Mdsign Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harte Wrote:
>
> > Lastly, I'd like to point out to these
> believers
> > that the Sphinx faces due East into the sunrise.
>
> > It is therefore true that, at some point in
> time,
> > the sphinx will directly face EVERY zodiacal
> > constellation.
> >
> > Harte
>

Quote

Is there any creature in the zodiac that resembles
> the sphinx in your opinion?

I don't see the relevance, since the earliest representation of that constellation as a lion was well after the sphinx was carved, as was already pointed out above.

As I stated much earlier, in Mesopotamia (where the zodiac comes from - Egypt didn't have one,) the constellation was originally referred to as the "Big Dog."
But, of course, it looks exactly like a lion, if you overlay a drawing of a lion over it.


> Dr shoch:
> [url=http://www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.htm> l]age of the sphinx[/url]
Schoch's original paper:

"Based on either this chain of reasoning, or the scenario suggested immediately above-and [b]given that the weathering of the limestone floor of the Sphinx enclosure is fifty to 100 percent deeper on the front and sides of the figure than at its rear[/b]-we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front end) may have been carried out ca. [b]7000 to 5000 B.C.[/b] (in other words, that the carving of the core body of the figure is approximately fifty to 100 percent older than ca. 2500 B.C.). This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago." [url=http://www.robertschoch.net/Redating%20the%20Great%20Sphinx%20of%20Giza.htm]Link[/url]

IOW, whatever Schoch may say in his blog, his actual academic paper on the subject clearly shows his estimated date is based [i]entirely[/i] on [i]subsurface[/i] weathering of the limestone. This is a very dodgy means of dating anything, especially considering the facts about the limestone varying in hardness over very short distances (former reef) and the fact that he only had a [i]single[/i] sample reading from the rear section of the enclosure.

Harte



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 24-Jan-16 22:46 by Harte.