Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Age of the Sphinx, A glaring issue about it's age!

page: 4
122
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Maybe the Sphinx is more worn looking due to being painted, though instead of sealing the structure, it was corrosive. The paint materials, when mixed with the environment could have taken a heavy toll.




posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I say the head was re-carved and a lot older than what historians want us to believe.

On a side note, are the inside shape of the Sphinx's ears different. Just something I noticed.

Front view

Right view

left view


schematic of Sphinx
edit on 11-7-2011 by jam321 because: oops



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I agree, thats why i added its more like we did the best with the evidence we had. And now we have MUCH more....its just the economics of it i think. its less costly to not rewrite the books...YET...eventually denying our true history will catch up to us, and possibly cost us our future



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiandiii
Maybe the Sphinx is more worn looking due to being painted, though instead of sealing the structure, it was corrosive. The paint materials, when mixed with the environment could have taken a heavy toll.


I never heard of that angle. Cold be something to it.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wiandiii
 


I doubt they were painting rocks...who does that? Perhaps they used a corrosive technique instead of chisels...but if you built that you wouldn't paint it would you?

I installed a cedar fence once and my client requested I paint it afterwards...it was like blasphemy to me...something so stunning and resistant should not be covered up with paint.

Are you aware of other painting in Egypt? I might just be unaware of that evidence, sorry if i am ignorant...couold you source me?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


cool link.

From your source...


Live Science - November 3, 2010 A routine excavation has uncovered ancient walls surrounding the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) announced. The walls were likely built to protect the Sphinx from blowing sand, said SCA Secretary-General Zahi Hawass, who is overseeing the excavation. During routine digging, SCA researchers found two segments of mud wall on the Giza Plateau, where the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx stand.

Both walls stand just under 3 feet (1 meter). One runs north-south and is 282 feet (86 meters) long, while the other runs east-west and is 151 feet (46 m) long. The walls are part of a larger enclosure previously found north of the Sphinx. As told in ancient Egyptian texts, King Thutmose IV once went on a hunting trip near the Sphinx.


So the whole place was enclosed once a upon a time to protect it from weather. Didn't do that great of a job if you ask me.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I have always thought the Sphinx is a much older statue and as mentioned in the OP, i have always thought it to have been altered to suit religous/political/the pharohs view at the time, maybe even more than once possibly had a larger (more substantial) sized body to start with as well as a diffrent head...

A question to any kind of stone mason type people....

Could it be as simple as this though... the stone of the sphinx is weathered as it was never "finished" for presentation purposes as the body and sourounding area could have been dressed with gold? or somthing similar, which was stuck in some way (with mortar etc.) to the body of the creature (with the head being painted as egyptians so love to do)

and the blocks from the temple being the same stone but "dressed" as they were going to be in the open as the smooth walls... could those things effect the diffrent way it slowly breaks up with sandblasting for many years

anyway just my thoughts



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I found it! This is a clip from that show I remembered watching:

Tomb of Osirus video clip

They are calling it the "Tomb of Osirus". Here is some more info: Tomb of Osirus



The shaft leading to the so-called Osiris Tomb lies directly below the causeway that connects Khafre's Pyramid to the Sphinx. The shaft leads to an empty hall, at the far end of which is a 40-foot-deep shaft.




The remains of four eroded pillars cut out of rock surround a rectangular pit, which contains a granite sarcophagus. Crystal-clear water surrounds the pillars on three sides.


So wouldn't this place the water table too low for it to cause all the weathering? This chamber is 100 ft below the sphinx, from what I gather.

I'm having trouble embedding the you tube clip, lil help anyone? Thx...
edit on 11-0720117-1111 by gwynnhwyfar because: Replaced failed embed of you tube vid with link to you tube vid.
edit on 11-0720117-1111 by gwynnhwyfar because: Added quotes from article.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by jam321
 


cool link.

From your source...


Live Science - November 3, 2010 A routine excavation has uncovered ancient walls surrounding the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) announced. The walls were likely built to protect the Sphinx from blowing sand, said SCA Secretary-General Zahi Hawass, who is overseeing the excavation. During routine digging, SCA researchers found two segments of mud wall on the Giza Plateau, where the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx stand.

Both walls stand just under 3 feet (1 meter). One runs north-south and is 282 feet (86 meters) long, while the other runs east-west and is 151 feet (46 m) long. The walls are part of a larger enclosure previously found north of the Sphinx. As told in ancient Egyptian texts, King Thutmose IV once went on a hunting trip near the Sphinx.


So the whole place was enclosed once a upon a time to protect it from weather. Didn't do that great of a job if you ask me.


Second that idea....1 meter high to protect a sphinx that is how tall? lol...

