The Sphinx is believed by Academics to have been built by Khafre who was a son of Khufu and to have been constructed around 2450 BC. This is because in between the paws of the Sphinx there is a stele that bears the inscription ‘Khaf’. The theory is also said to be corroborated by several statues of Khafre that were found in the temple next to the sphinx and mainly because one of the statues was in the form of a sphinx. It is also said by many scholars that verification of who built the Sphinx is quite simple as the face depicted on the Statue is clearly that of Khafre and that this can be verified by a simple examination of the many statues, busts and carvings of Khafre that still exist today. But there are also serious and very obvious flaws with this theory. Investigations of the Facts Although both these theories are still presented to us as fact, the evidence we have been presented with to validate them both is flimsy and circumstantial at best. In reality, the theory that Khufu and Khafre were responsible for the monuments and that they were built as elaborate tombs has long been disproved. There is an abundant amount of new evidence to suggest otherwise and it is now well know by many scholars that the Pharaohs of Egypt were in fact, not the builders of the Giza complex. In truth, and contrary to common public belief, nothing has ever actually been found in any of them to confirm or even seriously suggest the pyramids were ever tombs in the first place. When examining the Sphinx we should take into account that the ancient Egyptians went to great pains to produce accurate depictions of their rulers and this can be seen in the various surviving statues we have of them. Many of these statues are quite detailed, even capturing facial expressions and the genuine non-symmetry and subtle variations between one side of the face and the other. It therefore seems safe to assume that they would have also have strived for a certain degree of accuracy when building statues. Using today’s face recognition techniques and computer technology several stark contrasts between the Sphinx and the face we know as Khafre become very apparent. But any layman can just apply basic geometry to compare the angles of the Sphinx to those of Khafre. Such comparison clearly shows that the profile of the Sphinx differs totally to that of Khafre. The angles and general shape of the profile is all wrong. At just a glance at the Sphinx, the cheeks are too prominent; the jawbone the wrong shape, the brow too pronounced and the ears too high.
This can then be confirmed further by observing the number of glaring differences that also become apparent when using the same simple geometry to compare the facial angles in the front views of the two faces. As we can see, the jaw is too wide, the mouth is wrong, the eyes are the wrong shape and the ears… ah yes those ears. It suffices to say: the two statues simply don’t look anything like each other. I mean, sure there’s one head with two eyes, two ears, one mouth, the remnants of a nose and the same standard Egyptian head dress but that’s where the similarities end. (The nose is thought to have been blown off by Napoleon’s forces, though this is also heavily debated.)
Then there is the stele bearing the name ‘Khaf’ standing between the paws of the Sphinx itself. This granite stele was erected to commemorate restoration work that was done on the monument by King Thutmose IV sometime between 1425 and 1417 BC. That this single syllable of ‘Khaf’ that appears on the stele should give Egyptologists reason to believe Khafre was the builder is somewhat bizarre because the very same stele also describes the entire Giza Necropolis as being a ‘Splendid Place of the First Time’ which of course associates the whole complex a far earlier epoch in Egypt’s history. There is also another stele at Giza called ‘the Inventory Stele’ which mentions Khufu building a temple and also mentions the Great Pyramid as being next to the Sphinx, which also indicates that both the sphinx and the pyramid were already there before Khufu’s time. Naturally, Egyptologists have branded the Inventory stele as a forgery because it is contrary to the orthodox theory, though they neglect to indicate who they think may have forged a 4500 year old stone stele or why. This same extraordinary approach has been seen with other stele as well, as in the case of the king list in which the bottom half of the list is said and has been proven to be genuine but the top half is said to be either a ‘forgery’ or ‘mythology’ or ‘mistaken.’ One of the main anchor points for the theory that Khufu was the builder the Great pyramid lies with an inscription bearing his name that was found in a small antechamber within the pyramid that had long been sealed. This inscription was seized upon as proof but has always been highly suspect and has been now confirmed as a forgery yet it is still used to validate the theory. The story of the inscription goes like this: In 1837 a man by the name of Colonel Howard Vyse and two companions claimed to have found the remains of the Pharaoh Menkara inside the smaller Giza Pyramid thus proving at last who built it. However the real fact of the matter is that the mummy was a fraud, consisting of a 2000 year old coffin and some bones from the Christian era which had been assembled into a fraudulent ‘discovery.’ This fact is widely known by scholars and cannot be disputed by anyone yet it is almost never publicized. The fact that the inscription found inside the antechamber of the great pyramid was also found by Colonel Vyse in the same year should immediately give one pause, and yet we find that this fact is absolutely never publicized. Why? The forgery of the inscription has actually now been positively confirmed by the greatgrandson of a man who witnessed the actual event! The suspect nature of the inscription was mentioned by the Sumerian scholar Zechariah Sitchin in his book ‘The Stairway to Heaven’. A reader of the book then wrote to Sitchin confirming the forgery which he reported on in a later book entitled ‘The Wars of Gods and Men’ in which he says: “At the end of 1983, a reader of that book came forward to provide us with family records showing that his Great-Grandfather, a master mason named Humphries Brewer, who was engaged by Vyse to help use gunpowder to blast his way inside the pyramid, was an eyewitness to the forgery and, having objected to the deed, was expelled from the site and forced to leave Egypt altogether!”
