New Sphinx in Pakistan?

This is interesting. Looking at it, it very well could be an ancient temple complex with a sphinx. At the same time, it just looks eroded. But there are some patterns and symmetry.

grahamhancock.com...

I can't say for sure at all, but my vote goes towards an ancient, eroded complex of some kind. Pretty cool either way. I didn't even know this place existed. Always nice to find a new mystery in the modern world.

a reply to: Toolman18

pareidolia

Why did you ignore, just as the linked article ignores, the fact that no archaologist on the planet believes this to be what the article is saying it could be?

You can't say for sure, lol? What are your credentials other than you clicked on some far fetched click bait. Perhaps you are Indiana Jones?

Where are the entrances to your great Pakistan temple of the sphinx in between those imagined great columns?

Do you know what this word means: "pareidolia"? Look it up and you will learn somwething new whiuch you did not learn from the article that totally ignores archaology and makes its own assumptions based on what that word means.







All natural. If nature can make hexagons it can sure make a lump of rock that vaugely resembles a sphinx.

a reply to: Revolution9

Did you know "pareidolia" isn't actually a thing? It doesn't exist. Really. Look it up.

Just trying to introduce interesting stuff to this site instead of the crappy political jargon.

Stop criticizing and embrace a non-political thread.

Wow... it looks like there is something to this. As the commenters said, it certainly needs some closer examination to determine it's man made. But looks convincing to me.

The difference here is the columns and top carved band around the top part. The Sphinx head.... Possible.

a reply to: Revolution9

And that last one is a camel no matter what anyone says

It could be worth going there and scraping off some of the dirt, just to have a look. There must be numerous undiscovered places, buried by age.

a reply to: Revolution9

If I didn't know better I would think you had an agenda to peddle, with all due respect. It is not necessary to be so dismissive. Also, you are just as bad as any speculative article with the way you rush onto this thread intent on discrediting simple speculation, of all things. Fwiw I didn't look at the article or the pictures. You just kind of struck a nerve I suppose. On topic I wouldn't be surprised the least if that is in fact what we are looking at with these formations. A great megalith building maritime civilization rivaling the one we have today most certainly existed in the distant past. The evidence of which is overwhelming.

No...that third pic is definitely a Mexican walking fish,is it in the sahara? That's odd.

a reply to: Revolution9

If I showed you a picture of the cave on my property, could you see the entrance? Or would you say it's just forest because no one has discovered it to be a cave? I haven't been to Pakistan so I don't know. Probably wouldn't know if I did go. Neither do you.

a reply to: Revolution9

All natural

Nope, not this one

How does my assumption ignore archeology when there hasn't been an archeological dig on the site? What is the purpose of your post except to contradict for no reason?

originally posted by: Toolman18
a reply to: Revolution9

And that last one is a camel no matter what anyone says

With a little photoshop it sure is

Boy, that temple at the site sure is worn out from the weather. You can see the pillars and mantle, it almost matches other ones that I have seen on the net carved from the soft sandstone. This one does not seem to have living quarters though, maybe they were sealed long ago or maybe they just had low stone houses there like in other areas. It definitely looks like a very old archeological site.

I would make a bet it is going to be considered made by some hominen that lived long ago. I am not so sure that that is a sphinx, but they say the sphinx originally had a different head on it and it was modified by a pharaoh to his likeness. That stone looks pretty soft, it almost looks like it flowed over the side structure and left a deposit like calcium containing stone will do. Remember, all that cutting and grinding leaves a lot of powdery sand to deal with.

The original sphinx, before it was remade is said to be much older than what it is said to be. There was water present there that eroded it, that brings it's development back thousands of years. Maybe this was built by the same people.

They have a lot of old temples in India, some are carved into the rock too. I wonder what treasures these things will hold in the rooms they contain, maybe they were already robbed. I doubt if any archeologist will properly investigate this, it would mean they have to rewrite the history of that area and it will mean a lot of tourist dollars leaving some of the sites in Italy and Greece and areas like that. Actually India has way more impressive stone buildings than in most of the pyramid areas. If I was going to go look at ancient structures I would go down there.

Nice outcropping. But it ain't no sphinx. Takes some serious mental gymnastics to see a sphinx in this thing. At best, maybe a badly eroded, partially carved structure if we're going to get desperate about a who-dunnit, but it really looks no more man-made than half the outcroppings in the desert SW US do.

Pareidolia. It's a neat formation, but nothing about it looks unnatural.

a reply to: Toolman18

Way cool, it has to be much older than 3000yrs.

And the sphinx is more proportioned than Giza.

I don't think that spinx gets hit with many tsunamis for that amount of erosion.

Wish there were close ups. But it looks like a complex. Petra comes to mind.

Nice find.

a reply to: Toolman18

Well I find it fascinating and it is very close to those architectural structures, if it is one though then how old is it, were are the supplementary ruin's of settlement's or a city nearby?.
And if so - not just some very rare but fully natural erosion and the more I look at the parallel's suggesting it is actually a man altered site the more I am convinced but it need's other angles or it is just natural rock formation's but if it was carved not built but then the stone look's soft so time has more than taken it's toll there.
Only genuine archaeological dig's and proper survey's of the site there could verify if it is more likely cast more doubt upon the site but it could be a forgotten city site perhaps destroyed as recently as the first arrival of Islamic invaders to the region.

The other problem with highlighting it is that this is the kind of thing that extremists do not want you to know about because of course they want to erase that which came before there own ideology and so if it is a site and even if it is not they are probably musing blowing it up or worse.

Other than that spectacular scenery and I can certainly understand why the Pakistan government has made it a national park.

Having read that page, the missing shrines and temples there I do believe that this site was at least a ceremonial site at one time and only a little over a thousand years ago at that.

a reply to: Toolman18
I agree...
At the same time, try rotating it 90 degrees clockwise...

Do you see what I see?

a reply to: Toolman18

Why do people do this?

Honestly, If someone said, "Hey this looks like it could be a Sphinx," I'd say, "Wow, you're right, it really does."

Unfortunately they highlight every little thing in the picture to try and plead their case.

I mean, a vimana? really? You want me to believe the rounded hill next to the Sphinx is a spaceship? C'mon.

FWIW, I am actually intrigued. I just don't see man-made steps, a vimana, a carving of Ganesha, or most of the other stuff the author sees.

a reply to: Toolman18

Did you know "pareidolia" isn't actually a thing?

except... it is actually a thing...

something a lot of people experience on a daily basis...

Im unsure if this is the case in this example though...

wicked find