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 REAL Age of The Sphinx Revealed

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscov

There are a handful of images that show a pair of Sphinxes, usually back to back. Most notably, the Dream Stele:

It's clearly not a realistic image, though, as it shows both of them atop what looks (to me) to be temples, and we know that doesn't fit with reality. I'm no expert, by any means, but to me, it appears to be simply an artistic choice, due to the symmetry.

The paths leading to several temples have multiple sphinx statues along each side, facing ewch other (as many as 100 in one case), but these are of course significantly smaller than the Sphinx on the Giza plateau.

There are a couple of Arab accounts from the early 11th century that mention a second Sphinx on the opposite side of the Nile from the 'main' one, but they may or may not be true. Most (and perhaps all; I'm not sure) of those (few) accounts describe the second one as being built primarily from mud bricks, with outer casing stones. They also note that it was badly damaged, with most of the stone missing, and the rapidly Nile eroding what remained of the mud brick core. None of the accounts give any indication of size, however, so it may not have been anywhere near the scale of the 'main' one, if it existed at all.

There are also a couple of accounts from just a few decades later (and several from earlier) that make no mention at all of a second Sphinx. It's quite apparent, though, that if there ever was another one, it was nothing like the one we see today, carved directly from the limestone of the plateau.

Personally, I have no problem believing that there may have been a much smaller one across the Nile at some point, but if there was, I imagine it was created much later than the 'main' one. If the Arab accounts are correct, and it was made mostly of mud bricks, then it simply wouldn't last long; Almost certainly not the 3500 years (roughly) between when the 'main' one (I really need to find a better term lol), and the time the Arabs saw it.




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: admirethedistance

You people with all your facts and evidence ruining everything is starting to get old.


I'm just going to believe there is something there, and that aliens built the pyramids, and that was a damm rat on mars.

I don't care what your "evidence" says.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
If you look at a good picture of the Sphinx you can easily see that the stone face is much less weathered than the body, and in fact they're not even the same shade, so the body is obviously much older.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
If you look at a good picture of the Sphinx you can easily see that the stone face is much less weathered than the body, and in fact they're not even the same shade, so the body is obviously much older.

It's believed that the head was recarved at some point, but it may or may not be 'much' older. Go find a large piece of limestone (or any other type of stone). You'll notice, that it probably is not all the same shade, and if you examine it closer, you'll also notice that it's probably not weathered evenly. Haloclasty does not happen uniformly, even on a single piece of stone.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a lady never reveals her true age.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
If you look at a good picture of the Sphinx you can easily see that the stone face is much less weathered than the body, and in fact they're not even the same shade, so the body is obviously much older.

Actually, no you can't.

The sphinx was repaired at the neck and part of the head using concrete in the modern era.

Besides that, the stone of the head is harder than the stone of the neck and the upper body.

Multiple layers of varying hardness make up the limestone bed the sphinx is carved from.

Harte



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I can't help wondering why people are so terrified to go further back in time. Its as though a curtain has been thrown across time and anyone attempting to peer through it is damned. Its ridiculous.

One of the problems is that the modern Egyptians may well not have built the pyramids because they seem to have forgotten their own construction skills. Now skills were often passed from father to son or apprentice so for me, why did they forget or did they not know how in the first place poses an interesting question?

I suspect its where the Sphinx faces that is the important factor rather than the actual face it has today.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
I can't help wondering why people are so terrified to go further back in time. Its as though a curtain has been thrown across time and anyone attempting to peer through it is damned. Its ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to assume that everyone is afraid of pusing dates back further, or that there's some spet of massive conspiracy to it. Every archaeologist and anthropologist I've ever spoken with would have no issues at all with pushing dates back. A number of them practically drool at the thought. But with no evidence to support such a thing, it would be foolish to do so.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I´d like to see a Thermoluminescence dating at the sphinx complex ..



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: anti72
I´d like to see a Thermoluminescence dating at the sphinx complex ..


The Sphinx isn't a candidate for TL dating. TL is typically used on small artifacts that have been kicked into a hearth or pottery That has been fired. It's also never Used alone as a dating method and is always Used in conjunction with 14c and stratigraphy. It can not be used on large carved objects from natural limestone that have no evidence of the entire structure having been immolated ever. It's not a technique that would or could be used on a site like this or anything the size of the Sphinx.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I'm convinced that the Sphinx is much, much younger than the Pyramids. The Sphinx seems to be something that was built where it was because the Pyramids were already there and the supporters of an ambitious Priest wanted to exalt his/her legacy; much the same way that the good Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jrs supporters wanted his Statue erected in Washington D.C. even though he played no role whatsoever in the creation or preservation of this nation and never served in its Government.

with enough time...someone will attempt to say that the King statue serves as proof that men of his appearance once ruled this nation.

but...its going to be a complete lie.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peter vlar

originally posted by: anti72
I´d like to see a Thermoluminescence dating at the sphinx complex ..


The Sphinx isn't a candidate for TL dating. TL is typically used on small artifacts that have been kicked into a hearth or pottery That has been fired. It's also never Used alone as a dating method and is always Used in conjunction with 14c and stratigraphy. It can not be used on large carved objects from natural limestone that have no evidence of the entire structure having been immolated ever. It's not a technique that would or could be used on a site like this or anything the size of the Sphinx.

If there is any portion of the original sphinx body that has not had its overlying stone removed, then the area beneath that layer of covering stones would be a candidate for thermoluminescent dating.

One form of such dating estimates the last time the sample was exposed to sunlight.

But that would only tell you when the carving was covered, not whether the original carving stood for some time before being covered.

Harte



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   


It's ridiculous to assume that everyone is afraid of pusing dates back further, or that there's some spet of massive conspiracy to it


How is it ridiculous when certain people seem to spend all their time disallowing any notions of older dating?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Here's a good image where anyone can clearly see that the rest of the sphinx is much, much more weathered than the head. There must be thousands of years difference in age to make such a noticeable difference.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...:ANd9GcRKAo6TAjRDF2uPKRxaQ6qhIffSQ2Zvmxu4W1NHwGOG0ZbIyV4K



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



It's ridiculous to assume that everyone is afraid of pusing dates back further, or that there's some spet of massive conspiracy to it


How is it ridiculous when certain people seem to spend all their time disallowing any notions of older dating?

While it may not be so for you, some people prefer evidence for major claims that go against what we've been able to learn about the sphinx over the last two hundred years.

It has nothing to do with being "afraid of pushing dates back further."

It has to do with facts.

Facts are known. Any theory has to fit and explain the known facts.

Anything else is just fanciful speculation.

Harte



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Here's a good image where anyone can clearly see that the rest of the sphinx is much, much more weathered than the head. There must be thousands of years difference in age to make such a noticeable difference.

Well, there's the fact that the head is much harder than most of the rest of the body.

Also the head and neck were repaired with concrete in modern times, as I stated earlier.
Here:

sphinx in the 1870's



sphinx today



Harte



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   
.....
edit on 28-6-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: wasaka

The REAL age, yes the REAL age is At least 6,000 BC....BUT......drumroll.....PERHAPS.....12,000 BC!

I have a revelation.....maybe....just maybe....PERHAPS the REAL AGE could be up to 15,000 BC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My guess is as good as this one....You know why? Because there is no set date, just a guess...So is mine....What a joke[/quote

...the proposed dates reflect the time periods where there would have been enough consistent rainfall to possibly justify the water erosion on the sphinx...

I find it funny when people mock their own misunderstanding of a subject.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I just returned from Egypt with Graham Hancock, and sat beneath the paws with Zahi Hawass. It certainly appears to be older and not just the Sphinx but also the Sphinx temple itself and the adjoining structures appear to be built later and show much different weathering as well as slightly different construction. Its all very interesting when you take into account the astronomical alignments of the Sphinx with the constellation Leo (The Lion), which would have occurred at the time Schoch proposes it was possibly built, as opposed to the constellation Taurus (The Bull) that it points at during the time of 2500 BC. Schoch worked with Hancock on the idea and since thats sort of Hancocks forte in the realm of alignment of various sites its hard to be just cast aside just because it doesn't fit in with the current proposed time frame. Also there is next to no mention of the building of the Sphinx but there is records talking about the construction of some of the Pyramids. If you met Hancock of Schoch and listened to them speak, you would find them to be very rational and reasonable men and highly intelligent. I myself am an Environmental Scientist and i studied geology for the best part of 3 years, i dont consider myself to be a fringe theorist in any capacity, but i have no problems with what either Schoch of Hancock propose. Neither of them claim to be the final word on this topic, just that it shouldn't be ignored and should be investigated thoroughly. How is that anything but intellectual honesty and open mindedness.

Also i will add that i got access to many parts of Egypt that the standard tourist doesn't get to see, and i can tell you there are chambers within the great Pyramid and opening near and on the Sphinx that you don't see and are blocked with large metal grates that no one seems to either know how to answer or want to answer when questioned. Ive heard there was possibly even a tunnel connecting the Sphinx to the Great Pyramid and i wouldn't find that hard to believe based on what i saw



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: BeReasonable
I just returned from Egypt with Graham Hancock, and sat beneath the paws with Zahi Hawass. It certainly appears to be older and not just the Sphinx but also the Sphinx temple itself and the adjoining structures appear to be built later and show much different weathering as well as slightly different construction.

Did they tell you that it has been proven that the sphinx temple was constructed from limestone blocks taken directly from the excaavation of the sphinx enclosure? These stones (what's left of them) have been matched with the stone in the enclosure to a very high degree.

Since that is an established fact, do you wonder how the temple could have been built later than the sphinx, when the sphinx is itself simply stone that was left behind in the enclosure and carved into shape?


originally posted by: BeReasonableIts all very interesting when you take into account the astronomical alignments of the Sphinx with the constellation Leo (The Lion), which would have occurred at the time Schoch proposes it was possibly built, as opposed to the constellation Taurus (The Bull) that it points at during the time of 2500 BC.

Can you tell us of any culture living in the area in your time frame that actually viewed that particular constellation as a lion?

The Egyptians did not.

In Sumer, where the zodiac originated, it was originally called the "big dog."


originally posted by: BeReasonable Neither of them claim to be the final word on this topic, just that it shouldn't be ignored and should be investigated thoroughly. How is that anything but intellectual honesty and open mindedness.

Are you suggesting that a lone wolf geophysicist and a former journalist have investigated the sphinx more thoroughly than all the archaeologists that have examined it in the last 200 years?

There are very good reasons for Hancock, Schoch, et al. to be dismissed as cranks. Are you not aware of these reasons?

I've been stating many of them right here at ATS for a decade.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join