The Sphinx Origins and a Final Link to Pre-Dynastic Egypt

here's a related article from Nov 3rd... interesting, but the erosion prevention wall likely was
constructed by the later Pharoh when he made the spledorious pyramid complex, likely to impress
foreign dignitaries and as a tourist attraction or pilgrimage draw...

i do not see the ancients much more differently motivated than us today

www.cnn.com...

Rediscovered walls protected Sphinx from winds, sandBy the CNN Wire StaffNovember 4, 2010 6:21 a.m. EDT
The Sphinx depicts the pharaoh as a human-headed lion, wearing the headdress of the pharaohs.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Walls are found along two more sides of the Sphinx
They were used to protect the giant carving from the wind
The Sphinx is near the Khafre pyramid

(CNN) -- Protection from the Sahara's howling dust storms may have helped the Sphinx maintain its steady gaze over the millennia.

Newly discovered walls on the Giza plateau were part of an enclosure to protect the Sphinx from wind-borne sand, Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities says.

So are we going to discuss more or listen to the likes of harte and byrd. Come on guys? What is this site for? collaboraton and discussion

There is no doubt that the Sphinx is a thousand times older than anyone would have you believe.

Key Terms to Understand The Mystery:

The Number 72 • Cymatics & the Underground Tunnels beneath the Sphinx • The Masonic Obsession with rebuilding the Temple • Cats, most highly developed Carnivore on Earth • Sound & Acoustic Levitation • Russian Studies Showing Dolphins were Humans Taken to the Sea • Kundalini Rising • Graham Hancock & Our Atlantean Ancestors • Solfaggio Frequencies & The Schumann Resonance • Mohammed & His Love of Cats • Water has the ability to Remember • Earth Orbit 360 days to 365 • 12,000 years ago, the Great Deluge, Enoch • Tuatha de Danann & the Tribe of Dan • Au Baum • The Earth As The Great Ark • Babylon = Bangkok 13 44 N • Symbol of Infinity

Originally posted by TheDolphinSings
There is no doubt that the Sphinx is a thousand times older than anyone would have you believe.

Key Terms to Understand The Mystery:

The Number 72 • Cymatics & the Underground Tunnels beneath the Sphinx • The Masonic Obsession with rebuilding the Temple • Cats, most highly developed Carnivore on Earth • Sound & Acoustic Levitation • Russian Studies Showing Dolphins were Humans Taken to the Sea • Kundalini Rising • Graham Hancock & Our Atlantean Ancestors • Solfaggio Frequencies & The Schumann Resonance • Mohammed & His Love of Cats • Water has the ability to Remember • Earth Orbit 360 days to 365 • 12,000 years ago, the Great Deluge, Enoch • Tuatha de Danann & the Tribe of Dan • Au Baum • The Earth As The Great Ark • Babylon = Bangkok 13 44 N • Symbol of Infinity

ok thanks for your contribution, but can you please ellaborate? Give me some solid research behind you statements please? does it link in with anything i have said? We need to begin to join the dots and put all seperate theories togther!

Originally posted by Fryaga
reply to post by Havick007

 

I still say it's probably one of the most terrifyingly old objects on the planet - I wish we had more facts to base an age on it, it has always given me the impression that if there was ever a doorway into knowing our true past, it is the gatekeeper.

Unless something more insane pops up once the icecaps melt, in which case...game on.

I agree with you about it being terrifying, but it is also intriguing to say the least. We know the statue is incredibly old, way older than the Great Pyramid complex, which I believe strongly was build by the Annunaki to represent mountains for navigation purposes. The other pyramids are but crude copies of the original work. To the Ancient Egyptians, of which I share some blood, my Great, Great Grandmother was from Egypt.
I also happen to believe strongly that other astounding secrets lie buried beneath the Earth, some are known to the Rich Elite, and some are not known, and I think some are denied access to. Edgar Cayce had a few things to say about the Sphinx....

