Was the Sphinx Really Anubis?

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: MapMistress


I was referring to carbon dating. It was carbon dating of the wooden beams for Giza 1, Giza 2, and Giza 3 done by the Southern Methodist University in their Texas lab that dated Giza 2 to roughly 2553 B.C.E. and Giza 3 to 2505 B.C.E. Giza 1's wooden beams are 300 years older though or carbon date to c. 2850 B.C.E.

.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about, what wooden beams ?

The imaginary wooden beams posters dream up when they don't know how carbon samples were collected.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I was referring to carbon dating. It was carbon dating of the wooden beams for Giza 1, Giza 2, and Giza 3 done by the Southern Methodist University in their Texas lab that dated Giza 2 to roughly 2553 B.C.E. and Giza 3 to 2505 B.C.E. Giza 1's wooden beams are 300 years older though or carbon date to c. 2850 B.C.E.

simple google fu shows
the idea came from somewhere
not every one agrees

books.google.co.uk... TYWNfjApVnLI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwoZvHybDPAhUEChoKHeFqDH0Q6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q=pyramid%20wooden%20beams%20carbon%20dating&f=false

unfortunately except for the wooden beam , none of the samples provided by Lancing etc

Seven samples from the Khafre pyramid were dated to 3196-2723 B.C.; six from ... of these curious findings may be due to the technical difficulty of carbon-14 dating. ... For example, wooden beams used in the tracks over which stones were ...

www.academia.edu...

The imaginary wooden beams posters dream up when they don't know how carbon samples were collected.

why so smug ?

Your simple google fu is faulty, that discussion of wooden beams is originally from "Schochs" Voyages of the pyramid builders, a diabolical book written by a pyramidiot, who's conclusion was a lost race from a lost continent, very convenient way to explain why there isn't any evidence
source
and the actual quote which you now seem to have cut deliberately for nefarious purposes

Is a reference to a completely different archaeological site at Lisht in middle Egypt and dates from a completely different period

So again, what wooden beams from Giza, I don't know what you're talking about
All the radiocarbon dates from Giza were taken from organic samples in the mortar, could one of you fringers at least get on the right page, or at least the right book

a reply to: Marduk

cut deliberately for nefarious purposes

your unnecessary hostile attitude
speaks volumes on your character

So again, what wooden beams from Giza, I don't know what you're talking about

well yes that's what i was trying to find out
where Mapmistress might of heard it

i was agreeing with no one
just simply stating that the IDEA of wooden beams and dating
came from somewhere
right or wrong

simple google fu shows the idea came from somewhere not every one agrees

i'm sorry you can't comprehend
a simple statement as
" not everyone agrees "
without attributing it to a side of an argument

could one of you fringers at least get on the right page

why so smug ?

i said this because Harte's comment looks like ridicule directed towards Mapmistress

originally posted by: kibric

a reply to: Marduk

cut deliberately for nefarious purposes

your unnecessary hostile attitude
speaks volumes on your character

So again, what wooden beams from Giza, I don't know what you're talking about

well yes that's what i was trying to find out
where Mapmistress might of heard it

i was agreeing with no one
just simply stating that the IDEA of wooden beams and dating
came from somewhere
right or wrong

simple google fu shows the idea came from somewhere not every one agrees

i'm sorry you can't comprehend
a simple statement as
" not everyone agrees "
without attributing it to a side of an argument

could one of you fringers at least get on the right page

I'm sorry that you're not intelligent enough to recognise my nefarious humour, even followed it with an emoticon and you still missed it.
The discussion was about Giza, your pretence in support of a wrong contention is pretty much all anyone needs to know about your motives...
Thanks for playing
thanks for being the loser
why so smug


Still, at least this time you aren't attempting to attack the science by linking to creationist websites

a reply to: Marduk

The discussion was about Giza, your pretence in support of a wrong contention is pretty much all anyone needs to know about your motives.

yes by trying to find out where Mapmistress might of got confused
reading about wooden beams and egypt
oh yes my motives are very nefarious

in support of a wrong contention

and again your comprehension of simple statements is lacking

i was agreeing with no one

meaning i wasn't supporting anything

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Marduk

The discussion was about Giza, your pretence in support of a wrong contention is pretty much all anyone needs to know about your motives.

yes by trying to find out where Mapmistress might of got confused
reading about wooden beams and egypt
oh yes my motives are very nefarious

in support of a wrong contention

and again your comprehension of simple statements is lacking

i was agreeing with no one

Well then, what you have done is successfully shown that Mapmistress got it completely wrong
well done


but, now that you made the same mistake as her, don't you owe Harte an apology ?

a reply to: Marduk

what mistake ?
pointing out where she might of confused it from

why so smug ?
i said this because Harte's comment looks like ridicule directed towards Mapmistress
i wanted to know why he was so sure, now i do.

i'd rather find out where someone got it wrong than ridicule them
i guess you prefer too ridicule

thanks for being the loser

of what...?

Thanks for playing

your childish imaginary game.. ?

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Marduk

what mistake ?
pointing out where she might of confused it from

oh that's what you're pretending happened here, that's so cute
What actually happened as anyone can read, is that you deliberately edited the quote, and messed up the attribution to make it look like she was right, then got served
No amount of bluster from you at this point is going to make that look any different. because :-
People can read...

I notice, its always a childish imaginary game for you after you've been shown to be fabricating evidence, never before, why is that ?
But yanno, as always feel free to retort again with nothing but sour grapes and show everyone how very mature you are...

