It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 40 000 year old Sphinx

page: 4
76
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


"Well, that`s it, basically. I think its a delicious find because we're still debating whether Sphinxes are a couple thousand of years old or "much older" as some of the fringe-ancient-astronaut-antediluvian-crowd say. "

I don't believe in ancient astronauts nor do I watch ancient aliens on tv. But the geological evidence for the Sphinx being about 12k years old is reasonably solid and generally accepted by a large portion of geology academics.




posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Thanks for the thread, nice find!

Couple of corrections:


Skyfloating
Well, that`s it, basically. I think its a delicious find because we're still debating whether Sphinxes are a couple thousand of years old or "much older" as some of the fringe-ancient-astronaut-antediluvian-crowd say.


No. You know all this and you took some artistic liberties in writing your post :-)

The official egyptologian stance (proven wrong, btw) is 4500 (not couple of thousand) years old. This has been scientifically proven wrong using geology and weathering data by a non-alien-astronaut archeologist, Robert M. Shoch.

His work clearly shows that the Great Sphinx (Egypt) is at least 7000 years old, but could be much, much older. The only thing he can say with any certainty is the minimum age of the Great Sphinx. Not the exact age.

As for the Age of the Hohlenstein lion man, we have no idea. We can't properly/accurately yet date all rock varieties. The statue in question was guess-dated to 40 000 years based on organic material found on the same soil layer (when digging down). All archaeologists know that these can be wildly off, esp, when you consider a time of 10 000 + years, during which even in Germany there have been extremely cold weather and soil frost movements can bring up piece of pebble, rock and statues through humidity / phase changes, while keeping the sediment layers fairly intact.

So , we don't know how old the Hohlenstein lion statue is. The guesstimate is 40 000 years. But it could be wrong a lot. Could be older, could be younger.



So ATS, what do you think? Are they fictitious figures, as our academic establishment thinks? Or did they really exist? Were they genetically engineered hybrids? Or supernatural beasts? Was the mixing of "the Gods" and humans a reason humanity was wiped out with a flood? Or is this all just symbolic of something else we don't understand or know yet? The possibilities are endless.


Yes, and can we know they were all "lions"? Could the Hohlenstein figurehead be a bear-man (would make more sense considering Germanys' native fauna)? Are they male or female? Most statue reconstructions are done from pieces, painstakingly put together and reconstructed. Pieces are missing. Do we know that they were male and not female (raises a lot of questions about the origins/nature of those old belief/religious systems)?

BTW, the Löwe "bear-lion head man" statue has been replicated using flint toosl in modern times (2009), took about 360 hours of continuous work, while learning the tools at the same time:

www.echtzeitmedia.de...



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Oannes
The Nara-Simhas (I kid you not) are the ancient creators of humanoid life in our part of this galaxy. There specialty was genetics. This process started about 22 million years ago in the Lyran galaxy.


Oh its the Lyrians, I see. Well that clarifies things.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Ancient men (women) had a symbolic way of thinking but there is a lot to say about the possible fact that the gods experimented with live on earth.

I refer to the next link anytime I think it is defensible. In the foreword the author says it's a believe and he respects everyone who has another meaning. But I share his believe.

www.evawaseerst.be...

More than one chapter is translated.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Pathaka
The official egyptologian stance (proven wrong, btw) is 4500 (not couple of thousand) years old. This has been scientifically proven wrong using geology and weathering data by a non-alien-astronaut archeologist, Robert M. Shoch.


I`m aware of Shoch and his adversaries. I don't know much about geology, but I do know a lot about Mythology, which is my reason for agreeing with an older age of the Sphinx.




BTW, the Löwe "bear-lion head man" statue has been replicated using flint toosl in modern times (2009), took about 360 hours of continuous work, while learning the tools at the same time:

www.echtzeitmedia.de...


Yes, very interesting.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Skyfloating


So ATS, what do you think? Are they fictitious figures, as our academic establishment thinks? Or did they really exist? Were they genetically engineered hybrids? Or supernatural beasts? Was the mixing of "the Gods" and humans a reason humanity was wiped out with a flood? Or is this all just symbolic of something else we don't understand or know yet? The possibilities are endless.


