posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:37 PM
Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
You are quire correct... it would re-write history.. something which Hawass and the mainstream fear most... imagine throwing yourself into the
commonly held believes of the ancient Egyptions, and dedicating your life's work to it... then, just as you have developed what you believe to be an
extrememely sound understanding.... you find information which contradicts everything you have ever said to anybody on the subject! Lots of
You would have a choice at this point..... hide the truth, through fear of destroying your life's work and losing any reputation you acrued over the
years, and attempt to mystify the ignorant with lies and tales...
Come clean, admit pretty much everything you have ever said, lectured and supported is wrong..... destroy your reputation, the reputation of the
egyption people, and completely re-write history..... not for the self -serving few this time....
Tough choice... but one that I believe was made years ago by mainstream egyptology..... the evidence is just SO OBVIOUS!!
Have a read of this if you get a chance... irrefutable proof of advance engineering techniques in ancient egypt.... even more advanced than today!
...the mainstream fears most..... odd after forty years association with Archaeology I've never come across anyone remotedly in 'fear' of this. Your
prose above is the common fringe explanation of why their weak evidence isn't accepted - its cannot be that the fringe is wrong or the evidence is not
supportive of the conclusion - its a conspiracy of the evil mainstream!! LOL
1. To advance successfully in Archaeology it helps a WHOLE lot if you discover new things, money, fame, tenure flow quickly to those that do so, those
who do nothing tend to have lackluster careers. Ask Byrd if she plans on not discovering anything.....
2. If your theory is right nothing should have changed in the last 150 years since archaeology has been around .....wait things have changed-so how
did that happen? Why were Sumer and the Minoans found?
3. Change happens all the time and is actually good because you then get to re-write books (and get paid) and request more money to investigate new
avenues of scholarship. If nothing can change - what exactly do you do?
4. What you consider 'lots of information' isn't and can be explained without resorting to advanced humans, aliens or other mysterious agents.
5. The information you have posted as 'proof' again isn't - there are threads here debunking the machining angle
6. Thanks for the thread its always good to see the various sources on the Sphinx tunnels concentrated, oh when the person asked for the sources,
mentioning a non peer reviewed book that gets it information from other sources doesn't cut it, I would suggest always noting the primary source for
Speculation: Yes I would say that the original shape of the Sphinx may have been annubis or perhaps a lion like creature with the head being modified
later to satisfy the ego of 'x'
edit on 9/9/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)