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.
Proceedings of the International Conference, 2930 October 2008 Sofia, Publishing House “St. 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 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.
Now for those familair with my , 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.
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 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). 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.
Now, two historians, Gerry Cannon and Malcolm Hutton who previously suggested that the Great Sphinx of Giza once had a twin, have put forward a new controversial theory.
They believe there is hidden underground city beneath the Sphinx.
Ellen Lloyd - Ancient - How much do we really know about the Great Sphinx of Giza in Egypt? According to two historians, the great Sphinx of Giza could be the entrance to a secret underground city built by a lost civilization.
However, this should not stop us from speculations and hopefully investigations that could bring some successful results bring us closer to answers.