It is therefore somewhat strange that still in 2006 any book on the Giza complex you may pick up released by mainstream Academia still states that the smaller Giza pyramid was built by the Pharaoh Menkara even though the fraud was exposed almost immediately is widely known about. It is interesting that smooth sided square based pyramids were never part of ancient Sumerian construction yet Sitchin also offers us pictorial evidence in the form of 6000 year old Mesopotamian Clay Tablets clearly depicting a smooth sided square based Pyramid during construction and celebrations after its completion and one clearly depicting the serpent symbol of the Sumerian God Enki presenting us with further proof that the monuments were known to the ancient Sumerians of 6000 years ago and of their far greater antiquity than is currently theorized. There is also documented evidence in 6000 year old Sumerian texts which mention the construction of an abode called the EN.KUR which translates as ‘House that like a Mountain Is’ and describes how the structure was eventually abandoned due to a conflict and had its cap-stone removed. These texts also mention the hurried hacking of an emergency shaft to rescue someone imprisoned inside the EN.KUR by huge sliding stones, which adequately explains three enigmas of the Great pyramid all in the one text! Clearly, if the pyramid was not known to the ancient Sumerians as we are told then they could not possibly be in possession of such accurate information that is also so unique to the structure.
In the extremely well researched book ‘The Keeper of Genesis’ released in 1996, the authors John Hancock and Robert Bauval present strong evidence to support the theory that the sphinx was not built in the image of Khafre. In the book, Hancock and Bauval even go so far as to employ the services of a forensic scientist who specializes in face recognition to compare the two faces. His comparison shows undeniable discrepancies between the two and also punches some more serious holes in the ‘Sphinx is Khafre’ theory. The two authors also present a very solid case in regards to dating the entire complex by examining the work of John Anthony West which raises serious geological questions about the entire Giza complex. In West’s excellent book “The
Serpent in the Sky” he also questions the alignments of the monuments, suggesting that these alignments were in no way incidental but rather, they held very significant and easily confirmable astronomical implications. This is an issue that was also raised in Robert Bauval’s book ‘The Orion Mystery.’ But in ‘The Keeper of Genesis’, and against a torrent of opposition from the academics, the authors of also put forth another bold theory that not only is the face on the Sphinx not that of Khafre, but based on overwhelming geological evidence, the Sphinx is in fact, much older than even the Great Pyramid.
The Date or not the Date?The work done by West and Schoch and the claims made by Hancock and Bauval in the Keeper of Genesis at once produced a veritable storm of criticism from the Academic community. The notion that someone who held no Doctorate or degree would dare to present such an absurd theory infuriated them. They flatly proclaimed the authors to be wrong and refused to speculate any further on the possibility that the sphinx was not Khafre. They bluntly dismissed the idea of the sphinx being older than the great pyramid as ridiculous and I believe, also banned the entire party from further access into the Giza complex to conduct any more investigations. It is an interesting thing that any investigative team that tries to present a different theory on the Giza complex to that which is put forth by the general academic community is subsequently banned from further access to the site by the Society of Egyptology. It doesn’t sound like they feel very secure in their convictions and really don’t want people messing around with the ‘facts’. Science is supposed involve conclusions that are reached through the rational investigation of all of the theories and all of the evidence, not conclusions arrived at through the blind assumption of one theory as fact. No theory should ever be placed in a position where it is no longer open for debate, especially one so loosely based on circumstantial evidence and pertaining to a site of such significance that is still so full of mystery. But, unfortunately, in blatant disregard for the true advancement of genuine scientific research, the Society of Egyptology is quite adamant about
banning anyone with a new theory that doesn’t quite fit with their own. It seems that they are quite intent on keeping the real truth about the Giza complex very tightly under wraps indeed. It’s very difficult to understand how this type of attitude and behavior could be construed as an intelligent or scientific approach to solving the issue in any way and the reasons they may have for doing this will be discussed later. But for now, the relevant authorities simply say: the debate is closed because we already know, and can prove, who built them! This is of course a statement of either pure stupidity or blatant deception because as we have already shown, it is an
assumption based on very thin circumstantial evidence. If the truth be known, there is a far greater amount of much more conclusive evidence to dispute not only the theory, but that actually proves that Khufu and Khafre were in fact, not the builders. The problem that the authorities faced with is this: if Khufu and Khafre did not build them then who did? No one can show who it actually may have been. The authorities also refuse to consider that it may have been constructed long before 2500 BC because if it was, then history is presented
with a rather large gap of time between the civilization that built the complex and the civilization it has been attributed too, it is a large gap in history that cannot be readily explained without admitting our history is wrong and that an advanced civilization existed in antiquity. That is something they wish to avoid at all cost.