On the Sphinx

"It would be well if this entity were to seek either of the three phases of the ways and means in which those records of the activities of individuals were preserved -- the one in the Atlantean land, that sank, which will rise and is rising again; another in the place of the records that leadeth from the Sphinx to the hall of records, in the Egyptian land; and another in the Aryan or Yucatan land, where the temple there is overshadowing same. (2012-1; Sep 25, 1939)"

"...the entity joined with those who were active in putting the records in forms that were partially of the old characters of the ancient or early Egyptian, and part in the newer form of the Atlanteans. These may be found, especially when the house or tomb of records is opened, in a few years from now. (2537-1; Jul 17, 1941) ...[the entity] was among the first to set the records that are yet to be discovered or yet to be had of those activities in the Atlantean land, and for the preservation of data that is yet to be found from the chambers of the way between the Sphinx and the pyramid of records. (3575-2; Jan 20, 1944)"

"Q: Give in detail what the sealed room contains.
A: A record of Atlantis from the beginning of those periods when the Spirit took form, or began the encasements in that land; and the developments of the peoples throughout their sojourn; together with the record of the first destruction, and the changes that took place in the land; with the record of the sojournings of the peoples and their varied activities in other lands, and a record of the meetings of all the nations or lands, for the activities in the destruction of Atlantis; and the building of the pyramid of initiation, together with whom, what, and where the opening of the records would come, that are as copies from the sunken Atlantis. For with the change, it [Atlantis] must rise again. In position, this lies -- as the sun rises from the waters -- as the line of the shadows (or light) falls between the paws of the Sphinx; that was set later as the sentinel or guard and which may not be entered from the connecting chambers from the Sphinx's right paw until the time has been fulfilled when the changes must be active in this sphere of man's experience. Then [it lies] between the Sphinx and the river. (378-16; Oct 29, 1933)"

In several of his readings, Cayce stated that the survivors of the lost continent of Atlantis had brought with them records relating to their earliest history. These, he said, were carefully buried in a secret chamber somewhere near to the Great Sphinx, which stands guard like a sentinel over the Pyramids of Giza. A second set of these records was taken, he said, by other survivors of the disaster to be buried somewhere in the Yucatan area of Mexico. He also said that a third set of records still resides in the heart of Atlantis itself.

[Source: Edgar Cayce on Atlantis by Edgar Evans Cayce]

www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by Fryaga
Nice thread.

Makes me wonder though, if there is merit to this link to Aker, is/was there a second Sphinx at some point and time?

I have read vague reference to such a thing, perhaps with the face of another Constellation "being," we all know that as the Earth orbits is passes through 12 stations in the sky, if I were of ultra high intelligence, and desired to mark time here on the planet, I would do it in stone also. Who knows what the future holds?

Thanks you, Havick007, before this I had not heard of Aker, but be assured I will study him now. Good posting

I heard the Records of Atlantis are or were kept in the right paw of the Sphinx. I have no idea if this is still the case. I'm pretty confident at one time they were kept there. When the Library of Alexandria was destroyed, I'm not sure if they were moved there or were kept there originally.

There are thirteen constellations, not 12, the Vatican removed the 13th sign for various reasons.

Ophiuchus, the serpent bearer, the dragon. Research Nostradamus & Ophiuchus. There is a 13th sign.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Ever since I did a paper on the Sphinx 8 years ago in school (college) I have come to believe it is older than what they say it is and that it had the face of a lion first. It always bugged me how out of proportion the Sphinx is.

Well, it must not have bugged you too much. If it had, you would have investigated. And if you'd investigated, you'd know that there are at least two perfectly reasonable explanations for the disproportionality you noted.

Um I did investigate thank you..Do you not know how much there is to read out there about Egypt? I do have a life and other responsibilities. Well since you seem to know why why dont you tell me instead of insult me. Not everyone is going to know the exact same thing. It's best to help others and not be rude...and yes I took your statement as rude.

Thanks.





Harte

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Ever since I did a paper on the Sphinx 8 years ago in school (college) I have come to believe it is older than what they say it is and that it had the face of a lion first. It always bugged me how out of proportion the Sphinx is.

Well, it must not have bugged you too much. If it had, you would have investigated. And if you'd investigated, you'd know that there are at least two perfectly reasonable explanations for the disproportionality you noted.

Um I did investigate thank you.

I think you have not. I think you might believe you have, but I think you have limited yourself to fringe websites and fringe books, otherwise you could have found these ideas as easily as I did, once I started wondering.

I'm tired of saying it, here's a small part of the reason why:
Post by Harte
Another post by Harte
Another post by Harte

That's the theory I usually go with.

