Could the Great Sphinx be Almost 1 Million Years Old?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
If I am reading this paper correctly then John Anthony West and Dr Robert Schoch may be considered positive "orthodox angels" compared with the dating estimation of the Great Sphinx at Giza offered in this paper:


:...The absolute mark of the upper large erosion hollow of the Sphinx corresponds to the level of water surface which took place in the Early Pleistocene. The Great Egyptian Sphinx had already stood on the Giza Plateau by that geological (historical) time [Early Pleistocene] .... All the following phases differed by wavy lowering of the sea level marks. It is the sea level during the Calabrian phase which is the closest to the present mark with the highest GES hollow at its level. High level of sea water also caused the Nile overflowing and created long-living water-bodies. As to time it corresponds to 800,000 years.

After the completion of lacustrine (fresh water) stage in the GES life other natural processes superimpose the vertical GES profile formed by water, especially at the stage of desert climate development. The sand abrasion (Eolian in a broad sense) was directed to smoothing the contrast forms and led to even greater destruction of the monument.

The suggested hypothesis concerning the relative dating of GES erection is based on the analogy with natural processes known in marine geology and explains the formation of hollows in the Sphinx as wave-cut ones. Further necessity of studying the substance composition of the GES rocks with the purpose of a detailed lithological-mineralogical research can be
suggested.

If the world geological science will succeed in studying all the disputable GES aspects connected with the time of its construction and in proving an earlier age of construction, than the Old Egypt civilization, it will lead to new comprehension of history, and as a result, to reveal true motive forces of the intellectual development of civilization.

Conclusion

A comparison of the formation of wave-cut hollows on the sea coasts with erosion structures in the form of hollows observed on the surface of the Great Egyptian Sphinx permits a conclusion about the similarity of the formation mechanism. It is connected to water activity in large water bodies during the Sphinx submersion for a long period of time. Geological data from literary sources can suggest a possible Sphinx submersion in the Early Pleistocene, and its initial construction is believed to date from the time of most ancient history.

GEOLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM OF DATING THE GREAT EGYPTIAN SPHINX CONSTRUCTION, Vjacheslav I Manichev, Alexander G. Parkhomenko


Source: mgu.bg...

I guess it's all relative really.

Regards,

Scott Creighton




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Everyone's got an opinion on the Sphinx's age. 1 Million years old is a bit of a stretch though. I lean towards the 10,000-14,000 years old. I think the only people that 'believe' it's around 4,000 are Zahi Hawass and his cronies.

IRM



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Hello InfaRedMan,

Thanks for your post.

You write:


InfaRedMan: 1 Million years old is a bit of a stretch though.


SC: That would depend upon whether or not there existed a previous species on Earth that was similar to homo spaiens sapiens in anatomy and intellect:


"The earliest footprints showing evidence of modern human foot anatomy and gait have been unearthed in Kenya.

The 1.5-million-year-old footprints display signs of a pronounced arch and short, aligned toes, in contrast to older footprints.

The size and spacing of the Kenyan markings - attributed to Homo erectus - reflect the height, weight, and walking style of modern humans.

The findings have been published in the journal Science.

BBC World News, 26th Feb, 2009



Source: news.bbc.co.uk...

Best regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


I do believe that homosapiens have been walking the earth a lot longer than what is currently accepted. I don't understand why the status quo is so vehemently protected. Surely uncovering a hidden past or golden age would be inspiring for our race as a whole. It may also show that we are more than capable of surviving a mass extinction event... which I believe is a strong possibility.

The most advanced civilizations/cultures tend to live on the coastlines and the less advanced/rural cultures live inland. It's because of this that I believe advanced civilizations may have been easily wiped out in the past while the less advanced survived being buffered by sheer land mass. Ergo, we take a few steps back as a species.

These people would not understand any technologies or cultural remnants that survived such a catastrophe. I'd imagine that they would simply use what is left as raw materials to create new societies, and perhaps what does remain, persists as legend.

Interesting article Scott! I hope more people contribute to this very worthwhile thread.

