The REAL Age of The Sphinx Revealed

In this discussion, geologist Dr. Robert Schoch explores his analytical findings after examining the world-famous Egyptian Sphinx. Traditional Egyptologists considered the Sphinx to have been constructed around 2500BC, and that it was carved from scratch into the form we see today.

Schoch found that the weathering on the body of the Sphinx did not match up with that date, and the current head was carved much later on than the body. By looking at the statue, you can easily see that the head is far too small for the body and is out of proportion, which Schoch confirmed scientifically. Amazingly, he also found that the body has suffered weathering from rain, weather that did also not coincide with the date of 2500BC. That would’ve been at least 6000BC, or perhaps 12,000BC!

21stcenturywire.com...

But that can't be right, because the Earth
is only 6000 years old, right? ha

a reply to: wasaka

Take 4000BC as Adam's time, 2000BC as Noah's time, that puts 2500BC pre flood making highly irregular erosive forces acting upon it therefore skewing Schoch's observations.

A Bible believer can discount Schoch's theory as easily as the Archeologists. So no Bible thumpers will take him serious and no professionals from the scientific community will take him serious.

Must be Aliens.........oh that is why he appears so regular on Ancient Aliens Television shows.

a reply to: wasaka

Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old, and at the time of the construction it was still a lush water bearing land near it? And over time wind erosion does happen? It's made of limestone, just go and google for yourself what wind eroded limestone looks like, it looks strikingly similar.

As for the Egyptian peoples being that old, and able to create such a statue, it may have been possible, but highly unlikely.

Its about time the chamber under it was cracked open wonder whats under that left paw.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wasaka
Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old

Given that there's no evidence of such? Yes.

originally posted by: haven123
wonder whats under that left paw.

Betcha it's sandstone.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wasaka
Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old

Given that there's no evidence of such? Yes.

originally posted by: haven123
wonder whats under that left paw.

Betcha it's sandstone.

there's a huge chamber under it.
with things in, But what?

originally posted by: haven123

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wasaka
Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old

Given that there's no evidence of such? Yes.

originally posted by: haven123
wonder whats under that left paw.

Betcha it's sandstone.

there's a huge chamber under it.
with things in, But what?

Yeah, I'm still waiting the see this so called "Hall of Records" Edger Casey predicted would be there.

originally posted by: haven123

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wasaka
Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old

Given that there's no evidence of such? Yes.

originally posted by: haven123
wonder whats under that left paw.

Betcha it's sandstone.

there's a huge chamber under it.
with things in, But what?

What's your source for this? They've done GPR scans, and found nothing that would indicate that there's anything other than natural cavities in the limestone and bedrock beneath the Sphinx.

He's been saying this for over 20 years, how is this a revelation?

a reply to: wasaka

I wonder if Dr. Schock discusses that his own dating of the Sphinx and enclosure walls actually gave him multiple dates which essentially null and voids the 10,000 BPE date that people are so fond of tossing out. I wonder if anyone will mention that all of the data given to make the Sphinx look as though it is nearly 10,000 years old comes solely from the western wall of the enclosure while there is not that type or level of erosion on any other part of the Sphinx or its enclosure. When looked at by a prominent British geologist , itturns out that while yes, it has been eroded by water, it has been eroded from runoff water not rainwater as postulated by Dr. Schoch. Nah... Why ruin a fun story with facts when there are books to be sold!one can't sell books or get paid for interviews when they have to be honest and exam that the erosion is presenting in the way it does because the entire Hiza Plateau has an Eastward slope to it which naturally funnels rainwater onto the western side of things like The Sphinx western enclosure wall. Doesn't that make more sense scientifically than rain magically peeing far more on one area of the Sphinx than the rest of it?

Mod Edit

Mod Edit

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: haven123

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wasaka
Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old

Given that there's no evidence of such? Yes.

originally posted by: haven123
wonder whats under that left paw.

Betcha it's sandstone.

there's a huge chamber under it.
with things in, But what?

What's your source for this? They've done GPR scans, and found nothing that would indicate that there's anything other than natural cavities in the limestone and bedrock beneath the Sphinx.

I think because there is so much other stuff in so many other underground cavities in Egypt, seems like there would be a pretty good chance of something being in there..

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: haven123

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wasaka
Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old

Given that there's no evidence of such? Yes.

originally posted by: haven123
wonder whats under that left paw.

Betcha it's sandstone.

there's a huge chamber under it.
with things in, But what?

What's your source for this? They've done GPR scans, and found nothing that would indicate that there's anything other than natural cavities in the limestone and bedrock beneath the Sphinx.

I think because there is so much other stuff in so many other underground cavities in Egypt, seems like there would be a pretty good chance of something being in there..

It would be nice, but no. In 2009 they drilled several small holes around the sphinx, 80 feet deep, and dropped cameras down them. One of those holes went underneath the front left paw, where people claim the "Hall Of Records" is located. Nothing was discovered, except the water table, which lies about 18 feet below the Sphinx.

