posted
I don't believe the Sphinx is as old as that website suggests, 24,000 years, at least not as a Sphinx. As a natural formation, yes, it may very well be 24,000 years old.
The lateral grooves in the Sphinx body are clearly the result of wind erosion. The important thing is that they were not formed after the Sphinx was made, but long before that. The Sphinx body is obviously a naturally shaped formation, commonly known as a "yardang". Those wind erosion marks were already in the yardang at the time that the top knobby part was carved into the shape of either a lion's or a Pharaoh's head. There are yardangs formed naturally in the shape of a lion like that. The Egyptians simply took advantage of such a yardang. That's why the head is so much less eroded than the body. That's the only part that was freshly carved in pyramid times. That's also why the body is so squarish looking, clearly observed on the chest part. Nobody would purposely carve a lion in that shape. It would have been more rounded. They simply left it in its natural shape and added on the paws with brickwork.
Now you may ask what about the erosion on the Sphinx enclosure? That really is water erosion from after the enclosure was cut. Apparently, substantial water did flow over the enclosure at certain times. I don't know how or why but it obviously did happen. It also was obviously not from direct rainfall on the stone, or the Sphinx body would be eroded in the same way instead of the simple wind erosion we see. So it seems that water ran down into the enclosure from the higher ground. How did it get up there in the first place? I don't know, maybe rain running off the sides of the pyramids, which would probably add up pretty fast, or maybe large amounts of water were used in the construction of the pyramids somehow and that's where it ran off. Like suppose they made trenches filled with water to float the blocks from the quarries to the pyramid sites on small barges. That would cut down on a lot of dragging. Then later the trenches would have been filled back in. But what if they had some mishaps and a trench broke or something? That would have sent huge amounts of water running down the hill.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
You misunderstood the article. Read it again very carefully as there is a lot of information. As I understood, according to Gryf144 who is the author of this theory “the Sphinx and the pyramids were built several dozen thousands years ago” - he says “they are at least 24,000 years old” and that this age is “probably many times longer”. And they were not built by the Egyptians. If you have any questions, you should register on eioba.com and ask the author of the article not me. What is very interesting in his theory to me is the fact - which this theory definitely proves - of the change of the position of the continents during the successive cycles of the changes of the poles. According to him: “the level of the terrain on which these structures are built must have changed its position at certain time intervals” He says that “our solar system within the period of time which approximates to twelve thousand years goes twice through the plane which has an intensified magnetic influence and which is situated in the pole axis of the galaxy” According to him our planet is “at present coming near to the end of the next cycle”. His article: “What will change in 2012?” may help you to understand the essence of his theory: http://www.eioba.com/a89509/what_will_change_in_2012Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Now you may ask what about the erosion on the Sphinx enclosure? That really is water erosion from after the enclosure was cut. Apparently, substantial water did flow over the enclosure at certain times. I don't know how or why but it obviously did happen. It also was obviously not from direct rainfall on the stone, or the Sphinx body would be eroded in the same way instead of the simple wind erosion we see. So it seems that water ran down into the enclosure from the higher ground. How did it get up there in the first place? I don't know, maybe rain running off the sides of the pyramids, which would probably add up pretty fast, or maybe large amounts of water were used in the construction of the pyramids somehow and that's where it ran off. Like suppose they made trenches filled with water to float the blocks from the quarries to the pyramid sites on small barges. That would cut down on a lot of dragging. Then later the trenches would have been filled back in. But what if they had some mishaps and a trench broke or something? That would have sent huge amounts of water running down the hill.
I like your idea a lot but would point out a couple of things.
There have been canals or ditches excavated which run away from the Great Pyramid but these follow the terraine downward so wouldn't work for floating blocks.
If there were such fascilities as you suggest they would have to be pretty substantial to float a container large enough to hold the wide stones. In the desert heat and dryness the work required to fill and maintain water levels in these would be substantial. Remember that pulling stones on flat surfaces is relatively easy work compared to pulling them uphill.
If there were a water source at the pyramid then this would make an excellent means of moving stones. But if there were a water source at the pyramid then they might not need this means of moving stone.
When it's considered that there are man made passages ubder the pyramid which have water erosion from water moving upward one must suspect here might have been a water source. Herodotus said that the ancient Egyptians were in the habit of digging holes for water since it was easier than digging canals.
Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I guess if there were East/West canals dug, they would have been discovered. It was just a notion. Probably not worth the effort of making canals just to move the blocks the short distance from the quarries to the pyramids. I guess the erosion is just from rainfall. The causeway from Khafre's Pyramid would have made sort of a dam, catching all water running down from North of it and guiding it right into the Sphinx enclosure, unless they made some kind of drainage ditches.
In regard to the website about the 24,000 year old Sphinx, unfortunately the author is kind of a wacky person who claims to be the Messiah. He's a Polish guy. I've seen his stuff posted on another forum. Basically, just a bunch of lunacy. If somebody else wants to believe him, they're certainly welcome to do so, but self appointed Messiah's just aren't a reliable source of information, in my personal view.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Which is why I am always weary of folks who make any odd claims about the pyramids and sphinx such as changing the dates of construction.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oknaw10 I think the knowledge presented in his articles is unique. You call him a “wacky person”, if he was such a person he would not write such articles. Djehuti I guess from your opinion that you have not read this theory at all, or if you have read it you do not understand it. It is a theory – he did not change any dates of construction, according to him “the Sphinx and the pyramids were built several dozen thousands years ago” and I think that all the information he presented proves this theory, so you cannot say that it is an “odd claim”.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually find the Messiah's stuff unpleasant to read. It's so wacky that it's irritating. Look what he says here;
"Also the level of the pyramids which have the same level as the sculpture of the Sphinx is not in agreement with the levels of the surface of the water at the time when it was channeling the rock from which the Sphinx was made."