It is also a matter of some sensitivity for Egypt. At present they are able to say, “Look what our ancestors did! They built the greatest wonder on earth.” It is a matter of immense pride for them and understandable why they may not wish to concede that it is not strictly true, that Egypt in fact inherited the complex from a civilization that wasn’t actually theirs. But despite what Academia says about the Giza complex, overwhelming evidence exists to dispute the time frame we have been given for its construction. The Sphinx is very heavily eroded with horizontal grooves, punctuated by deep vertical fissures. Egypt’s top archeologist Dr. Zahi Hawass adamantly states that this massive amount of erosion was caused by desert winds. Now quite frankly, wind erosion is an extraordinarily strange claim to make, just in considering the history of the monument. The statue was actually buried in the sand for most of its life. It was uncovered sometime between 1417 and 1425 BC by King Thutmose IV but was soon covered again by the desert sands. It was still buried up to its neck when Napoleon arrived in 1798 and remained so until it was partially cleared again in 1817 and still more in 1858 and 1885. But it was not fully exposed until 1926. So there really wasn’t a great deal of time for all
of this wind erosion to have occurred. But even with it being covered for so long, according to estimates based the figures Dr. Hawass has provided for the rate of this erosion, if it were indeed a fact, then the Sphinx should be all but gone by now, or wafer thin at the very least. There is also the disturbing fact that the deep vertical fissures are quite clearly the results of water erosion caused by prolonged exposure to precipitation. Naturally, any of these telltale fissures that appear on the actual monument are being hurriedly covered by new ‘restoration’ work that is being carried out. But even with this new work, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the erosion seen on the monument was in fact, caused by water.
Hancock and Bauval sum it up nicely in ‘The Keeper of Genesis’: “The weathering patterns, which have been studied by geologists from Boston University, have been identified as having been caused by prolonged exposure to heavy rains. In 2500 BC when Egyptologists presume that the sphinx was built, Egypt was as bone dry as it is today. Between 15000 and 7000 BC, however, the science of palaeo-climatology indicates that Egypt several times passed through periods of wet climate which could have caused weathering patterns such as these. “The trench surrounding the Great Sphinx which was created at the same time that the sphinx
was carved, very clearly indicates the rolling scalloped ‘coves’ and very deep vertical fissures characteristic of precipitation-induced weathering in limestone. “The sciences of geology and palaeo-climatology alone, however, can only demonstrate that the sphinx and its enclosure are much older than previously thought. Archeo-astronomical analysis provides a far more accurate tool for dating the sphinx” The work done by West and Schoch clearly demonstrates beyond any doubt that the massive amount of erosion visible on the Sphinx was indeed caused by water. The somewhat controversial issue of the Sphinx bearing signs of water erosion was actually first raised by a French Egyptologist named Schwaller de Lubizc who’s theory was considered to be much too contentious at the time and was also hurriedly dismissed. The Academic community chooses to completely disregard this indisputable evidence of water erosion because it poses an enormous problem for them. It’s universally agreed that Egypt has been subject to severe flooding in the past but geological studies of the area show that the last time there were any rains or floods in Egypt, of a magnitude to cause the type of erosion that can be found on the sphinx, was between 7,000 and 15,000 years ago and that just doesn’t help their cause at all because it actually proves their theory to be irrefutably erroneous.
place in the heavens. This duality and the nature of the Duat itself are very well explained in a book entitled ‘Initiation’ by Elizabeth Hiach. In the book Hiach aptly explains the Egyptian reincarnation beliefs which included the various levels of discipline that must be attained in order to reach the ‘ship/house/place/planet of millions of years’. Hiach believes that the pyramid featured very significantly in this process and that the Kings Chamber was actually an initiation chamber. She says that the initiate who had attained high enough level of enlightenment could lie in the actual sarcophagus and be able to ‘meditate’ through all of their incarnations without the need of living them enabling them to then reach their final incarnation with the Gods who reside within the Duat.
