"An argument put forward by Bauval and Hancock to support the Orion Correlation Theory is that the construction of the Great Sphinx was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx’s lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River are an accurate reflection or "map" of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion’s Belt) and the Milky Way, respectively.
A date of 10,500 BC is chosen because they maintain this is the only time in the precession of the equinoxes when the astrological age was Leo and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox. They also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three stars of Orion’s Belt and the horizon were an “exact match” to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids.” - Wikipedia - Orion Correlation Theory
Except this isn’t true at all and the Sphinx was built around the same time as the other pyramids, 2560 BCE. The reason people think the Sphinx is so unusual is because its body is disproportionate to the head and legs. It is long and low rather than shorter and higher. This is because the body is a remnant of a quarry used to build the nearby Giza Pyramids. Not wanting to let this go to waste, Khufu commissioned a sphinx to be made imported stone to make the head and arms and make it look like a sphinx. So those are not erosion marks on the body, those are cut marks from the quarry.
A: I didn’t claim it to be. It’s a quote from an alternative THEORY.
B: No one, not even mainstream scholars, have yielded satisfactory results in this regard, hence the reason alternative theories like this exist to begin with. It’s considered fringe at worst, but even between the mainstream scholars there is much debate, so how can you even claim what is or isn’t true?
C: There was a time when people were called “crazy” for believing the Earth was round. It’s a lesson in humility that every individual should understand in regard to academic disputes.
1. You mean hypothesis
2. The disagreements come differing lines of evidence. Alternative hypothesis have no lines of evidence and are merely speculation based off of misinformation and lack of data.
3. This point is a false analogy.
Alternative hypothesis are always arguments based on the logical fallacy of Argument From Ignorance. You cannot win an argument by taking this stance.
ha, you’re trying to use a straw-man to get out of that, completely avoiding what he’s saying.
I already provided my proof. My source comes from Peter Lacovara, a professor I had that taught Egyptian archaeology. You can read his article here, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N9gSkrNuezEC&pg=PA64&dq=sphinx+weathering&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LWcAT8jYCIyn8gPmpdSgAQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=schoch&f=false
I should note that I misremembered the builder. That is merely a mistake on my part.
the guy was clearly saying that he never claimed it to be true. he was obviously just putting the idea out there and after all, it is referred to as the orion correlation theory, even if it is technically a hypothesis, so how can you play that silly semantics game? you ignored his point. his next point was simple. if mainstream academics can’t even agree on the age of the sphinx, then who the hell are you to act like you know for sure? the last point, was just to point out how even the mainstream can be wrong, like with the whole galileo situation, and that’s completely relevant, so it’s not a false analogy. you just want to be right, that’s why you talk about this like it’s a game, you even say that he cannot “win” win what? the debate? is that a bad thing, to gain knowledge after realizing you were wrong? you’re clearly basing this on ego.
The Orion Correlation Theory is not accepted by academia. Why discuss a hypothesis (because that is what it is) if it has no solid data? You would merely be discussing a What If scenario.
Academics have largely agreed on the date of construction for the Sphinx. This is no debate about this other than those who are misinformed and continue to propagate the misinformation.
Using Galileo as a crux to promote your own hypothesis doesn’t legitimize it in anyway. Yes, hypotheses put forward are sometimes ridiculed and later proven to be true. That does not mean this particular hypothesis will turn out to be true because others in the past have turned out to be true. Many have remained false hypotheses that lack proof of their claim.