 In our last video, we explore the astonishing discovery recently made upon the Giza Plateau. Hidden in plain sight, another great sphinx. However, this doppelganger of the better-known, long-claimed Soul Guardian of the Great Pyramids seemingly possesses a greater level of undiluted erosion, indicative of both sculpture's tremendous age. The questions are, however, just how great is their age? How long have the sphinx, or indeed the Great Pyramids, been here on our planet? Furthermore, the tremendous levels of erosion seen on the Pyramids themselves not only do the Pyramids display a level of erosion, indicative of a prehistoric timeline, but they have seen many additional efforts by a number of now lost civilizations, each far more capable in regards to stonework than the modern man, created a number of layers of far less eroded casing stones, each displaying a varying age, this evidence indicative of several attempts at conservation. These factors all but support the following posit, made by a number of researchers, all claiming that the sphinx, and indeed we feel the Pyramids themselves, are in actuality as much as 800,000 years old. The most recent studies were surprisingly presented at the International Conference of Geoarcheology and Archaeo-mineralogy held in Sofia, titled Geological Aspect of the Problem of Dating the Great Egyptian Sphinx Construction. The authors of this paper, mainstream scientist Manitchev Vacheslav from the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Alexander G. Parkomenko, Institute of Geography of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, have blown the whistle regarding what we have supported for a number of years. The starting point of these two experts is the paradigm shift, which has been initiated within the quote debate, which has been intended to overcome the orthodoxy within Egyptology, referring to the possible remote origins of the Egyptian civilization, and, on the other, physical evidence of water erosion present at the monuments of the Giza Plateau, which although suspiciously mainstream researchers, such as West and Scouge, have made over the years, specifically titles the water erosion controversy, which deliberately overlooked that the Sphinx, having once been recorded as having been surrounded by a body of water, namely Anibis Lake, meaning that the enclosure was once designed with the intent of holding water, itself in turn concealing the Sphinx's possible true identity. Instead, focuses on the erosion clearly made by rainfall and ancient water levels, features we indeed claim were later additions. According to Manichev and Parkomenko, quote, The problem of dating the Great Pyramid Sphinx construction is still valid, despite the long term history of its research. Geological approaches and other scientific methods permits us to answer the question about the relative age of the Sphinx. The conducted visual investigation of the Sphinx allowed the conclusion regarding the important role of water from large bodies which partially flooded the monument, with the formation of wave-cut hollows on its vertical walls. The morphology of these formations has an analogy with similar such hollows, formed by the sea in the coastal zones. Genetic resemblance of the compared erosion forms and the geological structure and petrographic composition of sedimentary rock complexes leads to the conclusion of the existence of long-lived freshwater lakes within various periods of the lower Pleistocene era. These lakes were distributed in the territories adjacent to the Nile. The absolute mark of the upper, large erosion hollow of the Sphinx corresponds to the level of water surface which took place in this early Pleistocene age, end quote. A link to the research can be found in the script. It is a vindicating exposure of ours and others' work, one which we find highly compelling.