IRM



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Scott

You might want to review this discussion of the that 'paper' that was at the HOM

Link




[edit on 13/3/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,


Hans: You might want to review this discussion of the that 'paper' that was at the HOM.


SC: Thanks for the link Hans. Alas, I didn't learn anything there I didn't already know. You might be interested in how the discussion of this paper went on GHMB here:

www.grahamhancock.com...

I particularly thought this post summed up the HoM attitude to open debate of evidence and indeed, of understanding our past and origins

www.grahamhancock.com...

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Who really knows how old the Pyramids are? Just about all aspects of history are debateable and based on the opinions of a small group of individuals.

I personally believe there is a lot more to the Sphinx than we are lead to believe.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by volcanicleaf
 

Hello Volcanicleaf,


Volcanicleaf: Who really knows how old the Pyramids are? Just about all aspects of history are debateable and based on the opinions of a small group of individuals.


SC: Agreed. The carbon dating of the Pyramids presents a date that Egyptologists find acceptable to their paradigm although the C-14 dates given for Khufu's pyramid (G1) does not correspond precisely to Khufu's reign. But it's in the "ball park" and therefore deemed "acceptable". However, we will never get to know of those C-14 dates that were found to be totally out of the ball park and as such considered erroneous. Such "erroneous" dates are generally simply ignored or deliberately suppressed.

Here's what the archaeologist, David Down, says on this suppression of C-14 evidence:


‘I’ve used carbon-14 dating’, David chuckled. ‘Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they’ve already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, “Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.” But if it doesn’t agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that’s the end of it. It’s only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) NEVER date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with their conclusions.’

- David Down, Archaeologist


Source: www.answersingenesis.org...

That such a practice goes on unchecked and continues to do so is nothing short of an outrage. This practice conspires to present a distorted picture of the past and to deny to us the truth of our history and origins.


Volcanicleaf: I personally believe there is a lot more to the Sphinx than we are lead to believe.


SC: Alas, however, what we believe to be true is given short shrift since it's what can be proven that makes the real difference. Problem is, for those who take an alternative view of the extant evidence, their findings are simply ignored or deliberately suppressed. They are challenging the status quo as presented by the academic mafia and they do so with their hands tied firmly behind their back.

Here's another good example of this:



''Numerous meritorious grant proposals have been rejected because their goals and objectives were incompatible with entrenched academic opinion,'' he said. ''At least five South American archeologists admitted that they are suppressing pre-12,000-year-old data out of fear that their funds would be cut off by American colleagues who endorse the short-chronology school of thought.''

Dr. Guidon is frustrated by the lack of acceptance of her results from the Brazilian rock shelter, known as Pedra Furada. In an interview, she said: ''Why is American archeology so conservative and rigid? Nobody questions dates since 12,000. Why are only the earlier dates considered suspect and bad? It's emotional.''


Source: query.nytimes.com...

SC: I just wonder why she would expect the 'establishment' to behave in any other way? The term is 'hidebound'. One can only presume that were the good Dr (and her colleagues) to have found evidence that concurred with the status quo view, there would have been no problem with her results being accepted and of obtaining grants for further research.

Once again, one more example of the truth of our history and origins being denied to us by the academic mafia.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 13/3/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Well that Hancock thread sure showed many major flaws of that poorly concieved non-paper.

So why would you believe in it?

Could you give us the 3 top facts from the document that you have verified as being true?

Perhaps you could mention why important research that refutes their conclusion was not included?

By the way have you or anyone else confirmed that the two writers of the pre-print are in fact geologists, with a history of work in the field?

Just asking.

As an aside, "good god you're quoting creationist sites now", really a good way to pack on the creditability Scott, LOL

Oh and Scott I may not be back for a few days but I will return

[edit on 14/3/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,

Thanks for your post.


Hans: Well that Hancock thread sure showed many major flaws of that poorly concieved non-paper.


