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.

 

pre pyramid plateau

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

thing about all this is, its observable




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

oh well, you did try to point out that schochs study appeeared to be localised which is a valid and essential premise.

... and, in fact, was taken to "prove" his point rather than a pure academic investigation.


* mud brick and limestone aren't even vaguely the same, nor do they have the same erosion rates.
well exactly! what it does imply is the builders were not expecting heavy rain anytime soon.
* limestone needs to be compared to limestone.
eh? i dont get it


Let me try an analogy: What Schoch is doing is comparing the melting times of butter with ice and trying to make the case that ice and butter melt at the same rate at room temperature. (and different types of mud brick decompose differently.


Giza is not in the middle of the Saqqara cemetery (where the mastabas are.) The weather isn't the same.
it 10 miles as the crow flies isnt it?

Have you ever seen it rain in your city when it wasn't raining 10 miles away? (cities actually change the microclimate)


* Giza and Saqqara aren't the same elevation.
almost irrelevant, i never suggested they were physically connected or am i just missing something?

Gravity, slope, height of water, amount of water moving through there. Erosion on higher slopes looks different than erosion on lower slopes.


...and at any rate, as you can see from the Buried Pyramid (that predates Khufu's pyramid), the monuments are in worse shape: en.wikipedia.org... (unless they've been restored, and many have.)
well, yes . what do you feel trhe implications of this imply?


As many have said, Schoch is wrong. Furthermore, he didn't even do a good job of researching the site he was "studying" to make his point.

This is bad science and he should have known it. The FIRST thing you do is "ask a question that can be falsified and can be answered" and the SECOND thing you do is "research everything about the situation." He skimmed, he didn't consult other who were familiar (years of digging/research on the plateau) -- he consulted people who thought things were wrong but hadn't actually done any research and didn't know much about geology or archaeology. That's like a heart surgeon asking artists for advice on a tricky operation.
edit on 18-6-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

thing about all this is, its observable

But first you have to know all about what you're observing. If you don't know anything, then you can't interpret the results correctly.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

" originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

oh well, you did try to point out that schochs study appeeared to be localised which is a valid and essential premise.


... and, in fact, was taken to "prove" his point rather than a pure academic investigation."

so i am honestly a little lost here, i tried to imply you had a valid point. and you do. and that the evidence obtained under this premise, doesnt fit your interpretation of, this, is nothing to do with me. if .. you have a counterproposal based on comparative physical study i wouled be delighted to add it to my growing reading list
edit on 18-6-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


"Let me try an analogy: What Schoch is doing is comparing the melting times of butter with ice and trying to make the case that ice and butter melt at the same rate at room temperature. (and different types of mud brick decompose differently"

byrd, c,mon, the point is the adobe hadnt degraded and the limestone had eroded to a metre depth. both under sand for a comparable period, both in a relative geographical location and to boot similar limestone structures suffering the same discrepecies
edit on 18-6-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Have you ever seen it rain in your city when it wasn't raining 10 miles away? (cities actually change the microclimate)

i live in a mountain valley at 1600m , what do you think?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


Gravity, slope, height of water, amount of water moving through there. Erosion on higher slopes looks different than erosion on lower slopes.

see above



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


"As many have said, Schoch is wrong. Furthermore, he didn't even do a good job of researching the site he was "studying" to make his point.

This is bad science and he should have known it. The FIRST thing you do is "ask a question that can be falsified and can be answered" and the SECOND thing you do is "research everything about the situation." He skimmed, he didn't consult other who were familiar (years of digging/research on the plateau) -- he consulted people who thought things were wrong but hadn't actually done any research and didn't know much about geology or archaeology. That's like a heart surgeon asking artists for advice on a tricky operation."

all right, thats enough of that #, the mans own retrospective is linked below involving all proponents and opponents and any offshoots, mostly easily obtainable so everyone foolish enough to read this thread can make up their own minds . why dont you read it, byrd and stop inventing ridiculous analogies, stop misrepresenting the things i write, immediately after they are written, do some of that copying and pasting, you so despise, from relevant information to support your counter arguments



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

sorry linkwww.robertschoch.net...



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

oh and just to put that crap to bed i dont see any mountain ranges between saqqarra and giza, why a precipitation difference



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link quote reply


originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

thing about all this is, its observable


But first you have to know all about what you're observing. If you don't know anything, then you can't interpret the results correctly.

i am observing pronounced fluvial erosion on the sphinx. the reason all this started



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

uuhhgh, look, i understand
"Weathering on the sphinx cannot be shown to have been "precipitation-induced."
It can be fully explained by exfoliation caused by salt dissolution and recrystallizatuion, a process easily observe on the sphinx and enclosure walls to this day. "
ok well in a nutshell, yes this is true, but the amount of exfoliation, it still puts the chronology out. if you can account for that much erosion, under sand, as a result of dew, and the capillary processes causing salt migration (the mechanical aspect), creating the proposed relative exfoliation, to over 1 metre and other areas up to almost 2 metres in depth. the aeolian weathering (horizontal weathering) and the fluvial (vertical fissures) are not comparable. it is merely, theoretically, a matter of sequence, so why if this is correct, do we not have same characteristics on other structures of comparable antiquity with the same material, exibiting the same degree of weathering. as attested to by Reader, one of shoch's critics, although also a geologist.
and i contest this to the first point you raise
"Weathering on the sphinx cannot be shown to have been "precipitation-induced."
well, some of it certainly is.

When limestone is exfoliating, it's easy enough for any rain at all to wash off the flakes.
You can pinch them off with your fingers.
BTW, the weathering in the bedrock is not exfoliation. It's a degradation caused by air exposure.

You need to read Schoch's original paper. It's pretty apparent you haven't - at least, not in a long time.
Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza, Robert Schoch, 1992
About 1/3 of the way down, under "Seismic Surveys of the Sphinx Area," you'll find what I'm talking about.

Note the absence of any data in the paper. Easily fixed:
Scoch's data.

Find me wrong.

Please note that the limestone beds there actually contain several fossil coral reefs. No one would aver that a reef would weather the same way deposited limestone would, and Schoch fails to even consider this.

Also, it's not unusual at all for a limestone bed to vary greatly over a distance of only a few meters, and the beds Schoch was sounding are all at angle to the flat surface of the enclosure as well.

Harte



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

err.. well im reading the second link (thanks) but the first link is the same one i presented from a different site, is this intentional or am i short an intended link? inside the article are three links the largest ones being another link i put up "billington". there are 2 other links in there, are they it?
edit on 19-6-2016 by username74 because: confusion



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Don't know if you are figuring this part yet
The sphinx is not all one mass of sandstone with the same properties


The headdress was repaired with cement after it was cut into the Menes.
Which proves that the top layers of the sphinx are particularly poor rock and so much more subject to the various forms of weathering than any of the structures on the plateau, which were built from a quarry.






posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
oh hi marduk. going to assume harte was trying to lead to this.
guardians.net...
this guy?
The identity of Menes is the subject of ongoing debate, although mainstream Egyptological consensus identifies Menes with the protodynastic pharaoh Narmer[1][2][3] (most likely) or first dynasty Hor-Aha.[7] Both pharaohs are credited with the unification of Egypt, to different degrees by various authorities.
this correct harte?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

also yeah, i know about the various different layers, but in itself that doesnt tell us much as regards age without a benchmark.
i didnt get into the geophysical surveys (although i will now)
it wasnt immediately pertinent due to the observed erosional features, and to restate colin reader, referred to as an opponent, although contending (probably correctly, i will find out as i read) the methodology of schochs study, comes to a chronological discrepency with the given paradigm as well, just on a much more conservative scale.
none of the geophysical evidence from anyones study should lead to the complete disregard of the surface features.
just to clarify; the summary of hawass and lehners source
"Geologist Robert Schoch claims that the angularity between recessed and protruding layers on the facade of the Tomb of Debehen indicates that it was eroded by wind. The rounded profile of the Sphinx, he contends, resulted from water erosion and proves that the sculpture is much older.
Archaeologists believe both tomb and Sphinx were carved during the 4th Dynasty (2575-2134 B.c.). The tomb facade--originally the western side of the Khufu quarry, 459 yards west of the Sphinx and 75 to 141 feet higher--is carved in bedrock higher in the geological sequence of layers than those of the Sphinx.
The different weathering profiles reflect differences ill the physical properties of the rocks, not the age of the monuments. Schoch and West cite the roundness of the protrusions and recesses in the south wall of the Sphinx ditch as evidence of rain erosion, and believe that fissures in the rock were caused by rainwater after the Sphinx was carved.
Most scholars believe the fractures were caused by tectonic forces and eroded by groundwater long before the monument was carved. "
now this last sentence, the basic conclusion, is highly speculative. sure tectonic factures , ok with that. water erosion. we knew that. that the groundwater has eroded the bedding planes before carving?
so these guys who almost completely covered the limestone pavement in the pyramid complex with their own limestone pavement because the natural one is full of clints and grykes and as a protection against movement, one assumes,decided to build a great big lion out of swiss cheese.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: username74
and lets have these two again since previously ignored

Coxill, in the next paragraph of his paper (page 17), continues: "Nevertheless, it [the Sphinx] is clearly older than the traditional date for the origins of the Sphinx ‑‑ in the reign of Khafre, 2520‑2490 BC

Thus Reader concludes (page 11 of his paper) that "When considered in terms of the hydrology of the site, the distribution of degradation within the Sphinx enclosure indicates that the excavation of the Sphinx pre‑dates Khufu's early Fourth Dynasty development at Giza." Interestingly, Reader also concludes that the so‑called "Khafre's" causeway (running from the area of the Sphinx , Sphinx Temple, and Khafre Valley Temple up to the Mortuary Temple on the eastern side of the Khafre pyramid), part of "Khafre's" Mortuary Temple (which Reader refers to as the "Proto‑mortuary temple"), and the Sphinx Temple predate the reign of Khufu.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: username74decided to build a great big lion out of swiss cheese.


Yeah, like it wasn't part of the overall plan and something they did on their lunch break

The Sphinx temple is built from the same blocks incorporated into the sphinx and shows exactly the same type of weathering
But for that we have radiocarbon dating from the mortar showing a construction date of between 2085 BC and 2746 BC ...



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Marduk
oh hi marduk. going to assume harte was trying to lead to this.
guardians.net...
this guy?
The identity of Menes is the subject of ongoing debate, although mainstream Egyptological consensus identifies Menes with the protodynastic pharaoh Narmer[1][2][3] (most likely) or first dynasty Hor-Aha.[7] Both pharaohs are credited with the unification of Egypt, to different degrees by various authorities.
this correct harte?

Your correct, as far as that goes, but it wasn't my point.
Schoch has never stated that his claim of antiquity was based on visible weathering of the Sphinx body.
That was my point.
Why hasn't he?
Because that cannot be asserted. We don't have any decent information regarding the rainfall in the area over time, nor can the amount of weathering be correlated directly to any rainfall, and such a "timeline of weathering" is in fact impossible to assemble practically anywhere, with the exception of weathering on uniform stone in places where the average rainfall is well known over thousands of years.

In fact, since 1992, it has been established that it was wetter in the 1st Dynasty that had been previously thought when Schoch wrote his original paper.

Schoch admitted also that the weathering patterns on stone has more to do with the actual makeup of the stone than it does the mode by which the weathering took place.

Schoch's date for the sphinx is based entirely on two things - subsurface (air contact) weathering of the bedrock and the assumption that the rear of the sphinx was carved during Khafre's reign. In order to use subsurface weathering for dating purposes at all, one must assume that the subsurface is somewhat uniform and therefore would weather somewhat uniformly. This is obviously not the case at Giza.

Harte



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: username74
The identity of Menes is the subject of ongoing debate, although mainstream Egyptological consensus identifies Menes with the protodynastic pharaoh Narmer[1][2][3] (most likely) or first dynasty Hor-Aha.[7] Both pharaohs are credited with the unification of Egypt, to different degrees by various authorities.
this correct harte?


No sorry, me being a dumbass again, Not Menes, Nemes
Like this
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: username74

in fact, i am not suprised by the variabilty or results considering this information
"The
EAO architect directed the restoration program from 1982-1987. The biggest problems in this phase
of the work are the following:
1) The mortar recommended in the scientific report was not used, but instead a very large amount of cement and gypsum. Furthermore, the mortar was put directly on the mother rock.
2) The workmen had no supervision from any member of the Sphinx committee. The architect in charge came to the
site personally only rarely.
3) The large stones used in the restoration completely obscured the modeling and the proportions of the Sphinx. This casing was applied on the south paw,north paw, the northern side, the back, the tail the masonry boxes, the Roman stairs, the Sphinx sanc­tuary,and the back paw of the northernside. All these places look new and strange.
4) Rather than giving priority to the weak areas, such as the shoulders and the top of the haunches, attention was focused on cosmetic renovations, which were them­selves done badly.
The 'restoration' consisted merely of removing stones and mortar and replacement works.Buttresses of stone and mortar (again, cement and gypsum) were added over the mother rock of the Sphinx on the rump, north, and part of the south side.
5) All the ancient stones that were added to the Sphinx in the phase III restoration were removed. These stones were not recorded or saved in storage.
6) The Giza branch of the EAO, whose personnel were at the time best equipped to supervise the work,was not
permitted a role in overseeing the work.
7) A wall was built on the north side which, among other things, completely obscured the modeling of the Sphinx's shoulder. This was wholly unwarranted archaeologically; it was based on imagination rather than evidence
shocking, really.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join