The other theory is that a larger head couldn't be supported by the layer of stone making up the neck. See, limestone varies greatly layer from layer. The Sphinx has a great many layers of stone that are far softer than other layers in the same carving.

Once they started carving the neck, this would have been realized (since, obviously, these people knew their stone) and mid-course corrections would have to be made.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Well since you seem to know why why dont you tell me instead of insult me. Not everyone is going to know the exact same thing.

ATS is a reasonably decent resource for answers to questions that haven't "bugged" you enough to get you looking. I don't know if I've linked my source (it was saved on a hardrive that crashed long ago) but I bet you can find it. That is, I didn't make it up myself.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
It's best to help others and not be rude..

Help yourself first.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
.and yes I took your statement as rude.

And I took your statement as disingenuous.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


How can you can any of my sources or links fringe websites? Please explain your reasoning behind this? Also i never put forward my theory as fact, only a theory with facts that support it and yes also other theories as well. but hardly fringe.

Yes you disagree and that is fine but dont put forward your theories or more correctly the theories and work of others and say i am completely wrong. That is what you are doing, looking back, that is what you always do to peoples threads.

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Harte

 

How can you can any of my sources or links fringe websites? Please explain your reasoning behind this? Also i never put forward my theory as fact, only a theory with facts that support it and yes also other theories as well. but hardly fringe.

Because those are the only sources that use the disproportionality as "evidence" of a more ancient carving of the sphinx.

Simple as that.

The disproportionality of the carving is not stressed by any orthodox source for the reasons I gave, along with the fact that it is indicative of nothing at all.

My response to you was that it didn't "bug" you enough to make you look into it. If you had really been "bugged" by this, you'd have checked with legitimate sources such as articles by people who have actually studied Giza for years.

Yes you disagree and that is fine but dont put forward your theories or more correctly the theories and work of others and say i am completely wrong. That is what you are doing, looking back, that is what you always do to peoples threads.

The carving is not in proportion. How are you "wrong?"

What you are is disingenuous.

"What I always do?"
Usually, I provide legitimate facts that are well-known to refute idiotic claims. In fact, I have done so (in a manner of speaking) right here in my response to you. If you want to (mis)characterize that, it is your prerogative. I might add that it is not surprising.

Harte

Originally posted by RisingPhoenix33
I heard the Records of Atlantis are or were kept in the right paw of the Sphinx. I have no idea if this is still the case. I'm pretty confident at one time they were kept there. When the Library of Alexandria was destroyed, I'm not sure if they were moved there or were kept there originally.

There are a few problems with this idea:

* nobody ever heard of a "hall of records" until Edgar Cayce came up with it. There's no such reference in any of the millions of documents of ancient Egypt.
* the timeline doesn't work out at all. The Sphinx was built around 2500 BC. By 1500 BC, it had been lost and then was refound by Thutmoses, who repaired it and put up a big stone billboard in front of it announcing that this was a representation of the god and his repair work gave the god's support to his becoming king.
* it fell into neglect and was reburied by the sands again.
* The library of Alexandria starts around 300 BC (2,100 years after the sphinx was built.) At that time, the Sphinx is half buried in the sand again.
* some records about the Library say that the last Librarian was killed by a frenzied mob of Christians, which would put its destruction after 300 AD and after the ability to read hieroglyphs had been lost.
* by 300 AD, Alexandria was an important world center and Giza was a much less important town on the Nile near the desert (wasn't easy to get to, so they were not as active a trade center as Alexandria which was on the Nile.)
* Herodotus, in his travel book about Egypt and its history, mentions the pyramids and the funerary complex but does NOT mention a sphinx. So it was under the sands again and may have been seen only as a large head and not an actual sphinx. You can read his comments in full here: evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com...
*There is a tiny chamber underneath the sphinx, but it's tiny. We couldn't even put a thousand modern books in there (modern books are more compact than ancient books.) Any large spaces would have become open pits over thousands of years (erosion and weight) and the sphinx body parts would have fallen into them.


Your concept has some other problems based on what we have learned as we learn more about Egypt, based on their own writing and their own monuments. You will probably encounter others who know more about the society and the monument than I do, but those are some very elementary problems with the idea that can be easily noted by anyone who likes to read up on history.