SC: ALLEGED flaws, Hans. And one of the reasons I posted the link to you to the GHMB discussion is to demonstrate to you just how much more fully this paper was discussed on GHMB as opposed to the Ma’at site where one post from Solenhofen had everyone there rolling over and quietly accepting what he says, as though Solenhofen was the final word in geological matters. All of which I find mildly amusing since Solenhofen is NOT a geologist and certainly cannot in any way be seen as the final word on this particular debate as he did on the Ma’at site. On GHMB we really do like to investigate issues more thoroughly before drawing our conclusions. It would have been better for Solenhofen’s argument had he kept his powder dry and obtained ALL the facts from these geologists BEFORE spouting forth with his typical ad hominem attacks on anything that disagrees with his layman's view.


Hans: So why would you believe in it?


SC: Where have I said I believe this? It is posted as a question, Hans! Clearly this paper is challenging the prevailing paradigm of our history and our origins. Just because it challenges does not mean I automatically accept it. One of the good things about the lengthy debate on GHMB were the questions that Solenhofen brought up and questions also by the geologist David Brunel. I have no idea if these question are legitimate or not or if the geologists of this paper have rebuttals or not but I think they deserve the right to respond to legitimate questions BEFORE a layman like Solenhofen offers his typical reactionary, shoot first ask questions later, knee-jerk outburst by automatically branding the research of professional geologists as “silly”. Most unedifying.


Hans: Could you give us the 3 top facts from the document that you have verified as being true?


SC: No, I cannot. I cannot because I am not a geologist and do not understand this particular science. What I will say though is that where I live I have also noticed a similar wave erosion pattern of cliff faces that these geologists point out could be the erosion mechanism of the Sphinx’s body.


Hans: Perhaps you could mention why important research that refutes their conclusion was not included?


SC: If you had actually read the full thread on GHMB you will see that Solenhofen also asked this question. And you will have seen my reply. How could I possibly know that? I have no idea why and this is why I posted this question to the geologists of this paper (along with a number of other questions). But my instinct tells me that Aigner et al were not mentioned in this paper because these geologists perhaps happen to disagree with Aigner’s findings and they may explain this in their fuller research paper. It’s not that unusual for geologists (or any group of scientists) to disagree and interpret evidence in different ways.


Hans: By the way have you or anyone else confirmed that the two writers of the pre-print are in fact geologists, with a history of work in the field? Just asking.


SC: Why? Would it make a difference? Again, if you had read through the thread on GHMB you will have found that these researchers are indeed geologists (confirmed) and have published a number of papers – not as many as Aigner, mind you.

Now, since you raise this issue, clearly it is of some importance to you. Have you or anyone else confirmed that Archae Solenhofen is in fact a geologist? Fact is – he is NOT. So why then accept what he says on Ma’at? Certainly I concede that Solenhofen is knowledgeable in certain aspects of geology and has been mentioned in a paper by the geologist Colin Reader but this does not make Solenhofen an authority in the subject by any means.

So, what do we have here?

1) A team of professional geologists, one of which has actually been to Giza and investigated the Sphinx close up and personal and who have published numerous papers in their own right.

2) An unqualified layman (Solenhofen) who has NEVER been to Giza and investigates the Sphinx from photographs and who has never published a single paper in his own right.

You can make up your own mind as to who is more likely to be correct.


Hans: As an aside, "good god you're quoting creationist sites now", really a good way to pack on the creditability Scott, LOL


SC: No, Hans – I was quoting David Down, a person NOT a web site. Does it really matter where Down made his quote or to whom he made it? Of course it doesn’t – those are Down’s words, NOT the web site’s. By this logic we should simply dismiss what Einstein says just because he was quoted on The Simpsons web site?

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
It's immediately dubious for citing Blavatskaya as a serious source
They also cite Robert Schoch's interpretation of the erosion to support their contention that the Sphinx is a million years old. Schoch has never even suggested an age that great and would dispute their claims. He replies to e-mail and could be asked. The oldest he is prepared to date the Sphynx is at around 10, 000BC. They explore Eolian erosion in the Caucasus mountains and apply them to the Giza Plateau.

If evidence arose of an ancient civilization, archaeologists would sell their mothers to get there. New finds are the lifeblood of archaeology. Unfortunately for some, there isn't any evidence that an unknown advanced civilization existed. No bones, potsherds, artifacts, art, roads, buildings etc. I await the theory that explains how this advanced technology wiped out it's entire record of existence. Modesty?

There is evidence of the cultural steps taken by earlier humans that led to the creation of the pyramids and right up to where we are today. I find it difficult to understand why some people seek to diminish the accomplishments of our ancestors.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,

Thanks for your post.


Kandinsky: It's immediately dubious for citing Blavatskaya as a serious source.


SC: This is unfortunate. The authors of this paper would have served their cause better had they not made such a reference. This should not, however, detract from the hard, empirical geological evidence they present in the paper and it is the EVIDENCE that should be the focus of this discussion, nothing else.


Kandinsky: They also cite Robert Schoch's interpretation of the erosion to support their contention that the Sphinx is a million years old. Schoch has never even suggested an age that great and would dispute their claims.


SC: Dr Schoch proposed rainfall (water) as the erosion mechanism. These authors also present water erosion as the probable mechanism, albeit wave erosion. Clearly it would seem that the authors of this paper disagree with Schoch’s very conservative estimate and have their own reasons for so doing i.e. that their theory is based upon Eolian erosion and not rainfall as per Schoch.


Kandinsky: He replies to e-mail and could be asked.


SC: I’ve spoken to John Anthony West about this and he is discussing it with Dr Schoch. If they make their comments known to me, I shall pass them on.


Kandinsky: If evidence arose of an ancient civilization, archaeologists would sell their mothers to get there. New finds are the lifeblood of archaeology. Unfortunately for some, there isn't any evidence that an unknown advanced civilization existed. No bones, potsherds, artifacts, art, roads, buildings etc.


SC: This is simply not true! Are you not aware of any anomarts (anomalous artifacts) that have been found the world over that challenges the chronology of our history and origins but are left to gather dust on university shelves or worse, deliberately destroyed? Remember, it takes only ONE of these anomarts to be confirmed to overturn everything we think we know and discredit numerous scientists into the bargain.

Presently science simply dismisses such anomarts for one reason and one reason only – it cannot explain them within the prevailing historical paradigm. Which is simply to say that the anomart evidence that has been found must be somehow wrong or flawed or a hoax and that the received wisdom of orthodoxy and its hidebound attachment to the prevailing historical paradigm is absolutely correct. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.


Kandinsky: I await the theory that explains how this advanced technology wiped out it's entire record of existence. Modesty?


SC: No, much of the evidence of their existence is languishing on unseen shelves, gathering dust in university broom cupboards, hidden from view for no other reason than our current model of history cannot explain it.


Kandinsky: There is evidence of the cultural steps taken by earlier humans that led to the creation of the pyramids and right up to where we are today.


SC: My acceptance of the chronology of the Old Kingdom pyramid builders is well documented. I do not dispute this. The Sphinx, however, seems to present an entirely different question. It may well, as Dr Jonathan Foyle hypothesizes, have been a recarve job by the 4th Dynasty Ancient Egyptians in order that it should “conform” to their cultural and religious ideology.


Kandinsky: I find it difficult to understand why some people seek to diminish the accomplishments of our ancestors.


SC: No one here is diminishing the achievement of the Old Kingdom Egyptians here albeit they do tell us in their own words that the DESIGN for their “temples” was not their own. Clearly the Old Kingdom AEs built the pyramids at Giza (possibly to a design that came from elsewhere) and may also have recarved the Sphinx which may have stood on the Giza plateau for much longer (if the interpretation of the extant evidence by these geologists is indeed correct).

Why should we accept only that evidence that concurs with what we think we know and automatically reject evidence if it contradicts our preconceived ideas? Can such a practice in any way be considered good science?

I say let us listen fully to what these geologists have to say about their findings and to see if they can present a sound rebuttal to the findings of Aigner et al. We should not be too quick to dismiss.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I think all things are possible here. We could be the latest model of humans, post the great deluge of possibly 12 000 years ago that was linked to destroying Lemuria and Atlantis, and has the various myths of legends of the natives, ie. when the Hopis where taken underground, or the Myth of the Wayward Sun, where the Okanagan Natives, who were linked to a race of tall whites on Island setting, had their home destroyed. I believe this is also when Mars suffered damage.

A lot of people accept the 12,000 date for that, yet Hoagland speaks of 26,000-36,000 for a time when there was a strong link between Egypt and Mars, on on of his Project Camelot interviews.

I think perhaps the longer dates make more sense, and we have been dna manipulated post deluge.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



SC: I’ve spoken to John Anthony West about this and he is discussing it with Dr Schoch. If they make their comments known to me, I shall pass them on.


I can imagine Schoch's reply. He may be outside of accepted ideas regarding the dating of the Sphinx, but he is very much against extreme or fringe ideas. I've e-mailed him several times relating to various claims on ATS and other forums. He's a decent, approachable man and quick to respond.



This is simply not true! Are you not aware of any anomarts (anomalous artifacts) that have been found the world over that challenges the chronology of our history and origins but are left to gather dust on university shelves or worse, deliberately destroyed? Remember, it takes only ONE of these anomarts to be confirmed to overturn everything we think we know and discredit numerous scientists into the bargain. Presently science simply dismisses such anomarts for one reason and one reason only – it cannot explain them within the prevailing historical paradigm. Which is simply to say that the anomart evidence that has been found must be somehow wrong or flawed or a hoax and that the received wisdom of orthodoxy and its hidebound attachment to the prevailing historical paradigm is absolutely correct. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.


I had an interest in ooparts/ anomarts when I was younger. They were a feature of the 'ancient civilizations' books I enjoyed. I haven't seen evidence of any credible ooparts. They are often a Maguffin to support claims of the 'Flood', Creationism or simply to challenge conventional science. Only last year, in a bout of nostalgia, I revisited the old suspects and remain satisfied that there aren't any definite ooparts. It would appeal to my sense of humor and wonder if something like a watch was actually found in a coal seam.



No, much of the evidence of their existence is languishing on unseen shelves, gathering dust in university broom cupboards, hidden from view for no other reason than our current model of history cannot explain it.


I think you may have an erroneous conception of science and scientists. Each and every year young men and women graduate with Degrees and Diplomas in science. It's untrue that they all comply with some institutional secrecy and conspire to prevent the public finding out about a lost civilization. Science is international and many accepted theories we have now didn't exist just a hundred years ago. It's a fluid subject that is constantly challenged and changing.




Why should we accept only that evidence that concurs with what we think we know and automatically reject evidence if it contradicts our preconceived ideas? Can such a practice in any way be considered good science?


I agree entirely. Rejecting new ideas is a dumb move for all concerned. Conversely, accepting *all* new ideas without examining their validity is equally a dumb move. I haven't rejected the idea of the Sphynx being built in the early-Pleistocene on a whim.

The reasons I mentioned earlier remove ,for me, any need to reevaluate my ideas about AE. Furthermore, ideas of this 'civilization' ignore not just the single area of archaeology, but everything else too. Human evolution, technological infrastructure, population densities and migration, fossil records, trade routes? All these questions need to be side-stepped or dismissed to allow for the possibility of an organized, advanced lost civilization. My conclusions on this subject are the result of many years interest and started from your perspective.

The writers of that article overlook one more problem. How could these guys (hunter-gatherers) develop a population center of such widespread complexity as to create the Sphynx?



Homo Erectus



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


SC: I’ve spoken to John Anthony West about this and he is discussing it with Dr Schoch. If they make their comments known to me, I shall pass them on.

Kandinsky: I can imagine Schoch's reply. He may be outside of accepted ideas regarding the dating of the Sphinx, but he is very much against extreme or fringe ideas.


SC: This may indeed be the case and in terms of Schoch’s understanding of human evolution (as you indicate below), probably likely to be Schoch’s view. I shall, however, come back to the question of evolution below.


SC: This is simply not true! Are you not aware of any anomarts (anomalous artifacts) that have been found the world over that challenges the chronology of our history and origins but are left to gather dust on university shelves or worse, deliberately destroyed? Remember, it takes only ONE of these anomarts to be confirmed to overturn everything we think we know and discredit numerous scientists into the bargain. Presently science simply dismisses such anomarts for one reason and one reason only – it cannot explain them within the prevailing historical paradigm. Which is simply to say that the anomart evidence that has been found must be somehow wrong or flawed or a hoax and that the received wisdom of orthodoxy and its hidebound attachment to the prevailing historical paradigm is absolutely correct. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

Kandinsky: I had an interest in ooparts/ anomarts when I was younger. They were a feature of the 'ancient civilizations' books I enjoyed. I haven't seen evidence of any credible ooparts. They are often a Maguffin to support claims of the 'Flood', Creationism or simply to challenge conventional science.


SC: Often perhaps but certainly not ALWAYS. And, I said previously, it only takes ONE verified anomart to overturn the prevailing historical paradigm. What you seem to be suggesting here is that every single anomart (oopart) detailed in Cremo and Thomson’s exhaustive book, Forbidden Archaeology are all explainable within our current understanding. This is simply not the case. And Cremo and Thomson certainly did not write Forbidden Archaeology to bolster support for Creationism, Darwinism, I.D.ism, Floodism or any other kind of ‘ism’ you care to name. They presented the anomarts as a matter of science and nothing else. Furthermore, Cremo and Thomson present only thos anomarts that are known about – they have not detailed those anomarts that will likely have been labeled anomalous and disgarded by mainstream science.


Kandinsky: Only last year, in a bout of nostalgia, I revisited the old suspects and remain satisfied that there aren't any definite ooparts. It would appeal to my sense of humor and wonder if something like a watch was actually found in a coal seam.


SC: I suggest a re-read on Cremo and Thomson’s Forbidden Archaeology.



SC: No, much of the evidence of their existence is languishing on unseen shelves, gathering dust in university broom cupboards, hidden from view for no other reason than our current model of history cannot explain it.

Kandinsky: I think you may have an erroneous conception of science and scientists. Each and every year young men and women graduate with Degrees and Diplomas in science. It's untrue that they all comply with some institutional secrecy and conspire to prevent the public finding out about a lost civilization. Science is international and many accepted theories we have now didn't exist just a hundred years ago. It's a fluid subject that is constantly challenged and changing.


SC: This isn’t my view. This is what actually happens, to wit:


‘I’ve used carbon-14 dating’, David chuckled. ‘Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they’ve already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, “Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.” But if it doesn’t agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that’s the end of it. It’s only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) NEVER date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with their conclusions.’

- David Down, Archaeologist
Source: www.answersingenesis.org...


And….


''Numerous meritorious grant proposals have been rejected because their goals and objectives were incompatible with entrenched academic opinion,'' he said. ''At least five South American archeologists admitted that they are suppressing pre-12,000-year-old data out of fear that their funds would be cut off by American colleagues who endorse the short-chronology school of thought.''

Dr. Guidon is frustrated by the lack of acceptance of her results from the Brazilian rock shelter, known as Pedra Furada. In an interview, she said: ''Why is American archeology so conservative and rigid? Nobody questions dates since 12,000. Why are only the earlier dates considered suspect and bad? It's emotional.''

Source: query.nytimes.com...


The above just represents a very quick scan of the internet. I am sure were I to spend more than just a few minutes, a multitude of such examples could be found.


SC: Why should we accept only that evidence that concurs with what we think we know and automatically reject evidence if it contradicts our preconceived ideas? Can such a practice in any way be considered good science?

