Egyptological dating of the Sphinx disproved, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 5-7-2008 @ 11:16 AM by DREAMING MAN
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.


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 01:45 AM by Hanslune
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 posted on 8-7-2008 @ 02:08 AM by RuneSpider
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.


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 02:19 AM by Hanslune
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



reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 09:29 PM by Hanslune
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.


reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 07:27 PM by TheDemonHunter
Originally posted by DREAMING MAN
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.


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 posted on 19-8-2008 @ 10:11 PM by Hanslune
reply to post by TheDemonHunter



Howdy Demon

I'd be interested in seeing one of these contradictions of which you speak
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 6 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 3 days ago with 80 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 14 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 3 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 15 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags