pre pyramid plateau

a reply to: Marduk

ah ok, i thought you were trying to wind harte up
your can be a little ambiguous

a reply to: username74

I find its easier to do that on Facebook

Whats ambiguous, its the Devil...

a reply to: 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"
yeah fair enough. that detail passed me by as i was going on what i can observe and other geologists studies, on investigation i concur, his methodology isnt good.
i would point out in my defence that reader also came to this conclusion and for this reason in his criticism of schoch he also ignored schochs "seismic tests" .
coxhill also, and both reach a slightly different (older) conclusion to the traditional timeframe.
and i have to agree here also
"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."
and this is always a problem in discussions of megaliths etc. the climatologists have this to say
"Recent studies by German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne suggest the change from a wet to a much drier climate may have come to an end around 3500 - 1500 BC, which is as much as 500 years later than currently thought. Egyptologist Mark Lehner believes this climate change may have been responsible for the severe weathering found on the Sphinx and other sites of the 4th Dynasty. After studying sediment samples in the Nile Valley, Judith Bunbury, a geologist at the University of Cambridge, concluded that climate change in the Giza region may have begun early in the Old Kingdom, with desert sands arriving in force late in the era."
interestingly lehner here seems to desire some supporting evidence of heavy rain.
so i suppose that covers this
"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."
the next bit was never in question was it?, it visually apparent
"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."
there are two types erosion present. the horizontal aeolian and the fluvial vertical. schochs contention was heavy rain. zawass and (maybe lehner, they dont agree on all points) contend that this occurred before carving, due to the water entering the fissures. well in the absence of heavy rainfall the mechanism of erosion must be the exfoliation
at this juncture i would like to insert an observation
on the original plateau, presumably there was a outcrop which is now the head (good job it has no elongated skull, eh? ) i have heard yardang bandied about but some contend that, maybe it causes argument about climate/dating as pertains to the enviromental conditions needed to form said thing.
anyway, either said rock already had some form to inspire its future shape (orientation as a given) or it was fit for purpose as regards intended project.
was it already semi formed, something that had had an organic root and people had been chipping away at for generations with no coherent plan or origin, more as a contribution to the general effect?
or was the form of the flanks already partially eroded in from earlier rains by say two gulleys and inspired the body (this scenario would certainly give zawass's erosion weight, it would create the fluvial marks and in correct sequence)
maybe a natural feature exploited, like the romanian sphinx or this (sorry about the site, just for the picture, obviously its natural.
there are better examples in south america but cant find the pictures right now
www.thelivingmoon.com...
just speculation obviously

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

www.thelivingmoon.com...
just speculation obviously

This is a link to Klaus Donna, which is like linking to Von Daniken
The face is clearly Pareidolia
There's a few hundred examples here
rock pareidolia

originally posted by: Harte
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.

...actually THREE things: He's convinced of an ancient global civilization (accepting the alternative history claims of evidence) and looking for proof of it. His conclusion on Yonaguni (a natural formation modified by humans) is equally badly done.

a reply to: Marduk
hmm
not looking to go that far down the rabbit hole marduk, is there something you would like to say marduk or just turning the broth?

yeah interesting but not the really fascinating ones, i will try and find better
a reply to: Marduk

a reply to: username74

but Pareidolia sure thats the name that fits

a reply to: Byrd


"...actually THREE things: He's convinced of an ancient global civilization (accepting the alternative history claims of evidence) and looking for proof of it. His conclusion on Yonaguni (a natural formation modified by humans) is equally badly done."
oh hi byrd, back are we,
HES not convinced of anything, least of all your rhetoric.
i ll adress your concerns promptly

a reply to: Byrd

Yonaguni (a natural formation modified by humans)
what?, really?, whats going on?

a reply to: Marduk

maybe a natural feature exploited, like the romanian sphinx or this (sorry about the site, just for the picture, obviously its natural.
there are better examples in south america but cant find the pictures right now
www.thelivingmoon.com...
you did read it properly, no?

Who cares if somebody banged with a rock on the massif that eventually became the sphinx's head at some point in the distant past?

You could say the same for any rock you can find on the surface, and many now buried.

Harte

a reply to: Byrd

"(accepting the alternative history claims of evidence) and looking for proof of it"
also i take issue with this.
what is the mainstream alternative view?
are you just basically histronic when opposing hypothesis's are are raised.?
if, in looking to examine, support or debunk a theory, would you not bring all your ideas to the table in the hope you might reach some consesus or do you just sit, like old priviledged priest of a cult, much as you study, stand and decry anything that challenges your ultimate position as guardian of all final knowledge. all other posters have brought stuff in even marduk and he just has a trolling hobby, hes not even offensive. you deliver limitless hyperbole and intimidation. harte if a little grumpy , always has a counter proposal, and a dry sense of humour, i have speculative inquiries, an am receiving, even if i do not agree with all thats presented, an edifying and organic education on the basis of my deductive inquiry. what is your contribution?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Harte
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.

...actually THREE things: He's convinced of an ancient global civilization (accepting the alternative history claims of evidence) and looking for proof of it.

Fabricating and misinterpreting the evidence. He's not convinced, he's just making money from the gullible like all the other charlatans

I am not recommending this book, its abysmal trash, but its what he does now, rather than real science.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Marduk
hmm
not looking to go that far down the rabbit hole marduk, is there something you would like to say marduk or just turning the broth?

Slow work day, not many new souls being admitted down here

a reply to: Harte

again fair enough. but y'know sometimes its fun. speculations speculation. if there was an engineering forum i would have put it there. but i suppose it depends on how you want to approach this medium

a reply to: Marduk

oh i thought it was me being referred to as regards the three things, there

a reply to: username74

ha ha what a zoo!

a reply to: Harte
harte, thats just nihlistic!

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Marduk

oh i thought it was me being referred to as regards the three things, there

No Byrd was talking about Robert Schoch, so your personal attack was unwarranted
Also, Byrd is a female, the rest of us are kind of gentlemanly about that.
You should probably issue a retraction

a reply to: Marduk

yeah i caught onto that, alas too late. i wholeheartedly apologise, byrd, on a personal level .
but i dont retract my rebuttals, they have foundation. i just wish i hadnt stated it.
c'est la vie