Kandinsky : I agree entirely. Rejecting new ideas is a dumb move for all concerned. Conversely, accepting *all* new ideas without examining their validity is equally a dumb move. I haven't rejected the idea of the Sphynx being built in the early-Pleistocene on a whim.


Continued.....

[edit on 14/3/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Continued from previous….

SC: And neither am I advocating that all new ideas should be accepted without a thorough examination of the supporting evidence. What I am saying is that there seems to be a pre-disposition amongst adherents of the orthodox view that any view that challenges the prevailing paradigm must somehow be inherently wrong. Let us thoroughly examine the evidence FIRST before drawing our conclusions.


Kandinsky : Furthermore, ideas of this 'civilization' ignore not just the single area of archaeology, but everything else too. Human evolution, technological infrastructure, population densities and migration, fossil records, trade routes? All these questions need to be side-stepped or dismissed to allow for the possibility of an organized, advanced lost civilization. My conclusions on this subject are the result of many years interest and started from your perspective.


SC: Again, however, you are relying upon the prevailing paradigm of the origins of life on Earth being correct here. That may not be so and is certainly FAR from agreed among scientists.

Consider, for example, the single phylogenetic tree model of Darwinian evolution – why should it be considered that such a model is correct? Why couldn’t there have been, for example, multiple root phylogentic trees (of life) sprouting forth from the primordial goo at the very beginnings of life on Earth? And why could it not have been possible that each individual root phylo-tree could not have produced its own unique (though often similar in appearance) life forms to other phylo-trees? Consider, for example, the questions of “missing links” between species, the so-called transitional forms. Why should it be considered that such pivotal transitional forms are missing at all?

For example, it is well understood that we have thus far been unable to recover any transitional species between non-flowering and flowering plants. The answer for this lack of evidence in the fossil record might simply be that such transitional species doesn’t actually exist. These two forms of plant life might simply have evolved along two entirely separate phylogenetic trees from the very beginning, thereby explaining the absence in the fossil record. This scenario might also help explain why fossils are often found in the supposed wrong rock strata. If one phylo-tree is mutating/evolving faster than another tree that contains similar species then this apparent mix up of fossils in rock strata would be the likely result. It’s a bit like having a number of jigsaw puzzles all jumbled together – except we think there is only ONE puzzle to sort in one order.

Now, in such a scenario of multiple evolutionary root phylo-trees, it then becomes possible that intelligent hominid species (unrelated to ourselves but of similar anatomy) could have evolved and walked the Earth millions of years ago and became extinct. And suddenly, in such a scenario of multiple evolving root phylo-trees, what is presently considered by our current science as anomart skulls, anomart jewellery, anomart footprints with dinosaurs all suddenly begin to have a context; they begin to make sense. And this may even include the Great Sphinx at Giza if the work of these geologists is indeed found to be correct.

There is simply no reason to suppose that a single phylogenetic root tree as per Darwin’s model evolved all life on Earth. It makes more sense that numerous such trees would have evolved in parallel.

Here is a paper on polyphylogenetic evolution: emporium.turnpike.net...


Kandinsky: The writers of that article overlook one more problem. How could these guys (hunter-gatherers) develop a population center of such widespread complexity as to create the Sphynx?


SC: Again you take the view of the present evolutionary paradigm where us humans are the culmination of everything that has gone before, anomart hominid skulls notwithstanding. There is no reason to take the view that only a single phylogenetic tree took root an evolved all life. It is more probable that many such trees would have done so and that homo sapiens sapiens represents only the culmination of advanced species along our own particular tree. If other trees did exist (and there is no evolutionary reason to suggest why this could not be the case) then other intelligent hominid life forms could also have evolved millions of years before we did, thereby explaining the so-called anomarts being found the world over.

I would also suggest that if a hunter-gatherer community could construct the temple site at Göbekli Tepe, carving the Sphinx, would not have presented them with any more difficulty.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
You raise some good points (starred) and it's apparent we'll have to agree to disagree.



