What's really beneath the Sphinx?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You believe a convicted criminal "prophet" with a long history of failed predictions over scores of Egyptologists, archaeologists, and geologists and their data? Interesting...

a reply to: admirethedistance

Id love to see some background on you and Harte.

Maybe a background "check" would be good too, to ensure you yourself are not a convicted criminal.

I mean, for all I know, you're a high school drop out who failed history. *shrug*

On topic :

The water table is only 15ft below the Sphinx. So any chamber "if" any, would most likely be filled with water.

"Hawass arranged for workers to drill test holes in the bedrock around the Sphinx. They found the water table was only 15 feet beneath the statue. Pumps have been installed nearby to divert the groundwater." This was in 2010.

I don't know what's under the sphinx but this is what I think it used to look like, before it was defaced or altered for some reason.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: admirethedistance

Id love to see some background on you and Harte.

Maybe a background "check" would be good too, to ensure you yourself are not a convicted criminal.

I mean, for all I know, you're a high school drop out who failed history. *shrug*

Show me a high school history course that incvolves any of this sort of thing.

Tell you what. Check Cayce's claims for validity. Then check my statements of fact for validity. Then do the same for Admirethedistance.

Or continue wallowing in your lazy, self-imposed ignorance.

Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: admirethedistance

Id love to see some background on you and Harte.

Maybe a background "check" would be good too, to ensure you yourself are not a convicted criminal.

I mean, for all I know, you're a high school drop out who failed history. *shrug*

Not that it really matters or is any of your business, but if you must know, my education is in Architecture (I have a BAA, and plan on returning to school this or next fall to finish getting my M ARCH). Outside of the architecture field, I have extensive professional experience in everything from managing operations at a large arena, mobile development, and stonemasonry.

As far as history and archaeology go, I've taken a few college courses, but nothing beyond that. I do, however, read a lot of related books and research papers and keep up with the latest findings.

I have no criminal record, and I graduated high school with special honors.

Anything else you'd care to know, detective?

a reply to: admirethedistance

I appreciate your ability to reply without adding insult. It shows a lot for your character.

I myself am a physics major with a minor in astronomy. I was working towards a computer science degree on top of that but work ended up getting in the way.

What is your views on Hawass? I personally feel his strong heritage might be getting in the way of the truth. Considering his whole life he was taught that Egyptians had their hand in all that is on the Giza Plateau. I feel there's a chance that an antediluvian culture had originally created some of the larger monoliths and possibly the "original" Sphinx prior to its discovery and "reshaping".

For me, its difficult to put credence in him considering how biased he comes off, in interviews.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: admirethedistance

I appreciate your ability to reply without adding insult. It shows a lot for your character.

I myself am a physics major with a minor in astronomy. I was working towards a computer science degree on top of that but work ended up getting in the way.

What is your views on Hawass? I personally feel his strong heritage might be getting in the way of the truth. Considering his whole life he was taught that Egyptians had their hand in all that is on the Giza Plateau. I feel there's a chance that an antediluvian culture had originally created some of the larger monoliths and possibly the "original" Sphinx prior to its discovery and "reshaping".

For me, its difficult to put credence in him considering how biased he comes off, in interviews.

Your use of the term "antediluvian" in the above reveals your own vast bias in favor of a scientifically bankrupt idea.

Science would be perfectly willing to accept what you speculate on if there were any evidence for any of it, which there is not.

Scientific endeavors depend entirely on evidence (or data.) If none exists, then there is no science involved at all.

Harte

an·te·di·lu·vi·an
of or belonging to the time before the biblical Flood.

The biblical flood is said to of occurred 3000BC. (5000 years ago)

Gobekli Tepe : Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years ( its age is roughly 11,000 years old ) ( www.smithsonianmag.com... )

Maybe you did not understand the definition of Antediluvian?
Or perhaps the age of Gobekli Tepe?
Or the biblical recorded time of the flood?

a reply to: admirethedistance

Where did you get that information on Cayce? I would like to see it. I have not seen anything about him that indicated any of that, in fact quite the reverse.

originally posted by: Triton1128
an·te·di·lu·vi·an
of or belonging to the time before the biblical Flood.

The biblical flood is said to of occurred 3000BC. (5000 years ago)

Gobekli Tepe : Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years ( its age is roughly 11,000 years old ) ( www.smithsonianmag.com... )

Maybe you did not understand the definition of Antediluvian?
Or perhaps the age of Gobekli Tepe?
Or the biblical recorded time of the flood?

