Egyptological dating of the Sphinx disproved

Hollywood claims:

Geologists generally know how much it rained and where, it's not exact, but it's pretty good. It's a prety weak argument to try to disbelieve in Dr. Schoch's data by claiming geology only "assumes" how things were in the past but doesn't actually "know". They know, it's a science, there's no "Assuming".

Okay shows us the chart or graph that shows this and cite the published study it comes from.

Dr. Shcoch defeated all critiscisms at the AAAS debates and also was supported by the Geological Congress of America at their annual conference attended by 1400 of the top level geologists in the world.

How come the rest of the geologist aren't aware of this? LOL

Hey Hollywood try something other than propaganda.

280 geologists found the Sphinx data so interesting that they offered to personally help Dr. Schoch with any further research

Wow that's great

Perhaps one of them could produce that chart I asked for earlier?

This is the claim YOU made:

Geologists generally know how much it rained and where, it's not exact, but it's pretty good. It's a prety weak argument to try to disbelieve in Dr. Schoch's data by claiming geology only "assumes" how things were in the past but doesn't actually "know". They know, it's a science, there's no "Assuming".

You know the chart that shows the rainfall for AE from say 20,000 BP to 2,000 BP. Oh and what the acidity of that rain is - by year - if you don't mind. Plus the KNOWN erosion rate for the difference types of limestones that constitute the Sphinx enclosure.

Let me repeat my own stand, I find Dr. S's idea interesting and certainly not impossible. More work on the subject and much more data is needed (which is what those 280 were volunteering for) I do object to those who spout propaganda and distort what is known for there own agendas

So we'll be awaiting for those charts and graphs, eh? I know you just forgot to include them last time.

Is there a reason that this 'debate' has turned into a public flogging? From what I've seen and read, hollywod has explained himself and defended himself quite well. He came here to state that he believes the sphinx is older than is said and that it has evidence of rain erosion, i think we could all agree that there is a possibility for this? it isn't hard to accept this possibility is it?

Now, Shoche originally said 10,500 years, but then has since knocked it down to between 5000-7000, he has stated that he believes the weathering was caused by rainfall and not 'capillary weathering'. Now were as we can't say for definite that the Giza plateau was tropical 10,000 years ago, there is evidence that points to the possibility, so why has hollywood been asked to accumulate all kinds of weather graphs and rainfall charts? If Hawass can claim that the pyramids and sphinx were built by the Egyptians, surely hollywood can assume that it may have been tropical in Egypt millenia ago, for the sake of his argument?

Christ, Khufu himself said he never built them, what more do you want. #

Good luck hollywood

(It is still an assumption, just a well researched assumption and considering the amount of assumptions egyptology makes, I think your allowed one or two )

[edit on 26-5-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

reply to post by Hanslune

Originally posted by Hanslune
So we'll be awaiting for those charts and graphs, eh? I know you just forgot to include them last time.

Why don't you just try visiting a university library Hanslune, I'm sure they'll have all the data you're looking for.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Originally posted by Hanslune
So we'll be awaiting for those charts and graphs, eh? I know you just forgot to include them last time.

Why don't you just try visiting a university library Hanslune, I'm sure they'll have all the data you're looking for.

That is the key point PE. Hollywood has made it is point to state the subject is known, there is decisive data, the consensus has decided and the matter is closed - it is not. those charts I'm asking for do not exist.

The subject is NOT known, is not decided and not closed - despite Hollywoods propaganda attempts.

Which is why he cannot provide those charts. talking loud and confident doesn't substitute for a simple need for the data.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Originally posted by Hanslune
So we'll be awaiting for those charts and graphs, eh? I know you just forgot to include them last time.

Why don't you just try visiting a university library Hanslune, I'm sure they'll have all the data you're looking for.

That is the key point PE. Hollywood has made it is point to state the subject is known, there is decisive data, the consensus has decided and the matter is closed - it is not. those charts I'm asking for do not exist.

The subject is NOT known, is not decided and not closed - despite Hollywoods propaganda attempts.

Which is why he cannot provide those charts. talking loud and confident doesn't substitute for a simple need for the data.

Nor can it substitute for the fact that Schoch bases his date for Sphinx carving completely and entirely on data he collected about subsurface weathering. Not on any "knowledge" of rainfall patterns in ancient Giza, as I demonstrated using Hollywood's own reference.

Schoch admits that rainfall in Giza is not well documented throughout ancient times and himself insists that he does not base his date on water erosion at all.

The wiki article that I linked itself links to Schoch's paper and if one cared to read what the man said, then one would unavoidably come into agreement with what I've said here regarding Schoch and his dating of the Sphinx.

Also, in reply to what was said about Schoch having "originally" dated the Sphinx carving to 10,500 BC, that is simply a lie. Schoch gave his date in his original paper and has stuck with it since.

Harte

Howdy Harte

That is interesting I too had thought his original date was 10,500, thanks for the corrected info!

Originally posted by Harte

Also, in reply to what was said about Schoch having "originally" dated the Sphinx carving to 10,500 BC, that is simply a lie. Schoch gave his date in his original paper and has stuck with it since.

Do you contend that the Sphinx was originally carved by Khafre?


edit: nevermind found the answer to my question re: Schoch...



[edit on 27-5-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Harte

Also, in reply to what was said about Schoch having "originally" dated the Sphinx carving to 10,500 BC, that is simply a lie. Schoch gave his date in his original paper and has stuck with it since.

