new video claims to prove the sphinx is anubis

id like to start by saying i dont claim to know what the sphinx originally was. the author of the video says that the sphinx predates the first dynasty. i agree with that based on the geological evidence put forth by robert schoch. his overlay in the video is fairly convincing. the dates for worship of anubis dont come close to matching up with the date for construction he proposed. i have been trying to get an explanation for the mismatched dates by replying to his comment under the video. he doesnt seem to want to answer my question. im hoping someone here can help me understand how his theory could be accurate. my name in the comments will come up as tyler labine. any information you can share is appreciated. www.youtube.com...

a reply to: fightzone58



There ya go...

a reply to: abago71

thats the same video. are you just putting it in the site?

a reply to: fightzone58

Just embedding the video for you.
More people will watch it that way.

Ive thought the same for years. It was described long ago as the terrible dog. The erosion of the body does not match the lack of erosion of the recarved head. That body is very old, and predates egypt

a reply to: fightzone58

I think it has merit. An Anubis head would "fit" better. The current head just seems an after thought.

Obviously, I have no proof one way or another.

a reply to: abago71

thanks for embedding it. i dont post much. didnt know how

a reply to: visitedbythem

i agree with the age. robert schoch has all but proven it predates dynastic egypt with the water erosion theory on the enclosure walls. the problem is that worship of anubis does not predate dynastic egypt according to history

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Ive thought the same for years. It was described long ago as the terrible dog.

Citation please.

originally posted by: visitedbythemThe erosion of the body does not match the lack of erosion of the recarved head. That body is very old, and predates egypt

There are over a dozen distinct layers of limestone that the sphinx is carved from (it's part of the bedrock.)

The different layers have different properties. The head is one of the hardest layers in the whole carving.
In fact, the head is part of the limestone formation the Egyptians used for quarrying stone. It picks back up as a layer of bedrock downhill from the sphinx site and was heavily quarried for the stone.
They didn't quarry from any of the bedrock layers matching the body - because they knew a little bit about stone.

One of the very weakest members of the formation is from about the middle of the neck down into the shoulders.
It's unlikely in the extreme that the head could have been much bigger than it is and still be on the monument. And Anubis has that long snout to boot.

Highly unlikely. Almost certainly it was never Anubis.

Harte

If it was originally the effigy of a canine god, wouldn't those wide front paws be skinny like a canines?

I am more inclined to agree with Hancock's interpretation. In that the head was the head of a lion. Also, I have read that the snout of a canine carving would have broken off because the statue structure with lime stone couldn't support it.

originally posted by: fightzone58
a reply to: visitedbythem

i agree with the age. robert schoch has all but proven it predates dynastic egypt with the water erosion theory on the enclosure walls. the problem is that worship of anubis does not predate dynastic egypt according to history

Schoch's date is based on subsurface erosion as he interprets it from data on soundings made by banging a steel plate with a hammer and recording the echos.

This subsurface erosion is cause by exposure to air - water has no effect on it.

Schoch's actual hypothesis is that the front of the sphinx is older than the rear based on those readings.
What Schoch doesn't mention is that, using his own logic, the data itself shows the sides to be "older" than the front.

He also doesn't mention:

The rear of the Sphinx only had one sample sounding taken.

The bedrock he's measuring is not level in the layers, so he's measuring different members of the bed (with different properties) when he moves from one side to the other, or when he moves from front to back,

At least one of the layers contains an entire fossil coral reef within the limestone. As you can imagine, that layer would show wildly different readings depending on what was imbedded in it at the point where the soundings were taken.

Given the established fact that the Sphinx temple was constructed from the stone that was removed from around the sphinx (the sphinx was carved downward, only the head lies above the bedrock there,) and the layout of that temple complies with Egyptian customary temple layouts, and the fact that Mark Lehner was able to establish Old Kingdom construction that predates the sphinx (by positioning, IIRC,) it's safe to say Schoch's hypothesis is not supported by the facts in hand, and is contradicted by almost all of those facts.

