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

Slayer<

Below is the fallacy that drives your argument:

Originally posted by SLAYER69
The temple/temples [there are two in the area] were supposedly built around the same time as the Sphinx [+ or - a few years] was being carved with blocks taken from the Sphinx enclosure [Which means the blocks were of the same strength/weakness as it's body] for the temples construction as the enclosure was being excavated so to be able to carve the body.

The sphinx is carved from a limestone bed that varies greatly in density and hardness throughout it's depth. For example, the section of the head was carved from a protrusion of limestone that stood above ground level for a million years without weathering down, meaning that particular spot in that level of limestone was far harder than even the stone that was adjacent on the same level.

The variations in the limestone bed where the sphinx is located can be seen in the linked photo below:



Here's some text from that site:

Gauri established that the lowest strata, Member I, consists of a massive and durable limestone, exposed across much of the base of the Sphinx enclosure. The lowest lying parts of both the body of the Sphinx and the western exposures are Member I strata, with the quarried height increasing towards the north-west. The entire northern terrace of the enclosure consists of Member I limestones.

The upper body of the Sphinx and the upper part of the enclosure walls to the south and west, consist of the overlying Member II strata - a series of seven fine grained limestone units. Of these seven units, units 1 to 6 have been further divided into two sub-units, the lowest of which consists of a less durable, marly rock (with the upper sub-unit being coarser grained and generally more durable).

The head and neck of the Sphinx are carved from Member III rocks which have also been divided into two sub-units. The neck of the Sphinx consists of relatively less durable rocks, whereas, the head has been carved from 'one of the most durable limestones exposed at Giza'. The durability of the Member III strata has been cited by others to explain the remarkable preservation of the Sphinx's face and nemes head-dress.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
Slayer<

Below is the fallacy that drives your argument:

Harte

As always Harte your opinions are always appreciated.

There is no argument. Interesting assumption on your part. I presented what I found interesting and have asked some questions which apparently some find annoying. Now does that constitute an argument?


So since you've provided some information let me ASK you a question, you're saying that the blocks [Which were used for the temple] that came from those [same layers as the body] are of the same strength/quality as the harder out cropping that the head was carved from? Also, How does this explain the outer wall showing the same level of weathering which the temple is butted up against yet the temple itself doesn't show the similar amount of weathering??

Here is a very good documentary about Pyramids made by 60 minutes (Australia)

Secret Of The Pyramids
Reporter: Tara Brown
Archeologist: John Romer

The portion more heavily eroded was probably buried in sand and the shifting sands did the erosion.

reply to post by bigrex


I think the original - lion - in the desert was built about 10,000 years ago.
That would make it - before - Adam & Eve -.
-------------
Earth has a hidden history.

----------
The Pharaoh head was put on it 5,000 years after it was built.
Then it was transformed into the Sphinx that we all see today.

Originally posted by Drala
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?

They most definitely painted rocks. The Sphinx was painted. It was bright and garish, just like Roman statues were in Roman times.

documentarystorm.com...

Originally posted by Harte
For example, the section of the head was carved from a protrusion of limestone that stood above ground level for a million years without weathering down, meaning that particular spot in that level of limestone was far harder than even the stone that was adjacent on the same level.

Most of us already knew that. The question arises, if there may have been an earlier period in which some earlier people could have originally carved on the Harder protrusion which Khafra [or somebody else] who may have re-carved in a more recent period to resemble something more to their liking etc?

Not a statement of fact or an argument.
Just asking if this was/is possible?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by LadyTrick
the sphinx was dug out of the ground, those walls are not actually walls but the ground and the enclosure is a hole dug out to create the body of the sphinx, the layers and grooves from older photos of the sphinx match up to the grooves/layers in those "walls"

Yes, most of us already know that.
This explains the better condition of the temple and head/face of the Sphinx how?

They used Thompson's Water Seal - didn't you get the memo on that Slayer?

Seriously though, couldn't certain plant extracts, mixed in with their colored pigments have preserved the permeable limestones that were saturated by them? Might explain some things.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I love reading your posts and this one is no different, I just thought I would let you know that the head of the spinx was once the head of a LION.

Sorry if you already knew or have seen this in previous replys. Cant wait till your next post

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
Seriously though, couldn't certain plant extracts, mixed in with their colored pigments have preserved the permeable limestones that were saturated by them? Might explain some things.

