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

a reply to: Flavian

Yes it was a much later city but you have missed out on many point's, they were not directly linear in there comparison, you know Rome took it's sciences and ideas from other cultures including the Arch which they attributed to the Etruscan's and the Road's which they attributed to the ancients (but of course we now know that despite Roman propeganda that the Celtic cultures of Gaul and elsewhere were far more advanced than the legacy view the Roman's left us with of mere barbarian's, they also had road's though often they were built of timber not stone.

Despite the roman's superb hydraulic engineering they may actually have been surpassed in there undestanding of among other's the meso american civilization's (though I know of no aqueduct's in south america there may have been but I am sure there is someone whom will put me right on that), and also the builders of Angkor Wat itself knew very much more about hydraulic engineering than they have been credited with.

Were Rome really had it's great achievement was in Concrete, they used volcanic pumice which allowed Roman concrete to set underwater as it then contained it's own source of oxygen so allowing it to cure even when fully immersed.

The Roman's also had triple glazing in the bath's of at least one bath house in Rome but not triple glazing as you or I would know it today, we have a little invention created not very far from where I live in Lancashire were sheet's of glass are created but back then and right up to the invention by Pilkington glass had to be Rolled and flattened then cut to usable sizes so glass window's were immensely expensive as a result since only some of that glass would be suitable.

Angkor Wat is both immense (even larger than ancient Rome as well as having canals and at one time the entire area was NOT jungle but tamed and cultivated farm land with Angkor Wat being one of the largest and most extensive city's in Asia.

As for which was the greater period of development and which was the more advanced culture, well as far as I can see the people of Angkor did not put slaves in a stadium with wild animal's or commit regular human sacrifice to there Cultic god's, they also did not steal the science's, architecture and knowledge they had but borrowed and/or exchanged it, yes they were built by a great empire that had beaten off it's enemy's but there was a far more civilized culture than our western centric view is actually comfortable with.

So to my mind they were the more advanced and highly evolved society of the two.

In the west there are many example's of high civilization rising then falling or otherwise being obliterated and non of them were that high as we may like to posit.

Carthage for example was at least as large as Rome, perhaps even more architecturally stunning but we shall never know since the Roman's obliterated the city almost entirely at the end of the Punic wars but what we do know of them is that they were a Barbaric bunch, they sacrificed children to there female God whose symbol oddly enough resembled an Ankh (but the Egyptian's had no such tradition), they had Hydrolic Engineering that may have surpassed the Roman's also but on a smaller scale (remember the Roman's are not remembered for the small thing's but there huge aqueduct's some of which are still to be found today AND which may have been surpassed long before there time by the Babylonian's whose work's lasted right up until old Temugen and his boy's raided and destroyed the Babylonian irrigation system's in Iraq - actually Ghengis did not do that but his boy's did - or did you think the fabled hanging garden's were there only achievement) and also there Sewers, the system in London for example still uses some of the ancient Roman period sewers though it is almost entirely of much later Victorian era engineering.

The difference with the Carthaginian hydraulic engineering was water delivered into there home's, private and very modern to our eye's bathroom's complete with a tub etc, of course Santorini show's that the ancient people whom lived there thousand's of years before Carthage also had excellent hydraulic engineering and so too did the Indus valley civilization whom apparently had covered sewers long before it was fashionable.

www.thoughtco.com...

Of course one lesson of History that the like's of Harte may dispute is the fact that the Roman's, at least the Patrician class poisoned themselves with the plastic of there day, that being LEAD, they had lead for everything, lead pipes for there water, lead pot's, pan's and dishes and even red lead oxide used for food coloring, it has been theorized by some that this led to a generation of imbecile's.
Lead as you know is bio-accumulative and build's up in the system, it's effects include sterility, imbecility and several other deleterious symptom's as well as of course severe lead poisoning causing death.

So the upper echelon's of Roman society, the old Patrician class or REAL roman's died off and were replaced by other's from elsewhere in the Empire, culminating in the eventual sidelining and eventual fall of Rome itself BUT had the Rise of Islam not happened it may be seen that there is a good case to argue that the Roman empire would still exist today in the form of the Byzantium empire - though arguably it would have been the Constantinople empire rather than the Roman empire it was a direct descendant of the older empire if moved more into the Greek Sphere of influence.

Now there was an Empire I shall not see as inferior, the Byzantium marines for example had Ship to Ship flame Throwers that fired Greek fire (a form of Naptha or Napalm that stuck to it's target's and burned even in water, in fact throwing water onto it apparently made it worse).

