10,000BC isn't 100,000 years ago.The Pyramids wouldn't look anything like they do today if they were built 100,000 years ago. They would be eroded mounds at best, if totally gone and absorbed by the surrounding natural environment.
10,000BC isn't 100,000 years ago.The Pyramids wouldn't look anything like they do today if they were built 100,000 years ago. They would be eroded mounds at best, if totally gone and absorbed by the surrounding natural environment.
Except they don't correlate, beyond there being three of them. The pyramids are upside down compared to the Orion stars and they're off by well over 10 degrees compared to the stars' alignment with one another at the time.
If they are meant to correlate, the civilization that managed to align 60 ton blocks to an error margin of inches somehow managed to miss the mark by many meters when it came to where to put the fucking buildings.
I always liked this theory. The current head seems way too small.
10,000BC isn't 100,000 years ago.
Except they don't correlate, beyond there being three of them. The pyramids are upside down compared to the Orion stars and they're off by well over 10 degrees compared to the stars' alignment with one another at the time.
If they are meant to correlate, the civilization that managed to align 60 ton blocks to an error margin of inches somehow managed to miss the mark by many meters when it came to where to put the fucking buildings.
Everyone knows about the theory of the Pyramids of Giza aligning with the Orion's belt constellation. So researching little bit on this, the original statistics were refused by some scientist because it didn't align exactly with the belt. However, they calculated the alignment for 2550BC when they originally theorized that's about when the Pyramids were built. New calculations indicate that the alignment to the Orion's belt is precise in 10500BC, indicating that the Pyramids are much older. I just want to know if this is true and accepted?
I know how so many always like to look to science for answers with things like this. And science tells us that the erosion on the body of the sphynx is a lot more than the erosion on the head. So if we are to look at the sphynx from a geologists point of view, then it adds a huge amount of credibility to the theory. The erosion on the body is due to rain, a lot of it over a long period of time. It hasnt rained like that in Giza since thousands of years it was apparently constructed. The head does not have the same kind of erosion. But most just take egyptologists word as gospel about it and that it was all constructed at the same time.
I don't think Egyptologists have been able to adequately explain the erosion. They just skip over it.
Everyone knows about the theory of the Pyramids of Giza aligning with the Orion's belt constellation. So researching little bit on this, the original statistics were refused by some scientist because it didn't align exactly with the belt. However, they calculated the alignment for 2550BC when they originally theorized that's about when the Pyramids were built. New calculations indicate that the alignment to the Orion's belt is precise in 10500BC, indicating that the Pyramids are much older. I just want to know if this is true and accepted?
What if they built the pyramids a million years ago and just restored them every few thousand years?
Are you starting with the premise that the pyramids MUST be "aligned with" Orion's belt and using that to determine when they were built?
Seems more than a little backwards.
No they don't.
Some people don't spend their time looking up nonsense like alien mummies.
The pyramids aren't even real.
The differing rates of erosion on the Sphinx is because its material nature isn't consistent throughout the whole work. It's made of bedrock, as in, natural layers built up over time.
As for the Pyramids of the Giza complex, they were not built simultaneously, but in sequence, because you know, they were the tombs of successive Pharaohs. And frankly even if the pyramids were built to 'align' with Orion's Belt, I don't actually see the merit in this meaning they could only have built at X time so as to align precisely. When it came to ancient astronomy and symbolism, 'close enough' was the rule of thumb. So no, not really a strong argument to more than double their age, vs the existing material evidence.
It really isn't, you should look into Sphinx water erosion hypothesis and Göbekli Tepe, it's very interesting.I misread the number then. Still it seems rather unlikely a theory.
It really isn't, you should look into Sphinx water erosion hypothesis and Göbekli Tepe, it's very interesting.
Psah!
Everyone knows that the Pyramids were just landing pads for Goa'uld motherships.
Don't believe the lies.
The truth is out there.
I agree completely with the second half of what you said, but the evidence for water erosion on the Sphynx is pretty compelling. And it isn't due to the multiple types of building materials. Wind erosion looks very different than rain erosion and the base of the Sphynx is consistent with rain erosion.
I mean, I don't disagree. It's pretty easy to get lost in it though, there are very compelling works on the subject.I'm well aware of both and my opinion still stands.
I mean, I don't disagree. It's pretty easy to get lost in it though, there are very compelling works on the subject.
Only if you think of chronolflow as exerting in two linear dimensions
Why not just take materials from an area thats already been quarried?Geologists try to prove the Sphinx is much older, but other geologists prove them wrong.
The last word I heard is that they matched the stones used on the nearby temples, which we know were built during Khafra's reign, to the walls of the pit that the Sphinx is in. So if the pit was created by Khafra...
The sphynx is carved out of a big ass chunk of limestone. If the erosion on the body of the sphynx is due to water erosion then it makes no sense that there would be no evidence of water erosion on the head.
Most who predate the sphynx would put it somewhere around 5000 - 3100 BC, not 10,000 BC. Except for guys like John Anthony West.
Even dudes like Zahi Hawaas will admit to restoration type shit going on with the head to explain away the difference in erosion. Except it wasnt a restoration, It was VANDALISM!!! BELIEVE!
Yeah, there's very little actually written about it. And carbon dating is only as good as the carbon one finds ie not stone. Anyways, not sure I buy that they were erected that long ago, although it's not conclusive. Could have been a call back to that time because the earth underwent dramatic changes then.I just finished reading a book on the history of the pharaonic era of Egypt, and it turns out there's actually pretty good archaeological evidence of the original unification of the country and the founding of the First Dynasty. Not a lot of written details, to be sure, but there's still carbon dating... meaning we know pretty conclusively when it happened. And it sure as shit wasn't twelve thousand years ago.
There are plenty of other pyramids all over Egypt, and they don't line up with anything. Placement near another pyramid was usually just a way of trying to make oneself look more important and riding the coattails of the greater pharaoh.
The one true thing about the placement and orientation of the pyramids at Giza is that they're perfectly aligned with true north (or were, at the time of their construction... they're off by a fraction of a degree now).
Geologists try to prove the Sphinx is much older, but other geologists prove them wrong.
The last word I heard is that they matched the stones used on the nearby temples, which we know were built during Khafra's reign, to the walls of the pit that the Sphinx is in. So if the pit was created by Khafra...
How do you align a structure with the stars? Do you just look up and build the fucker under it?
This is a myth.The pyramids are pretty universally known, its the Sphinx that is debated about. It has weathering on it that can only be attributed to rain fall, and the last time there was consistent enough rain fall in Egypt would be about 10k years or so ago.