It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jeep3r
originally posted by: Marduk
I will add "knowing how science works" to the list of things you have shown you don't understand in this thread
You can add whatever you want to that list, but do keep in mind that this is a conspiracy board rather than a science forum.
originally posted by: jeep3r
What's irratating about that link is that L. Orcutt says Schoch fails to consider the different strata the Sphinx is made of, whereas the distinction is clearly made in his analysis of geological data. Did he even read Schoch's essays? Again, I still don't see how his hypothesis is refuted given the erosion patterns on the enclosure and body of the Sphinx, suggesting an earlier date of construction.
originally posted by: Harte
So let's ignore what science says in favor of a juicy, but erroneous, conspiracy theory.
Will you continue to refuse to carefully read Schoch's paper?
If so, why should we listen to what you have to say about a paper you won't even read?
originally posted by: jeep3r
originally posted by: Harte
So let's ignore what science says in favor of a juicy, but erroneous, conspiracy theory.
Not at all, but where's the supporting evidence for the current dating of the Great Sphinx?
Will you continue to refuse to carefully read Schoch's paper?
If so, why should we listen to what you have to say about a paper you won't even read?
Think what you want, but he's quite clear about what he means by precipitation-induced weathering. And he certainly does refer to erosional features that, in his view, can't be accounted for by only a few centuries of precipitation preceeding the 5000 years of arid desert climate in the region.
Actually, the ancients didn't have to use unknown (to them) equations and ratios to find pi. All they had to do was divide the whole number 355 by 113.