It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by masqua
Well, for one opinion on the OP, I don't buy the whole Enki/Enlil/Niburu/gold idea. That was something conjured up by Sitchin, who, while an expert in deciphering Sumerian tablets, did go a bit afield...
The Mesopotamians may have been aware of the existence of all nine currently-discovered planets in our solar system.
They may also have been aware of the existence of a tenth (or to them 'twelfth') planet, which they called Nibiru - although there is minimal support for this in the literary works.
Sitchin’s theory of the creation of Earth, and of the role Nibiru supposedly played in it, is most certainly incorrect - both from a theoretical standpoint, and because it is far too literal an interpretation of the Epic of Creation.
An additional 'Planet X' may yet be proved to exist by modern astronomers who are searching for it based on theoretical evidence.
This planet has not been discovered as yet, and theories about its orbital properties vary widely. Therefore even if it is discovered it is highly unlikely to support Sitchin’s detailed theories.
If this planet exists, for it to remain undiscovered by modern technology it must have a highly eccentric orbit, or an extremely remote circular one. Either would dictate that human-like life could not have evolved and prospered there. It could not therefore be the 'planet of the gods'.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Blaine91555
So you are saying we should shoot the messenger for bringing attention to this intriguing site because you don't like the bio of the guy who is promoting this?
Here is a clue for you. The academic world is extremely political, and far too much credibility is often given to people who live in ivory towers.
We still don't know how old the Sphinx is. Academics claim it was built by the ancient Egyptians, ignoring the evidence of considerable water erosion, and the disproportionate size of the head.
Originally posted by poet1b
Ah, so only the people with sheepskins adorned by people who live in ivory towers know what they are doing, and the rest of us are all a bunch of idiots?
But mainstream 'science' ref 1 - so-called `Egyptology' - doesn't want any such discussion.
There is also a fundamental problem with the time-line of Egypt's civilization and technology. ref 2 It began at a peak of building skill, high ornamentation and durability of monuments, then for thousands of years it degenerated. The most recently built pyramids are no longer to be seen - they were so sloppily done that they've disintegrated.
You can see there is extensive water erosion of the Sphinx's body but not of the head. That erosion means thousands of years exposure to heavy rainfall.
From references below - Lubicz et al - we can see difference between typical wind erosion and the rainfall erosion seen on the Sphinx.
A much greater age for the Sphinx has been suggested by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, based upon geological considerations. Schwaller de Lubicz observed, and recent geologists (such as Robert Schoch, Professor of Geology at Boston University) have confirmed, that the extreme erosion on the body of the Sphinx could not be the result of wind and sand, as has been universally assumed, but rather was the result of water. Geologists agree that in the distant past Egypt was subjected to severe flooding. Wind erosion cannot take place when the body of the Sphinx is covered by sand, and the Sphinx has been in this condition for nearly all of the last five thousand years - since the alleged time of its 4th Dynasty construction. Furthermore, if wind-blown sand had indeed caused the deep erosion of the Sphinx, we would expect to find evidence of such erosion on other Egyptian monuments built of similar materials and exposed to the wind for a similar length of time. Yet the fact of the matter is, that even on structures that have had more exposure to the wind-blown sand, there are minimal effects of erosion, the sand having done little more than scour clean the surface of the dressed stones.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Harte
And exactly what is your expertise on erosion?
Clearly all rock erodes differently because of hard and soft areas.
Limestone is very susceptible to rain, because rain has a slight amount of carbonic acid which breaks down limestone.This stuff is easy to research.
Here is a good link on the subject.
most of de Lubicz's theories were junk. His ''archeology'' at Luxor failed to take account of the ascertainable circumstances of the temple's building. His ''history'' was a farrago of nonsense about racial destiny and the secret histories of Templars, tarot cards and so on. His ''geography'' had space for a manmade Nile and a Sphinx up to its neck in seawater. His ''science'' was an ill-tempered polemic against Darwin and Einstein.
With few exceptions,  standard Egyptological texts state that the Great Sphinx of Giza was built during the reign of Khafre (fourth ruler of the 4th Dynasty, OC - c. 2520-2494 BC). Over the last decade, however, much has been said and written to challenge this orthodox date, with some of the more credible articles focussing on the evidence provided by the limestones from which the Sphinx has been excavated. After over five years of research, it is my conviction that the geological evidence is not consistent with the attribution of the monument to Khafre or, for that matter, to any other pharaoh of the 4th Dynasty.