OK, can somebody clear this up.
What exactly is a sphinx, a human head on a lion's body, or a lion head on a human body?
Or both?



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

FoosM

OK, can somebody clear this up.
What exactly is a sphinx, a human head on a lion's body, or a lion head on a human body?
Or both?


To me they are both. But scholars call this one "lion man" rather than Sphinx, I think.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Skyfloating

entermemo


Maybe this was relevant (collective consciousness) to the people at the time but no longer relevant to people of the last 2000 years. Maybe the people that were using mushrooms, entheogens, etc were the ones in charge who had the ability and logistics to make them but now they aren't. We are pretty sure the Aztecs used mushrooms ritualistically and look at what they built.


You really think a couple of druggies spawned entire Empires, gigantic structures and epic Battles based upon their visions?Text

With the possible exception of pre-columbian America, the evidence for ingestion seems too weak to me.
edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


That sentence reveals a lot about how willing you are to consider possibilities ( the bit where you lump all people who take mind altering substances into a common lowest denominator group in an attempt to rhetorically back your subjective argument using jingo-ism).

Do you drink Alcohol....if so do you describe yourself as an Alchie/Alcoholic/Bum??

I hate to break this to you but ALL the evidence suggests that the human desire to alter perception has been with us from the start. In terms of that evidence; have a look around at drug use today...politicians, professors, generals, musicians, artists and tech inventors.... all have examples in their profession taking mind altering substances..did this suddenly start recently or is your assumption that it suddenly took off during the 60's?).

The desire to alter perception is so embedded within the behavior of mammals there are documented cases of intelligent mammals seeking to knowingly change perception for recreation ( see Dolphins and Puffer Fish).

Is the Dolphin a "Druggie" and if so... surely we acknowledge the desire as natural.

Although you attempt to trivialize the subject with which you disagree, your notion that an idea cannot cause change needs some historical investigation.
If you could stop thinking in terms of "druggies" and none druggies you might see that until there was a social stigma associated with "Drugs" ( a stupid word in itself) there is no way of knowing who did what substance and for what reason.







edit on 24-3-2014 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Well considering there could have been hundreds of civilizations between the Sphynx and Lion Man in time, culture, and location, they might not be related at all.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


EEEEEEE!!! Yay! I was so excited when I saw this title and even more so when I saw who authored it!

I LOVE theories on the Sphinx. I truly think there is more to the Sphinx than we currently know. So many cultures had it in one form or another.

As for the famous Sphinx in Egypt I think it is far older than we believe and it had the head of a lion first.

It really makes you wonder what is under all that sand and buried deep within the depths of the oceans!

I will read the thread and get back to it!

Thanks for another great thread topic Skyfloating!



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Skyfloating

entermemo


Maybe this was relevant (collective consciousness) to the people at the time but no longer relevant to people of the last 2000 years. Maybe the people that were using mushrooms, entheogens, etc were the ones in charge who had the ability and logistics to make them but now they aren't. We are pretty sure the Aztecs used mushrooms ritualistically and look at what they built.


You really think a couple of druggies spawned entire Empires, gigantic structures and epic Battles based upon their visions?

With the possible exception of pre-columbian America, the evidence for ingestion seems too weak to me.
edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


What are you talking about? Drugs have been with humans forever. There has been beer or alcohol in society since always. Alcohol is a drug. What makes you think that people taking other drugs can't be successful and build empires? Also what makes you think that because a subset of an empire did these drugs, that everyone did them? What if, the priests took the drugs, then interpreted what they saw, and others took that and make art and buildings with it?

I was impressed with your OP until this post. The OP shows open mindedness to alternate history than the mainstream accounts, but this post shows closed mindedness based on 1960's drug scare propaganda, evidenced by your clear disdain for drug users through the derogatory term "druggie".



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Krazysh0t


I was impressed with your OP until this post. The OP shows open mindedness to alternate history than the mainstream accounts, but this post shows closed mindedness based on 1960's drug scare propaganda, evidenced by your clear disdain for drug users through the derogatory term "druggie".


You and a previous poster seem to think so.

