Amazing to think all that evidence of civilisation is still out there to be uncovered! About 8000BC apparently the sahara was savannah grassland and had plentiful rainfall. I always thought that a young civilisation couldn't have constructed the pyramids - it had to be one that had matured.
Well, you probably, I'm guessing, know about the geological studies of the Sphinx, or studies of the Sphinx by geologists anyway. That they say it shows signs of weathering from frequent rainstorms which mean it was around - according to them - at least as far back as 8,000 BC, and hence not a part of the ancient Egyptian civilisation we know of.
V
Well, you probably, I'm guessing, know about the geological studies of the Sphinx, or studies of the Sphinx by geologists anyway. That they say it shows signs of weathering from frequent rainstorms which mean it was around - according to them - at least as far back as 8,000 BC, and hence not a part of the ancient Egyptian civilisation we know of.
V
Absolutely! Weather patterns change as does the vegetation - but the archeologists don't recognise it and say the Sphinx is a lot newer. To me it was obviously a lion, facing East, and for the age of Leo! It was then altered at a very much later date. I also believe the pyramids (Giza) were built about the same time as the sphinx and was no more a tomb than the pyramid attached to the Louvre - but then I am being controversial.;) I am thinking at least 10,000 years ago.
There are some assumptions that archeologists make that infuriate me - like when they find something that they don't recognise it is always attributed to being used for worship of some unknown deity!
I know, I know .... archeology, if it can be called a science at all, has to be up there (or down there) as a contender for the most badly conducted science of all. I don't know if you've read Forbidden Archeology? Hundreds of examples in a very thick tome of where something has been found which is completely out of the current archeological world-view, and therefore is discounted, not reported. ("That stainless steel implement must have fallen into the hole while we were digging.")
V
Hi V
I believe I have read quotes from it - like the gold necklace found in a lump of coal in Northumberland which has since disappeared. Oh and the iron bits in the so-called Khufu pyramid. The exquisite gold jewelery found at Ur was not the product of a young civilisation, etc. Oh and the maps of Antarctica which show it as two large islands with a channel between them and rivers running to the sea ... and the like.
Looks like I have some more reading coming up!!
The map isn't in the Forbidden Archeology book but is amazing all the same. It's thought to be copied from an earlier map. But the point is that it accurately shows the real land-mass of Antarctica as it would be if not covered with an immensely thick icecap. The ice extends out to sea, so only modern technology can show us the real coastline. But that map has the coastline, and where now it's ice a mile (?) thick, the map shows rivers and mountain chains accurately as they would exist without the ice.
Unless there's another explanation, and I don't think anyone's come up with one, the original map, logically, is from a time so ancient that Antarctica had no ice. Yet it must have taken untold ages to build up an icecap like that.
V