Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Harte: 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.


SC: And equally the orthodox position is making a massive assumption i.e. that a structure that has the body of a lion did not once also have the head of a lion. Why is not a reasonable hypothesis (not assumption) that this could have been so? Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head. That is an arrogant and blinkered view; a view that threatens to smother a possible (and in my opinion) more likely truth.


Harte: 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.)


SC: No one is stomping feet, merely pointing out that stating something as fact when clearly it is not, is quite unacceptable and serves only to mislead. And neither am I making an assumption, it’s a hypothesis. It’s about keeping one’s mind free to consider other reasonable possibilities that will help explain anomalous factors that conventional thought completely ignores or cannot otherwise explain. And it is perfectly acceptable.


Harte: 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.


SC: And if you had spent the hours upon hours of studying the Sphinx close up and personal within its enclosure as I have, you would see the disproportionate head to body is a very real issue. And I am not the only person to have realised this – here’s an article on this very subject you and others might find of some interest.

The Great Sphinx of Giza Reborn as a Lion

But ignore it if you must.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton
edit on 26/11/2010 by Scott Creighton because: Fix typo.




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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.


Unless I'm very much mistaken, you HAVE seen the evidence (inscriptions, workers tombs, officials tombs, etc) and pronounced it "unconvincing." If I'm not mistaken, the only evidence you would accept is a confession by the pharaohs themselves saying it was their tomb and intended as such. Statements by other sources (including long oral tradition and so forth) which are acceptable by you in other matters are not considered valid for you in this instance.

(c.f. your statements about Atlantis, for example.)


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.


I have no problem with that wording, but I'm afraid that when I'm responding I will probably not use that wording.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
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.

Byrd: Unless I'm very much mistaken, you HAVE seen the evidence (inscriptions, workers tombs, officials tombs, etc) and pronounced it "unconvincing."


SC: Yes, you are mistaken. I have seen no evidence that permits anyone to make absolute statements that the Sphinx was built c.2,500 BCE +/- 100 years. Where is the hard proof that permits you to make such an unequivocal statement?


Byrd: If I'm not mistaken, the only evidence you would accept is a confession by the pharaohs themselves saying it was their tomb and intended as such.


SC: We are not discussing the ‘tombs’ of pharaohs. We are discussing your absolute statement that the Sphinx dates to c.2,500 BCE. Prove your statement or qualify your statement.


Byrd: Statements by other sources (including long oral tradition and so forth) which are acceptable by you in other matters are not considered valid for you in this instance.


SC: Please be more specific. I find this statement of yours somewhat vague.


Byrd: (c.f. your statements about Atlantis, for example.)


SC: Which has nothing to do with your unqualified, absolute statement regarding the dating of the Sphinx.


SC: 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.

Byrd: I have no problem with that wording, but I'm afraid that when I'm responding I will probably not use that wording.


SC: And in so doing your statement(s) will only serve to mislead the uninformed reader. Not a particularly enlightened approach in Denying Ignorance.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Harte: 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.


SC: And equally the orthodox position is making a massive assumption i.e. that a structure that has the body of a lion did not once also have the head of a lion. Why is not a reasonable hypothesis (not assumption) that this could have been so? Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head. That is an arrogant and blinkered view; a view that threatens to smother a possible (and in my opinion) more likely truth.

And in my opinion, your opinion is a straw man.

So, prove me wrong. Quote some "orthodoxy" that "completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh..."

Better yet, state some non-gibberish about why it would matter whether or not the head was carved earlier than the body? I mean, the head portion of the stone has been exposed above the soil for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years.

Maybe it once proclaimed "Joanie loves Chachi" inside a big heart.

How would this matter?

The sphinx temple contains stone removed from the sphinx enclosure. The sphinx temple layout is pure old kingdom temple design.

Are you now going to say that the Egyptians got this design from a civilization that existed there before them? That left no other trace besides the layout of a temple, observable from the ruins of the foundation? That they co-existed with primitive Nile Valley dwellers and did so without any cross-cultural contamination?

All so that you can continue to live in fantasyland?

Harte



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: All so that you can continue to live in fantasyland?


SC: The only people living in fantasyland here are those who make absolute statements - without presenting any hard proof - that the Sphinx dates to c.2,500BCE +/- 100 years. They have arrived at this 'fantasy' through constantly repeating to themselves and propagating this date to others so often that they have come to believe that it must be true, that it is now estasblished fact - a self-fulfilling delusion.

