The Great Sphinx

[Terr Fangbite]

I can believe this theory about 12000bc civilization. I'm not going to go teach it to anyone, but I can believe something like that. However what really annoys me are these "scientists" who say that the sphinx was taken to mars on a field trip, or that the pyramids are actually a electro-magnetic powersource for aliens who first built them. I find it very frustrating when I want to read a book about myths regarding a place, actual evidence behind a place and instead find some blithering idiot spewing crap which is based perfectly on science if you have the reasoning skills of a 2-year old. Atlantis is the greatest on this list of crap I deal with when all I'm trying to do is just read up on possible theories (good ones like some mediterranean island which blew its top). Alternative theories are great for science, it needs something to challenge the established "facts" but when the alternative theory sounds more like a bad late night sci-fi thriller, leave it in the trash where it was found.

[Mark S]

I've seen that show as well. It didn't seem like anyone was jumping to a conclusion. They saw the erosion pattern, matched it to water erosion, determined a date that that amount of water erosion could have happened, and hypothisised that the sphinx was carved before it is believed to have been. I don't remember them saying that it was a lost civilization (maybe they did but I don't remember that), just that it was likely the head was carved first into a lion's head, like a totem, and the rest carved later by later settlers to the region.

I'm more interested in the supposed chambers under the thing found with the sonic scans. Apparently they don't have the funding or permission open them up though.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I've seen that show as well. It didn't seem like anyone was jumping to a conclusion. They saw the erosion pattern, matched it to water erosion, determined a date that that amount of water erosion could have happened, and hypothisised that the sphinx was carved before it is believed to have been. I don't remember them saying that it was a lost civilization (maybe they did but I don't remember that), just that it was likely the head was carved first into a lion's head, like a totem, and the rest carved later by later settlers to the region.

I'm more interested in the supposed chambers under the thing found with the sonic scans. Apparently they don't have the funding or permission open them up though.

I've read their books, where they really go quite far out. And suffice to say there are numerous other explanations for the erosion. The Halls of Ma'at website has quite a lot on their particular brand of anti-science.

[Sokartawi]

The Sphinx and the Pyramids are supposed to line up with Leo and Orions's belt. Also, they are supposed to line up at times of the year with the 'Face' on Mars and the 'Pyramid' there.

I don't know about the stuff on mars, but the sphinx only lines up with leo when you would have looked a the sky at 10500 BC. Same thing with the Pyramids, they only exactly match Orion's belt at 10500 BC.

[Zoink]

I saw the show as well a while ago. The problem I have with the theory is that it's not peered reviewed. Sure he found a geologist who would agree with him based on a small snapshot of the sphinx. But, the question is: how many did he go through t'ill he found the one(s) who'd support his claim? Typically a show like this will find somebody with a degree that gives a good explanation, then cut to a 'skeptic' who gives a bad or obviously biased explanation. The end result: he's made to look rational individual fighting for truth (when he's really fighting for his theory) while anyone who'd disagree is a biased traditionalist.

How about showing it to many geologists with a complete picture of the sphinx, with a detailed knowledge of specific material of the sphinx, its location, sample the rocks, etc, etc. There could be other factors that led to increased weathering on the sphinx, while other stones had less. I wouldn't know however since I've only really seen limited opinions (all on that show).

[Frank Hipper]

I watched an outraged archeologist on some recent TV show effortlessly remove a hand-sized flake of stone out of the Sphinx encloure's wall with his fingernail!

If it has the name West, Hancock, or Bauval, I consider it as worthwhile as something authored by Kent Hovind or the Rev. Dr. Dr. Dr. Carl Baugh.

[LadyTevar]

Silly thought:

How much evidence do we have on the civilation that built Stonehenge? Have we nailed a definate date on them?

Now, if 'primatives' can cut and fit stones for Stonehenge, why couldn't 'primatives' have roughly a lion-like shape into a stone outcropping by the Nile.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Silly thought:

How much evidence do we have on the civilation that built Stonehenge? Have we nailed a definate date on them?

Now, if 'primatives' can cut and fit stones for Stonehenge, why couldn't 'primatives' have roughly a lion-like shape into a stone outcropping by the Nile.

Yes, we have, and they're old, but not that old. Stonehenge Phase One was about 2950 to 2900 BCE. Not much older than the Great Sphinx's current age, and nearly exactly the time (a bit later, even) it would have been built if it was pre-Dynastic instead of early-Dynastic. The level of technology available to Britain in that period was about the same, very broadly speaking, as PPNA Jericho (Britain was actually one of the most populous areas of Europe at the time, excluding the Mediterranean basin). So, again, there's no reason why it couldn't have been done around 7000 BCE, but also no proof that a civilization as sophisticated even as that of Jericho existed at that time to carve it.

[Zoink]

Now, if 'primatives' can cut and fit stones for Stonehenge, why couldn't 'primatives' have roughly a lion-like shape into a stone outcropping by the Nile.

I don't think anybody is saying it's impossible. Its just that the Egyptians building the thing is the most likely scenario, barring any evidence to the contrary.

The criticism I have is that evidence presented in the documentary isn't peered reviewed. What the guy on the show said makes sense (I understand erosion), but I'm not a geologist and I need other geologist to comment on the actual research (his data, papers, detailed analysis... if any) he did to arrive at his conclusions.

Is the guy speaking 'off the cuff' or did he do a detailed analysis of the Sphinx's structure and weathering patterns? Its been a while since I saw the program, but I just remember some basic opinions and comparisons about erosion, and a lot of criticism about how nobody wants to believe him.

[Zac Naloen]

I Find it quite funny that hancock and bauvel and their ilk consider themselves Experimental archaeoglogists.

Sure, they've found lots of evidence around the world of pre 12000 ad civilistations, but htne just as many people consider this evidence to be circumstantial and wishful thinking.