But here is the real lesson, non of these civilization's or cultures arose in Isolation (Regardless of the extremely flawed and idiotic view of the founder of the Smithsonian institute) but they fed upon one another, lesson's and ideas have a way of spreading and dispersion of knowledge does happen.

There are instances of two separate group's reinventing something though.

We all know that had the Chinese imperial army's ever met the Roman army's it is almost certain that the Chinese would have won because the Chinese had superior weapon's and equally advanced tactic's and training as well as actually far larger army's, they also had standardized part's mass manufactured for there personal Crossbow's.

The Roman crossbow by comparison was not a man powered or portable weapon but a large device that was more like a cannon which would fire a huge bolt into the enemy army, the Roman metallurgy was NOT as advanced as the Chinese metallurgy and there sword's be it the Spatha or the earlier Gladius were by and large inferior to eastern weapon's.

Also the Economy of China was probably far superior, these two cultures did have link via trade and even Ambassador's though despite the great distance between them and of course during the Roman imperial period the importance of the Silk Road was at it's greatest with entire cultures and even civilization's rising on the back of that trade then later falling and vanishing from history through a series of catastrophe's such as climate change and of course war and invasion - most notably the duel destruction of the Islamic expansion then the Mongol.

a reply to: Harte

Come off it Harte.

a reply to: Flavian

Flavian, did ANY roman legionnaire's ever meet up against the Chinese.

There are two potential's to this tiny tale but Roman's are a possibility if a very distant one and of course they could also as the video argues be Greek's or rather descendant's of Alexanders soldiers as well.




There are many argument's about which would have won, I dispute the argument's about the roman discipline as the Chinese were also professional soldiers, both used shield wall tactic's, both knew how to shield against arrow's with a roof of shields etc but it is true the Roman's had better armor, I force my opinion though that the Chinese had better weapon's and metallurgy.

So since we all likely have Roman ancestry, especially in Europe, My country for example was part of the Roman empire for over 400 years leaving there road's and many city's as well as there genetic legacy which was later mixed with the Norse.

I see you like Flavian so have used that name as your avatar but if I had to choose a roman it would be Aurelius, despite the weakening of the empire at this time and his inability to stop the rot he still could be regarded as one of the greatest emperor's.
Were I believe Rome failed was in not avenging the failure of Quintus Varus and treachery and betrayal of Armenius, had they retaken and militarized Germania the Later Hun's whom did what they did not would not have been able to entrench there so would have failed and history would be very different today.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

Come off it Harte.

Still waiting for you to quote me saying that Dwarka wasn't an ancient city of the past.

When you lie about what another poster said, then you bring the wrath onto yourself.
So, YOU "come off it."

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Right Harte, I can not remember the thread as I periodically unsubscribe to them by ticking the little X mark, you know the one on the right side of the thread title but it was well over a year ago now were you said that it was NOT a sunken city.
I personally find it enlightening how you have changed your view in that time.

Oh by the way what happened to you, your personality on line has changed markedly in the last several years from being an almost grandfatherly approach to many of the commentor's to being now far more brusk and intolerant of them and there view's, not a late mid life crisis I hope - OR a younger new female companion (which I could only wish you well with jammy sod).

Now pun's aside you do seem to have changed in your style and approach as I say markedly as I have perused and loitered around many threads were you have made your presence felt.

So I take it you NOW accept that it is a ruined city but are now intent on claiming it is medieval which it patently is not unless of course there is some corresponding record of a port, city or island sinking in the India, Islamic or Chinese history's for that period.

There is actually no reason however for it to date to the Ice age, the Sarasvati once the greatest river in India as you know is now little more than a stream because of landslides and continental tilting meaning that it now drains into and evaporated away in a desert, in that case more of a case of it's source being diverted by geological and glacial activity in the Himalayan mountain's but I stand by my argument for continental tilting as a mechanism for the submersion of many formerly coastal AND even inland regions of such geographic locations as southern India and eastern south america - to a lesser degree in Western Africa and Western Europe though in Europe as in north America the ice age played a far more significant role in continental depression while in Africa which is of course a far larger land mass and is actually made of far more plates than south america the tilting of the western side of the continent is probably more sedate and down to simple Atlantic expansion and ocean depression of the young ocean plates bordering the older continental mass, there may be some subduction localized in area's of Arabia (which I am sure you know is slowly sinking to the south of the new breakaway micro continent of Arabia) and Africa as well due to any depression of the Indian region.

