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.

 

GIZA and the truth??

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
A lot of people have claimed that the sphinx shows erosion patterns that would make it much older than is generally accepted, but many others including scientists specializing in erosion and weathering have said that it certainly could have reached its current condition within the accepted age timeframe.

I'm certainly no expert in this field, but I would think that claiming the sphinx is 10,000+ years old is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, and there certainly is no extraordinary proof here.

[edit on 1/11/2006 by djohnsto77]




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
djohnsto77, no study gave those dates, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval give those dates. The study done by Robert M. Schoch of Boston University, and Colin Reader gave the date at somewhere in the sixth or fifth millennia BC. The last significant rainy period ended during the third millennium BC, not 10,500bc.

People are mixing the two theories together, to make their arguement.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
djohnsto77, no study gave those dates, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval give those dates. The study done by Robert M. Schoch of Boston University, and Colin Reader gave the date at somewhere in the sixth or fifth millennia BC. The last significant rainy period ended during the third millennium BC, not 10,500bc.

People are mixing the two theories together, to make their arguement.

Schoch concluded that the 5th or 6th millenium BC was the minimum, and the 10 500 BC theory is either within Schochs range of possible dates, or if not, very close. I am not totally convinced of Bauval and Hancocks 10 500 BC date, they may be right, but I don't see enough to convince me. My own feeling is that it is at least pre 9500 BC, before the cataclysm I feel happened right around then.
Khafre more likely carved his face into it, and did some repair work on the erosion damage. That is what I give him credit for. Maybe he took credit for building it.... but I don't think he built it.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
BlackGuardXIII, where in the report does it say that?

I've been waiting for sometime, for someone to show me.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmaracing
VietifulJoe have you gone to the sites mentioned above in this string and look at some the pictures and read what i have written i do not know how they where built but that there is a math improbability involved with the set up of giza.


cmaracing,
Odium posted in other tread that is possible that they have built pyramids with technology of the time, but there is way to many questions regarding the way they built it, time it took, reason they built it and what it represented.

I will just show you some simple math:

Let’s say that they managed to cut, curve, move and laid 4 stones per hour (average weight of the stones is 2 to 4 tons and query is more then 500 miles away) and that they worked 24 hours per day, 365 days a year.

It is estimated that there are 2.4 million stones in the Great Pyramid its self.

At the speed of 4 stones per hour, they can put 96 per day. At that speed they needed close to 68 and half years to complete pyramid.

This will work only if:
• there was no delay in incoming stones
• there were no big accidents that would stop building
• no single stone was destroyed as being cut, moved and placed
• there was no delay in lifting the stones

Now, try to imagine doing this in 20 years as modern Egyptologist suggest. That would mean more then 12 stones per hour (or one stone every 5 min) if they worked 24 hours per day. And there were stones much bigger then 4 tons!

This would all make much sense if they had good tools and transportation capabilities at the time.

Try now to imagine how much food workforce will need to work at acceptable rate…

In overall, I don’t believe that Egyptians of fourth dynasty were able to build them, but if they did, for sure it took them much more then generally accepted 20 years to built The Great.

And all of this without even going into details of leveling work area, and providing means to lift stones...



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Map of Orion, I beleive that, definitely. Many of the Egyptian legends relate it to a pre deluge era, I would take those old tales over modern archealogy or science with an agenda any day.

Giza unlike all the other pyramids has no inscriptions or writing indicating who the builder was. Bottom line know one knows for sure.

from the air its also a hopi symbol. Im not saying the Hopi built it, but anyone looking at it from the air can read into it what they want. The sphinx does have water erosion, and even the gobi desert was once lush and tropical. Who knows what the truth is.

people only say khufu built it because and english man in 1898 or so found a small wooden sign that said "khufu" in egyptian. btw when they found it the paint was still wet, and they writing wasnt from the era when khufu was from, plus they were still mistakes that almost prove it was a forgery but becuz someone else found a small stone fiquine of khufu (someone probalby just dropped this while travelling back in the day) in the area I guess that makes him the builder. Read mysteries of the sphinx by erik van daniken for starters.

bottom line this englishman was looking for a reputation to be remembered for something in archealogy, and his finds were obvious forgeries. But people still say Khufu.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Can I ask a question?

This sphinx erosion business... I have not been to Giza, sadly, but can someone clarify where the erosion is on the statue? I seem to recall seeing on TV shots of erosion at the base and over the back a little. My trouble with the theory of age is that a random rock is going to be eroded if there is water. A random rock may well have experienced water erosion 12,000 years ago, and before that. That doesn't mean that the random rock had already been carved into a sphinx at that time. Why could the Egyptians not simply have carved the pre-eroded rock (one which was good for the purpose as it already was kinda lion-shaped in some ways) into their statue, just making the best of the flawed material that they could?

