Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


you don't think that E.W. Bullinger explains things quite clearly there??

aside from a possible alien connection and involvement, he perfectly explains the purpose of the architecture of the Sphinx.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
reply to post by azzllin
 

Don't forget, he believed in UFOs and Aliens when he first started his career, but had to shut up since the govt. was then paying his checks... when he retires, perhaps he'll finally unleash some of that secret info.



[The underlining above was mine]

Hmm, that's an idea worth considering, but, the reality probably would be that he'd likely sign a NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement), on the pain of financial losses and even death from the PTB, so it's likely that he'll shut the hell up and continue to parrot the BS that he's been instructed to all along.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 


Hey Tayesin,

I think it's well known "theory" that the head of the sphinx was actually a head of a Lion and was later re-carved to suit pharaohs taste. And for what I know it was built in there (and was probably a Lion) due to it's correlation with the constellation of Leo.

I never been able to digest the date given my modern archeologists to the Sphinx. I still think it's much older than anything around it and was built by a prior civilization, but we probably will never know for sure.

But if you take into consideration that it seems that the pyramids were built over older structures that are still in there you may see that all the Egyptians did was a major re-construction work over structures of a older civilization that use to inhabit that area.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunkered
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.


Not to mention that all of a sudden they would have to re-write a good share of the history books and invent something to do with their egos.

And most likely people would start to think twice before buying what they say for a fact. This alone could end up transforming "archeologists" into mere speculators into the public view. Which would be bad for them and even for us, because nothing would be studied and everything would end up in chaos of information or lack of.

Humans have a lifetime and with such a limitation, everyone tends to rush, overlook and simply dismiss any evidence that might prevent them from reaching their goal. Which most often is to get recognition or have the feeling of accomplishment. But by doing so their followers take that from granted and start from there perpetuating a "lie" or wrong information.

But rest assured that this debate one day will be older than the Sphinx it self no matter what it's true age really is



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Historical-Mozart
You know why? Think about it. If it was widely acknowledged that these fantastic structures were really built over 12,000 years ago by another advanced civilization, wouldn't you think that this fact alone would vastly increase their tourism? Vastly increase their tourism money flowing in from all over the world? Surely so.


Not only that, but the scientists who proved it to everyone's satisfaction would end up being world famous and would be on university and foundation lecture circuits everywhere. There's a lot of fame and wealth for the person who proves with rock-solid evidence something new in geology or paleontology.

Heck -- just look at the recent fuss over the skeleton, "Ardi". There'll be books on it (more money) and a bunch of papers (there's a bunch already) and invitations and lectures and even tourists (scientific ones, but perhaps others) to go see the skeleton.

So yes, discoveries that are proven are big businesses. Even hoaxes like the "bosinan pyramids" are big business.


So why on Earth do they so vigorously deny the obvious? I have a theory about this and I think that it is because they are bought off and paid off by the PTB bastards,


Bauval, Hancock, et al have earned a lot more money than any Egyptologist I (personally) know. Why haven't they been bought off years ago by the PTB? Why weren't their books removed from warehouses and Amazon and everywhere else by influential and powerful concerns? It would be easy for a wealthy powerful organization to simply by the book company and quit accepting any book that denied what they want to print. Why didn't they shut down BBC's production crew (and other film crews) who bring out films showing these other theories?


So I think that it's the damn PTB who are buying off the Eygptologists, thus buying their silence on the matter of the far-older-age of the Great Pyramid and the Great Spinx.


I think it's the lack of evidence.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Schlotzkins
 
I also believed that it was true because usually you would need strong evidence to come front with this.

But experts debunked this fairly quick some years ago saying that the water erotion on the sphinx actually was created by sand. Other experts say that it could be water erotion but that we have to keep in mind the sphinx was carved out of a mountain and that the areas that have been tested was uncarved parts of this mountain or hill.

Anyway there are little proof otherwise that it would be that old.
For example. If it is that old. Wouldn't the water erotion make every sharp details smooth? And over the years the face as we see today wouldn't have the detail's it has.

And you have the tablet in the front of the Sphinx telling the tale of the momument hailing to a God that came later?

Or maybe planet of the apes is more than just a movie :=P

[edit on 17-10-2009 by lost artistic]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ragu23
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 


Now that's the million dollar question!

Amazingly enough, Egyptologists had an answer BEFORE THEY EVEN SAW THE DATA! Nobody. They say nobody could have built it that long ago, therefore it wasn't built that far back.


That is not the argument. They can only go by what they can prove if you are going to buck an academic seminar's consensus. While I am not a fan of Hawass and I do think that as he has the final say he definitely has the ability to nullify any contradicting opinion, it is not just a matter of "Oh! This sounds good! Let's go with it..." New theories go through an academic review, they are caucused, etc.

We don't have a videotape of people building the pyramids or the Sphinx. We don't have any writing of ancient origin that contradicts the current hypothesis. In fact, like it or not, the only writing inside the Pyramid is a single reference to Khufu. We have vague references to a "golden age" civilization, but that could be myth.

Granted, Khufu could have appropriated the Pyramid for his own use, but we don't have any evidence to suggest that.