But if you make a thick porridge with a thin dry crust, push the flat of your spoon down on it, notice how the underlying material is displaced, this is perhaps a poor analogy but that is how it work's.

Other sources of sudden altitude loss of localized region's can include volcanic release of pent up underlying magma, natural shift's of underlying material away from a region such as is happening in my neck of the wood's over here in Blighty were the south of England is sinking while the North of Scotland is rising due to the sea saw effect of the removal of the Ice that once buried these islands' during the Ice Age, northern Scandinavia has far more marked rise concurring then here were it is actually very sedate by comparison.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

Right Harte, I can not remember the thread as I periodically unsubscribe to them by ticking the little X mark, you know the one on the right side of the thread title but it was well over a year ago now were you said that it was NOT a sunken city.
I personally find it enlightening how you have changed your view in that time.

I learned about Dwarka over a decade ago. You sure hate to back down when caught in a lie, don't you?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Oh dear Harte you do love to insult people and wrongly accuse them of lying.

I shall say this and would happily say it to your face, you ARE the liar here Harte so let's leave it there, if and when I make a mistake and know that I have you should know by now that I always apologize but you and then type a lengthy withdrawal accepting when I am wrong but in your case I have yet to see you actually ever accept when you are wrong, perhaps not man enough eh! - sorry if you are a lady but it is my understanding that you are a fellow male.

Now let's ask you something, why do you insist these days' on trying to provoke, to tear down and to create fallacy's that fit your idea of what IS and not what actually is, why do you deny that you ever denied the claim and why do you insist on calling certain well known author's liars as well when in fact if they did lie - NOT OPINION but actual false fact's they could and would be held to account by far more than you.

Now what is really infuriating to me is simply this, the Harte I had encountered on the site and RESPECTED seem's to be gone replaced even, that Harte was clever, intelligent and would even set out to educate not to insult or to try to provoke like an immature idiot kid would do.

This may not seem like something you want to hear but many of us WANT that Harte back, he was erudite and yes could be brusk but also had a far better way of presenting his opinion's, in fact I readily backed down on occasion when I was wrong but I have never lied Harte, NEVER lied and believe me that does rile me.

One I have never stolen in my entire life, not even a cake at a party.
Two I do not lie because a liar dig's themselves ever deeper and no good come's of it in the end though for some people like those that robbed my mother's inheritance and concealed her title's it is a way of life.
Three I have personal honor and would not insult another person's honor unless I was convinced they were wrong.
Four I am sick and tired of seeing idiot's trying to close down threads about interesting subject's.

Remember how you once explained to me that it was your profession as a history teacher, that you also had archaeological experience or maybe I got that wrong that you had visited archaeological site's.

Remember when I thought you were correct after you told me of your time at Puma Punku or was it Tiwanaku/Tiahuanaco or was it something that you had read - I truly can not remember the post it was a while back, that there was material under the stone's that was dated much later than some theories about the site would posit and I accepted your word on that thinking that maybe I must be wrong then.

Well you missed out as I later found out, very conveniently that the whole site had been rebuilt as a group of 20th century archaeologists believed it was supposed to look and in fact that they may have messed up the site to such a degree it has caused irreparable damage with them actually having incorporated later stone's that were likely part of a later cult site built over an much older site into lower courses and the dating material you mentioned actually therefore not being in any way, shape or form reliable.

Sorry Harte you shall forgive me if I no longer take you at your word.

Dude im just estatic this thread is still going. Old school ats ftw.

I star each post as reward for making ats intriguing and rewarding to read again.


Eta: yes i literally went through and gave every single pist a star. Except the guy thats apparently banned.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

Oh dear Harte you do love to insult people and wrongly accuse them of lying.

I shall say this and would happily say it to your face, you ARE the liar here Harte so let's leave it there,

You can leave it there if you want.
I will quote your lie:

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte
Once again Harte you are showing unbridled bias against the site which you DID deny was even a city in the past.

So, quote mine. Liar.

Harte

a reply to: LABTECH767

Angkor Wat was 1100 AD... not BC.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Harte

You really are a nasty person Harte calling other's liar, in fact I suspect you are not even being honest about your own credential's but we shall leave that there shall we eh!.

