Egyptological dating of the Sphinx disproved

Originally posted by Byrd
Do you have anything other than a video?

Many folks read this board at work and really can't afford to be caught watching videos. And it's hard to check the evidence in a video... there's no transcript so you can't see the spelling of names and so forth. It's hard to skip back a paragraph or three to check facts.

Got text?

Dont bother, its just a 7 minute shallow constellation line-up argument for the 10500BC date that doesnt contain much in terms of geological dating.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by merka]

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Here's another really cool video explaining the reality of the situation
video.google.com...

It might, one day, become reality. Who knows? Until then, the content of the video will remain a theory based on the words of a 'sleeping prophet.'

I used to share an interest in Cayce until certain problems became too large to ignore or explain away. What mechanism or process would enable him to be so specific? 1997-98 are mentioned in the video by Bauval/Hancock. They cite (as usual) the 10, 500 year age of the Giza pyramids. How could he know the exact year? Mankind hadn't even begun ascribing each year a reference number at that time.

Hancock/Bauval use a program to align the *exact* position of Orion's Belt fixed above Giza 10 500 years ago. Did the ancient builders draw up plans and begin building with a view to complete construction at the moment of alignment? Did they begin construction and by the time it was complete the alignment had moved on? Are there any developments in archaeology that are predicated on the unverifiable words of a prophet?

These are the reasons why Hancock, Bauval, Cayce et al lost the air of reality for me. That they can't/ won't identify such elementary questions implies that they are maybe a little too focused on the theory above evidence These are only my conclusions, as I mentioned, I used to share yours.

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Here's another really cool video explaining the reality of the situation
video.google.com...

It might, one day, become reality. Who knows? Until then, the content of the video will remain a theory based on the words of a 'sleeping prophet.'

I used to share an interest in Cayce until certain problems became too large to ignore or explain away. What mechanism or process would enable him to be so specific? 1997-98 are mentioned in the video by Bauval/Hancock. They cite (as usual) the 10, 500 year age of the Giza pyramids. How could he know the exact year? Mankind hadn't even begun ascribing each year a reference number at that time.

Hans: An excellent question and one I've not seen before. Yes it begs the question of how he would come out with a date that would be completely meaningless to whatever source he was getting the date from.

One wonders how that works? hehe

Needless to say he just made it up.

Harte: Did Madame B come up with that date of 10,500?

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Darwin was just a guy that tried to hard to prove what he though was true and succeeded. Now you see the proportion of the impact of such a date being prove right would cause in almost all science branches.

"The distribution of tenants of this archipelago", he wrote, "would not be nearly so wonderful, if for instance, one island has a mocking-thrush and a second island some other quite distinct species... But it is the circumstance that several of the islands possess their own species of tortoise, mocking-thrush, finches, and numerous plants, these species having the same general habits, occupying analogous situations, and obviously filling the same place in the natural economy of this archipelago, that strikes me with wonder."

Cornell University Source

Darwin's ideas took form on the 2nd Survey of HMS Beagle. He developed his ideas as a consequence of his findings, not the other way round.

And?

This doesn't proves him right regarding human evolution nor changes anything, they remain as theories. As soon you use a previous work as starting point all you're doing is fitting new evidence in a work that could be wrong in the first place.

If his theories are so complete and truth in the first place why don't we have other monkeys or even other species behaving and living like us?

So far no one could explain that for me, which leads me to believe that:

A) We must have been a very special and unique type of monkey that were raised in environment that wasn't shared by or common to any other species. Completely isolated from anything else.

or

B) Darwin is wrong regarding humans and we are much older than what he and others are so fond to state we are.

Since the very same remains he (and his followers) present as being proofs of our evolution weren't isolated from anything it becomes very hard to believe he is 100% right regarding this.

And anything below 100% right in this case is unacceptable since it changes everyones perspective regarding everything leading to a inevitable inference based on a incomplete or wrong theory. This is specially truth for dating stuff.

Howdy Thomas

A) We must have been a very special and unique type of monkey that were raised in environment that wasn't shared by or common to any other species. Completely isolated from anything else.

Hans: We know there were other hominids evolving alongside of us for millions of years. We’ve found there remains. In more current times we had the Neanderthals and perhaps the Homo Floresiensis. We also have evidence that we co-evolved along with other species during historic time due to the transfer of virus and other diseases between us. We are remarkably well adapted to survive on this earth with the predators we now have and to obtain and process the resources we need. It would appear that the evidence points to our evolution in Africa.

