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.

 

Trouble beleiving the Sphinx is only 3,500 years old.

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Around 1,500BC an Egyptian pharaoh stumbled across the Sphinx buried up to its' neck in sand. The mainstream dictates the Sphinx was built around 1,000 years before that around 2,500 BC. This means that natural means would have buried the Sphinx in only a handful of centuries, that or the Sphinx was forgotten about only a few centuries after its' creation which seems nonsensical to me. Even then the Sphinx is huge so I'm just here mentioning how unbelievable it is that sand could have possibly buried this enormous monument in only a thousand years. For all we know the Sphinx could have had a completely different face that was re-sculpted several times and base statue that was scrapped and re-sculpted multiple times which would account for the majority of erosion and degradation of the monument. It doesn't make sense that a people that were so adept at making monuments and statues did such an amateur job on the face of this one, one of it's greatest feats in record. For all we know the Sphinx was a pre-diluvian depiction of Adam and it got buried by the flood which covered most of that region and turned it into a desert.

All thought's hope someone enjoyed my paragraph. Anyone want to reply there's more where that came from.




posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 


Charlton Heston agrees with you...





posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I've always found Graham Hancock's thoughts on the subject interesting:






posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 


All I can say is ....I agree fully 👍


edit on 4/2/14 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 

I personally believe the ancient Egyptians stumbled across the pyramids and the Sphinx ... and laid claim to them as their creators.

The giveaway for me on the pyramids are the 'secret' passage ways of the GP, when there's 'supposedly' some archived blueprint in the hands of Egyptologists ... which absolutely fails to portray them. Remember ... 'they' had to tear into the pyramid to get inside.

My own observation of the site left me with the feeling the Sphinx was even older than the pyramids themselves.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 


One time I got drunk at the beach and fell asleep on the sand. I got shaken awake by a passer by because I was nearly fully buried by wind blown sand and they were worried I would be completely buried soon.
Don't know how old the sphix is but sand can build up pretty quick.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeussusZ
 


The evidence for the sphinx being more ancient than conventional archaeology suggests isn't necessarily that it was buried in sand at one point, but rather that it (and the area dug out around it) displays geological indications of heavy rain erosion, and the region wouldn't have had the sort of rainfall necessary to cause it since 7000-10000 bc.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


The problem with the dating proposed by Schoch based on the weathering is everyone skips the part where he begrudgingly admits that the weathering on the front of the sphinx is heavier than the sides which going by his methodology and calculations should make the front older than the sides and then the rear of the sphinx has a cometsly different weathering to it and subsequently a totally different date ascribed if following dr. Schochs own calculations etc.

I used to watch the NBC special with Charlton Heston and robert schoch over and over until I broke the VHS tape I recorded it on because I firmly believed it was all true. After college and grad school I did more research on it as well as other claims from the television show and unfortunately I just don't agree with any of it these days which was a little heartbreaking for me but it's also a case of letting the truth set you free. The difference between the dating of the sphinx and many other "fringe" archaeological finds is that there is a ton of peer reviewed data from both sides of the coin on it. I doubt it would change many peoples minds but all of the papers together give a pretty even keeled look at things. I'm still not sure I buy into the dating of the 26th century BCE but I digress. Here's a link where you can
View a bunch of the papers relating to the dating of the sphinx-

www.davidpbillington.net...



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Oh and I just wanted to add that because of the sphinx being buried up to its neck more than once the combination of wind and sand is likely to have eaten away the soft limestone leaving the hard limestone appearing untouched giving it the appearance of water/rain weathering.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 


Yeah well Napoleon found the same thing when he went there all he saw was the head sticking out of the desert.So is it really that strange considering even now they have to do sand removal to keep the area open? Every spring Cairo gets massive sand storms which can easily leave several feet of sand behind in enclosed area like the sphinx enclosure.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 


You should check out Robert Temple's book "The Sphinx Mystery: The Forgotten Origins of the Sanctuary of Anubis". They also have a website sphinxmystery.com...

His theory is that the sphinx was originally a statue of Anubis, the dog-headed jackal. He also posits that where it sits was a port at the time it was built, and it was originally surrounded by water. Good stuff



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


I agree with you on that,I'm a Graham Hancock fan. Fingerprints of the Gods is a good book to read on why he thinks a lions head was originally on there and it was resculpted to a pharaohs.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


The problem with the dating proposed by Schoch based on the weathering is everyone skips the part where he begrudgingly admits that the weathering on the front of the sphinx is heavier than the sides which going by his methodology and calculations should make the front older than the sides and then the rear of the sphinx has a cometsly different weathering to it and subsequently a totally different date ascribed if following dr. Schochs own calculations etc.