--

Byrd, by the way I personally never made that claim, if you are quoting a web site which perhaps I linked than that is another matter and not my claim, I merely pointed out that they had very highly advanced irrigation system's in some way's perhaps more advanced than Rome had achieved ( - I actually doubt that but they were still extremely advanced and perhaps drew on expertise from much further afield than there own empire, likely from India and China - though I do believe the Babylonian - Mesopotamian Canal system which had aqueduct's that would shame Rome's on scale even diverting entire rivers was a far more impressive achievement, sadly mostly lost to us after the Mongol's destroyed the ancient system - ) and as we know being a Hindu site it was based on sacred geometry, there is no fair comparison between two cultures so far distant in both time and geographic location but on balance they were far more civilized - at least at the height of there city building and urban society than a society built on the back of a population of mainly slave's whose sum total of knowledge and culture itself was mostly stolen from other conquered society's which had been forced into there empire, that said the PAX ROMANA was an incredible time once those society's were actually incorporated and Rome itself was far more civilized than many of the society's it conquered - not than all though remember our own morality is based on Judeo Christian tradition and Rome did all it could to stamp that out, many right wing politician's today whom lack our moral center also see themselves or even style themselves after the Patrician class of ancient Rome regarding the rest of us as Plebeian's at best.

--

Once again Harte I am no Liar, you typed what you typed to me on another thread, I like I say can not find that thread as I unsubscribe either when a thread decay's or has lost interest and is no longer active.

You wish to call me a Liar and in so doing you are actually Lying to tarnish myself, perhaps to drag this out would make us like the pot calling the kettle black but let's be fair you have your own way all too often, sometimes you are constructive but at other time's you are nothing but a pompous individual with a far too high opinion of himself.

You really do need to come back down to earth and to stop talking to people like they are dirt or illiterate idiot's, God know's man you would not get an army to follow you with that befouled attitude.

I hold you no animosity but I can not say that I particularly like your on screen persona either.

This lad is not an expert but he make's some very good point's.


This is an armchair guy whom is questioning the content of some very old drawing's of the site of the pyramid's which seem to show now lost structures, they may very well have been there and some of them were probably Greco/Roman period and robbed out entirely before modern archaeology put a stop to the destruction, who for example will ever remember the great Buddha of Afghanistan now it is gone and any replacement will not be the real thing.


Just another video with someone talking about the second sphinx.



An ancient pyramid structure in Indonesia.


Another mystery from the Mediterranean.

a reply to: seasonal

I've studied the archaeology of Egypt. There's bugger all there prior to the Neolithic (7k ago) other than a few cattle worshipping hunter gatherers who stuck up some standing stone calendars. The tech just didn't exist nor did the population density needed to build the sphinx.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

You really are a nasty person Harte calling other's liar, in fact I suspect you are not even being honest about your own credential's but we shall leave that there shall we eh!.

All you had to do is quote where I said that that Dwarka was not a "city in the past."
You know, the part where you LIED about me?
Don't lie and you won't be called a liar.

What credentials have I presented that you are unsure of? Is this going to turn into another lie about me?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Once again Harte I am no Liar, you typed what you typed to me on another thread, I like I say can not find that thread as I unsubscribe either when a thread decay's or has lost interest and is no longer active.

You wish to call me a Liar and in so doing you are actually Lying to tarnish myself, perhaps to drag this out would make us like the pot calling the kettle black but let's be fair you have your own way all too often, sometimes you are constructive but at other time's you are nothing but a pompous individual with a far too high opinion of himself.

No, in fact, like everyone else I don't appreciate lies being told about me. That is simply what has occurred here, so I responded, again like anyone else would, with a challenge - quote me saying any of what you claimed. Tell me which credentials I've been dishonest about.

What you are doing here is making up disparaging things about ME. What sort of response would you expect from such claims?


Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767
This lad is not an expert but he make's some very good point's.

The presenter pretends to have read Heiser's debunking of the VA243 seal claims made by Sitchin, and proceeds to completely misrepresent what Heiser did by stating that Heiser's argument hinged on Sitchin not being able to read cuneiform.

No mention at all of the most important and thoroughly covered fact Heiser presents - that the central figure in that star cluster is, in fact, not the Sun but probably Venus, and that the dots around it are stars too. Heiser then gives multiple examples of how they depicted stars, Venus, and the Sun in ancient Sumerian art.

The examples are all that is needed, and they are presented all over that pdf in actual pictures, but this guy doesn't mention that fact?

Disinformation.

Harte