Harte

a reply to: fightzone58

if you do not agree with the likes of Zahi Hawass, Mark Lehner.
you will not receive your degree from harte university.
all questions and queries have been answered.....there is nothing for future students to enquire about.
thank you harte university for your subjectiveness .

a reply to: Harte

i must have missed that part of robert schoch's research. i was referring to his work on the walls around the structure with the erosion going top to bottom rather than side to side. in my understanding of geology wind erosion never does that. i have been led to understand that is caused by water runoff. however i am not an expert of geology or ancient egypt. i am open to explanations as to how wind erosion could do that

a reply to: tri-lobe-1

just wait and see what hartes reply is....
hey harte…. have you ever physically visited Egypt??
hey harte...are your opinions based on books by others??….. because you have got nothing else.....
opinion followed by opinion....read but you cant reproduce any thing or copy any item that you are against.....
history is not a science to day.....in the future it might be....today it is still subjective..
soft hands trying to explain how hard hands do their thing....
harte….I think that you are full of subjectivness…..
your posts are full of it....on this sites and others..
why are you considered a troll on the site that you hate the author??
is it because of your behaviour......subjective??? like a history Nazi...….

originally posted by: fightzone58
a reply to: Harte

i must have missed that part of robert schoch's research. i was referring to his work on the walls around the structure with the erosion going top to bottom rather than side to side. in my understanding of geology wind erosion never does that. i have been led to understand that is caused by water runoff. however i am not an expert of geology or ancient egypt. i am open to explanations as to how wind erosion could do that

Neither am I, but I read Schoch's paper.
Schoch's date is based on his own assumption that the rear of the sphinx was carved during the Old Kingdom. He says that explains why it is "younger" (even though he bases this on one single data point.)
He makes no mention of the very real fact that the method used assumes a uniform bed of stone, not layers of limestone with widely varying properties.

Harte

originally posted by: tri-lobe-1
a reply to: tri-lobe-1

just wait and see what hartes reply is....
hey harte…. have you ever physically visited Egypt??
hey harte...are your opinions based on books by others??….. because you have got nothing else.....
opinion followed by opinion....read but you cant reproduce any thing or copy any item that you are against.....
history is not a science to day.....in the future it might be....today it is still subjective..
soft hands trying to explain how hard hands do their thing....
harte….I think that you are full of subjectivness…..
your posts are full of it....on this sites and others..
why are you considered a troll on the site that you hate the author??
is it because of your behaviour......subjective??? like a history Nazi...….

I take the positions I take because I can read and I don't mind reading.
What's your excuse?

Harte

a reply to: fightzone58
Anybody can say anything that was there before because it's gone. But this guys interpretation falls with his own correlation to an Anubis statue. Everybody knows that the head has been re carved. The hole in the head is only to accommodate for the Egyptian pharonic crowns when the Egyptians re carved it.
Now look at his Anubis statue, it clearly shows an arched back whereas the Sphinx has a straight back. Anubis has protruding haunches, the sphinx does not.
But the biggest thing is the Egyptians worshipped Anubis and no Pharaoh worth his position would desecrate Anubis for his own image.
I think the best interpretation, from Schock and Bauval, that it was originally a lion as with precession and an original date of 10 to 11 thousand years ago the Sphinx would be looking at the constellation of Leo.

a reply to: fightzone58

Just thinking out loud… if ancient astronauts (or anybody else) built it as Anubis, they would have had to of supported the long nose. Meaning they ran something like a long metal piece from the neck out to the end of the nose and built around it. Otherwise the nose would fall off.

If they did so, that large piece of metal still might exist somewhere on Giza. Instead of being buried in the sand, it might have been used in some other building project.

Any object facing east will be pointing directly at any of the zodiacal constellations in different times as the Earth precesses.

I can't say if the head has been recarved or not. But if it has, I can say that there's no reason to think it was either Anubis or a lion.

The Leo thing is too much of a reach, considering that the recognition of the constellation Leo came from Sumer, where it had previously been known as the "Big Dog."

Egypt certainly didn't recognize Leo as a constellation. There's no cave drawings of Leo. There's nothing suggestive of the constellation Leo anywhere near the time frame the fringe gives for the sphinx.
There's lots of stars and lots of ways to correlate them.

And, there's no question that the Egyptians built the temple with the stone from carving out the sphinx enclosure. Before they did that, the head was just a large knob of harder limestone sticking up out of the bedrock. If it was carved at all, I don't see why it couldn't have been, say, a chimpanzee.

That, at least, would be interesting.

Harte

Lastly, any object facing east will be pointing directly at any of the zodiacal constellations in different times as the Earth precesses.

No your still thinking about the Egyptians. It was carved well before the what we now call the Egyptians and certainly well before Sumer civilisation.
It was carved when the Sahara was an open grassland with actual lions roaming free.