The only established fact here is that you and those like you BELIEVE this date to be true but that does not make it true - only hard, solid evidence will do that. Time you took the blinkers off and had a real long look at the actual evidence you have to back up your belief system and when you actually do that you will quickly realise that it is in fact yourself and others like you that are living in the fantasyland. You have no hard evidence for this dating, only hard assumptions and even harder blinkers all which are stiffened further still with a good dose of dogma.

Present the solid evidence that permits you to unequivocally date the Sphinx to 2,500 BCE +/- 100 years. Let's see it.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton
edit on 28/11/2010 by Scott Creighton because: Fix typo.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: All so that you can continue to live in fantasyland?


SC: The only people living in fantasyland here are those who make absolute statements - without presenting any hard proof - that the Sphinx dates to c.2,500BCE +/- 100 years. They have arrived at this 'fantasy' through constantly repeating to themselves and propagating this date to others so often that they have come to believe that it must be true, that it is now estasblished fact - a self-fulfilling delusion.


And, obviously, the people you castigate for making absolute statements (in your opinion) while unable to back them up with facts, well, that's WAAAAY worse than if someone were to say something like:


And equally the orthodox position is making a massive assumption i.e. that a structure that has the body of a lion did not once also have the head of a lion. Why is not a reasonable hypothesis (not assumption) that this could have been so? Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head. That is an arrogant and blinkered view; a view that threatens to smother a possible (and in my opinion) more likely truth.

and be so unable to demonstrate the truth of their claim that they must immediately change the subject and ignore all requests for examples of this sort of "blinkered view?"

Somehow, I remain unsurprised and somewhat less than whelmed.

Harte



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
A few things has always bothered me with the pyramids/ sphinx..
This is an out there possibility, but shouldn't be written off.
You say it faces East ... what if the earth had a polar shift (slight movement in 4000yrs) from then until now ? Wouldn't be facing east during that time... If it was modelled after a star chart, stars are born and die ! Do we have a star chart from ~2000bc. Those star programs are only using the stars that we know of today.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: All so that you can continue to live in fantasyland?

SC: The only people living in fantasyland here are those who make absolute statements - without presenting any hard proof - that the Sphinx dates to c.2,500BCE +/- 100 years. They have arrived at this 'fantasy' through constantly repeating to themselves and propagating this date to others so often that they have come to believe that it must be true, that it is now estasblished fact - a self-fulfilling delusion.

Harte: And, obviously, the people you castigate for making absolute statements (in your opinion) while unable to back them up with facts, well, that's WAAAAY worse than if someone were to say something like:


SCAnd equally the orthodox position is making a massive assumption i.e. that a structure that has the body of a lion did not once also have the head of a lion. Why is not a reasonable hypothesis (not assumption) that this could have been so? Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head. That is an arrogant and blinkered view; a view that threatens to smother a possible (and in my opinion) more likely truth.


SC: It is not a question of scale, of what is “WAAAAY worse”? It is a question of truth and honesty. Making statements of fact (as Byrd has done regarding her comment re the dating of the Sphinx) that are not actually fact only serves to mislead the reader. What part of this do you not understand?

And when I make a comment responding to YOUR post regarding the head of the Sphinx, I clearly inform the reader that my view on that particular topic is hypothetical, that is a possibility that the body of a lion may once have had the head of a lion that might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh. What part of this do you not understand?


|Harte: and be so unable to demonstrate the truth of their claim that they must immediately change the subject and ignore all requests for examples of this sort of "blinkered view?"


SC: The truth of WHAT claim? One is not required to present proof of a hypothetical. But when one makes a statement of fact then they ARE obliged to present such proof(s). What part of this do you not understand?


Harte: Somehow, I remain unsurprised and somewhat less than whelmed.


SC: That’s a shame but I would not have expected anything less of you.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
[And when I make a comment responding to YOUR post regarding the head of the Sphinx, I clearly inform the reader that my view on that particular topic is hypothetical, that is a possibility that the body of a lion may once have had the head of a lion that might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh. What part of this do you not understand?

Excuse me. I suppose I must apply the Bible code to your posts in order to find the word "hypothetical" in the following?


Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.


I asked for citations showing "orthodoxy" doing this.

What part of this do you not understand?