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

Byrd: ...The Sphinx was built around 2500 BC...

SC; By qualifying your statement with the word "around" I presume you are giving an error margin of +/- 100 years? This dating of the Sphinx is nothing more than conventional OPINION - it is NOT proven fact. There are modern badge-carrying geologists who have dated the erosion on the body of the Sphinx (and its enclosure) to anything between 7,000 BCE and 800,000 BCE. (Yes, 800,000 BCE!! Makes Schoch and West seem positively orthodox). And then there are those pesky texts that tell us Khufu knew the Sphinx.

If you have hard, unequivocal evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Sphinx is a structure "...built around 2500BC..." then I, for one, would dearly love to see it.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Harte

Harte: The other theory is that a larger head couldn't be supported by the layer of stone making up the neck. See, limestone varies greatly layer from layer.

SC: Your argument makes no sense. The same layers that support the current head would have been the same - though likely much wider - layers that may once have supported a much larger head, to wit:



Reforming a larger head of say a lion into something else - say a Pharaoh - will require removing material not just from the head but also from the neck.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Phenomenal picture!

Is it your work?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC; By qualifying your statement with the word "around" I presume you are giving an error margin of +/- 100 years?

Well, yes. It's much better than saying "June 1st, 2433 BC." You'd have to have a dedication stela to prove that.

This dating of the Sphinx is nothing more than conventional OPINION - it is NOT proven fact.

Actually, it's theory which is more than opinion.

There are modern badge-carrying geologists who have dated the erosion on the body of the Sphinx (and its enclosure) to anything between 7,000 BCE and 800,000 BCE.

How expert are they at dating statues? If I date the rock that the White Shaman rock art is on, I come up for a date for the site of around 60 million years, which is really absurd. So who's doing the dating and how do they date artifacts?

And then there are those pesky texts that tell us Khufu knew the Sphinx.

Which texts are those? I'm afraid my memory fails me on this part.

reply to post by Byrd

SC; By qualifying your statement with the word "around" I presume you are giving an error margin of +/- 100 years?

Byrd: Well, yes. It's much better than saying "June 1st, 2433 BC." You'd have to have a dedication stela to prove that.

SC: Then I’d still like to see hard evidence that proves categorically that the Sphinx was crafted around 2,500 BCE +/- 100 years.

SC: This dating of the Sphinx is nothing more than conventional OPINION - it is NOT proven fact.

Byrd: Actually, it's theory which is more than opinion.

SC: And neither does its status as a ‘theory’ make the dating you stated any more of a proven fact. Stating that “…the Sphinx was built around 2,500BCE…” is an unqualified, absolute statement. It misleadingly presents to the uninformed reader that the date you stated is an accepted, indisputable fact and this is simply not the case. The dating of the Sphinx is far from certain and may even predate the Old Kingdom period which is way more than your +/- 100 year error margin.

Of course, if you had qualified your statement by saying “it is believed that the Sphinx was built around 2,500 BCE” I would have had no objection.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by teapot

Hi Teapot,

Teapot: Is it your work?

SC: I wish. My artistic skills never got beyond drawing matchstick people. No, the original image was drawn by someone else and had the pharaoh's head. I merely replaced the pharaoh's head with the head of a lion.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Fryaga

 

I still think there may be someting benath Sphonx and as soon as they find something that can be carbonn dated that would provide proof, if we were ever told about it...

there is aparently acording to this vid there diging just of the foot of the sphinx ?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte

 

Harte: The other theory is that a larger head couldn't be supported by the layer of stone making up the neck. See, limestone varies greatly layer from layer.

SC: Your argument makes no sense. The same layers that support the current head would have been the same - though likely much wider - layers that may once have supported a much larger head,

Reforming a larger head of say a lion into something else - say a Pharaoh - will require removing material not just from the head but also from the neck.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Nothing you say above is in any way valid at all, or even relevant to the conversation, unless you first make the assumption that the sphinx's head was originally carved to be something else.

For someone that stamps his foot and cries "That's OPINION, not FACT" re the dating of the sphinx, you sure are quick to jump both feet first on a complete assumption, with not a single whit of evidence (and no possible hope for any in the future.)
Smaller head than planned means less weight to support. I think that if you spend a few minutes puzzling this out, Scott, you'll see what it means.

Harte