Do you contend that the Sphinx was originally carved by Khafre?

edit: nevermind found the answer to my question re: Schoch...

[edit on 27-5-2008 by PhotonEffect]

If you're asking my opinion, I don't actually have one concerning who carved the Sphinx.

I'm quite certain, however, that it was the Ancient Egyptians. Which one? We may never know.

So no, I do not agree even with Schoch. But I agree even less with people that use Schoch as a reference yet mischaracterize (purposefully?) what Schoch has to say concerning the Sphinx.

Harte

I don't think I need to provide any charts, which are meant primarily for proffessional geologists anyways.

Dr. Schoch's dating, as easily proven already on the previous page with his own words, is obviously based on rain erosion data arrived at with many methods and measuring many things, which are not really that relevant to the athenticity of the data.

Can you say "Vertical Fissure"?

As for the ancient Egyptians creating the Sphinx, this has long been debunked. First of all, it's been proven there were several stages of construction. For example, the head we see now was carved much later than the original body. Secondly, it's been proven by top level experts that the faceon the Sphinx not only isn't Khefren, it's simply not even Egyptian. It's black African.

So what we have is the perfectly proportioned body, built in 10,500 BC matching the constellation of Leo. And then probably around 5000 BC a black African King carved an african face on the Sphinx. This is why the head and body do not match each other at all in proportion like they normally should.

See here for more information
www.youtube.com...

Anyone still confused about Dr. Schoch's dating of the Sphinx, which he admits he dates as conservatively as geologically possible, should watch here as it is made very clear
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Hollywood11]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Hollywood11]

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Dr. Shcoch defeated all critiscisms at the AAAS debates and also was supported by the Geological Congress of America at their annual conference attended by 1400 of the top level geologists in the world.

Not quite

Source

To present their preliminary results at the October 1991 meeting of the Geological Society of America, West and Schoch submitted a proposal for a poster presentation that met the approval of a review panel on archaeological geology. The GSA did not formally endorse the argument for an earlier Sphinx. But those geologists who visited the West-Schoch poster presentation expressed an interest in their findings and many asked to be notified of further research. Schoch gave a brief update of the case for an earlier Sphinx before an audience of about 300 at the GSA meeting in 2000. At the end of his talk, two members of the audience rose to question the findings and express skepticism. The remainder of the audience listened with interest and did not approve or dissent.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Howdy Harte

That is interesting I too had thought his original date was 10,500, thanks for the corrected info!

I think it was West who reinterpreted Schoch's data to support his belief in a date of 10,500BC

I was recently in discussion with Schoch and made a fool of myself by mixing up my BP and BC ...... Schoch reiterated that he stands by his original dating of 5,000 - 7,000 BC

(Personally I think 5,000 - 7,000 BP to be more likely and in accord with geological and climatological evidence, though I accept the geological evidence is disputed.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Essan]

Originally posted by Hanslune
That is the key point PE. Hollywood has made it is point to state the subject is known, there is decisive data, the consensus has decided and the matter is closed - it is not.

More work on the subject and much more data is needed (which is what those 280 were volunteering for) I do object to those who spout propaganda and distort what is known for there own agendas

Oh please,

What "Agendas" are you talking about? It's pretty funny to think that you're resorting to calling these facts as part of some vague "propaganda" campaign with sinister motives.

The rain erosion data is HARD data, and it's pretty convincing.

You're missing the real point here. Scientists and Archaeologists always claimed so loudly and insisted they knew everything. "Atlantis is just a fairy tale even though Plato wrote it as non fiction. Edgar Cayce couldn't know anything. There in no paranormal phenomena, God is not real, people came from Apes," etc

And yet here we have it. On the dating for the Sphinx, the scientists have been proven beyond ANY DOUBT TO BE WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
CASE CLOSED. SCIENCE GOT IT WRONG.

Yet the rain erosion data does not rule out the dating we've all known inside to be true all along, 10,500 BC

The case is closed on 2,500 BC, but it's not closed on 10,500 BC.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Hollywood11]

Originally posted by Harte

If you're asking my opinion, I don't actually have one concerning who carved the Sphinx.

I'm quite certain, however, that it was the Ancient Egyptians. Which one? We may never know.

I was and I find your response interesting.

Do you contend then that Khafre built the pyramid ascribed to him?

So no, I do not agree even with Schoch. But I agree even less with people that use Schoch as a reference yet mischaracterize (purposefully?) what Schoch has to say concerning the Sphinx.

What about Colin Reader?

The bottom line is that whatever methods Dr. Schoch and others have used, they were geologically and scientifically legitimate and this is hard evidence of rain eorosion.

And yet here we have it. On the dating for the Sphinx, the scientists have been proven beyond ANY DOUBT TO BE WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

I see you are maintaining your rational status.

Rain erosion is hard data, the scientific worldview loses again.

oh so we have "Forbidden Sphinx" over here.. I see.( FS I dare ya to say that three times really fast) Wonder if when they say the Nile floods, it really, really floods. Or maybe the erosion happened really fast, like in The Great Flood. Maybe the Ark of the Cov is in the Hall of Records. The face is Black African? You mean the aliens are Black? I thought they were grey. Oh and I heard the aliens that built the structures were of golden skin. Egyptians called gold "Flesh of the Gods".