No longer less than whelmed. Now megaunderwhelmed.

Harte



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I am of the opinion that the Sphinx was in fact a statue of Anpu (Anubis), a fitting great Guardian for a Necropolis.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Harte: I asked for citations showing "orthodoxy" doing this.


SC: I know what you asked. However, I do not get deflected from the main issue so easily as many on this board and elsewhere have found to their cost. Now, just incase it has escaped your attention, the issue being discussed here is not about whether the Sphinx may or may not have had the head of a lion - the issue here is about adherents of mainstream Egyptology stating as fact that the Sphinx was built in 2,500 BCE +/- 100 years when this has never been established as a fact. I have every right to point that out. Now stick to the topic.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Now, just incase it has escaped your attention, the issue being discussed here is not about whether the Sphinx may or may not have had the head of a lion - the issue here is about adherents of mainstream Egyptology stating as fact that the Sphinx was built in 2,500 BCE +/- 100 years when this has never been established as a fact. I have every right to point that out.

What has not "escaped (my) attention" is that you apparently can make all sorts of outrageous claims, all off topic by your own admission, yet need not bother yourself to back up your claims with even one scintilla of evidence, all the while demanding same from every other poster.


Originally posted by Scott CreightonNow stick to the topic.

Which topic, Scott? The topic du jour that you just fabricated above, or the topic the OP intended, where he thought he could link the sphinx to predynastic Egypt?

Harte



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Harte: Which topic, Scott?


SC: The dating of the Sphinx topic, of course.

Byrd - a Super Moderator on this forum and, as such, someone with a responsibility for presenting true facts to the readership of ATS - made an absolute statement (with no qualification of her statement) that the Sphinx was built in 2,500 BCE (+/- 100 years). I asked her to present evidence that proved the veracity of this date. No evidence was given. I suggested to Byrd that the date she presented as fact should not have been presented in the manner in which she presented it i.e. as an absolute fact. I suggested to Byrd that she should perhaps have qualified her statement. In her response to my very reasonable suggestion, she stated that, although she did not disagree with my sentiment, she felt that she would not change the way she would present her statement(s).

In essence then, a Super Moderator on this forum (Byrd) made a statement of fact that is NOT actually fact but merely a theory (by her own admission). Regardless of this, however, she will not chamge the way she presents her statements i.e. she will continue to present her theories as fact even though she knows full well there is no solid evidence to back up this theory nor her statement(s) relating to it.

Okay. So why on Earth should anyone accept anything this Super Moderator says when she is on record as saying that she has "...no problem with that wording, [i.e.my alternative wording that it is believed that the Sphinx dates to 2,500 BCE] but I'm afraid that when I'm responding I will probably not use that wording."

Why do you think this Super Moderator does not want to "use that wording" when that wording actually represents the truth of the matter? Why do you think this Super Moderator does not want to state the true facts regarding the dating of the Sphinx in her statements? Do you think this is acceptable behaviour of a Super Moderator on this board; an academic whose declared objective on this Board is to "Deny Ignorance"?

Please be frank and answer honestly - a simple yes or no will suffice.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Substitute "Scott Creighton" for the words "Byrd" and "Supermoderator" and substitute the phrase "that Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head" for "that the Sphinx was built in 2,500 BCE (+/- 100 years)."

After so doing, what you then will have is a description of exactly what you've done in the same thread.

Why are the "rules" different for you than they are for Byrd?


Harte



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: After so doing, what you then will have is a description of exactly what you've done in the same thread.


SC: Utter nonsense! Are you suggesting here that the consensus opinion of mainstream Egyptologists is that the Sphinx was originally carved as something else other than the head of a pharaoh? Is that really what you are suggesting here? If so, then present the evidence to support that view. It is common knowledge - and presented in countless mainstream Egyptology books - that the Sphinx was carved with the head of the pharaoh Rachaf (Khafre). I have NEVER seen any mainstream book that states the head may have been something else and re-carved by Rachaf. If there are such mainstream books then please cite them and show how they overturn the consensus opinion amongst Egyptologists with regards to this monument.


Harte: Why are the "rules" different for you than they are for Byrd?