I used to watch the NBC special with Charlton Heston and robert schoch over and over until I broke the VHS tape I recorded it on because I firmly believed it was all true. After college and grad school I did more research on it as well as other claims from the television show and unfortunately I just don't agree with any of it these days which was a little heartbreaking for me but it's also a case of letting the truth set you free. The difference between the dating of the sphinx and many other "fringe" archaeological finds is that there is a ton of peer reviewed data from both sides of the coin on it. I doubt it would change many peoples minds but all of the papers together give a pretty even keeled look at things. I'm still not sure I buy into the dating of the 26th century BCE but I digress. Here's a link where you can
View a bunch of the papers relating to the dating of the sphinx-

www.davidpbillington.net...


Awesome source I will be reading this off and on for days I am sure. Thanks for sharing. Given that you state you aren't sure about the date of 2600 BC, what is your opinion on the age of the sphinx? That it is older? If so, how much older, and what specifically has lead you to form that opinion?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

DeadSeraph

Awesome source I will be reading this off and on for days I am sure. Thanks for sharing. Given that you state you aren't sure about the date of 2600 BC, what is your opinion on the age of the sphinx? That it is older? If so, how much older, and what specifically has lead you to form that opinion?


I think that it may be older but don't have an opinion as to how much older. There's just not enough information in my opinion, for me to say with much certainty. Wat has lead me to think this is the Egyptians themselves. There are no mentions if it from the old kingdom and it only becomes discussed in new kingdom texts approximately 2000 years after Khafra was supposed to have built the sphinx. There is also the "inventory stele" which is attributed to the 26th dynasty, around 678-525 BCE which talks of how Khafra found the sphinx already buried in the sand though its also just as likely that its new kingdom revisionist history the conspiracist in me still clings to some hope that its older than Khafra. There is also some evidence though circumstantial and somewhat speculative that the causeway to the great pyramid was jilt around the sphinx which if true would indicate the sphinx was already there when the Pyramid was built. A lot of it is rather speculative but as I said, the conspiracist in me like to cling to the hope while the rational part of me knows it has to follow the evidence whether it leads me to where I want it to or not.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 


(EDIT: I totally missed this recent thread, looks like a good one to link here, or vica versa: "40,000 year old Sphinx" www.abovetopsecret.com... )

Wow, what a great subject and thread. And all the good information flowing in the first page of posts made me reach for the subscribe button as a keeper.

I've never seen the Sphinx in person, but would like to, and what surprised me a few years ago is looking at a google earth pic of it and realizing how close the city is! Photos of the pyramids and Sphinx almost always show the sand and desert background, making it look like its way out in the Sahara, and you'd have to take a days camel ride to get to it. Well, houses and streets and shops are about two blocks away, as he crow walks, the Sphinx and pyramids are pretty much sitting there like a city park.


edit on 2-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Its much, much older than that. Never believe anything "mainstream" archeologists have to say. There job is to cover up anything that doesn't fit the present dogma. The Egyptian Sphinx has sever weathering from rain. The last time it rained hard in that area was at least 10,000 years ago. To be truly Zen, means to be curious about everything. Not saying, "this can't be" or "that can't be". Go see if it's true instead.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 

Given that the sphinx is 4,500 years old, I can see why you would have trouble believing it is 3,500 years old.

Harte



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Thanks for the link and wow this thread was a lot more successful than I expected. I didn't realize that feet of sand accumulate at the base annually, that would be very impressive so that would account for the statue being covered in only a few short centuries if it were a consistent fact. On the other hand the Sphinx being covered for such a large portion of its' history would have preserved it from weathering. I saw some interesting mentions about how there is different weathering and have had the thought run through my mind myself unlike the mainstream conspiracy theory which is that the lion backside of the sphinx was carved after the head. I also do think that the Sphinx was made before the pyramids. The link between it and Orion's belt seems suspicious to me, too suspicious to be mere chance so it seems correct that Giza was constructed closer to 10,000BC. That would mean the Sphinx was constructed only a brief period before that. I imagine the Sphinx is in an unrecognizable state from how it looked before degradation. The head of the statue could have plausibly been twice the volume it is now and modeled to perfection, now none of the original surface sculpting remains only a vague reminiscence to the former shape of the head.

Some of you posters are really active. I'm really surprised by all the comments already, that was quick.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 

Im not sure how much research youve done on this. A lot of different members here have provided you with some info and videos ascerting to your claim.

I think now-a-days, its generally accepted that the Sphynx is way older than what was beleived even 5 years ago. And the newer textbooks in schools are beginning to accept that.*

*Some geologic work has proved water erosion top to bottom with run-off ruts in the sides., with that alone occuring around 7,500-12,000 years ago I believe.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join