The Great Sphinx is more than 12,000 years old.

Linked to this is Libyan desert glass.


There is an area of Libyan desert strewn with strange bits of glass. For centruies, no-one cold understand where this came from...until...

When they tested the first nuclear bomb in the 1940's in the USA, at ground zero, the desert looked exactly the same afterwards.

For that part of Libya to be lacking radioactivity on that scale, it would indicate that someone set off one or more nukes over 10,000 years ago there.

for the most part its good ol' dogma



en.wikipedia.org...

The TPTB push it and the mainstream eats it up

Another key point abut the sphinx is the striations.

Desert sand causes scratches and gouges that are horizontal whilst rainwater causes the same but vertically.

The vast majority are vertical not horizontal indicating striations from a humid tropical type climate that existed 14,000 -10,000 BC.

Howdy

Three of the people you mention Hancock, Bauval and West are not Egyptologists. They are not allowed to work on the Plateau unless sponsored by a organization, however they are free to do non-destructive work there. The German Gentleman you linked too is an eminent Egyptologist but the link you have is just a list of happening on the plateau. Joanna Fletcher wrote an article about the doing of the three gentleman above BEFORE Hawass was appointed the SCA top guy.

By the way do you know who Hawass' boss is?

So I'd say that's a fail. The rule on the plateau is. You can get a permission to dig or carry out destructive research only if you are backed by an organization - this is to insure a paper is produced and the information not lost. Fringe people are notorious for doing 'work' not finding what they want and then not publishing the results - because they are negative.

every claim they stake......?


the amount of erosion on the sphinx , makes me think

it is definately over 12000 years old

and wasn't it buried for who knows how long ?

it could be much older than that even postulated

reply to post by Bunkered

---

Your best bet to changing the consensus on the history of Egypt is to find some real hard evidence and then explain why all the existing evidence is wrong or misinterpreted.

That my friends will take a lot of work.

Wishing away the existing evidence and blaming make beleive conspiracies won't help you.

I would point to two examples:

Norse sagas relating to the Norse in America, from the 1880s to the 1960 these were debated fiercely. The debated ended with the discovery of L'Anse aux Meadows

Thompson domination of Mayan archaeology and the idea of peaceful Mayan civilization - overturned by the decoding of the Mayan script.

Evidence folks evidence

How do you know its 'definately' over 12,000 years old?

I've been studying all the new evidence on the Giza plateau for a number of years now. Everything that has been discovered is truely remarkable and completely blows egyptologists 'theories' out of the water. Pity they're too busy trying to keep the egypt tourist attraction thing alive, whats been discovered should have massive implications on history like nothing ever has or will.
Have a look, if you will, at what this man has discovered the Great Pyramid was for. It certainly was never ever a tomb, nor were ANY of the 80+ pyramids in egypt. Not a single one contained a corpse EVER. This is what the Great Pyramid was used for :- www.gizapower.com...

Robert Schoch at CPAK convention

YouTube Link

well heres some supporting evidence

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Conspiracy theories aside.. do you think even if hard evidence was discovered that it would become mainstream knowledge and therefor fact? I realise that statement in itself sounds like a conspiracy theory but i find it hard to believe scientists would just lie down and say "wow, your right, it is older". Imagine all the research money and grants that they have been given being considered a waste! It may even effect large institutions like universities giving grants in the future; unwilling to waste their money.

Just a theory.

reply to post by MrMartay

---

I remember watching that robot go up the corridor live and being very dissapointed at the end. Im going to have good look at that website when i get the chance. Its a thread on its own!

I agree with you, Hanslune,


I found this article that describes a debate between two scientists:

www.davidpbillington.net...


As far as I can tell:

1) The Great Sphinx was covered with sand for 4/5ths of its existence. This is supported by evidence.

2) The Great Spinx displays significant rain-based erosion on its flanks. This is supported by evidence.

3) No rainfall was recorded until around 10,000BC, when that time was the last time that rain fell and the Great Spinx shows thousands of years of erosion. This is supported by evidence.

4) I had a verbal conversation with someone who knew a lot about the Great Sphinx and he related a story -- I'm looking for it on the net -- about some pictures that were taken of the flanks of the Great Spinx and he showed them to a number of hydrological mineralogists and most of them estimated that the rock appeared to show several thousand years of rain-based erosion. I don't know how accurate this story is and I'm looking for it on the net and I do understand that the rate of erosion and the total time span of the exposed rocks are key variables, so I don't know how much stock that one can put into this little anecdote.

5) Keep in mind that virtually NO rain fell after 10,000BC, or at least, very, very little rain fell after that date and certainly not enough to generate significant erosion that is typical of tropical rains.

6) The Great Sphinx was added on, patched-over and fiddled with over the years -- but that was AFTER it had the rain-based erosion, hence the different rates of wear and tear that is apparent today.



[edit on 17-10-2009 by Historical-Mozart]

Man, Bunkered, your "theory" is SPOT-ON! It is a well-established FACT that the biggest reason why mainstream science resists SO strongly the alternative scientific information is exactly what you point out -- the fact of their grants, their money, their careers going down the drain if they were to recognize the new science, the new facts that totally turn their worlds upside down.


A star for you, Bunkered!

Hi Guys

Sorry to come in on this one so late , but couldn't help noticing that you were discussing the age of the great sphinx , i dont know if any of you have followed John Anthony West but together with Robert Schoch they discovered in the early 90's that it showed evidence of rainfall erosion. Such erosion could only mean that the Sphinx was carved during or before the rains that marked the transition of northern Africa from the last Ice Age to the present interglacial epoch, a transition that occurred in the millennia from 10,000 to 5000 BC.

he is in alot of peoples veiws the best egyptologist at the moment and this is one of the most fascinating subjects around .

regards

Some more interesting background info that cannot be leaved out

LINK

This is one of the best things I've read today.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Whine Flu]

There is absolutoly no doubt that the sphinx in as least this old, all logical review of the evidence at hand suggests this.

That also suggests that whoever built it must have been a fairly old civilization themselves, to have gleemed the knowledge to build such structures.

There IS a large conspiracy a the top to completely erase our memory of our true past, this is also the only logical conclusion after reviewing the evidence, makes me sick really, obviously our past is so much more fantastic than the Darwinian Trend of history than we are taught.

reply to post by Historical-Mozart

---

Facinating stuff cant wait to get home and take a better look at all the info.

Peace

reply to post by Historical-Mozart

---

OHHH really credible sources. I'll just believe every word they say.