I suppose if that were the case and they had painted to preserve. Does this mean they only painted the Head of the Sphinx and the temple but [not the body or the enclosure] ?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hi Slayer 69,
I know you won't believe this, but that's O.K. F.W.I.W., the Sphinx sits astride of the 30th degree of latitude, facing East. Now the world's a big place today, and when the super volcanic eruption event at Toba, in present day Indonesia, happened about 72,000 years ago, it created an incredible bottleneck in humanity. This great plume is the "angel with a sword of fire" that wiped out the real garden of eden. I didn't get to see either the garden or the plume, but my chain got jerked and I was transported way out yonder across the eternal present, to a point a little to the West of this event, say 70,000 years ago. Then like a child rolling up a snowman, a mighty spirit, guided my steps along the 30th parallel, or "Divine Parallel", all the way West into Egypt, right up to the Great Sphinx. It was one heck of an escape route, from a world changing event. So, you need to factor in that just maybe the Great Sphinx is a pre-Toba structure, made expressly to halt the western trek of any survivors of that destroyed world. Any farther West, and you're lost in the Sahara Desert. My guided tour continued all the way to the Pacific Shores of North America, and ended about at the dawning of the Twentieth Century, around Bakersfield, Calif.. More than half of this vast time line, was spent by my ancestors in N.Central India. During most of this time, Asia was covered with great Ice fields, and we had to stay to the South of them. This 1978 NDE of mine, was witnessed by Nostradamus, who built part of his book around it. The key is to read C.VIII, Q 78, and then read the Epistle To Henri. The quatrain is the threshold to the epistle. You take C.VII and C. VIII, together to get 78, and then subtract C VIII, Q 78 to get a zero or point of origin, and then read this particular quatrain as prologue for the Epistle, which Nosty put in between C. VII, and C. VIII.
I've posted a bunch on this on ATS, but unless you really throw something into the faces of the forum members, they won't pick up on much. And throwing things into people's faces ain't my style. But you're on the right track. Khufu left a stele at Giza that speaks of a Whetstone Box. I'm on the track of this at present, with the assistance of Prof. Fekry Hassan, the head honcho of the Flinders Petrie museum, in London. The high priest Dehdi, told Khufu to keep his cotton picking fingers off of it, during his lifetime, but added a prophecy about a distant descendant, coming from far in the West, and using it in the last great struggle between good and evil. I was raised in the Pacific Northwest, and Fekry was an adjunct Prof. at WSU, for a brief time. I formally denounced him as Pharaoh's butler, as a metaphor to the biblical story of Joseph in Egypt, with me being a Joseph like character. So there's two of us in this generation who are in the running for solving or fulfilling this prophecy, that's been written in stone and set up at Giza, since the time of Khufu's days on Earth. This Flint box is the Ark of Thoth, and is the same size as the much later Ark of the Covenant. But Thoth is pure evil, so it's a no touchy item. I've only been to it astrally, a couple of times when I have been really sick. I Consider it as a blarney stone with amazing recuperative powers. Anyways, it looks like the Egyptian Army is finding this out the hard way, by using one coordinate that I gave Prof. Hassan at WSU, back in the eighties. But Khufu is buried close by so they can't just let it go.

For those who believe it was ground water moister damage when the Sphinx was buried in the sand. I forgot to add the following image which shows that some of the temple complex has been subjected to extended period in it's long history to submersion yet doesn't show water damage which some have attributed the erosion of the Sphinx's body to...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75d896041875.jpg[/atsimg]

The Sphinx is older than we know and teach.
The head has been reshaped many times. You can tell by the fact that the head and the body are not it the proper proportion to one another, ( heads to small ) That why it looks newer.
And the temple had a roof on and around it that could have prevented the WATER/ RAIN eroding it as much as the water eroded the Sphinx.

Note this, from the neck down there seems to be a grave amount of erosion~ yes the head has gone though some damage but if you look at what its sitting in and how high the head sits above the "trench" it seems like back when it was "created" there may have been a massive source of water there, if it wasn't already a jungle area. The pyramids and sphinx could have been built along the same image as the mayans in their dense jungle. Every desert had its prime as a very vegitatable area in one day or another. I'm pretty sure when these structures were build there was ways to get an "aquaduct" or a reservore nearby for needed water. All speculation, just looks like it to me seeing the smoothing of the rock surfaces looking like massive water erosion.

Thoughts?

reply to post by meathed


Regarding the temple there seems to be two out of the box theories on it.

One group believes that the lower section are from a much much earlier period and was buried a long time ago. Not being exposed to the elements and therefore in much better condition while another group believe it to be much younger than the Sphinx. Which is why it does not show the same amount of weathering.

Either are interesting to speculate on.

Geologist and Professor Robert Schoch has asserted that the Sphinx is at least 10,000 years old if not older (and I'm not sure that anyone has posted this up to this point). His website is: www.robertschoch.com...

There was a series that came out in 2005 called the Pyramid Code (www.youtube.com...) that also touches on the issues.

I find it fascinating that the rock of the Sphinx has both hard and soft coral layers.

reply to post by mrsdiggs718


So who built the original Lion 10,000 years ago???

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by meathed

 

Regarding the temple there seems to be two out of the box theories on it.

One group believes that the lower section are from a much much earlier period and was buried a long time ago. Not being exposed to the elements and therefore in much better condition while another group believe it to be much younger than the Sphinx. Which is why it does not show the same amount of weathering.

Either are interesting to speculate on.

I dont believe that the temple was earlier and the lower section of the temple was covered long before the sphinx.
I would speculate then, that the temple is much younger than the Sphinx hence less weathering.
I further speculate that like others have suggested that the Egyptians of today are not the creators of the sphinx but merely its reshapers and caretakers. So it would have been easy for them to tear down and old temple that the Original creators made to make a new temple around the sphinx that fitted into their culture.

well presented --- but why are you beating yourself up about a topic you already know the answer too --- its slowing you down from finding the real sphinx questions; obviously it wasnt built on latter timeline, yes egyptians used bricks and what have you from the original structure (why would you depreciate something so marvelous that you created if indeed you did create it and have the means to run out and grab the resources to reproduce if you felt like?) --- all throughout africa you have nations built around and through the ruins of past civilizations --- if you felt it was your heritage you would preserve it not rob it for scrap material --- im to understand the sphinx was edited atleast twice once by egyptians and then purposely and semi destructively by one of the ceasers --- but none of which touches on the only important question --- who built it and where are the blueprints (do you really think somebody just freehanded that one take one time huh lol internal passages and all huh)

Originally posted by fixer1967

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...

in my younger days i had read some books by Erich Von Däniken, where in he somewhere wrote that the original Egyptian Gods were 'alien' survivors from Atlantis, an idea i liked. Cause i can't imagine that Atlantis hadn't any survivors. Tho, i still don't know if Atlantis was a good thing, or not, because i have pictures of slavery in my mind when i think about Atlantis. But the history of Egypt teached to us in my schooldays had lot of gaps.

For the Sphinx : A