Holy Shit! Zahi Hawass Will Have A Stroke!

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:09 pm

http://mgu.bg/geoarchmin/naterials/64Manichev.pdf

The absolute mark of the upper large erosion hollow of the Sphinx corresponds to the level of water surface which took place in the Early Pleistocene. The Great Egyptian Sphinx had already stood on the Giza Plateau by that geological (historical) time.

The Early Pleistocene ended 781,000 ybp. Which would mean that Homo Erectus got off his boats long enough to build it!

dannan14 · Post by **dannan14** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:14 pm

As i read it, the supposed water erosion marks appeared only to be in the rock the the Sphinx stands on, not on the statue itself. To me that doesn't necessarily indicate that the statue has been there since the erosion happened.

i'm also having trouble accepting that wave action is the only possible cause. Why couldn't the softer layers just naturally eroded faster with the wind and sand smoothing it out?

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:41 pm

Why couldn't the softer layers just naturally eroded faster with the wind and sand smoothing it out?

For most of recorded history, the Sphinx has been buried in sand up to its next. It is in a pit and the desert seems bound and determined to fill the pit with sand. I'm pretty sure that Hancock discussed this issue.

E.P. Grondine · Post by **E.P. Grondine** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:34 am

Minimalist wrote: For most of recorded history, the Sphinx has been buried in sand up to its next. It is in a pit and the desert seems bound and determined to fill the pit with sand. I'm pretty sure that Hancock discussed this issue.

Hi Min -

"For most of recorded history"? I don't think so.

One fact ignored by the "geologists" who the cult archaeologists rely on is
that for most of recorded history, visitors would urinate against the walls of the enclosure.

Judging from the architecture of the near by temple, based on its resembles with structures on Malta and in Turkey, one can probably date the Sphinx to pre-dynastic times, but not much earlier.

I don't think you've gotten a copy of my guide inside today's cult archeology industry yet. You will be amazed.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:15 am

It was buried when Thutmoses IV uncovered it. Herodotus, who has much to say about the Pyramids, never mentions the Sphinx, indicating that it was buried again, by the 5th century BC. Pliny, in the first century AD writes about it suggesting that the Romans cleared the sand away once again. From then to Napoleon, who found it buried once again, we can only suppose that the desert quickly reclaimed the pit. Caviglia dug out a portion in 1817 but the whole site, as we see it today was not cleared until 1925. It seems that it was only fully exposed for a couple of centuries. From the death of Rameses II to Augustus the history of Egypt is a steady downward spiral interrupted only briefly by attempts to reassert itself. It seems as if they would have had far more important things to do than move sand away from a statue.

I've previously opined on these boards that, unless one wants to think that the ancient Egyptians were completely stupid, they would have instantly realized that digging a pit in the desert was not the wisest course of action for the location of a major sculpture. Blowing sand had to be a feature of their lives and someone would have had to notice that the wind kept blowing sand into the pit they were digging.

For that reason, Schoch's suggestion that the Sphinx was built before the area became desicated makes the most sense. It doesn't seem so stupid if it was built at a time when there was rainfall and vegetation instead of sand. This latest assertion is way out there but I'd love to hear what "Khafre-Built-It-Because-We-Say-He-Built-It" Club has to say on the issue. Should be amusing.

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:10 am

For that reason, Schoch's suggestion that the Sphinx was built before the area became desicated makes the most sense. It doesn't seem so stupid if it was built at a time when there was rainfall and vegetation instead of sand. This latest assertion is way out there but I'd love to hear what "Khafre-Built-It-Because-We-Say-He-Built-It" Club has to say on the issue. Should be amusing.

There is nothing wrong with a proto-civilization carving the Sphinx, probably with a lion's head, prior to the severe dessication of the western Egyptian desert. It's the most reasonable conclusion and does not mean there was a super-civilization or anything such as that at the site. Given a little time and a regional monarch and the lion is carved (obviously, the lion king's name was Mustafa).

What esoteric secrets does this important edifice hold for mankind? Probably zilch.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:48 pm

As Min pointed out, once the sand began to filter in no further erosion by sand could take place below that level.
That would mean to me that the upper levels would show more erosion than the protected lower levels, this seems not to be the case,
The vertical erosion is commensurate with water erosion rather than sand.
The problem is that Egyptologists are wedded to the idea that it was carved in the dynastic period, if it was standing in isolation I suspect the word of the geologists would be supreme, that is it is water erosion.

Roy.