The Sphinx

I decided I don't want to post here.

Sorry! Carry on!

PLEASE ... don't lose this thread in discussions about other members...

Stick to the topic.

Aside from diluting a fascinating topic, you are risking making it unreadable for anyone else

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Have you actually done much reading of scholarly papers on the Sphinx? The effect (and its cause) is quite well known.

Well, you’re not going to like my answer Byrd.
These scholarly articles are the reason many ( not just me!) dispute the ‘official’ answers.

The blocks that were excavated from inside the Sphinx enclosure were used in the next door Valley Temple, and show the same precipitation erosion (not wind) as the enclosure and the body. The valley temple was also ‘clad ‘ by later generations in an Aswan granite layer on the outside to protect and ‘re work’ the building .

Well, this is excellent - unlike so many who go on about the Sphinx, you've actually done some reading about it and about the changes there on the plateau! That's really very refreshing.

If you read Schoch’s work (highly controversial to you guys ) he states as a geologist that he was exited to visit the Sphinx the first time he travelled to Egypt, and had assumed that Egyptologists had done the correct scholarly work regarding this wonderful monument geologically, yet was puzzled as to why what he had read from ‘your’ camp simply didn’t add up to the evidence before his well trained eyes.

Actually, that's not QUITE what happened. Author John Anthony West, who wanted to prove Atlantis existed was a passionate believer in the idea put forth by a mystic named Schwaller de Lubicz - that the Sphinx was a remnant from a group of people from Atlantis. Schoch was an acquaintance who found the idea interesting and agreed to travel to Egypt with West to find evidence.

So it's not exactly "scientist suddenly notices something is 'off'" (which is how many discoveries start. It's "This guy wants to prove something and takes along scientist to confirm his idea."

Schoch’s analysis of the core bedrock beneath the Sphinx ( it’s type, hardness, viscosity) from his seismic testing gave him his first answer of ‘older than 5000 years , and then 10,000 + years.

Such fine detailing on that head dress.

I'd noticed that he pushed back his original date recently. However, he doesn't have the support of other geologists and based on what little I know about the subject (I've done some rockhounding and gone on some dinosaur digs), I'm more inclined to stay with the 2800BC date.

And yes, the detailing on the head is only possible because that stone is harder.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
a reply to: Byrd
Let’s not forget the story of Thutmose 4, who fell asleep
under the head of the buried Sphinx and had a crazy dream , in 1400 bc or thereabouts .
The Sphinx in the dream told him that if be excavated the Sphinx out from the sand , he would become king . He did. And did.

Notice in this section from the ‘Dream Stela’ in which the Sphinx says it used to sit above the sand , but now is buried. Notice also the Sphinx tells him that its body amd limbs are ruined (which would have been under the sand when it ‘told Thutmose) .

So during the reign of Thutmose father , the Sphinx was in decay and buried up to its neck.
How long had this been for?

I love that story, and Thutmose is one of my favorites!

However, yes, the sphinx had been neglected... as I keep pointing out to folks here, Giza was NOT an important site for the Egyptians in spite of the sphinx and the big pyramids. They didn't maintain the cemeteries and tombs there, unlike the treatment at the truly great sacred site: Abydos. As the money for guards and attendants dried up, people found other jobs and the plateau was basically left to go back to nature.

Thutmose, of course, turned it around and restored some of it.

If the face of the Sphinx is Khafre as Egyptology suggests , surely through royal passed down knowledge Thutmose would have known it was Khafres face , and not a’God’ talking to him.
And yet the story tells us that this area was in decay at this point .

Remember that more than 1200 years had passed since the carving of the statue and Thutmose's nap. By this time, the priests who served the funerary cults of the three pharaohs were long dead and gone, Egypt had gone through two stretches where the government fell completely apart and nothing was done on any scale (the two Intermediate Periods)

For a good example of why he wouldn't know, here's a nativity scene with the portrait of a famous European king who is posing as a gift-giver. Can you identify the king without looking him up? I'd guess the answer might be "no" unless you happen to be a historian who's really into donor portraits and that time period. And that's an example that's actually only 500 years old.

There's a lot of statues (antiques) around that are clearly portraits and we have no idea who.

So, no. With the temples and guards and attendants gone and the whole area (including the old temples and other tombs) completely swallowed up by sand, neither he nor anyone else knew who the face was. It was simply one of many representations of "a god" (they had over 2,000 of them) at a site that wasn't terribly important.

Yes, it’s a very cool story I think.
Still confused as to why the Sphinx appears as a God to Thutmose , when it has a human face .

What’s a shame for me , is that other groups other than those approved by Egyptology are not allowed to test these statements made by Egyptology itself.
Id like to see that “ harder piece “ theory for the head tested somehow, but it’s all off limits for anyone not involved.

