Quote

[snip]

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2023 at 9:24 PM, Wepwawet said:

Yes, it's more likely I think an existing rock formation that suggested they could make something out of it, and the nature of the formation also may have made it difficult to achieve a perfect shape, which leads to the likes of Temple insisting that because it not exactly like a lion, it cannot be a lion. Perhaps Dr Who can go back in time and tell them to do a better job to satisfy folk in their distant future...

This is a valid point. Just because the shape of the Sphinx's back is not as we, or rather Temple, would like, does not mean that it cannot be a lion.

I have not found a single Egyptologist who says that the Sphinx was Anubis, why would that be.

There is another point that I have brought up before. From what direction is the Sphinx meant to be viewed from, the sides or the front, well, it must be the front, and from the photo, while the head is still out of proportion to the body, it does look more imposing. I contend that if it had the head of Anubis, then the head would be even more out of proportion, viewed from the front,  than it already is. If, and this is a guess on my part, the Sphinx was primarily meant to be viewed from the front, though it's purpose would have been the overiding concern, the builders may not have been that fussy, to suit Temple in the 21st Century AD, about what was behind the head and forequarters, rather like "unfinished" statues meant to fit into a naos where the rear would not be seen. And yes, I do know that that is more of a thing in classical times.

Then there is the question of the ears of Anubis, would there even have been enough depth of rock to have carved out his tall ears.

How would the weight of his long muzzle been supported.

Again, why is he on the east side of the necropolis facing the rising Sun. I can at least provide a reason for this with the Sphinx as a lion, and or, representaion of a/all dead king/s now as a solar deity, or at least with Ra-Atum, and that this fits in with the pyramids being in part a representation of Atum, and this based not on NK theology, but from the PT.

Sphinx.0054%C2%A9Paganini.jpg

And finally, for now, the size of Anubis as depicted in a tomb, on it's walls or on a sarcophagus, is related to importance in relation to other objects, not what size it would be in real life. Because there are some depictions of Anubis showing an apparent huge size does not mean that this is a depiction of the Sphinx, it shows that Anubis is the most important element in the scene. Now I see the argument contra, but it would need to be proven that the relevant depictions of Anubis are specifically representations of him as the Sphinx, and not just normal representations showing the importance of the pyschopomp and mortuary god in the tomb.

Was Ramesses II a giant

2f57b2fd488a218f77e48442386abe0c.jpg

Was Narmer a giant

Narmer-Palette-Hierakonpolis-dynasty-Cai

 

Edited by Wepwawet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This is nonsense.

Not really.  There exists forms that were sent to workshops to show the workers how to make objects exactly to certain specifications.  Royal workshop pieces all tend to conform to certain standards including proportions of the figure and shape of body parts (which, yes, changes over the decades and centuries.

Connor (Connor, Simon. "Sculpture workshops: who, where and for whom?." (2018): 11-30.) talks about the differences in workshops available to the elites and the non-elites, along with the possibility of traveling royal craftsmen in a very interesting paper on sculpture and workshops.  (Sculpture workshops: who, where and for whom? (hal.science)

I think that the Sphinx is certainly a royal production.

Quote

There is zero evidence of one word of this would apply to portrayals of Anubis the least of which the "archetype" had high hips. Give one source that would back up this claim. Its ok, there is none and is not needed regardless because it was a style of the MK and later through the Ptolemaic Period which, oops, was also used on sphinxes:

Hatshepsut, NK: 

tumblr_pkr41mGVuW1ws72bco1_1280.jpg 

Amenemhat III, MK: 

 MerenptahBiografieSphinxTanisMerets.jpg

Your not going to tell us these were not made in the royal workshop I hope. 

Again, nonsense, but give other royal examples in statuary of Anubis being portrayed this way. There must be others to back up your claims otherwise you wouldn't have made such a bizarre claim in the firs place, no? Regardless, its a silly argument about the hips in the first place. 

You should be-that post was responding to you. Again. Oh, but you mean this one from Lehner that's been posted by myself and others several times including again in the post you are responding to: 

9a03de37bd0a570cf50afdd35bdf636b.jpg

And I argue, again like it magically never happened, despite the fact I just posted it again to you, again, that in fact it does. 

Eh, if it makes you happy to think that it MUST have been a jackal, you are free to think so.  It's your opinion, and that's fine.  I will simply point out that mainstream Egyptology doesn't agree, and I agree with them about the issue.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Trelane said:

I think we need to get back on topic and address and discuss the advanced alien technology under the Sphinx. :P

Rocks, man!  They're alien!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 2:52 AM, Wepwawet said:

Quoting from Hawass. If this were true, then it would seem to be reflected in the actions of Akhenaten who seems to have seen his father as the Aten. Was Akhenaten imposing his ideas on the OK, or was he taking a lead from Khafre, objects of whom were found in the wreckage of TA21, because written knowledge of those times may well have still be extant in the NK. That cannot be proven either way, but I would suggest that it is far from impossible that records were available for Akhenaten to consult.

In their book, the Darnells claim that Akhenaten had some scholarly tendencies and that he went through a lot of the scribal libraries to find out about older traditions and ideas and that he did copy some of these... or at least give his own take on them.  (Darnell, John, and Colleen Darnell. Egypt's Golden Couple: When Akhenaten and Nefertiti Were Gods on Earth. St. Martin's Press, 2022)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

In their book, the Darnells claim that Akhenaten had some scholarly tendencies and that he went through a lot of the scribal libraries to find out about older traditions and ideas and that he did copy some of these... or at least give his own take on them.  (Darnell, John, and Colleen Darnell. Egypt's Golden Couple: When Akhenaten and Nefertiti Were Gods on Earth. St. Martin's Press, 2022)

Which could lead into a discussion about lectors and the "House of Life" and what books they contained, but that would be a serious digression here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Not really. 

Yes really. I don't need to repeat myself again #115. I think readers following along will find this quite silly of you.  

Quote

Eh, if it makes you happy to think that it MUST have been a jackal, you are free to think so.  It's your opinion, and that's fine. 

Why say stupid things like this? 

Quote

I will simply point out that mainstream Egyptology doesn't agree, and I agree with them about the issue.

They don't? I had no idea. Thank you so much. Jeez, if we would have known we shouldn't have even been talking about it. Well, settles that I guess. 

And you agreeing with them means what...? 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

They don't? I had no idea. Thank you so much. Jeez, if we would have known we shouldn't have even been talking about it. Well, settles that I guess. 

Cool!  So we can return to the topic at hand which is/was the discussion of a UFO under the Sphinx.

Quote

And you agreeing with them means what...? 

That we can go back to discussing UFOs under the Sphinx.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2023 at 4:24 PM, Kenemet said:

This is the strongest argument against "it was Anubis."

Here's the sphinx of Hatshepsut (with her head and titles)
Sphinx of Hatshepsut | Sphinx, Egyptian, Ancient egypt history

 

I see her head, but I don't see any titties.
Oh. Wait.
Dyslexia, or Freud?

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

That we can go back to discussing UFOs under the Sphinx.

 

Yes we can! As far we know this all we have to work on

image.thumb.jpeg.1ba43c4f14031e2b36f6392f0287f705.jpeg

 

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.