Probably a good time to point out that pretty much anyone who knows anything about the Giza radiocarbon project would know she was wrong right from the start of this, the samples came from old wood, which is why its dating is older, not because the pyramid is...
No that's ok, I'm not including you in that common knowledge, you've made it very clear you don't know what you're talking about..

a reply to: Marduk

then got served

because this is a dance off ?

People can read...

you might have something there

my original post

simple google fu shows the idea came from somewhere not every one agrees

I notice, its always a childish imaginary game for you after you've been shown to be fabricating evidence, never before, why is that ?

yes because the links are clearly me fabricating evidence

how very mature you are..

yes because i of course have resorted to
calling you the loser of some imaginary game
and started accusing you

The discussion was about Giza, your pretence in support of a wrong contention is pretty much all anyone needs to know about your motives... Thanks for playing thanks for being the loser

Probably a good time to point out that pretty much anyone who knows anything about the Giza radiocarbon project would know she was wrong right from the start of this, the samples came from old wood, which is why its dating is older, not because the pyramid is... No that's ok, I'm not including you in that common knowledge, you've made it very clear you don't know what you're talking about..

yes your adamant she was
that excuses ridicule of it (other people's conclusions and investigations)
i suppose
rather than politely correcting someone

oh that's what you're pretending happened here, that's so cute

a childish accusation
no one is pretending

by your accounts
the " obviously " wrong theory is not hers alone

well yes that's what i was trying to find out where Mapmistress might of heard it

pointing out others who might think similarly
" the idea came from somewhere "
fringe as it is
is not such a crime
because i dont believe the
" Southern Methodist University " story
is not unreasonable

i was agreeing with no one just simply stating that the IDEA of wooden beams and dating came from somewhere right or wrong

if its the
"why so smug " question that bothered you
i wanted to know why Harte was so confident
i was questioning his ridicule

you've made it very clear you don't know what you're talking about..

you made it clear you can't comprehend simple posts
a reply to: Harte
without attributing some woo agenda or motive in it
or without being childish

Thanks for playing thanks for being the loser

dudebro, whatever delusion is currently uppermost in your mind, you go with that
like I said already, people can read...

originally posted by: kibric

I was referring to carbon dating. It was carbon dating of the wooden beams for Giza 1, Giza 2, and Giza 3 done by the Southern Methodist University in their Texas lab that dated Giza 2 to roughly 2553 B.C.E. and Giza 3 to 2505 B.C.E. Giza 1's wooden beams are 300 years older though or carbon date to c. 2850 B.C.E.

simple google fu shows
the idea came from somewhere
not every one agrees

books.google.co.uk... TYWNfjApVnLI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwoZvHybDPAhUEChoKHeFqDH0Q6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q=pyramid%20wooden%20beams%20carbon%20dating&f=false

unfortunately except for the wooden beam , none of the samples provided by Lancing etc

Nothing about the beams being from any pyramid.

originally posted by: kibric

Seven samples from the Khafre pyramid were dated to 3196-2723 B.C.; six from ... of these curious findings may be due to the technical difficulty of carbon-14 dating. ... For example, wooden beams used in the tracks over which stones were ...

www.academia.edu...

Adobe's search function on that pdf says the phrase you quoted is not in that paper. Wrong link?

originally posted by: kibric

The imaginary wooden beams posters dream up when they don't know how carbon samples were collected.

why so smug ?

Tired of ignorant commentary when facts are readily available, not that I have to explain myself to you. I've been reading this sort of tripe for over a decade here, and I'm not being nice about it anymore.

Harte

What if I told you guy's it was never a God to begin with, but a totem representing all Egypt.

imgflip.com...

I'm thinking the face of Sphinx now, is that of Sneferu.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
What do you think BS or new findings?

The head is obviously out of proportion with the rest of the body, which is something an Egyptian artist would not initially plan. Darker color, too, indicating less weathering, perhaps. I wouldn't be surprised if the head was added later.

For the most part, though, Anubis is usually shown standing up in large statues. He has the body of a man. As for the Sphinx, does the eroded body and tail look more like a dog or a lion? I personally think it looks more like a lion's tail.

Additionally, if you look at it straight-on, if the original head was Anubis then the carvers cut the widest part of the human head into the narrowest neck part of the Anubis head. The wideness wouldn't be an issue if it was a lion.

Also, what about the alignment? Is the Sphinx aligned with Sirius (for Anubis), or Regulus in Leo (for the lion)?

a reply to: Blue Shift

I posted this thread nine years ago and haven't given it a thought in ages.

The Anubis idea never took hold and your ideas are reasonable pointers to why it didn't.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I posted this thread nine years ago and haven't given it a thought in ages.

Time is very fluid to me.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Same here

Digging the Stanhope avvy too. Baddest ass in Bixby. Bisbee.

Analnubis? Sounds Masonic. I dare everyone to ask a mason how he feels about dog ass. If he doesn't freak out he's just a peon and dumber than rocks.


The Sphinx is half Jesus half Lucifer. Man-lion (spring fall cycle) and the 2 beasts (solstice cycle). Just as the hall of records is symbolic of a point in space, so is the Sphinx.

Here's an interesting video I found on the Mystery of the Sphinx...It appears to be a representation of the Constellation of Leo in the form of a Lion which represented the God whose turn it was to rule during the time of its construction

originally posted by: Vhedza
Here's an interesting video I found on the Mystery of the Sphinx...It appears to be a representation of the Constellation of Leo in the form of a Lion which represented the God whose turn it was to rule during the time of its construction

Yeah, no.
Leo wasn't a constellation in Egypt. Leo came from Sumer, and was originally a big dog, not even a lion.

Harte