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.

 

Could there be a second Sphinx buried in Giza? Female Sphinx Buried?

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

This guy for me is the face of the pyramids. And I have always thought he was kinda an odd duck. But I bet he knows things. Things that he is not allowed to talk about.
Maybe one day he will spill the beans, perhaps the same controllers that keep the lid on the Smithsonian also keep this guy under control.




posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

That's what I've never understood. So the pyramids are discovered. And the first guy to say "ancient egyptians built this" and that's just what it has to be from now on? No questioning, ever?

I think it's fair to say that any person, thinking logically, can deduce that the pyramids were not built when they are said to have been.

What do people like hawass have to gain by shutting down the dialogue?

Or is he being pressured to do so?



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
A great number of our theories about the building of the pyramid were shattered by the newly found and released Hieroglyph writings, if it is all true, and sure looks like it is, it is huge.


They reveal that the stones for the pyramid (limestone and granite) were transported from the quarries by water ferries from canals they engineered from the Nile.

This is a revelation that solves one half of the burning question. The other half is how they then got them on the pyramid of course. The revelation embedded now gives us the relative dates that the building began, 2600BC.

So now, if indeed true, a lot of previous theories based on the date, and distance from the quarries can be eliminated because it proves that they can do it, as it is still a formidable labor intensive task.

This even looks better for the older Sphinx model and perhaps a twin. It is exciting times for Egyptology for sure.
edit on 1-10-2017 by charlyv because: Remove misbehaved link



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Well it's very hard to accept that there might have been a highly advanced worldwide civilization and that the distance past was more than Archeology would like us to believe. I really don't know what is true any more. But if posts start to pop up like there is a second sphinx it might be just the top of the iceberg (uh piramid). I would bet my life that the real human history is quite different than what is told in our studybooks...



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: denybedoomed

Wasn't there a stone plaque with an inscription that read the Sphinx was ordered repaired by the Pharaoh (can't remember the guy's name) located adjacent to the Sphinx?

And the stone plaque is now no longer available for public view?

.
edit on 1-10-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: denybedoomed

Wasn't there a stone plaque with an inscription that read the Sphinx was ordered repaired by the Pharaoh (can't remember the guy's name) located adjacent to the Sphinx?

And the stone plaque is now no longer available for public view?

.


True enough. It was said to be being "restored", but how long could that take?



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

And how bad could it be if the Egyptians did the building of the Sphinx?

I think that the stone plaque points to a age damaged Sphinx that the Egyptians restored, not built.



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: charlyv

And how bad could it be if the Egyptians did the building of the Sphinx?

I think that the stone plaque points to a age damaged Sphinx that the Egyptians restored, not built.


I think that as well. The rain erosion areas were probably never restored, just the head area and the butt. Some think that the head used to be a lion and re-carved. Still wonder about that.



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

If I think back when I was a teenybopper, the fact that this basically easy to understand water erosion theory was crapped on by all the established powers of antiquity started me on my present state of mind. History is about profits and control, not the truth.



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Gigal research has some good articles referencing the areas around the Sphinx worth reading and some of the photo's are stunning..

www.gigalresearch.com...

www.gigalresearch.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: charlyv

If I think back when I was a teenybopper, the fact that this basically easy to understand water erosion theory was crapped on by all the established powers of antiquity started me on my present state of mind. History is about profits and control, not the truth.

While Schoch does mention what he considers water erosion as support for his idea, the actual date he came up with was calculated solely from subsurface weathering of the limestone bedrock in the Sphinx enclosure.
This sort of weathering is not affected in the least by water. It is caused by exposure to the air.

The data presented by Schoch (whose actual claim is only that the front portion of the Sphinx is older than the Old Kingdom,) can be used to show that the sides are even older (by thousands of years) than the front.

Basically, then, the idea has no meaning or merit, given the data.

Harte



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal




History is about profits and control, not the truth.

Because everyone knows archeologists are very wealthy and have a lot of power in government.

Isn't that right, Byrd?

edit on 10/1/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: seasonal




History is about profits and control, not the truth.

Because everyone knows archeologists are very wealthy and have a lot of power in government.

Isn't that right, Byrd?


I've always wanted why "they" (whoever "they" might be) don't want us to know "the truth".

If it was proven that the Pyramids were built 20,000 years ago by a previously unknown civilisation far more advanced that had been thought possible... so what? Will the Egyptian authorities really be that devastated by the ridiculous amount of money that will suddenly flow in researchers flock to study the new finds? Will their claim to fame that "we were building cool stuff thousands of years ago!" be somehow undermined by the new claim that "we were building cool stuff tens of thousands of years ago!"

Would that new information really cause the civilised world to crumble and the stock markets to crash?

What exactly is the angle supposed to be? How is keeping the lid on this knowledge being leveraged into either profits or control in a way that would be undermined by releasing it?



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob
Money and control, man!
Money and control.



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Or it could mean that the Sphinx has been buried in sand and uncovered multiple times in it's past, as well as restored multiple times.



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Sphinx has always looked like an Anubis [to me].....

Maybe the nose fell off and whoever was pharaoh(khafra) simply redid the face...
Anyhow, would love to hang out with his dad, Cheops...

-Chris



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Some of that good Egyptian beer...



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I bet zahi hawass is dong OK keeping the status quo going if that is indeed what he is doing.

History doesn't only apply to archeologists.



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Yes, he is leading tour groups.
Shameful
www.heaventoearth.com...

I would prefer Hawass, actually.

edit on 10/1/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Not bad for leading tour groups...







 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join