What the heck is that supposed to mean? The pyramids are almost 200 feet higher in elevation than the Sphinx. Easy to tell with Google Earth.
The whole thing is just silly. The pyramids were clearly built in the time period 2500-2700 BC, certainly not 24,000 years ago. It wasn't even a desert there at that time. Besides, the mortar of the Great Pyramid has been carbon dated. Though the results were older than expected, they sure weren't 24,000 years old. They were a few centuries older than expected but that's because of the use of Nile water, which is full of old dead organic matter from centuries prior. If you took some Nile mud and carbon dated it, it'd probably come out pretty old. Point being, none of the samples came back older than the 3000s BC.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Which is why I am always weary of folks who make any odd claims about the pyramids and sphinx such as changing the dates of construction.
I don't know if you were referring to me there or Gryf144. If you meant me, because my theory says that the pyramids and Sphinx were built in the early 2600s BC instead of the 2500s BC, I would hardly call that a stretch of the imagination. Egyptologists are only making an educated guess as to the dates when the various Pharaohs ruled. They could very easily be off by about 40-50 years, as I suggest. Not too likely they're off by more than 20,000 years though.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
You are quoting a sentence that is taken out of the context. In the sentence before the one you quoted he is speaking about the grooves on the sculpture of the Sphinx that “are not parrarel to each other”. This is the level of the pyramids and of the Sphinx in relation to the levels of the surface of the water he is speaking about. What he means here is the fact that the level of the pyramids and the level of the Sphinx is different from “the levels of the surface of the water”. The context is very important to understand everything clearly. In the next sentence after the one you quoted he says again: “A different level of the pyramids and of the Sphinx than the level of the water at the time when the rock was being channeled says explicitly : the level of the terrain on which these structures are built must have changed its position at certain time intervals.” So, what he means here is the level of the terrain. He says that: “The age of the Sphinx and of the pyramids which I have defined as the minimum one for 24 thousand years is probably many times longer. The characteristic grooves on the surface of the sculpture of the Sphinx are not parallel to each other. Such a position of these grooves speaks of the fact that the level of the terrain was changing in the successive cycles when our solar system was going through the plane which has an intensified magnetic influence and which is situated in the pole axis of the galaxy. The ten meters of the height of the sculpture which are covered by the grooves speak of the fact that the level of the oceans on the Earth was changing. Such big changes must have had specific reasons, probably these were the successive changes connected with the successive astronomical cycles when the solar system was going through the plane which has an intensified magnetic influence and which is situated in the pole axis of the galaxy. Considering the fact that each such process of going through the plane which has an intensified magnetic influence and which is situated in the pole axis of the galaxy indicates the time of twelve thousand years it is possible to assume that there were a few of them.”
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe the levels of the terrain did change at the time when the limestone strata were formed, but that was long before the Sphinx was made from the yardang. I guess I picked a bad part to quote. The article is so bizarre that it was irritating to look for good parts to quote. Didn't you notice that the author writes in a very odd and unclear manner? That's one of the trademarks of this Gryf144 guy, bizarre articles that are hard to make any sense of. The simple fact is that the basic premise of the article, the Sphinx and pyramids being 24,000 years old, is not plausible. As I mentioned, there are no carbon dating results giving dates prior to the 3000s BC, so that right there renders Gryf's hypothesis completely implausible. He might have gotten away with suggesting that the Sphinx, alone, was that old because we have no carbon dating on it but we certainly do have carbon dating on the Giza pyramids and they prove conclusively that they weren't built before the 3000s BC. In order to convince me that his article may be correct, you will have to explain away the carbon dating results. Can you do that?
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
According gryf144 “the level of the terrain was changing in the successive cycles when our solar system was going through the plane which has an intensified magnetic influence and which is situated in the pole axis of the galaxy” and not as you suggest “at the time when the limestone strata were formed”. And “the basic premise of the article” as you say is not this that the Sphinx and pyramids are 24,000 years old. According to gryf144 “they are at least 24,000 years old” and this age is “probably many times longer”. And the essence of this article, according to me, is the fact that our planet is “at present coming near to the end of the next cycle”.
You say that "the author writes in a very odd and unclear manner”. I do not think so. Everybody has his own unique style of writing.
Sorry, but I completely do not care if you believe in this theory or not and I do not wish to convince you of anything. If you want to know the answer to your question register on eioba.com and ask the author not me. I have already told you this at the beginning when you asked a question.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, I'd join his forum and ask him directly, if he understood English or I understood Polish. Like I told you, the guy is Polish. He has somebody translate his stuff and post it for him on English forums. How would he know about the cycles of the solar system, did his father God tell him? Like I said, he's a wacko who claims to be the Messiah. He has his forum posts signed "The Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of Sion". Look, here's his whole web page posted on another forum I use http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1216
He's another one of those "the world is about to be recycled so it's time to leave our physical containers and go to the next level, here drink this" guys.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also ask you, Sunne, if you are one of Gryfs minions, like Dorothy. The only people who post stuff on forums about him is his cult followers. Therefore, you are probably one of them. What happened to Dorothy, outlived her usefulness?
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find this theory very interesting that's why I posted it on this forum as I saw that you do not have it among the topics - and it is “the latest theory”. Personally, I do not care what you think about him or what other people think, what is the most important for me is his knowledge. I look forward to his next articles.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see, sorry I suspected you of being a Gryf144 minion. Thanks for posting the link. Some people may find it interesting. I give him credit for effort. He certainly writes a lot of articles. I guess if he wants to think he's the Messiah he's free to do so. I've seen a few of his articles. haven't seen one that I believe yet, but they're something to look at when you have some spare time on your hands. Usually have nice pictures.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic