Men nearly caused human extinction 7,000 years ago, new theory states

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: toms54

Climate and human society are intimately linked.
In the case of the 4.2 kye, the extreme aridity that besets the western and central eurasia makes crops fail and rivers dry up. It cause groups to start to move around trying to find a new place to grow crops or graze their livestock.
As each group encroaches on the neighboring groups, they in turn will push on tneir neighbors.
This is how the Akkadians fell, pressure from the displaced Gutian barbarians, who were in fact Indo european horsemen.

Yea but when I look at movements of these people I see them fighting their neighbors all the time. There was constant turmoil but not large scale migrations like from Northern India to the middle east which was caused by earlier climate + wars. If the climate was so bad why did they just go next door where it was pretty much more of the same?

a reply to: toms54

This map video illustrates my point:

a reply to: Harte

could you describe subsurface weathering? Not being argumentitive, just geo ignorant in that regard.

a reply to: luthier

Your information is compelling. I havent given it the dilligence it deserves, but what time Ive used reading your submissions in this regard...well, I like the way you think.

I appreciate your appreciation of permaculture, different thread one day, my wife and I are distilling and freeze drying in ways, I dont believe has ever been done, under the aforementioned growing method. As we get more capital we will be hplc assaying for building real data to prove our thesis...I dont easily share said thesis.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Harte

could you describe subsurface weathering? Not being argumentitive, just geo ignorant in that regard.

Weathering is not erosion, where material is carried off.
The sort of weathering Schoch talked about comes about through exposure to air.
It progresses from the surface inward into the stone (of course,) and changes the properties of the stone enough to allow more sound to pass through it.

So, Schoch took "seismic readings" (actually, banging on a plate of steel lying on the ground) and noted the difference between the echo from the weathered and unweathered stone under the plate.

This tells you how far into the stone the weathering has proceeded.

If you could only pretend that such weathering progresses uniformly and linearly into the stone, it would be a good measure of how long the bedrock in the enclosure has been exposed.
However, as I indicated, you can't because it doesn't. And not only that, but the bedrock there is composed of a fossil coral reef on one side of the sphinx. Corals don't weather at the same rate as simple deposited limestone does.

An interesting experiment - with no supportable conclusions.


Harte

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier
Look at Egypt.. it used to be a quack theory the sphinx was older than 2500 bc. Now it's being accepted the head was recarved and the pyramids are on older mounds.

"Accepted?"
Hardly.

Maybe accepted by you.

Harte

It is certainly becoming accepted. The problem with egyprologists is they haven't been very scientific. They were mostly linguist, art historians etc. Once geologists and physicists entered they starting finding things the old crew did not want to talk about. Of course this is common in academia. People have books and reputations.

But look into it. A lot of egyprologists are confirming this is the case. In fact it has been repaired several times.

No, it's not being accepted. It's not.
No matter what you might prefer.

Schoch's theory relies on the assumption of a uniform bedrock, where there is none. On top of that, his theory relies on the assumption that the rear of the sphinx was carved in the 4th dynasty.

His date for the Sphinx rests entirely on subsurface weathering, not rainfall, and he measured said weathering in (at least) two different beds of limestone bedrock with very different properties.

Besides, his own data shows the sides of the sphinx are older than the front or rear, while at the same time he claims the front was carved in antiquity, and the rest finished off in the 4th dynasty.

If this was even close to be accepted by anyone, the soundings he made (and there were only a few, with only ONE measurement taken in the rear of the enclosure) would be repeated by several different researchers.

That's what you do - repeat the experiment. That's called science.

The Giza Plateau Mapping Project put the final nail in the coffin of Schoch's theory. It's over, except on fringe websites/books/"conferences," "Ancient Aliens," and discussion boards like this one.


Harte

It's not just schoch's theory. Other geologists have said similar, Reader for one. Schoch is not an ancient alien theorist. Schoch is a tenured professor at BU and has more scientific degrees than most egyptologists whom have not been very warm to science in general. Leher may be but again he can also be chasing confirmation bias like schoch. The forensic science study of the head showed it doesn't seem to be his claim.

Can you show the data for the giza mapping project? Is it available?

Schoch is an ancient advanced civilization theorist. Have you not heard of any of his books on the pyramid building culture that traveled the world showing ignorant brown people how to stack stones?

Reader places the sphinx at a couple of hundred years earlier than the accepted timeline. You think that means he agrees with Schoch?

Both Reader and Schoch made their proposals before the GPMP results came out.

I suggest you google "GPMP" and "Sphinx." I don't know how much raw data is available, but there are summaries on their website.


Harte

a reply to: Harte

Hey, thank you..I have to sit a bit longer with what you just explained, appreciate your explaination, this type of info drives my mind, only recently, after 50 yrs, have I realized how emotionally driven a lot of my own suppositions are based.

This event is already documented by nearly every civilization across the planet.

Flood.

the sons of heracles hunted and killed the sons of poseidon where ever they were. maybe mythology wins again.

Now this response might just be a sign of how toxic things have become politically that I am dragging it up on archaeology.....but this theory can barely even be called that because it lacks a testing model. Now I did gloss over some of the article but at the end it implied there would be no way to prove the theory that men killed so many counterparts off and the writer said it merely SOUNDED feasible.
So at a time when i see people in the world talking about tribalism and how dangerous it is here comes a article that tries to dress itself up in facts.
Now my tin foil hate is missing....

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier
Look at Egypt.. it used to be a quack theory the sphinx was older than 2500 bc. Now it's being accepted the head was recarved and the pyramids are on older mounds.

"Accepted?"
Hardly.

Maybe accepted by you.

Harte

It is certainly becoming accepted. The problem with egyprologists is they haven't been very scientific. They were mostly linguist, art historians etc. Once geologists and physicists entered they starting finding things the old crew did not want to talk about. Of course this is common in academia. People have books and reputations.

But look into it. A lot of egyprologists are confirming this is the case. In fact it has been repaired several times.

No, it's not being accepted. It's not.
No matter what you might prefer.

Schoch's theory relies on the assumption of a uniform bedrock, where there is none. On top of that, his theory relies on the assumption that the rear of the sphinx was carved in the 4th dynasty.

His date for the Sphinx rests entirely on subsurface weathering, not rainfall, and he measured said weathering in (at least) two different beds of limestone bedrock with very different properties.

Besides, his own data shows the sides of the sphinx are older than the front or rear, while at the same time he claims the front was carved in antiquity, and the rest finished off in the 4th dynasty.

If this was even close to be accepted by anyone, the soundings he made (and there were only a few, with only ONE measurement taken in the rear of the enclosure) would be repeated by several different researchers.

That's what you do - repeat the experiment. That's called science.

The Giza Plateau Mapping Project put the final nail in the coffin of Schoch's theory. It's over, except on fringe websites/books/"conferences," "Ancient Aliens," and discussion boards like this one.


Harte

It's not just schoch's theory. Other geologists have said similar, Reader for one. Schoch is not an ancient alien theorist. Schoch is a tenured professor at BU and has more scientific degrees than most egyptologists whom have not been very warm to science in general. Leher may be but again he can also be chasing confirmation bias like schoch. The forensic science study of the head showed it doesn't seem to be his claim.

Can you show the data for the giza mapping project? Is it available?

Schoch is an ancient advanced civilization theorist. Have you not heard of any of his books on the pyramid building culture that traveled the world showing ignorant brown people how to stack stones?

Reader places the sphinx at a couple of hundred years earlier than the accepted timeline. You think that means he agrees with Schoch?

Both Reader and Schoch made their proposals before the GPMP results came out.

I suggest you google "GPMP" and "Sphinx." I don't know how much raw data is available, but there are summaries on their website.


Harte

I have read the GRMP. They didn't release the data for review.

The underlying data for the Giza Plateau model are not available to the public at this time. When the basic model is finished we will determine how and to whom the model will be made available.

Sounds like it hasn't blown a hole in anything but your statement.

Slandering Schoch certainly doesn't help your case. He has papers reviewed and is a tenured professor.

He also has more science based degrees than most egyprologists and has literally written several text books for B.U.
Here is his paper
www.scirp.org...

And if you browse the site you find other people talking about the head being recarved.

Buy I am sure your ad hom's and genetic fallacies are enough for some folks.

Dr. Robert M. Schoch, a full-time faculty member at the College of General Studies at Boston University since 1984, and a recipient of its Peyton Richter Award for interdisciplinary teaching, earned his Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics at Yale University in 1983. He also holds an M.S. and M.Phil. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, as well as degrees in Anthropology (B.A.) and Geology (B.S.) from George Washington University. In recognition of his research into ancient civilizations, Dr. Schoch was awarded (in 2014) the title of Honorary Professor of the Nikola Vaptsarov Naval Academy in Varna, Bulgaria. In 2017, the College of General Studies at Boston University named him Director of its Institute for the Study of the Origins of Civilization (ISOC). In 1993, an extinct mammal genus was named Schochia in honor of Dr. Schoch’s paleontological contributions.

Before anyone just blows off Schoch because of an Internet guy just give him a chance. Maybe he is not correct but the vile attacks on the man make me wonder what so called experts with art history degrees have against him.

Lehner is a good friend of Zewas. Which means politics....neither men have the credentials to even understand what Schoch can read from the data.

A Dr in egyptology is basically a history degree.

Politics really has permeated everything...

Methinks the reason why people trash on Schoch is because I see the normal stuff attributed to his "study" Every time some one starts talking about the Egyptian conspiracy I just end up reading a bunch of gobbleygook. If you push a narrative where you trash on the accepted voices eventually people are just gonna get #ty.

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
Politics really has permeated everything...

Methinks the reason why people trash on Schoch is because I see the normal stuff attributed to his "study" Every time some one starts talking about the Egyptian conspiracy I just end up reading a bunch of gobbleygook. If you push a narrative where you trash on the accepted voices eventually people are just gonna get #ty.

Maybe you should read some of his papers or work.

www.scirp.org...

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Harte

Hey, thank you..I have to sit a bit longer with what you just explained, appreciate your explaination, this type of info drives my mind, only recently, after 50 yrs, have I realized how emotionally driven a lot of my own suppositions are based.

Yeah, I wanted it to be true too - back then.

Harte

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier
Look at Egypt.. it used to be a quack theory the sphinx was older than 2500 bc. Now it's being accepted the head was recarved and the pyramids are on older mounds.

"Accepted?"
Hardly.

Maybe accepted by you.

Harte

It is certainly becoming accepted. The problem with egyprologists is they haven't been very scientific. They were mostly linguist, art historians etc. Once geologists and physicists entered they starting finding things the old crew did not want to talk about. Of course this is common in academia. People have books and reputations.

But look into it. A lot of egyprologists are confirming this is the case. In fact it has been repaired several times.

No, it's not being accepted. It's not.
No matter what you might prefer.

Schoch's theory relies on the assumption of a uniform bedrock, where there is none. On top of that, his theory relies on the assumption that the rear of the sphinx was carved in the 4th dynasty.

His date for the Sphinx rests entirely on subsurface weathering, not rainfall, and he measured said weathering in (at least) two different beds of limestone bedrock with very different properties.

Besides, his own data shows the sides of the sphinx are older than the front or rear, while at the same time he claims the front was carved in antiquity, and the rest finished off in the 4th dynasty.

If this was even close to be accepted by anyone, the soundings he made (and there were only a few, with only ONE measurement taken in the rear of the enclosure) would be repeated by several different researchers.

That's what you do - repeat the experiment. That's called science.

The Giza Plateau Mapping Project put the final nail in the coffin of Schoch's theory. It's over, except on fringe websites/books/"conferences," "Ancient Aliens," and discussion boards like this one.


Harte

It's not just schoch's theory. Other geologists have said similar, Reader for one. Schoch is not an ancient alien theorist. Schoch is a tenured professor at BU and has more scientific degrees than most egyptologists whom have not been very warm to science in general. Leher may be but again he can also be chasing confirmation bias like schoch. The forensic science study of the head showed it doesn't seem to be his claim.

Can you show the data for the giza mapping project? Is it available?

Schoch is an ancient advanced civilization theorist. Have you not heard of any of his books on the pyramid building culture that traveled the world showing ignorant brown people how to stack stones?

Reader places the sphinx at a couple of hundred years earlier than the accepted timeline. You think that means he agrees with Schoch?

Both Reader and Schoch made their proposals before the GPMP results came out.

I suggest you google "GPMP" and "Sphinx." I don't know how much raw data is available, but there are summaries on their website.


Harte

I have read the GRMP. They didn't release the data for review.

The underlying data for the Giza Plateau model are not available to the public at this time. When the basic model is finished we will determine how and to whom the model will be made available.

Sounds like it hasn't blown a hole in anything but your statement.

Slandering Schoch certainly doesn't help your case. He has papers reviewed and is a tenured professor.

He also has more science based degrees than most egyprologists and has literally written several text books for B.U.
Here is his paper
www.scirp.org...

And if you browse the site you find other people talking about the head being recarved.

Buy I am sure your ad hom's and genetic fallacies are enough for some folks.

Dr. Robert M. Schoch, a full-time faculty member at the College of General Studies at Boston University since 1984, and a recipient of its Peyton Richter Award for interdisciplinary teaching, earned his Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics at Yale University in 1983. He also holds an M.S. and M.Phil. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, as well as degrees in Anthropology (B.A.) and Geology (B.S.) from George Washington University. In recognition of his research into ancient civilizations, Dr. Schoch was awarded (in 2014) the title of Honorary Professor of the Nikola Vaptsarov Naval Academy in Varna, Bulgaria. In 2017, the College of General Studies at Boston University named him Director of its Institute for the Study of the Origins of Civilization (ISOC). In 1993, an extinct mammal genus was named Schochia in honor of Dr. Schoch’s paleontological contributions.

Before anyone just blows off Schoch because of an Internet guy just give him a chance. Maybe he is not correct but the vile attacks on the man make me wonder what so called experts with art history degrees have against him.

Lehner is a good friend of Zewas. Which means politics....neither men have the credentials to even understand what Schoch can read from the data.

A Dr in egyptology is basically a history degree.

I've read everything Schoch wrote about this since the first paper, until about a decade ago when it became utterly useless.
I've followed him well, though, through Bosnia and Yonaguni, parts of South America, etc.
He's done a good job of pointing out the faults in the fringe claims about many sites.
I've written to him and thanked him for that, in fact.

So... where did I make any genetic argument, much less a fallacious one?

What I've given here is not an ad hominem, it's a boiled-down version of why his sphinx theory is kaput. Perhaps you should read what he wrote, and remind me of where I'm wrong or where I've unfairly attacked the man and not the theory.
Or, did you not know what ad hominem means?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Have you not heard of any of his books on the pyramid building culture that traveled the world showing ignorant brown people how to stack stones?

Strawman and genetic falacy in one..

Schoch is one of the first actual scientists in egyptology. Which is absolutely mired in politics of Egypt and hawass and the ministry and professors who have absolutely no science back round.

The man is not the quack you pretend but I doubt you would admit this.

He also seemed to predict Gobleiki before it was dated. Other universities have pointed out the cme theory completely unrelated to him as I posted.

His new paper is also up for his peers to review.
Which is something your GRMP which has been around for decades has not. It hasn't even been completed, and nobody can even view the work.

It is nice you do admit you have closed yourself off to possibilities. Even though there is no solid evidence for you to do so.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Harte

Have you not heard of any of his books on the pyramid building culture that traveled the world showing ignorant brown people how to stack stones?

Strawman and genetic falacy in one..

Where is the genetics, where is the strawman?
I was responding to a post that said Schoch was not an ancient alien proponent. I responded with what kind of proponent he actually is.
Will I have to also instruct you on the meaning of "straw man fallacy" as well as the meaning of "genetic?"

originally posted by: luthierSchoch is one of the first actual scientists in egyptology. Which is absolutely mired in politics of Egypt and hawass and the ministry and professors who have absolutely no science back round.

Schoch is not even on the list of the first 200 "actual scientists" in egyptology.
Maybe you should look further than fringe writings for your information.

originally posted by: luthierThe man is not the quack you pretend but I doubt you would admit this.

I didn't call him a quack. I called him wrong, and clearly stated few of the reasons why.

originally posted by: luthierHe also seemed to predict Gobleiki before it was dated. Other universities have pointed out the cme theory completely unrelated to him as I posted.

Haven't read Schoch's commentaries on GT. Besides, what has that to do with the sphinx?

originally posted by: luthierHis new paper is also up for his peers to review.
Which is something your GRMP which has been around for decades has not. It hasn't even been completed, and nobody can even view the work.

Giza's a big place with lots of things to look at while worrying about getting shot or blown up. Also, the sphinx is only a small part of it.
The GPMP has dated the sphinx to no later than Khafre due to construction techniques and placements, as well as stone from the sphinx enclosure that was used elsewhere.

originally posted by: luthierIt is nice you do admit you have closed yourself off to possibilities. Even though there is no solid evidence for you to do so.

I've spent more than 35 years studying the subject of the sphinx and Schoch's claims. Not a single thing I said is incorrect.
Why don't you try and address what I've told you in this thread, rather than pretending you know something about me?
Talk about ad homs. The above statement is a good example.

Harte

Something to pondr in this:

Isn’t it weird that Schoch celebrates radiocarbon dates when they place Göbekli Tepe at 10,000 BCE but when they place Easter Island in the period of 300-1200 CE suddenly we can’t “really know”? That’s what happens when you cross over from science to pseudoscience: Suddenly evidence is transactional, applicable only when it supports your crazy theories.

SNIP

Schoch claims that the depictions of snakes on the Göbekli Tepe pillars represent plasma clouds from the (assumed but not proved) major solar coronal mass ejection of 9700 BCE, which was incidentally after the earliest radiocarbon dates for Göbekli Tepe. Therefore, Schoch reverses course again and abandons all reality in favor of a bizarre fantasy. In his mind, the people of Göbekli Tepe recorded the plasma clouds for posterity on the stone pillars and then buried their circles to run and hide from these same plasma clouds, this despite the fact that the circles were built and buried in succession over centuries, not all at once. It couldn't be that they depict, you know, snakes. We're supposed to assume the ancients were unimaginative enough that they felt compelled to record sky lights for all time by tracing their shapes in stone but so imaginative that a carving of a snake could not be a snake but instead sky plasma.

It is an insult to the master craftsmen of Göbekli Tepe and their deeply held spiritual beliefs to fantasize that they were little more than stenographers for imaginary plasma clouds.

Colavito

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Harte

Hey, thank you..I have to sit a bit longer with what you just explained, appreciate your explaination, this type of info drives my mind, only recently, after 50 yrs, have I realized how emotionally driven a lot of my own suppositions are based.

Yeah, I wanted it to be true too - back then.

Harte

And that right there is the real kick in the nuts isnt it? We take the time to obtain a formal education but do so with an open mind and a willingness to apply the skill set listed within our CV towards subject matter that interests us and yet are openly derided with whataboutisms and appeal to intellect fallacies. I could care less how many degrees Schoch has in his back pocket if his data doesn’t withstand scrutiny. And the bottom line is that there are well understood processes in synthe the Giza Plateau that fully account for all of the erosion of the Sphinx.

I won’t ecen get into his BS regarding Gobekli Tepe or how many fringe claims have been torn apart by him like Yonaguni. I too would have loved for these claims to be true. None of the science holds up though and all of the dating fits in within the margin of error for the monuments in question and their currently accepted dates. Propping yo schoxh 25 years after the fact doesn’t make Schoch correct. It just makes him the token scientist for a bunch of people without the credentials or skill set to actually understand what it is they’re attempting to dispute.

a reply to: Harte

Schoch does not claim the daring of easter island is wrong. He claims the history was passed down.