Slayer69 in your videos you suggest, did you hear West speak about the idea of building a sphinx in the middle of an Ice Age? Whats your opinion? I think I am with him about the 36000 being more likey...whats the rule the obvious answer is usually right...its seems we are forgetting that when we defend less likely ideas that are in conflict with new evidence....

I am with west 36 000 minimum...



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Drala
 


I'm not sure about being that old. but you never know.

As far as West I dunno know sometimes I agree with his stance while on other topics I think he's gone over the edge. The verdict is still out for me on it's age.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by larnhr
The Sphinx IS older than the buildings around it. It was actually built around 10,000BC. Also, its head was that of a female, NOT a male, when it was constructed.


It is believed that the head has been remodeled at least 3 times maybe 4 over the years. In fact the whole thing may have been remodeled at one time.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


But your opinion about building it during an ice age? Its similar to the water erosion idea...it hasn't rained heavily/regularly in Egypt in over 10000 years...

Oh and I just watch the video with Zahi....He makes me feel uneasy, like he is lying. Or best case he is just an ego maniac that doesn't want to share the discoveries...like its HIS sphinx lol...
edit on 11-7-2011 by Drala because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-7-2011 by Drala because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I don't know why people get so up in arms over the concept. They've found 7500 year old cities off the coast of India, Gobekli Tepe was built before the end of the last ice age, and other such things as that. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility. I mean, think of how much culture and technology was lost when Rome fell, only to be rediscovered a millennium later.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I think that the rose of the Zodiac is the omly tool we need to accurately date the great Sphynx
Next year we are moving into the age of Aquarius
Jesus was born approx 2000 years ago (at the start of the age of Pisces) hence the symbol of the fish to represent Christ.
Count back anti-clockwise around the Zodiac wheel until you get to Leo and Virgo (The Sphynx is half Lion and half Virgin) and you get 12,000 years

Sphynx age = 12,000 yrs or 10,000 yrs B.C

PEACE,
RK



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Apparently the person who drew that black and white image of a a lone individual with a camel coming upon the Sphinx in the ancient, empty desert did not realize that the Sphinx's face was intact some jerkoff thought it would be fun to blow its nose off with his rifle.
edit on 7/11/2011 by 0001391 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I think that the rose of the Zodiac is the omly tool we need to accurately date the great Sphynx
Next year we are moving into the age of Aquarius
Jesus was born approx 2000 years ago (at the start of the age of Pisces) hence the symbol of the fish to represent Christ.
Count back anti-clockwise around the Zodiac wheel until you get to Leo and Virgo (The Sphynx is half Lion and half Virgin) and you get 12,000 years

Sphynx age = 12,000 yrs or 10,000 yrs B.C

PEACE,
RK



Where has zodiac blending happened before? Virgo...not sure how you see virgo in the sphinx...please explain. i will accept it was from when egypt was a Matriarch ruled society....but please enlighten me on the Virgo connection...also this blending zodiac idea...is there more evidence of that elsewhere?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drala
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


But your opinion about building it during an ice age? Its similar to the water erosion idea...it hasn't rained heavily/regularly in Egypt in over 10000 years...



I'm not going to hazard a guess on how old it really is. I'll just present what I noticed that shows me it is older than thought. How old exactly?

I dunno. But to me it proves it's older than what is generally accepted.





posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
I think the Egyptians didn't build anything. They just repaired what they found. And the Sphinx is far older than we think and it wouldn't surprise me if it was built at the time Egypt was a grassland.


Here is an interesting read on it. Some people think the Sphinx could be over 50,000 years old. As for your statement that the Egyptians did not build it but just found it may inclued the three main pyramids at Giza which could be over 20,000 years old. If you think about it this does explain why we can not find out how the Egyptians built them. The snawe is simple. They did not. They just repaired what they found which not leaves a bigge mystery. If this is the case then who really did build the Sphinx and maybe the three main pyramids at Giza? We may never know.

www.lauralee.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
another cool one slayer!

i go with A, re-carved, deff!!

anubis is a jackal? i also have heard that.

instead of a lion and in that case, the constellation leo wouldn't have much to do with the statue.

even as a kid, i saw the head was wrong.

i still maintain the egyptians gathered around the sphinx and the pyramids and maintained them not built them.

given that scenario, the time lines on building them make more sense because we don't have to fit it into 1 lifetime.

whom ever built them could have taken 200yrs.

anyway, how old? way older than they say, of course.

36000 yrs? i wouldn't raise an eyebrow if that proved to be true.



edit on 11-7-2011 by fooks because: meant to say "wouldn't"



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




The thing was carved out of sedimentary rock in it's natural state. The reason for the difference in what we see now is due to the varying grades of this rock. The upper layers were of greater quality and thus resist erosion better than the lower which were not as strong.

I was under the impression that this was sorted out decades ago by geologists. Seems simple enough to me.
edit on 11-7-2011 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
122
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join