Thread by @ADalassio

The first news of a ‘Secret City’ hit the World Press in the first week of March 1935. By July of that year, much more had been found and the Sunday Express ran an article by Edward Armytage who had just returned to England from Egypt where he had watched the excavation of an

ancient Egyptian city that was then thought to date back 4000 years. Then, ça va sans dire, came silence, as if every living Egyptologist had lost all interest in this wonderful underground metropolis. All their articles during the ensuing years were centered on tombs of queens

and shafts that had sunk deep into the ground to burial tombs some time during the 24 th Dynasty. The discovery of a whole underground city dating back at least 4,000 years was ignored completely in favor of a late period Dynasty that almost passed without notice. Quelle surprise

Smells of Smithsonian Cabal...
That was some eighty years ago and today we have come up against a similar ‘rose granite block wall’, in the person of the former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs, Zahi Hawass, who held that position until Egypt’s revolution in 2011

There ended Hawass’ controversial reign as the supreme chief of all Egypt’s antiquities. However, he still has his ‘finger in the pie’ so to speak.  Much has been written about the Egyptian ‘Indiana Jones’ who presents a big smile that quickly becomes distorted by rage when

an unwelcome question is posed. According to Nora Shalaby, a young Egyptian archaeologist who was active in the revolution, "He [Zahi Hawass] was the Mubarak of antiquities."

However, such a temperament doesn’t duly explain why Zahi Hawass has so publicly announced that there is nothing at all below the Sphinx, neither any tunnel nor a single chamber, when there have many photos of him entering descending shafts from the head of the Sphinx and another

at the far rear of the Lion Body. Are we supposed to forget completely what we have seen several times in the past and accept such denials without question?

Apparently, he brushed off such enquiries of hidden tunnels under the Giza Plateau and chambers under the Sphinx by saying that it wasn’t possible to look deeper, as the chambers were either blocked or full of water.   That may well be the case,

though we can see from one of the photos showing a rear downward shaft from the side of the Sphinx that the floor far below is quite dry. We do know that Hawass had climbed down ladders from the rear entrance of the Sphinx, into a deep chamber on a middle layer and then even

further down to a bottom chamber which apparently contained a very large sarcophagus and that was filled with water, as these scenes are all in a film made by Fox.  It is hard to imagine how he could possibly think that he could later deny all that he had earlier accomplished.

I don't know about you, but I am feeling ever more detached from this reality. Almost as if I don't belong here anymore...
Good night.

It seems quite clear from the totally different construction materials and color of the Sphinx head, which we believe is not rock, but some type of man-made substance compared to its limestone and eroded body, that the head and face of the Sphinx must have been changed from its

original shape long after the monument was first carved. There is hardly any erosion to the head compared to its body. The sides of the headdress are quite smooth and we only need glance at the mythical creature to spot the lighter color of the body compared to the darkness of

the head. According to Tony Bushby in his “The Secret in The Bible” a badly fragmented Sumerian cylinder tells a tale that could easily be taken as having happened at Giza and involving a beast that had a lion head with a tunnel entrance hidden by sand.

One can clearly appreciate the difference between the head and the body.

What if there was another Sphynx?
There have been sketches of the Giza (the word Gisa in Ancient Egyptian means ‘Hewn Stone’) complex from as far back as 1665 and some do show two heads peering out of the sands, one usually having female features.

It was an ancient Egyptian practice to inscribe two lions, which they called Akerw, next to their doorways for heavenly protection and that would lead directly to a mound near the sphinx.
Could this mound contain the buried body of a second sphinx?

One would have thought that this mysterious, large, covered shape so close to the sphinx would have been greeted with great enthusiasm by the Egyptian authorities, yet Hawass, according to reliable source, did not want to listen to this theory.

An application to detect objects under the sand was denied bt the then Supreme Council of Antiquities. Apparently, no one was ever granted permission to investigate that specific mound. That Smithsonian stench again.
Why would an Egyptologist be so adamantly against this theory?

It isn’t reasonable that anyone should have so much objection to any kind of probe or even a simple aerial photograph being taken, which might lead to the discovery of yet another amazing wonder of the world and a wonder that would draw many more thousands of tourists to Egypt.

They won’t even admit to ever having examined the mystery mound themselves, and surely had this been done they would be the first to say so. A few years ago, Zahi Hawass met the Foreign Press Association in Cairo to vent his frustration with a group of pseudo-scientists whose

personal attack, through television and other media, had escalated to the point where it had become threatening.  Apparently, he was worried that a NBC interview would support and publicize their ideas, which he suggests were purely for personal gain.
He apparently said

I want to talk about things that do not make any sense,” They are saying secret excavations…are going on around the Sphinx and are not being revealed. This is definitely not so." Zahi Hawass is not only a great showman and probably the most knowledgeable man in the world

ancient Egypt, he has also achieved a lot to promote tourism for his country. However, he appears to have an agenda, to keep in place the conventional understanding of ancient Egyptian history, no matter how many new findings contradict what is currently believed to be true.