I for one doubt that shamanic mushroom-consumers to be empire-building battle-warriors. Myself being skeptical of war-like behavior, thats actually a a compliment...which the two of you interpret differently. Shamans are known to be more inner-world oriented, not at all occupied with building grandiose structures and symbols of power.

Secondly, the "drug vision" argument is just a variation of the "they weren't real" and "its all fiction" idea. Its a variant of what establishment academia teaches. The problem with that is that Mythological accounts have proven REAL so often, that this side can no longer be taken seriously by people who have looked into it. Example: Troy, of which many said "it doesn't exist...it was just a mythological vision" was discovered based on studying mythology, as were many other things. It will be found that the Sphinx wasnt just vision or mythological fiction either.

At least thats the point I am arguing here. The OP is written in a way that there is no conclusion and its open to interpretation. But that doeesnt mean I dont hold my own personal views and conclusions.


edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Not to mention that the ancient accounts dont say "Well, first these substances were ingested, and then we saw these beings". They say "this is what happened a long time ago".



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Just because some biblical or mythological accounts have been substantiated doesn't mean that all will be substantiated. There is good evidence that Moses was tripping when he was "talking" to God and given the ten commandments. This info is based on the fact that a particularly hallucinogenic mushroom grows throughout the area that Moses and co. would have been at when they received the ten commandments. The ancient Hebrews were a very warlike group of people, evidence for this is not only in the bible but in external sources.


Not to mention that the ancient accounts dont say "Well, first these substances were ingested, and then we saw these
beings". They say "this is what happened a long time ago".


And that means what? When someone gives a speech, do they tell you what they ate for lunch just before they started talking or do they just talk?
edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Its not like I haven't looked into this idea. I`ve been looking at this stuff for 20 years and considered all variations. Its just that I no longer take the purely non-physical explanation as sufficient.

The non-physical explanation includes:

1. "Fiction!" (Academia)

2. "Supernatural!" (Religion)

3. "Drugs!" (Jungian, Shamanic)

Whereas my conclusion is that a lot of these ancient accounts were to some extent physical events. Another example: An early thread of mine called "The Rainbow Serpents" or something like that, shows how Australian geologists were able to confirm Aborigine Mythology with hard, physical evidence. Thereby showing that the Aborigines were not only all about "visions" but about actual events. And such examples I have collected for a long time. So when someone comes by and says "but it could have been fictional", I`ll say "Sure. But it could have been physical too".

We`re probably looking at a mix of physical and non-physical events.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

onequestion
A lot of us know what the answers are to the connection to art in ancient civilizations but we cant talk about here on ATS.


why not? This is such an interesting subject! Pls do share!



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


The fact you spent 20 years and examined ALL possible answers (whilst applying a mind set placed upon you by a protestant work ethic) speaks for itself.

After all that research what are your answers to the below questions:

If Peoples in South America were doing substances in the past; what evidence do you have to suggest this didnt take place elsewhere given the repeated social patterns we see in humans from different times/locales throughout history (Body Art, Art, Song, Ceremony, Worship etc) across all other facets of behavior?

If you know Wild Dolphin seek to alter perception via puffer fish , a horse likes to eat locoweed, Reindeers love shrooms, just about every animal seems to like fermented products and Capuchin monkeys seek out and eat a hallucinogenic millipede; what evidence do you have to suggest that man is separate from this seemingly natural behavior giving that it is actually going on all around you today as you read this?




I still want to know: Do you drink and do you describe yourself and all other "socially acceptable drug users" as "Bums"?



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


That's fine and all. I'm not saying that EVERYTHING written about by these ancient religions was inspired by drugs. That is just silly talk. But to deny that a good portion of it, or any portion of it for that matter, was inspired by drugs is asinine.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Do you remember how even before this there was a movement around worshipping the antler God?

This seems like a movement based around worshipping the lion man / cat man...



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


40,000 years is not that long in the grand scheme of things for humans to have been around. A lot of history we take as "official" is based on written language.

That seems to be the arbitrary defining point.

But before that there was highly likely a longer period of history with spoken language and paintings.

As far as intelligence goes there is even some merit to the idea that writing could have lowered it - think of the difference, people used to memorize whole epics by word of mouth only.



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join