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
BlackGuardXIII, where in the report does it say that?

I've been waiting for sometime, for someone to show me.


www.robertschoch.net...


The references are on that page, and gives the era in which it was built being up to 10-12 000 years ago and as late as 5 000 years ago.


[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
That site also answered my question. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
BlackGuardXIII.


Based on either this chain of reasoning, or the scenario suggested immediately above-and given that the weathering of the limestone floor of the Sphinx enclosure is fifty to 100 percent deeper on the front and sides of the figure than at its rear-we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front end) may have been carried out ca. 7000 to 5000 B.C. (in other words, that the carving of the core body of the figure is approximately fifty to 100 percent older than ca. 2500 B.C.). This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago.


Now this is when the fun begins, the top of the structure which would need the least work would/is the bit that is also the least repaired. As he points out there were many periods of heavy rainfall and his conclusion is based around the repair work done. Which was done on the face and removing the sand from the "ditch" around the Sphinx. I've yet to find a record of any "major" work done on the back.



Jericho dates back to the Ninth Millennium B.C. and the city-site included a massive stone wall and tower, and a ditch cut in the bedrock-all dating from ca. 8000 B.C. The remains of the stone wall are at least six and one-half feet (two meters) thick and still stand in places twenty feet (six meters) high (nobody knows how high it was originally). Outside of this protecting wall, a ditch was excavated into the solid bedrock to a depth of nine feet (2.7 meters) and a width of twenty-seven feet (8.2 meters). Inside the wall are the remains of a stone tower thirty feet (9.1 meters) in diameter, the ruins of this structure still standing thirty feet (9.1 meters) high. In the center of the Jericho tower is a flight of steps built from huge stone slabs. This construction has been compared favorably to the towers seen on the great medieval castles of Europe.[24]


Now guys, think about it for a long moment.

How hard is the Sphinx to carve compaired to what Jericho had? The fact it might be earlier, even say to 10,500BC is by no means saying an advanced cultured existed thousands of years earlier and the report doesn't help people to make such claims.



Recently New York City Police forensic officer Detective Frank Domingo made a detailed analysis of the face of the Sphinx, as compared to the known face of Khafre (see article by R. Grossman, Chicago Tribune, Section 5, 24 February Redating the Sphinx, 1,5). In October of 1991, Domingo traveled to Egypt with the express purpose of measuring and examining the surviving facial features of the Sphinx and the statues known to portray Khafre. After thoroughly studying the problem, Domingo concluded definitely that the face of the great Sphinx is not the same face seen on statues of the builder of the second great pyramid. My hypothesis-that the initial carving of the Sphinx of Giza was undertaken prior to the reign of Khafre-is actually neither corroborated nor refuted on the basis of whether or not the face of the sculpture represents the likeness of Khafre. Even if the face of the Sphinx is a portrait of the Fourth Dynasty ruler, this does not falsify my hypothesis, as I believe that Khafre did, indeed, work on restoring and refurbishing the monument. He may have even ordered the recarving of the face of the Sphinx in his own image.


Speaks for itself really. The Sphinx has been messed about so much, that without core samples and the ability to actually check the density of the Limestone's his claims are not that scientifically sound.

Edit:

Long read, but this is a much better article.

www.thehallofmaat.com...

[edit on 12/1/2006 by Odium]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I have been to that page before, and revisited it just now. It is good. I get a diffenent sense of what the significance of the aspects is and what that likely means.

First point, Schoch seems to favour the 9 to 7 k bc span as the most likely, but he does admit it could be younger, and it could be older. It is also confirmed in both those sites, and elsewhere, that repair work has been dated to Khafre's era. It seems plausible to me that the amount of erosiion that Khafre felt was so great that it was in need of repair, suggests older rather than newer. As for the face, I am impressed with the forensic reconstruction's professionalism, and am content with the NYPD police officers qualifications and abilities. Since the face is African, and the head is disproportionately small for the body, my guess is that it was first carved as a lion, then sometime before Khafre, a previous ruler had his face carved into it. Then Khafre cleaned up the site, and did restoration work, in the hope that his work would honor the Gods, and secure himself some afterlife reward. Whether it is advanced or not...it doesn't seem particuilarly amazing to me. I certainly have not felt that it was in any convincing way,. proof of advanced ancients. Many other things in Egypt do, but not the Sphinx.
I am not sure if I said all I hoped to.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
interesting, thank you.







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join