B) Darwin is wrong regarding humans and we are much older than what he and others are so fond to state we are.

Hans: The evidence we have shows us to have separated from a common ancestor we shared with the chimpanzees around 6-8 million years ago. There is no trace of an earlier humanoid presence.

Since the very same remains he (and his followers) present as being proofs of our evolution weren't isolated from anything it becomes very hard to believe he is 100% right regarding this.

Hans: You can look at the Bonobo and chimps, the Bonobo, evolved away from the chimps 1.5 to 2.0 million years ago when they were separated by geological events

This is specially truth for dating stuff.

Hans: The technology and methodologies of Dating stuff are unrelated to evolution.

One thing that has made evolution so powerful in its ability to show us how we came about is the lack of any compelling or evidenced counter-theory.

All evidence points to evolution.

reply to post by Hanslune


Hey Hans,

I see and I can even buy that idea. Like I said I don't discard his entire work I just think we still have far too many missing pieces to jump into conclusions that would move this from theory status to "proven for good" status.

Where are the in-between specimens?

Because as it is now all I see is a bunch of similar specimens that could fit together and make some sense if put into a chronological order. Which leaves plenty of space for the "what if".

Which I find hard to digest is why this jumpy evolutionary steps without more organic and constant steps. It's almost like all of a sudden without a reason type X would give birth to type Y that is kinda drastically different without a more gradual evolution.

Regarding the dating stuff I'm aware that is completely different science and it's not related. The problem (and it's only a possibility) happens when involuntary inference takes place so things can fit and make some sense within what we currently know/accept.

The Sphinx in my opinion is one case of typical inference, that's why all this mess now.

Anyway I'm in no position to prove nor disprove anything, only to question what I hear/read till it can fit my small and limited brain

I see and I can even buy that idea. Like I said I don't discard his entire work I just think we still have far too many missing pieces to jump into conclusions that would move this from theory status to "proven for good" status.

Hans: There is no “proven for good” status for ANY scientific theory. All theory are subject to change from observation and experimentation. Data and evidence is the determiner

Where are the in-between specimens?

Hans: you seem to be trying “the gods of the gaps” creation argument. If interested you can go to the Talkorigins site and get a LONG discussion on that subject!

Because as it is now all I see is a bunch of similar specimens that could fit together and make some sense if put into a chronological order. Which leaves plenty of space for the "what if".

Hans: What if what?

Which I find hard to digest is why this jumpy evolutionary steps without more organic and constant steps. It's almost like all of a sudden without a reason type X would give birth to type Y that is kinda drastically different without a more gradual evolution.

Hans: It looks jumpy because not all evolutionary stages are found in the fossil record but continuance can be determined by skeletal comparison

Regarding the dating stuff I'm aware that is completely different science and it's not related. The problem (and it's only a possibility) happens when involuntary inference takes place so things can fit and make some sense within what we currently know/accept.

Hans: Unsure of what you are saying here, could you rephrase.

The Sphinx in my opinion is one case of typical inference, that's why all this mess now.

Hans: The Sphinx is just fine, due to the lack of definite evidence there are many theories on it age of construction. Since we have no data on limestone erosion rates at x years at y rain fall x z acidity we cannot make a clear determination of age. We need more data.

Anyway I'm in no position to prove nor disprove anything, only to question what I hear/read till it can fit my small and limited brain

Hans: Its always good to ask questions but many questions haven’t been answered yet

Hans: There is no “proven for good” status for ANY scientific theory. All theory are subject to change from observation and experimentation. Data and evidence is the determiner

Makes sense... since as long they are theories they can't be anything else.

Maybe that's the main issue I have with any theoretical science that some seem to neglect, they are theories. Theories based on evidences and experimentation that can change, get re-ordered at any time or simply be proven as plain wrong.

But some don't seem to realize that and quickly use those "works in progress" to debunk anything that goes against them just because it sounds crazy or doesn't fit with the way they are currently constructing an idea.

Please don't get me wrong I love theoretical sciences and have a great respect for science in general, but I love to question things.

I'm sorry for being a royal pain in the rear end

Hans: you seem to be trying “the gods of the gaps” creation argument. If interested you can go to the Talkorigins site and get a LONG discussion on that subject!

I'll look into it thanks for the tip

Even tho I doubt that anyone will reach any conclusion.

Hans: What if what?

What if we didn't came from apes at all?

What if these monkeys were genetically modified by some other intelligent life form that was once here?

And all the etc that you can think of

I know, there is no evidence but then there is no evidence to prove it otherwise, just arguments. It's crazy, it's thin air but they are theory nonetheless.

Hans: It looks jumpy because not all evolutionary stages are found in the fossil record but continuance can be determined by skeletal comparison

"determined" or guessed?

As long we don't find those missing evolutionary stages in missing fossil records we have no real evidences to link everything and construct a solid idea. This is why I find all this at least questionable.

If evidences are all that matters than "guess work" just because they are similar shouldn't be taken that seriously and as a base to jump into conclusions.

Hans: Unsure of what you are saying here, could you rephrase.

Kinda hard to make it sound right since English isn't my primary language but I'll try

It's practically impossible for humans to be impartial, we have a tendency to unconsciously induce things (manipulate them without even realizing) so they are able to fit our beliefs, ideas, desires and what a knots. This happens with everything and everyone.

Hans: The Sphinx is just fine, due to the lack of definite evidence there are many theories on it age of construction. Since we have no data on limestone erosion rates at x years at y rain fall x z acidity we cannot make a clear determination of age. We need more data.

For sure, and I would say that we won't ever have the data in question. It's impossible to know when it rained and what were the properties of the rain for that period in question without a "weather channel archive" from that time.

At least just by having the idea that the Sphinx is a lot older than though before being widely accepted is already a great thing.

But some don't seem to realize that and quickly use those "works in progress" to debunk anything that goes against them just because it sounds crazy or doesn't fit with the way they are currently constructing an idea.

Hans: in many cases the evidence for a theory is so irresistible and consistent and no other theory has any support that they would be difficult to overturn, evolution is one of those

What if we didn't came from apes at all?

Hans: Considering how close we are to them that is hard to put into the possible column

What if these monkeys were genetically modified by some other intelligent life form that was once here?

Hans: They did a poor job and if they did they left no trace.

"determined" or guessed?

Hans: Determined, bone structures, DNA etc show relationships between species and how long they have been apart.

As long we don't find those missing evolutionary stages in missing fossil records we have no real evidences to link everything and construct a solid idea. This is why I find all this at least questionable.

Hans: If we have a fossil of a short horned antelope then the next fossil we find is of the same animal but with a long horn – do you think the long horned one was newly created? Again try talkorigins for more detailed examples.

Kinda hard to make it sound right since English isn't my primary language but I'll try

Hans: You are doing just fine I wasn’t born in an English speaking country either

At least just by having the idea that the Sphinx is a lot older than though before being widely accepted is already a great thing.

Hans: Schoch has moved his original estimates down to 5-7 BC, however there are strong arguments against this date. If it did move to that date the only people in that area are Neolithic proto-farmers and hunter-gathers but as Gobeki tepe shows they could have gotten organized earlier than expected. I wouldn't characterize it as widely accepted either, certainly not among Egyptologists, not sure about geologists.

Originally posted by Havalon
reply to post by azzllin

 

Spot on Azzllin

Hawass also closed down the filming by National Geographric when they sent a camera robot up one of the passages in the Kings chamber
The robot encountered a wooden door. The crew requested permission to 'break through this door to see what was on the other side. It was then that Hawass called a halt.

That induvidual, whilst serving under the 'pretence' of guardian of Egyptian antiqueties, is holding archeology back from discovering a greater understanding of the platau.

One must wonder as to 'why' that is??

H

God I thought it was just me, every time, I read or watch something on Egypt Hawass is there. He does not let Archaelogists in to do anywork wihtout his oversight, and any filming requires that he appears as the lead researcher. HE appears to be incredibly controlling and corrupt, Investigate Hawass I say.

Hans: They did a poor job and if they did they left no trace.

Indeed, and they didn't left a instructions manual

Hans: Schoch has moved his original estimates down to 5-7 BC, however there are strong arguments against this date. If it did move to that date the only people in that area are Neolithic proto-farmers and hunter-gathers but as Gobeki tepe shows they could have gotten organized earlier than expected. I wouldn't characterize it as widely accepted either, certainly not among Egyptologists, not sure about geologists.

As long it get people thinking and discussing it, it's a good thing already.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Harte: Did Madame B come up with that date of 10,500?

Hans,

All these shysters got the date from good old Plato because they're all either backing up to, or directly inferring, the existence of Atlantis (or, in some cases, they'll modify this to "an Atlantean - like society.")

Re. Kandinsky's question about how they get such a precise date, they claim that they've made this discovery based on the alignment of the three stars in Orion's belt with the positions of the three main pyramids at Giza.

Of course, they are reasonably comfortable in this claim, given that very few laymen (who are the only people buying the trash these liars publish) will have the inclination or the ability to check and see if these so-called "exact alignments" are actually real.

They are not.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Hmmm well I was aware of the Orion claim but wait. Plato claimed that Atlantis was destroyed 9,000 years before his time. That was just after 500 BC so that comes out to......9,500 BC.....hmmmm. I thought it was mMdame B who pulled that number out of the aether.

Originally posted by thomas_
I just think we still have far too many missing pieces to jump into conclusions that would move this from theory status to "proven for good" status.

There is, and never has been, any theory that attained such status.

The very real fact is, the fate of every theory is the trash bin of history.

It's just that some theories leave their marks on their successor theories, the way Newton's mechanistic explanation of motion still exists within the equations provided by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Originally posted by thomas_Where are the in-between specimens?

Every separate species is potentially an "in between" specimen, as you state it.

Originally posted by thomas_The Sphinx in my opinion is one case of typical inference, that's why all this mess now.

Many mainstream Egyptologists are not exactly "comfortable" with the current date given for the Sphinx's carving. That's why there are various theories.

This page at ATS' Tinwiki site explains they whys and whats of where the date comes from, and also why we use it.

Fact is, inference is basically all we have to go on where the age of the Sphinx is concerned.

Harte

Hey Hollywood11,

Hows the Taijiquan going? I think you said that you practiced a lot of qigong and wudang & songshan style kungfu.

All that aside I agree with you over the weathering of the sphinx. looking at it and it is obvious that some sort of erosion has happened to the stone from something being relentlessly poured over it. I'd guess water was the cause. especially since the erosion is greatest where the water would run off.

I've heard people argue that the sand blowing around the sphinx over thousands of years did the erosion. but It doesn't look like sand caused erosion to me. it looks like water. That and the astrological orientation of the giza complex and sphinx which lines up with the erosion time line well it seems to me that the sphinx is much older than we are led to believe.

A nice quote from an opinon in the tinwiki

What Schoch and others have done is merely open a door to the possibility of a much older sphinx. They have not proven anything and they present very little solid, scientific evidence to support their theories.

reply to post by Hanslune


Hans,

I believe that, in order to align the destruction of Atlantis (or the so-called "Atlantean-like society,") with the end of the Youger Dryas, Hancock allows a certain amount of wiggle room, casting the 10,500 BC date (sometimes it's 10,500 BP - probably how it started out) as "approximately" the time period mentioned by Plato.

By coincidence (I assume) this is about the time that Leo aligned with Giza at due east at dawn on one of the solstices or some such. (As you can see, I'm not gonna look up all his crap either - gave up on that charlatan before his "Orion alignment" argument ever came out.)

Also, please note that his main claim once was for the construction of the Giza Necropolis in that long gone era, and now he claims that the site layout was merely planned in that time period (his rendition of "Zep Tepi," or the Egyptian's myth of the "first time") by some advanced civilization (nudge-nudge Atlantis wink-wink) and not constructed then but during the Egyptian dynastic period and then only as a memorial to the Zep Tepi. In his mind, if his 10,500 BC date overshoot's Plato by a thousand years, then that only means the Atlante...oops - I mean the "Atlantean-like society" - provided the plans before they were wiped out, rather than some stragglers coming to Egypt after the destruction of this advanced civilization.

IOW, somebody held onto and preserved the plans for the site for thousands of years.

Harte

I can see a Ph.d in alternative pathways would be just up your alley. I wonder if anyone has studied how all these modern myths got made up, how they influenced each other.

I believe Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modernman) first made an ppearance 90,000 years ago in the middle east, than 35,000 years ago in europe. So it's very possible that modern man homo sapiens S. were around 10,000 years ago, so that previous poster is incorrect in that statement.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Hey Hollywood11,

Hows the Taijiquan going? I think you said that you practiced a lot of qigong and wudang & songshan style kungfu.

All that aside I agree with you over the weathering of the sphinx. looking at it and it is obvious that some sort of erosion has happened to the stone from something being relentlessly poured over it. I'd guess water was the cause. especially since the erosion is greatest where the water would run off.

I've heard people argue that the sand blowing around the sphinx over thousands of years did the erosion. but It doesn't look like sand caused erosion to me. it looks like water. That and the astrological orientation of the giza complex and sphinx which lines up with the erosion time line well it seems to me that the sphinx is much older than we are led to believe.

Hey man, good to hear from you again. Yeah rain erosion is vertical where wind is usually horizontal