Which is interesting to say the least. It's the Egyptologists' job to form their soft "science" around the hard science of archaeology and the even harder science of geology.


Glad that you put it that way. I took on a geology major when I knew I wanted to be an archaeologist. It has been very helpful in archaeological investigations. I agree that the dating of these artifacts has been rather speculative and would rather have geological evidence weighted more than it has been, but this is decision of Hawass and agreed upon by Egyptologists desperate to be involved in study in Egypt. Another reason I am glad I worked in Turkey!


But alas their group circle-jerk is so tight the blood supply has been cut off to their collective brain.


Uhhhh


The hard evidence contradicts what they already "know" to be true so they act as though it doesn't exist. Which is a real shame since it leaves speculation to those even battier than Egyptologists.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Ragu23]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Ragu23]


I would love to comment, but I don't feel I can. I'll just say "Have fun doing your own research". And this is fun, is it not?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost artistic
reply to post by Schlotzkins
 
I also believed that it was true because usually you would need strong evidence to come front with this.

But experts debunked this fairly quick some years ago saying that the water erotion on the sphinx actually was created by sand. Other experts say that it could be water erotion but that we have to keep in mind the sphinx was carved out of a mountain and that the areas that have been tested was uncarved parts of this mountain or hill.


What "experts" are you referring to that "debunked" this?

Also, can we agree to not use the word "debunk" when we are talking about archaeological evidence? Debunk has such negative connotations, as though someone is trying to pull a hoax and you saw through it. There is academic disagreement and conflicting opinions. No hoaxing involved. Speak to the geologists who disagree and they are all very respectful of the others opinion.

There is not academic consensus on the geological side of the house, as yet. I know some very good geologists who believe it to be older, and some that can speculate as to why it is not older, but let's be clear there is not consensus by any geological society as to the dating of the Sphinx or Pyramids.


Anyway there are little proof otherwise that it would be that old.
For example. If it is that old. Wouldn't the water erotion make every sharp details smooth?


Yes, but (to put this in Nip Tuck terms) it might have had a little work done.


And over the years the face as we see today wouldn't have the detail's it has.


Not necessarily. It may have had several faces over the years. The ancients were big on re-sculpting statues.

What interested you in the geological dating? I love geology. I was only going to take the required courses for my major, but fell in love.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost artistic
reply to post by Schlotzkins
 
I also believed that it was true because usually you would need strong evidence to come front with this.

But experts debunked this fairly quick some years ago saying that the water erotion on the sphinx actually was created by sand. Other experts say that it could be water erotion but that we have to keep in mind the sphinx was carved out of a mountain and that the areas that have been tested was uncarved parts of this mountain or hill.

Anyway there are little proof otherwise that it would be that old.
For example. If it is that old. Wouldn't the water erotion make every sharp details smooth? And over the years the face as we see today wouldn't have the detail's it has.

And you have the tablet in the front of the Sphinx telling the tale of the momument hailing to a God that came later?

Or maybe planet of the apes is more than just a movie :=P

[edit on 17-10-2009 by lost artistic]


The writing on the tablet could have come much later just as the head could have been carved in successive ways at successive dates promising the reduction of it's scale each time which is what exactly we are left with.... A disproportionate head. I can theoretically chisel my name on the Washington Monument and even date it. Does this mean that the monument was built on that date and by me? My ego would like to take the credit but the hard evidence would undermine it as is the case in this argument. I have a feeling that those who built this amazing complex knew this too and that is why they took the trouble to align everything in conjunction to equinoctial precession.

As far as any scientists debunking the water erosion with wind erosion is concerned one need only look at all of the monuments in the general vicinity of the Sphinx or in Egypt in general for that matter and safely conclude that they do not share this same weathered effect thereby trumping the air theory which by the way was not a debunk but rather an attempt at a debunk to close the book for the gullible as it has obviously done for you. It would be nice however if air currents would give limestone continuous grooves at leveled layers oriented 180 degrees to the ground but they simply do not. Why? Because air currents do not keep a constant flow in a given direction as water does and that same water has a gravity law that it must adhere to giving it a leveled erosion effect that air does not have to follow. This is why most air erosion (if not all) is at angles or slants to the relative position of the stone it erodes if at all. Water is also an excellent crude leveling tool for these very reasons.

Also, for you to discount the astrological evidence that the Sphinx shares with the Great Pyramid complex on their perfect alignments to the constellation Leo and Orion simultaneously at a date that is traced back by equinoctical precession to over 12 thousand years ago is to make another glaring oversight on your behalf. Everything that was built in that area was done with planning and precision leaving little room for chance that not even the most ardent Egyptologist can argue about when the details of the Great Pyramid complex are taken into account. The random chance event theory that the PTB would like people like yourself to believe is crushed like a house of cards under the millions of tones of limestone and evidence.... Sorry.