I feel that ALL the statements made by Egyptology should be tested by other independent groups to see if they achieve the same results/findings.

All those controversial dates , and annoying made up figures could be resolved if others who aren’t part of the ‘clan’ would be allowed to test.
That way, you could destroy your mortal ‘fringe ‘ enemies in no time.
Or be destroyed yourselves ..

There are A LOT of anomalies that won’t go away until we get a more rounded and open approach .

THAT would be interesting , but it will never happen.

Still, I believe that for a people who could carve such stunning interpretations of the human body, animals, so beautifully and perfectly in the hardest of materials , how could they get the scale of the head so wrong compared to the body ?

Can Egyptology not just admit that this is not the original head ?


a reply to: Byrd

So it's not exactly "scientist suddenly notices something is 'off'" (which is how many discoveries start. It's "This guy wants to prove something and takes along scientist to confirm his idea."

That may be half true, but Schoch’s own words lean a bit more to his puzzlement regarding Egyptology’s assumptions:

In 1990 I first traveled to Egypt with John Anthony West (for background information see Forgotten Civilization and Origins of the Sphinx), with the sole purpose of examining the Great Sphinx from a geological perspective. I assumed that the Egyptologists were correct in their dating, but soon I discovered that the geological evidence was not compatible with what the Egyptologists were saying. On the body of the Sphinx, and on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure (the pit or hollow remaining after the Sphinx’s body was carved from the bedrock), I found heavy erosional features that I concluded could only have been caused by rainfall and water runoff. The thing is, the Sphinx sits on the edge of the Sahara Desert and the region has been quite arid for the last 5000 years. Furthermore, various structures securely dated to the Old Kingdom show only erosion that was caused by wind and sand (very distinct from the water erosion). To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion that the oldest portions of the Great Sphinx, what I refer to as the core-body, must date back to an earlier period (at least 5000 BCE, and my latest research now points to the end of the last ice age, circa 10,000 BCE), a time when the climate was very different and included more rain.

I’m not sure that anyone would risk their reputation on the behest of another’s theory , and agree just for the sake of it .
Schoch makes some very interesting evaluations I feel.

Are there other Quarries, for instance , or buildings that can be undeniably dated to 2800bc time period ,that show the same level of water erosion and deterioration as is seen on the main body of the Sphinx and it’s enclosure?

a reply to: Byrd

I appreciate that! I agree...rudeness should never be a part of a good thoughtful discussion!

I removed my comment so I wasn't contributing to it! I often can be a bit abrasive myself!

I suppose you can see I've been here a few days myself!

My thought is/was that I have never seen the Sphinx and therefore all I know about it has come through "third" party information (I guess so to speak)!

Everything I know about it has been learned and so the instruction has kind of determined my understanding of it! The instruction has changed over the years as we learn and understand more. Science changes a bit over time right? So as things evolve so does my understanding of these great mysteries in Egypt.

That said...there are many theories...but the science is just starting to put the pieces together (after all, it's been a mystery for thousands of years). Is our science better today (certainly some of it is)? There's much we don't know though...the levitation theory has baffled me for years!

We can deduce that somehow the "head" of the Sphinx is in much better shape...but really we are blindly guessing...using a limited understanding of our own science. What better and greater science might they have had then?

Some of it I bite into...some not so much! It could have been re-carved...that is plausible! Erosion and material are certainly considerations too! When I think about proportions...well that is irrelevant to me because a piece of art might very well only exist in the mind of the artist...who knows what those proportions might be!

I am happy for it to remain a mystery...I suppose that doesn't evoke much conversation but I am of the mind that is how it will remain...a mystery!

I am happy for it to remain a mystery...I suppose that doesn't evoke much conversation but I am of the mind that is how it will remain...a mystery!

Heh heh, it probably will , too!
But only because Egyptology won’t let independent groups test their assertions …
a reply to: jerryznv

I haven't had time to read this thread in its entirety, so forgive me if someone has mentioned this already.
But the Sphinx has always fascinated me because of what Edgar Cayce said about it, that a 'Hall of Records' is buried in a chamber underneath the paw:

Edgar Cayce & The Secret of the Sphinx

In the early 1970's, cavities were discovered by the Egyptians from Ain Shams University in Cairo and Stanford Research Institute, US, using ground-penetrating radar. Further cavities were discovered in 1977 by the SRI and funded by the US National Science Foundation.

www.lightofsirus.co.uk...#:~:text=This%20chamber%20is%20said%20to%20be%20the%20mythical,paw%2C%20b efore%20the%20end%20of%20the%2020th%20century.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Yes, it’s a very cool story I think.
Still confused as to why the Sphinx appears as a God to Thutmose , when it has a human face .

Many deities had both human and anthropomorphic faces.

What’s a shame for me , is that other groups other than those approved by Egyptology are not allowed to test these statements made by Egyptology itself.