Hiach claims that the shape of the pyramid and the unusual placement of the blocks within the ceiling of the Kings Chamber are designed in such a way that certain cosmic energies are channeled through the stonework and concentrated at one end of the sarcophagus. The centre of this concentrated energy lies precisely where a person’s pineal gland would be if they were laying in the enclosure. (The pineal gland lies at the front centre section of the brain between the frontal lobes, kind of between and behind the eyes, and seems to serve no real biological function. The gland is also known as ‘the third eye,’ in eastern cultures and is believed to be our highest spiritual receptor when awakened. It is also often referred to as ‘the impaired eye’.) Such a theory is not entirely without interest as unusual concentrations of energies within the Kings Chamber have actually been reported by various people and it is quite strange for the roof of the Chamber to have been constructed in such a fashion as it serves no purpose in regards to strengthening the structure and seems like it would have been an awful lot of trouble to build. (The cavities were hidden within the structure until they were found during excavation in search of treasures.) It is thought that the ancient Egyptians believed the Duat to be a place where man could live in immortality with the Gods and that the soul of a man could reach this place through knowledge and ritual. Many believe that they also believed that the Duat was a specific place in the sky, namely the stars of Sirius and Orion’s belt. Hancock and Bauval believe the Giza structures were built as an Earthly representation of the Duat and placed in a way that would intentionally mirror the duat on the earth at the time of construction.
not involved. The pattern that is frozen into monumental architecture in the form of the pyramids marks a very significant moment in the 25,920 year procession cycle of the three stars of Orion’s belt – one that is unlikely to have been selected at random by the Pyramid builders… The question reduces to this: is it a coincidence, that the Giza necropolis as it has reached us today out of the darkness of antiquity, is still dominated by a huge equinoctial lion statue at the east of its horizon and by three gigantic pyramids disposed about its meridian in the distinctive manner of the three stars of Orion’s belt in 10,500 BC?” “And is it also coincidence that the monuments in this amazing astronomical theme park manage to work together – almost as though geared, like the cogs-wheels of a clock – to tell the same time?” When this information was coupled with the West and Schoch water erosion evidence, the picture was complete for them. But when West and Schoch completed testing their theory and first excitedly announced the results of their investigations to the world, the outcry was almost deafening and the barrage of criticism overwhelming. Egypt’s top Archeologist Dr. Zahi Hawass and another renowned Egyptologist Dr. Mark Lehner, who is considered the world foremost authority on the Sphinx were quick to launch scathing personal attacks on the pair and publicly discredited the theory as much as possible. Dr. Lehner even went so far as to accuse West and Schoch of being “ignorant and insensitive”.
Now just think about that for a moment – science, insensitive? It is a somewhat unusual remark to come from a scientist don’t you think? His sole intent was to remove the issue from the scientific arena and place it on a more personal playing field. As usual in many such cases it was a public display of a most unscientific attitude that completely failed to address any of the evidence that was being presented. The whole affair was similar to a school boy who had a drawing criticized by one of his peers rather than a scientist debating evidence, for heavens sake… “insensitive’? Get some sort of a scientific grip! These personal attacks we are now seeing so frequently are actually a highly political strategy that has recently been adopted by Academia and are fast becoming the standard final move. The method is often employed by cunning Politicians when losing an argument. If an issue becomes too obvious to argue against, the best tactic is to discredit anyone who dares to call ‘that which is accepted’ into question thereby shifting attention away from the actual issue and turning it into a more personalized attack against the presenter. It’s the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome’ In the case of the Giza complex, rather than having to argue a case they are aware they could not possibly win, Hawass and Lehner again simply invoked the demeanor of ‘untouchable authority’ that is presumed by their positions in the academic hierarchy. It should be mentioned here that Anthony West himself actually holds no credentials, being a self-taught archeologist and so is not part of the “club” so to speak. Though even with this being the case, his research on the Sphinx was nothing short of excellent and his finding were backed up by a considerable amount of scientific, geological and astronomical data. (It probably should also be pointed out that Albert Einstein was just a patent clerk when he destroyed many of Newton’s theories – back then, intelligence was intelligence. Things are not quite that simple now.) Shortly after the theory was put forth, the American Association for the Advancement of Science invited a debate on the issue, but only Lehner and Schoch were allowed to participate while West, who held most of the evidence, was not, due to his lack of credentials. As was discussed in chapter one, this is another method the Academic community constantly employs to keep credible new information and theories out of the public information loop: Academia decrees that only people with Degrees and Doctorates are permitted to practice science and they have two very important and quite simple filters in place to ensure that independent research is suppressed: One; Credentials; and Two; Peer Review; because no matter what your evidence or theories are, nothing gets past peer review, but you cannot receive peer review without first having credentials but of course in order to get credentials you need to tow the party line and embrace the accepted theories or you simply won’t get your degree in the first place. So what do you do? Remember Catch 22? It’s actually quite brilliant in its simplicity – in some scary way. Again this is a ridiculous and extraordinarily unscientific approach to science because science
