Egyptological dating of the Sphinx disproved

the great pyramid was incased in highly polished limestone which was later ripped off, so It's probably hard for a geologist to date it.

they just have to go off records, even though pharohs were known to modify records and the few hieroglyphs that are in there which could've been not put there till much long after it was built and some of those are known forgeries.

Such as?

Great thread other than someone arguing for the sake of arguing. I saw the show awhile back and it does have some interesting facts and opinions...and yes Hawass, refuses to make waves about history.

reply to post by MeltDowN

---

Thank you Meltdown for your assessment of argument, and Hawass.

IMHO Hawass is a dangerous man, as he has some hidden agenda.

Col. Howard-Vyse forgery




www.answerbag.com...


[edit on 5-7-2008 by Shawn B.]

Howdy Shawn B


Col. Howard-Vyse forgery

Stower demolishes Sitchin's theory in clear and simple language:

"In 1837, even Samuel Birch [Vyse's assistant and Sitchin's assumed forger] couldn't have faked the quarry marks. They have features which even experts didn't understand, but which have become clear since. In fact they fit in perfectly with later discoveries and later analyses."

Stower shows that the hieroglyphs' "misspellings" and errors were actually imperfections in 19th century knowledge of hieroglyphs projected onto the correctly-spelled hieroglyphs themselves.

Nevertheless, the authority of Zecharia Sitchin gave free licence to over a dozen alternative authors to cite the "forged" quarry marks as proof that Khufu did not build the pyramid.

For this reason von Däniken could still say in 1996's Eyes of the Sphinx: "[T]he Great Pyramid is a huge, largely anonymous work... There is not a single inscription that would indicate how it was [built]. No one left behind even the briefest note to answer any of our questions regarding its construction. The pyramid itself features no heiroglyphics at all [emphasis added]."

As we have seen from the earlier discussion of the quarry marks, this is patently false. Whether they are genuine or not, the quarry marks do exist, and they are hieroglyphics.

While von Däniken sticks to the forgery line, Graham Hancock changed his mind in the light of "new" evidence known to Egyptology since the 19th century. Says Hancock:

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."

The link

No serious scholar believes these to be faked. This belief in there being faked is one of the odder aspects of high pyramidology. The charge was popularized by the Economists Sitchin who cannot read Egyptian. However about ten years ago an alternative theorist, Hancock was allowed into the chambers and based on his observation he rejected the theory.

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Well, there you go then. Every ten or so odd years they need to let some decrier of Egyptology into the chamber to do a personal study and make his own observations. To make sure that they were sure as to the verifiable certitude of their predeccessors' obsefvations.

Howdy Runespider

Archaeology and especially Assyrialogy and Egyptology have a tendency to just ignore pseudo claims. Assyrialogy is legendary for it refusal to even note Sitchin and his heresies, LOL

Most professionals just don't have the time nor interest in correcting - argueing with pseudos.

A clash

At the Hall of Ma'at there was a brief clash between Robert Bauval and someone I believe is an archaeologists if no Egyptologists, that is Archae Solenhofen. You might find it interesting to read. About the sixth or seventh post is AS response to Bauvals stuff.

The last comments in the thread are a classic too

meh, i'm not totally sold either way if there fake or not. all i can find are quotes of martin stower claiming there not because there was confusion on if Khufu was spelled right. i haven't seen detailed proof by him explaining why he believes that either or anyone else backing him with proof.

reply to post by Shawn B.

---

If you want a more detailed explanation you can ask the people at the Hall of Ma'at or better yet search the ATS and Hall of Ma'at threads - this has been discussed ad nausem.

Good luck. Let us know what you find out and what you think is the truth.

Dr. Hawass is a confusing man at best. He seems to go against any kind of testing or speculation that takes new information into account, yet he is/was an associate of the Edgar Cayce Foundation, and he helped them with tests at the Sphinx back in '78. I don't pretend to understand the man or his motivations, but I always feel like he's contradicting himself with half of what he says.

This situation, as always, bears further watching. Personally I won't be happy until every bit of information we can gather is taken into account when writing (or in this case rewriting) the history books.

reply to post by TheDemonHunter

---

Howdy Demon

I'd be interested in seeing one of these contradictions of which you speak

Here's another really cool video explaining the reality of the situation
video.google.com...

Modern humans didn't even exist 10,500 years ago?:S By modern humans I mean Homo sapien sapien:S

Do you have anything other than a video?

Many folks read this board at work and really can't afford to be caught watching videos. And it's hard to check the evidence in a video... there's no transcript so you can't see the spelling of names and so forth. It's hard to skip back a paragraph or three to check facts.

Got text?

According to who exactly?

I guess according to Darwin with his thin and holed theories that other followed blindly without bothering to question too much.

Darwin was just a guy that tried to hard to prove what he though was true and succeeded. Now you see the proportion of the impact of such a date being prove right would cause in almost all science branches.

Like I said in previous posts I do accept part of his work and part of the works spawn from his theories, but in the end it fails miserably on the grand scheme of things.

Cornell University Source

Darwin's ideas took form on the 2nd Survey of HMS Beagle. He developed his ideas as a consequence of his findings, not the other way round.