You are being purposefully obtuse here.

There was no flood, so there is no "antediluvian."

If you mean a certain age, then state the certain age and refrain from your sermon on Noah.

Harte

My Grandfathers name is carved inside the Sphinx.. so maybe his saving an egyptian boy from drowning in the Nile river during WW2 has brought my family the good fortune i have always felt would occur at some point in my reality. My dreams usually come true.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: admirethedistance

Where did you get that information on Cayce? I would like to see it. I have not seen anything about him that indicated any of that, in fact quite the reverse.

link

The problem is that the large majority of writing/investigation done concerning Cayce was and is being done by Cayce's own organization, the A.R.E.

Their obvious bias and huge volumes of literature bury much of the actual substance available out there regarding Cayce's accuracy.

For example, Cayce asserted that Stonehenge was built in 1500 BC by Iraelites just after the Exodus.

Or, did you mean his conviction?

Harte

Note:

Even though Cayce didn't have a formal education much beyond grammar school, he was a voracious reader, worked in bookstores, and was especially fond of occult and osteopathic literature. (Osteopathy, in his day, was primitive and akin to naturopathy and folk medicine.) He was in contact with and assisted by people with various medical backgrounds. Even so, many of his readings would probably only make sense to an osteopath of his day. Martin Gardner cites Cayce's reading of Cayce's own wife as an example. The woman was suffering from tuberculosis:

.... from the head, pains along through the body from the second, fifth and sixth dorsals, and from the first and second lumbar...tie-ups here, floating lesions, or lateral lesions, in the muscular and nerve fibers which supply the lower end of the lung and the diaphragm...in conjunction with the sympathetic nerve of the solar plexus, coming in conjunction with the solar plexus at the end of the stomach.... (Gardner 1957: 217)

The fact that Cayce mentions the lung is taken by his followers as evidence of a correct diagnosis; it counts as a psychic "hit." But what about the incorrect diagnoses: dorsals, lumbar, floating lesions, solar plexus and stomach? Why aren't those counted as diagnostic misses? And why did Cayce recommend osteopathic treatment for people with tuberculosis, epilepsy, and cancer?

Source

My emphasis. The bolded portion is perfectly logical, yet the keepers of Cayce's "statistics" (again, his own organization - A.R.E.) utterly ignore those "diagnoses" when compiling his "accuracy rate."

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Did cayce say that about stonehenge? .. I find that totally interesting, do you have a link i'd love to read up on it. Thankyou in advance.!

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Harte

Did cayce say that about stonehenge? .. I find that totally interesting, do you have a link i'd love to read up on it. Thankyou in advance.!

Link

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Thankyou

a reply to: Harte

I know the ARE has the actual transcripts of the readings, but I never heard of them concealing inaccuracies. Some of the statements he made are apparently wrong, or at least have not been proven right. But I as under the impression he was roughly 95% right. Even if the actual number is 75% that's still pretty amazing.

As for the conviction, I will look for that.

Thanks for the info.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Harte

I know the ARE has the actual transcripts of the readings, but I never heard of them concealing inaccuracies. Some of the statements he made are apparently wrong, or at least have not been proven right. But I as under the impression he was roughly 95% right. Even if the actual number is 75% that's still pretty amazing.

As for the conviction, I will look for that.

Thanks for the info.

The percentasge you cite is the calculation of Cayce's own organization. He was nowhere near that accurate in any reading I can get to on this side of the A.R.E.'s paywall.

I quoted part of one of them earlier (it was part of a quote of an article.) You can see from that quote that Cayce would mention four or five of the body's main systems in his health reading. If just one named system was even peripherally involved in what turned out to be the patient's actual condition, the A.R.E. counts the reading as 100% accurate.

IOW, the statistics are bogus.

I mean, if I was to do psychic health readings and rattle off a list of the cardiovascular, lymphatic, skeletal, endocrine and digestive systems amid my hogwash new age phrases, what would be the chances that the patient's ailment would present itself in at least one of these systems?

Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128
an·te·di·lu·vi·an
of or belonging to the time before the biblical Flood.

The biblical flood is said to of occurred 3000BC. (5000 years ago)

Gobekli Tepe : Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years ( its age is roughly 11,000 years old ) ( www.smithsonianmag.com... )

Maybe you did not understand the definition of Antediluvian?
Or perhaps the age of Gobekli Tepe?
Or the biblical recorded time of the flood?

That's all very well and good, but there is no geologic evidence of a biblical (global) flood.