SC: Alas you are - once again - talking nonsense. See above.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Just to add fuel to the fire of 'facts and thoughts'


My mother, during her NDE that lasted 9hours of visions...told me of going back in time to Egypt when the Sphinx was brand new. She said that the face was a mix of man and lion but she took the lion to be of female nature for it did not have the large mane that male lions had. She said the main face was similar to man but had the nose of a lion along with a braided like beard of a man.

Im not claiming facts people....but Im sure there are those that are interested.

She was taking down a long narrow stairway that was very jaged. She said it was a very very long ways down and she felt she was under Egypt and not so much just under the sphinx.

Her tales were many. She said it seemed like she spent days there exploring and looking at things. She felt like the area of 'books' went on forever it seemed, holding all earths history. She was told that she could look in the books but would not understand them. She saw alot of star importance in the books and noticed clearly the 'orion' constellation in them, connected to what seemed to be a 'origin' of beings, their 'coming' to earth, and the building of a civilization. She even felt like the images of beings she saw of early times of earth shown the 'guide' that was leading her that she called 'michael' as once a being here on earth that served whoever sat on the throne in the images. She saw objects that were like examples or prototypes of larger inventions/machines and that these 'examples' worked in perpetual motion, still moving as she looked upon them. She recalls a large room with 2 pillars and atop of each pillar were crystal type spheres. In that room was also something she called a large elevator type side door that was for some sort of transporting. She said everything in that room was made of a glass/crystal type substance that was 'all one piece.

I personally am not sure how to take her experience...for she experienced many other things besides egypt. But while others call for the need of facts...I figures I would throw out some 'experiences' that others can take from it what they wish.

I think our collective unconscious 'knows' what the figure of the sphinx really is but we all have a hard time tapping into that.

Dont get me wrong...Im a fact kinda gal too. But sometimes we have to wonder where these type of experiences come from. And if they are just a part of our unconsciousness....doesnt that tell us something about a collective unconsciousness that is connected to us that has a original thought of the Sphinx being a marker of sorts of importance? Maybe.
edit on 30-11-2010 by LeoVirgo because: (no reason given)


Edit to add....a few weeks after my mothers experience (it took her a while to recover and leave the hospital)....I asked her if she knew who edgar cayce was. She said 'no, who is he'?. I smiled at her and told her that when she was better, I would tell her about him. The more she recovered the more we talked and shared things. As I told her of things Edgar talked of....she sat in amazement and interests with some of his experiences. Neither of us take him as a 'prophet' but I do think there is a unconscious connection somehow with such experiences.
edit on 30-11-2010 by LeoVirgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: After so doing, what you then will have is a description of exactly what you've done in the same thread.


SC: Utter nonsense! Are you suggesting here that the consensus opinion of mainstream Egyptologists is that the Sphinx was originally carved as something else other than the head of a pharaoh? Is that really what you are suggesting here?

Why would you even ask this question?

Oh, never mind. I just realized. You would ask this question in order to avoid providing citations to support what you claimed:

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.


Obviously, you must muddy the waters, considering you've been caught red-handed making vapid, empty and baseless claims without providing any documentation for them - a charge you continue to make against Byrd right here in this thread.
And you and I both know that there can be no documentation for such a claim, since (again, both you and I know) the claim is a complete fabrication, a straw man created by you so that you could might make an otherwise unmakeable point - that "orthodoxy" consists of a bunch of evil men conspiring to keep "the truth" from us ordinary folks while simultaneously trying to maintain their "cushy, high paying" jobs.

Harte



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Let me ask you this, what is it the concinces you of your current beliefs, if anything what u believe is the same... nothing but heresay!! I never claimed to state the truth but only put forward a relevant theory. The same can be said for current so called ''evidence'' it is only an opinion of archeaologists etc. Not proof of anything! It is people lime you that come forward and say '' oh that is fake or that is a hoax'' without anything evidence or investigation to back your opinion up.

It is a disgrace to this site and why this site is getting worse month by month. People like us come forward and actually spend time putting post's and opions together wth days, weeks and months of investigation of research. Not just fringe sites but very relevant sites and information sources.

Also to above post's if many fringe sites are anything to go by, fringe in many cases are the facts of the future. It is scientists and researchers with closed minds and happy to listen and beleive the first thing they read or are taught in scholl that slow our progression!!



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I am still wondering why bird is a super- moderator??



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I suggest you flood the owners of the board with mindless questions such as the above for a month or two.

Don't worry, they probably won't ban you for it.

harte






top topics



 
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join