As I mentioned earlier, they've also done several scans with grounds penetrating radar, and the scams haven't indicated that there is anything unnatural, just the sort of small, natural cavities that one would expect to see. I want to say that the largest cavity was something like 3 feet long, 8 feet beneath the surface, near the front paws, and was isolated (meaning no entrance or way to reach it). I may be wrong on those numbers though. If you'd like the actual results of the GPR scans, I can dig them up, or they can be found online.

Remember too, that the Sphinx was carved in place from an existing, natural limestone outcropping, so if there were any tunnels dug beneath it, they would be fairly easy to find. It's not like the pyramids or anything, where there could be passages or whatnot hidden behind some of the blocks its' constructed with (theoretically speaking, of course). It's a single piece of immovable rock.

It would be awesome if there were something still undiscovered beneath the Sphinx, but all the available evidence indicates that there isn't.

And just for the sake of further information....

Nothing has been found that provides a definitive date for the Sphinx's construction, or who built it, but all the evidence we do have points to it being constructed sometime during the reign of Khafra, roughly around 2540 B.C..

It's a part of the 2nd pyramid's funerary complex, which is associated with Khafra, and there are two temples (the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple) nearby, that are constructed using blocks quarried from around the Sphinx during its' construction. One of those temples contained a statue and various other artifacts that indicate a direct connection to Khafra.

There's also the Dream Stele, located between the Sphinx's front paws.The stele wasn't added until over 1,000 years later, by Thutmose IV, and already had some damage when it was first discovered, but it appeared to attribute the Sphinx's construction to "Khaf", written inside of a cartouche indicating a royal name. Unfortunately, the rest of the name was missing (the entire name and some other writing is missing now), but it's almost universally agreed to have been Khafra's name.

As for the weathering and erosion used as evidence to support fringe theories of a significantly earlier construction, while it does appear in places on the Sphinx (though not everywhere, by any means), the same heavy erosion is not seen on the vast majority of the blocks that make up the two nearby temples, which were quarried from the Sphinx's enclosure. If the erosion were in fact due to heavy rainfall at a significantly earlier time, then it would be apparent on the entire Sphinx and on all of the blocks used to build the temples, and that is simply not the case.

The more you know....

That is really boring, and the first few comments following your posting are really boring. Have you all only just learned about Schock et. al? I didn't think that this forum was for regurgitating stuff that is known; but, hey. .. and lets not get into the bible rendition of history .. that is really, really boring.

a reply to: admirethedistance

Thank you for explaining the counterpoints and misunderstandings in this thread, not to take away from the OP. I have always wondered what, if anything, the Sphinx meant to any civilization. Its current state is not what its original state was, so it is very intriguing.

I read somewhere, as I am trying to find the source, that the Sphinx has been recorded on engravings in a pair. Again, I read someone's opinion that there are two Sphinx, one that guarded the original Kingdom's western borders and one that guarded the Kingdom's eastern borders. Which Sphinx is in Egypt, the western or eastern, if such rumor is true?

I personally believe the chance of another Sphinx monument on this Earth is high, just as other pyramids aside from Giza exist in SA, Mexico, LA, and Eurasia/China. I have heard the Sphinx faced out away from the Kingdom, so which way is the Egypt Sphinx facing?

Do you know of what I am referencing or have you read anything about the Western/Eastern Sphinx theory?

a reply to: wasaka

The REAL age, yes the REAL age is At least 6,000 BC....BUT......drumroll.....PERHAPS.....12,000 BC!

I have a revelation.....maybe....just maybe....PERHAPS the REAL AGE could be up to 15,000 BC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My guess is as good as this one....You know why? Because there is no set date, just a guess...So is mine....What a joke

originally posted by: haven123

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wasaka
Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old

Given that there's no evidence of such? Yes.

originally posted by: haven123
wonder whats under that left paw.

Betcha it's sandstone.

there's a huge chamber under it.
with things in, But what?

I am afraid you will need to ask Zahi Hawass what was in it. He has probably aleady robbed it empty and devided the loot with Mubarrak and his friend of the Edgar Cayce foundation.

The Sphinx, Zahi and Cayce

a reply to: admirethedistance

I did not find the original source that I read this from, but I did find another link that explains what I read:

arescott.tripod.com...

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: haven123

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wasaka
Is it really that hard to grip the reality that the sphinx is very old

Given that there's no evidence of such? Yes.

originally posted by: haven123
wonder whats under that left paw.

Betcha it's sandstone.

there's a huge chamber under it.
with things in, But what?

What's your source for this? They've done GPR scans, and found nothing that would indicate that there's anything other than natural cavities in the limestone and bedrock beneath the Sphinx.

I think because there is so much other stuff in so many other underground cavities in Egypt, seems like there would be a pretty good chance of something being in there..

The source is Edgar Cayce, the Sleeping Profiteer.

Harte