is something that anyone can study and learn. All that is needed is for one to possess a keen and analytical mind. A person does not need a degree to educate oneself or record facts, or to conduct experiments, observe their outcomes and think about them in a critical way. In a truly free and open society where the pursuit of true knowledge is nurtured, science, by its very basic fabric, needs to be part of the free democratic process and all theories examined. Science was never designed to be an ‘elitist club’ presided over by closed minds. Such behavior is truly irresponsible and can only ever serve as a hindrance to legitimate research and the genuine pursuit of real truths. Science cannot properly function as an Authoritarian Regime. The thing is that the entire debate over the real age of the pyramids and the Sphinx could very easily be put to rest once and for all if the Egyptologists really wanted to settle the dispute. They simply need to hire a team of independent and impartial investigators to either prove or disprove the theory once and for all. Why hasn’t this been done? And why are they so against anyone doing it? The answer is so blatantly obvious that the question doesn’t really need asking. It’s because they know their theory is totally wrong! And they know that any real study into the site will prove this and then our whole theory of history will come crashing down. That is why they go to such extraordinary lengths to prevent anyone from conducting tests that they know will prove them wrong. And don’t let’s forget that it’s the theories of Dr. Hawass and Dr. Lehner that are being threatened here and it is they who are the ones who virtually control all Egyptology. Imagine their embarrassment if it could be publicly demonstrated that they were both incorrect in their theories? And not only that but it would seem they are also quite aware of the facts but still continually go to extraordinary lengths to keep the real truth hidden from public view. I think it’s high time the world asked them to present the evidence that proves them correct and demonstrate to us how it outweighs the far more abundant evidence that proves them wrong
because so far, their theories have never been independently and publicly scrutinized. The good Doctors have simply brandished their credentials and their arguments have been taken at face value and simply accepted without the need for them to present any corroborating proof. This type of approach to science is unacceptable and can in no way be construed as serious research. The fact of the matter is that the entire Giza complex is a complete mystery and probably still remains so simply because Egyptologists will not open it up to serious research. The time frame Academia has provided for construction of the monuments makes no sense at all. The pyramids were an incredible architectural achievement and yet the quality of all subsequent constructions in the area steadily declined. Don’t builders usually improve with experience? Why then does the opposite apply in Egypt? The simple truth is that the site was not built by them. John Anthony actually summed the whole thing up very eloquently in his book ‘Serpent in the Sky’: “Every aspect of Egyptian knowledge seems to have been complete at the very beginning. The sciences, artistic and architectural techniques and the hieroglyphic system show virtually no signs of a period of development; indeed, many of the achievements of the earliest dynasties were never surpassed, or even equaled later on. This astonishing fact is readily admitted by orthodox Egyptologists but the magnitude of the mystery it poses is skillfully understated, while its many implications go unquestioned. How does a civilization spring, full blown into being? Look at the 1905 automobile and compare it to a modern one. There is no mistaking the process of
‘development,’ but in Egypt there are no parallels. Everything is right there at the beginning. The answer to the mystery is of course obvious, but because it is repellent to the prevailing cast of modern thinking, it is seldom seriously considered. Egyptian civilization was not a ‘development’ but a legacy.” Academics like Dr. Lehner dispute the age of the pyramids or Sphinx as being circa 10,500 BC because they simply say that Man had no civilization at that period of our history and maybe they’re right. But what if it was not the civilization of man who constructed them? What if they were actually constructed by those who all the ancient tales tell us they were? What if they were built by the ancient rulers who were thought of as Gods? In fact the actual builders and true function of the great pyramid may be far more controversial and amazing than anyone could have imagined and this will be discussed later in this book but for now the discussion will turn to how it may well have been done.