Secret Door in Great Sphinx leading to the Hall of Records (Cover up!)

a reply to: purplemer

Edgar Casey said there was a Hall of Records under the Sphinx's paw. I would think that would have gotten the attention of many historical and government researchers to look into and excavating it. I wouldn't be surprised if they've excavated it years ago. If they did find anything that would question human history or find anything that was beyond the technology of that time, I'm sure it would never see the light of day!

I still find the idea on how the pyramids were built hard to believe. A friend of mine who is a Mechanical Engineer visited the pyramids. Upon his return, he said nobody will convince him that the pyramids were built in the manner history books described. Unfortunately the control of public information is in the hands of a powerful minority.

originally posted by: purplemer
A little more information on the professor and his account of the expedition.

“Professor G. A. Reisner of Harvard University, who has been making a scientific examination of that mysterious Egyptian monument known as the Sphinx, has made several notable discoveries, which it is hoped will contribute materially towards the elucidation of a problem that has puzzled the ages. “Inside the Sphinx he found a temple dedicated to the sun.

It is older than any of the pyramids and its date is somewhere about 6,000 BC, the most ancient in Egyptian history. Mena, or Menes as his name is sometimes spelled, was the first king of Egypt of whom modern scientists have discovered historic record.

www.ancientarchitects.co.uk...

Makes me think of the Notoriety of Mena, Arkansas.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Seeing how huge they are in person must make a big impression, seeing all that precision on a grand scale.

It's a blow to the ego to think they were better than us at a lot of things.

originally posted by: LightAssassin
a reply to: fluff007

A good way to get yourself disappeared. Especially in current egyptian political climate.

Wait for a World Leader who is willing to out these secrets....then jump behind him 110%....ANYONE WILLING TO TLL THE TRUTHS is worth working with.

Either we kick down the door or we wait for a Champion to come do it for us.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Considering the mini-sphinx stature there, that headdress theory makes an immense amount of sense.

Well, that's a large, heavy addition--how would they have placed it precisely in that hole?

a reply to: waftist

Sometimes they provide good insight and I learn things, but other times they are just married to current theories that tend to lack any real evidence other than bandwagon and appeal-to-authority types of "logic."

I get it--it's hard to divorce generally accepted theories that one has embraced for decades, but sometimes that difficulty acts like a corrosive acid to advancing our understanding of true history.

(I'm not saying that I'm always right in every disagreement that I have with 'the resident experts,' but it does get very frustrating when they often even refuse to look into information/data proposed or hear what you're actually saying versus what they're expecting was said)

I think it’s the hole in the lower back of the Sphinx that needs to be examined, there is an imagine on Bright Insights YouTube video (linked earlier) that shows how deep the hole is but nothing else. The offical claim is it dead ends, but there are no photos to prove that.

Even the entrance on the bottom side, closer to the paws should be easier to get to than the one locked at the head.

Jimmy at Bright Insight does a good job at questioning the Sphinx and the underground tunnels that may lead to the great pyramid. Check out all his videos on the subject. He also supports the theory that the Richat Structure (The Eye of the Sahara) is what’s left of Atlantis. If that’s true and it could indicate a cataclysmic event in Africa that could even explain how the Sphinx was buried in sand.

Bright Insight

a reply to: purplemer

Nice post--something that I've been researching and finding interesting for many years.

Here are a few (amongst many) videos on the theories/excavations of the internals of the Sphinx, if you or others haven't already happened upon them:



This next one is rather boring, but it's a reading from a first-hand account of exploring the rear sphinx entrance (or shafts off of it).

Fascinating! I've never heard of any of these holes or hollow chambers in the Sphinx before. Awesome thread!

Curiously, we just rented Scooby Doo! in Where's my Mummy? from Netflix for my son. In it, Velma is helping to restore the Sphinx, along with an Egyptian prince, and they find Cleopatra's hidden tomb underneath the Sphinx. The movie takes huge liberties with actual history, and manages to cram in every cliché (mummies, curses, tombs with traps, buried treasure) but it's a fun story. There's a Lara Croft-esque character who's the villain (she's trying to find & steal Cleopatra's golden mask).

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive

The offical claim is it dead ends, but there are no photos to prove that.

That's the problem--we're always told to take their words for it.

In this video, if you start about the 1:35 mark, you'll see a half-ass visual of the sphinx shaft at the rump (so hard not to call it the "butt hole") and also the one on the back of the sphinx.

I mean, I see a lot of rubble at the bottom of the rump shaft (could be back fill just as easily as the "dead end") and there really isn't much seen as to the bottom of the shaft on the back of the sphinx.

Of course, like always, we are left to either just blindly accept the modern version and disregard older claims, or we are left to speculate and keep an open mind. I prefer the latter on many of these topics.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Am I wrong? I always thought the Sphinx was carved from a solid piece of limestone...

www.aeraweb.org...


Interesting story of the geology of the area.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thanks, that is the hole I was referring to at the bottom of the sphinx, I just had it in the wrong place. I guess it's not near the paws, oops.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, the original statue was carved from original bedrock.

Why the question? If you're referencing the stone blocks, all of those are from prior repairs/reconstruction attempts in the past and present.

You are not wrong...I'm still trying to figure out why you asked that, though...

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Nyiah

isn't there a theory out there that the head was carved and originally had the head of anubis?

It HAS to be re-carved, because if you look at the erosion and degradation of the original portions of the body versus the head, it's obvious that the carved body is much more ancient than the head. Also, the body was buried in sand for at least centuries, if not longer, which would protect the body more than the head, meaning that the head should be more weathered and degraded than the body if it were all carved at the same time.

Hopefully that makes sense.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Am I wrong? I always thought the Sphinx was carved from a solid piece of limestone...

It is carved from solid rock..

a reply to: purplemer

This was one of the best threads I have read on ATS in years. SnF!

This is not in my typical area of interest, but I have received an incredible amount of information to dig further with.
Thank you!

a reply to: [post]SlapMonkey[/post]

I have my masters in forensic archaeology. I was in pursuit of my phd, until I saw the politics of the academic world. I asked simple questions ( k n owing they were loaded of course) during my time in academia. One of them was - there's a proven shaft hole on the backside of the sphinx... if its a dead end- as claimed-

Why would the Egyptians take the time to carve in a tunnel that had no purpose?


Blank stares-

What about evidence of water erosion on the base of the sphinx that would point to its creation being much earlier... say around 13500 B.C?
Response- Ben maybe you should try sociology.



They dont like questions that risk everything they've staked their name, reputation, and pension on.

its not a door, its a hole caused by erosion

originally posted by: humanoidlord
its not a door, its a hole caused by erosion

What basis do you have for saying that. I provided evidence photographic and an account from a prominent and notable Professor Harvard Egyptologist George Andrew Reisner who surveyed the area. I have posted fact your claim seems backed up but nothing but an opinion.

a reply to: bknapple32

Yeah--I toyed with the idea all through my childhood into my late teens about going into archaeology or a similar field because of my love for ancient history and the pursuit of solving the puzzle that is the unknown ancient past.

Like you, I began to see the stains of tainted mentalities surrounding many subjects in which I was interested, to the point that I completely abandoned that course of though and instead pursued something else. It's a sad reality, but luckily, it seems as though the tide is slowly turning, at least as it pertains to the willingness by academics to at least consider the possibilities that their long-held theories and versions of history could be incorrect.

This will be a slow process, but I do believe that we will see a major shift in thinking within our lifetimes.

Wishful thinking--someone's got to do it, right?

So, how is sociology treating you?