As far as the Planet of the Apes being more than a movie that your sarcasm attempts to make fun of this topic is concerned, well you and those who believe in the traditional fairy tale might as well buy into that fantasy plot as well. I mean, why not? You guys have taken one fantasy all-ready as far as it can go.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Also, can we agree to not use the word "debunk" when we are talking about archaeological evidence? Debunk has such negative connotations, as though someone is trying to pull a hoax and you saw through it. There is academic disagreement and conflicting opinions. No hoaxing involved. Speak to the geologists who disagree and they are all very respectful of the others opinion.



A Fortiori,


I gave you a star just for that excellent comment above alone -- EVERYONE, please read and re-read that comment and make note of it.


I will try my best to remember that comment when I'm debating scientific points of arguments. It's well-worth remembering.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The Inventory Stele is a key piece of evidence. Can any one find an accurate complete translation? On it Khufu doesn't claim the G. Pyramid as his own. He only claims the small ones near it. Most of the sites I've googled, said Khufu said he only restored the G. Pyramid and Sphinx. That's pretty hard evidence that he didn't build it. The Sele is supposedly locked away in a box where no one can see it.
Hans claims fringe people are mis-translating it. Anybody find anything to help clear up the situation?





[edit on 17-10-2009 by Sargoth]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargoth
The Inventory Stele is a key piece of evidence. Can any one find an accurate complete translation? On it Khufu doesn't claim the G. Pyramid as his own. He only claims the small ones near it. Most of the sites I've googled, said Khufu said he only restored the G. Pyramid and Sphinx. That's pretty hard evidence that he didn't build it. The Sele is supposedly locked away in a box where no one can see it.
Hans claims fringe people are mis-translating it. Anybody find anything to help clear up the situation?

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Sargoth]


Here is my comment, and I hope that others understand what I am saying. My ability to read Egyptian hieroglyphs is poor therefore I ought not comment. There is dispute among archaeologists and historians in my acquaintance, all of whom have been there and examined the evidence for themselves. So, what that tells me is that there is still room for speculation, and I would never ruin anyone's attempts to solve a wonderful mystery by squelching questions.

Many people comment on many things that they ought not, unless they are willing to be open-minded.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I don't see how perpetuating this myth helps the tourist count at all. I mean yeah I'd go see the pyramids and sphinx if the standard view was definitively proven.

However, if they came out tomorrow and said a whole new unknown civilization previously unknown, or aliens did help or any of the other theories I'd leave tomorrow to see that


The accepted story is interesting but the unnaccepted is completely epic it would IMO boost tourism across the board



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
i was under the notion that when a new reign came to be, the old data was destroyed and a new set of data was writen on the "monument sight" in favour of the new reign.

to me primitive man found something in the lush lands of "egypt" that they could not comprehend and they then played king-of-the-hill til most of it was forgotten by destroying the written data from times of old.

id say the pyramids and sphinx is more then 14k.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Speaking to previous comments about the earths precesion and the sphynx alignment, I remember watching a documentory based on Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods.
In the documentory Graham talked about how he first rolled the clock back to find out where the precession lined up with his earlier assumptions of the sphynx age. He then ran the clock forward and found that the exact same alignment reoccured sometime around 2012.
Anyone else read the book or able to clarify?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Wow, 4 pages into this thread and still nobody has pointed out the scientific evidence that came to the conclusion that the water erosion on the Sphinx points the age at 800,000 years - that's right - eight hundred THOUSAND years..

..this is the pdf HERE

There was even a thread on ATS about it last year. I would've thought 800,000 years would cause more of a stir than a mere 12,000. This shows that the Sphinx is pre-Egyptian - this dates it back to the Early Pleistocene!!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schlotzkins
Wow, very interesting. I'm going to come back to this when I have time to read those links.

But one thing comes to mind immediately.......doesn't the head of the Sphinx depict an Egyptian king? I'm sure there was no Egyptian kingdom 12,000 years ago.


When looking at the Sphinx in person, it strikes one that the head and the body do not match. I've even thought that the head was recarved into what it is today. It would have been something completely different to begin with. Like Robert Temple suggested -- Anubis.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing
Wow, 4 pages into this thread and still nobody has pointed out the scientific evidence that came to the conclusion that the water erosion on the Sphinx points the age at 800,000 years - that's right - eight hundred THOUSAND years..

..this is the pdf HERE

There was even a thread on ATS about it last year. I would've thought 800,000 years would cause more of a stir than a mere 12,000. This shows that the Sphinx is pre-Egyptian - this dates it back to the Early Pleistocene!!


That sounds much more like it.
I have heard of this report but haven't read it yet -- thank you for the link!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DaisyAnne
 

You're welcome


I believe it has a lot more to do with the face on Mars than we are being told. I also believe that the powers that be have tried to cover up the true age of the Sphinx in the name of 'restoration'. Interesting times, thinking also about the Richard Hoagland thread in Aliens And UFOs regarding the 'Moon Bombing' and the flashes detected before impact and also the traces of architectural structures (Hoagland says they are MAN-MADE and ANCIENT) on the moon before the cameras switched to infrared mode.

Made by the same people who made the Sphinx, perhaps? And the same people who made the Face on Mars? I'm not saying these are ET. I'm saying these are people just like us. There is an entire 'alternative history of man' we are not being told. That's what I think.





new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join