April 8, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

Ms. S.H. shared this one with me, and I have to share it in spite of my misgivings. And perhaps I should explain those misgivings, for if you've followed by various books over the years on the subjects of "ancient stuff" and "Gizalology", you'll know that the implications of my wild and crazy ideas about the place is that some of the structures there are incomparably old, and by old, I mean old even in terms of the reigning views in the alternative research community and its "heretical historiographical orthodoxies." IN other words, I've been way beyond even those, which like to date the Sphinx to the Egyptian subpluvial period (and hence, to an age of about 8-10,000 BC). If you're following the logic of Allan Alford here and his idea of the three layers and eras of construction at Giza, witht he Great Pyramid representing the oldest layer, then the second pyramid, the Sphinx, and Valley temples representing the next and slightly younger layer, and then (3) a third layer dating from early dynastic Egypt itself, then any such redating of the Sphinx should make me ecstatically happy, right, for that would push the Great Pyramid back into the remote mists of high antiquity and prehistory, and make all my other hypotheses with the chronological cunundrums a bit more manageable, right?

Well, yea, of course, all that's true. And that's why part of me is skeptical when a piece of information appears out of nowhere that seems to corroborate some of the more difficult aspects of my ideas, not the least of which is precisely an extreme antiquity for those firts two layers of Giza construction.

But, nonetheless, here it is:

And here's the original scientific PDF:

308 Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy (Eds. R. I. Ko stov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova). 2008. Proceedings of the International Conference, 2930 October 2008 Sofia, Publishing House “St. Ivan Rils ki”, Sofia, 308311. GEOLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM OF DATING THE GREA T EGYPTIAN SPHINX CONSTRUCTION

Now, notably, the Ukrainian authors of this paper start with Dr Robert Shoch's redating of the Sphinx, but then go on to note the strange undulating erosion pattern on the SPhinx's body, which they point out, in contradiction to the "orthodox explanation" of wind erosion, is simply impossible because the same pattern of erosion does not show up on the PShinx's head, which, unlike the body, has been more or less permanently exposed to the elements in the past.

THen comes the clincher:

Manichev and Parkhomenko suggest that the geological composition of the body of the Sphinx is a sequence of layers composed of limestone with small interlayers of clays. Manichev and Parkhomenko explain that these rocks possess different degree of resistance to the water effect and say that if the hollows formation were due to sand abrasion only, the hollows had to correspond to the strata of a certain lithological composition. They suggest that the Great Sphinx hollows are formed in fact within several strata, or occupy some part of the stratum of homogeneous composition.

Manichev and Parkhomenko firmly believe that the Sphinx had to be submerged for a long time under water and, to support this hypothesis, they point towards existing literature of geological studies of the Giza Plateau. According to these studies at the end of the Pliocene geologic period (between 5.2 and 1.6 million years ago), sea water entered the Nile valley and gradually creating flooding in the area. This led to formation of lacustrine deposits which are at the mark of 180 m above the present level of the Mediterranean Sea.

According to Manichev and Parkhomenko, it is the sea level during the Calabrian phase which is the closest to the present mark with the highest GES hollow at its level. High level of sea water also caused the Nile overflowing and created long-living water-bodies. As to time it corresponds to 800000 years.
(Emphasis added)

Now, if all this is true, then what Manichev and Parkhomenko are suggesting is truly stunning: (1) the Sphinx shows signs of water erosion typical of a coastal object exposed to submersion over a prolonged time, and is thus, by any raqtional consideration, a primordial ante-diluvian monument; (2) in order to effect this, the period of time for it to be submersed had to be between 5.2 and 1.6 million years about, and at the terminus post quem, not later than 800,000 years old. Now for those familair with my Cosmic War, the dates being suggested by Mr. Manichev and Parkhomenko clearly fall within the "best guess" parameter I made in that book of a 3.2 million years-ago-date for the "cosmic war."

Of course, we can fairly well predict that there will be howls of protest and rejection from Westen Universities since (1) they are but ideology-manufacturing and orthodoxy-testing centers and (2) they didn't make the argument themselves. And of course, the final howl of protest will be simply because all of this challenges the carefully contrived narrative of human origins, and of the origins of civilization. But if Manichev and Parkhomenko are correct, it's a paradigm changer.

See you on the flip side...