It's not Egyptology... it's the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism. If you have a legitimate research question with legitimate research goals (and can prove that you know how to design a good research question) AND you can do the research without any damage to the structures, they'd let you. You have to apply with the Ministry and they don't approve everything -- my suggestion is that you approach them with a legit film team (like from the History Channel.)

Id like to see that “ harder piece “ theory for the head tested somehow, but it’s all off limits for anyone not involved.

It's been tested and confirmed since the 1700's. The site restrictions only began around the 1900's and got stricter after 1950 or so.

I feel that ALL the statements made by Egyptology should be tested by other independent groups to see if they achieve the same results/findings.

Egyptology's a multidisciplinary field -- I've seen (legit) papers presented at AERA and in journals by researchers in Art History, History, Mathematics, Linguistics, Physics (all those scans), and have seen contributions from geologists, engineers, anthropologists, and even paleobotanists (analyzing flowers and pollen). In addition they often work with locals, particularly those who still hand craft things like papyrus and reed boats and so forth.

But if you mean "reviewed and tested by ordinary people" - I doubt they'd know a good research design (and I speak honestly, having had my own research proposals sent through the grinder because the question was too broad.)

So, yes. The field gets papers from other disciplines and a good paper that has some interdisciplinary features will get picked on by scientists from many different fields. I've seen it happen at conferences.

All those controversial dates , and annoying made up figures could be resolved if others who aren’t part of the ‘clan’ would be allowed to test.

Serious question: if we gave you free rein on the plateau and said you could test anything for dates - what, exactly, would you do? How would you go about it? What do you use to tell the age of things and how could you do it without damage? What test do you use that would confirm (or debunk) the findings (all science research has to have a "falsifiable" point - that you know if you see a certain result that there's something wrong with your idea or with the experiment itself.)

So far what I've seen is things like "allow a psychic to spend a night in the King's Chamber" (which has been done with a lot of different results) and things like that. These "research ideas" usually aren't falsifiable (like have another psychic spend a night there without knowing what the first said... etc.) and wouldn't produce good data.

Frankly, I haven't seen any proposals that I would turn loose on any historic site... but we could discuss what one might look like if you like.

Still, I believe that for a people who could carve such stunning interpretations of the human body, animals, so beautifully and perfectly in the hardest of materials , how could they get the scale of the head so wrong compared to the body ?

When you stand in front of it, it is NOT badly proportioned. You have to get at a distance to see that it's wonky (and it was surrounded by a wall, so in general no one would look at the thing and say "wow... weird!"

We don't know how it turned out that way - what the decisions were that led to the odd proportions (change of sculpting crew?) The head had to have been carved first and then the body - so whatever the change was, it occurred after the head was roughed out (I suspect that during the carving of the head they ran into fractures that caused the head to be smaller than they wanted.)

More from Robert Schoch , this was the 90’s I believe .

During the seismic studies we also discovered evidence of a cavity or chamber under the left paw of the Sphinx. For what it is worth, some have suggested to me that this may be a "Hall of Records" (at the time I was not aware of Edgar Cayce's predictions along these lines). Additionally, we found some lesser (and previously known) cavities under and around the Sphinx, and the data also indicates that there may be a tunnel-like feature running the length of the body.

a reply to: RonnieJersey

...adding just fyi, I've been to Egypt and I've walked around the Sphinx and looked at the erosion and at the hole at the base of the tale, and even went inside the Great Pyramid. Would love to do it again someday!

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: bluesfreak

As far as I’m concerned, the only single sector refuting the true age of the Sphinx, are main stream archeologists.

/

...and geologists

aeraweb.org...

aeraweb.org...

originally posted by: Byrd
...adding just fyi, I've been to Egypt and I've walked around the Sphinx and looked at the erosion and at the hole at the base of the tale, and even went inside the Great Pyramid. Would love to do it again someday!

Yep done that three times. I mentioned before I was at the Sphinx when a brief (10-12) minute rain squall came through - right before a sand storm. One of the things I noticed is that Khafre's causeway and the slope of the Giza plateau funneled water and sand into the Sphinx enclosure and it moved quickly of course there being nothing to restrain it.

The age is dependent on someone knowing the different rate of erosion on different layers of limestone based on x rate of rain, modified by salt spalling and efflorescence over y number of years. The problem is that no one knows that as the climate situation is different now than 4+ thousand years ago.

That is one of the reasons other geologist disagree with Schoch who was a believer in Atlantis before he went. Other geologist - not believers in Atlantis - have different opinions.

Atlantis again eh?
Your ‘team’ love using that for discrediting others ,
even though you yourself plainly don’t understand the theories of isostacy regarding ice sheet collapse at this time.
I bet Schoch understands this WAY more than you .

Not ‘thread drift’ for you then?

a reply to: Hanslune