Often perhaps but certainly not ALWAYS. And, I said previously, it only takes ONE verified anomart to overturn the prevailing historical paradigm. What you seem to be suggesting here is that every single anomart (oopart) detailed in Cremo and Thomson’s exhaustive book, Forbidden Archaeology are all explainable within our current understanding.


I was unable to finish 'Forbidden Archaeology' due to the leading narrative and rhetorical presentation of alleged ooparts. It was reminiscent of Berlitz. If there is a single substantiated oopart, I'd be delighted to see the evidence.

The quotes from David Down and Niède Guidon support my contention that science is perpetually open to challenge and change. Dr Guidon seeks to extend the presence of humans in the Americas (predominantly S America) by only a few thousand years. She doesn't support the idea of civilized cultures from the Early Pleistocene era. Furthermore, she suggests that the Topper site is evidence of N American populations from 50, 000 years ago. The findings of the Topper site are still inconclusive, but are generating a consensus that it is slightly older than 12, 000 years old. Just on the outside edge of Clovis Culture.




Consider, for example, the single phylogenetic tree model of Darwinian evolution – why should it be considered that such a model is correct? Why couldn’t there have been, for example, multiple root phylogentic trees (of life) sprouting forth from the primordial goo at the very beginnings of life on Earth? And why could it not have been possible that each individual root phylo-tree could not have produced its own unique (though often similar in appearance) life forms to other phylo-trees? Consider, for example, the questions of “missing links” between species, the so-called transitional forms. Why should it be considered that such pivotal transitional forms are missing at all?


I think that here we are drifting away from the Sphinx and into possibilities. Of course it's 'possible' that a distinct phylogenetic tree (or branch?) could have existed. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of such a presence in the fossil record. On the other hand, there is a wealth of supporting evidence for the evolution of Man through mitochondrial DNA and haplogroups. When this evidence is allied to models of population movement (Human Journey), it becomes compelling.



SC: Again you take the view of the present evolutionary paradigm where us humans are the culmination of everything that has gone before, anomart hominid skulls notwithstanding. There is no reason to take the view that only a single phylogenetic tree took root an evolved all life. It is more probable that many such trees would have done so and that homo sapiens sapiens represents only the culmination of advanced species along our own particular tree


Which 'anomart hominid skulls?' I'd question your basis for assuming that a distinct phylogenetic tree was 'probable.' Without any evidence, it remains a speculative possibility.



I would also suggest that if a hunter-gatherer community could construct the temple site at Göbekli Tepe, carving the Sphinx, would not have presented them with any more difficulty.


Gobekli Tepe is a useful example for the contention that the Sphinx is nearly a million years old. It's been provisionally dated to around 9000BC. It features potsherds, pictographs, carvings, human refuse, stone tools and multiple examples of a human presence.

None of these examples are present in the early-Pleistocene era.

K


[edit on 14-3-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,

Thank you for your post.


You raise some good points (starred) and it's apparent we'll have to agree to disagree.


SC: Thank you again - appreciated.


SC: Often perhaps but certainly not ALWAYS. And, I said previously, it only takes ONE verified anomart to overturn the prevailing historical paradigm. What you seem to be suggesting here is that every single anomart (oopart) detailed in Cremo and Thomson’s exhaustive book, Forbidden Archaeology are all explainable within our current understanding.

Kandinsky: I was unable to finish 'Forbidden Archaeology' due to the leading narrative and rhetorical presentation of alleged ooparts. It was reminiscent of Berlitz. If there is a single substantiated oopart, I'd be delighted to see the evidence.


SC: Cremo and Thomson's book presents many anomarts - our present historical paradigm however, regards such artefacts at best as "anomalous" at worst as hoaxes. The question is not really whether such anomarts exist because clearly they do - it's whether they are genuine discoveries of a former civilisation or are the result of elaborate hoaxes. I find it quite improbable that every single artefact presented in Forbidden Archaeology could be the result of a hoax. And remember - it only requires ONE such artefact to be genuine to overturn everything we think we know about our past and origins.

I am sure you will be familiar with the case of the geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre who, in the 11970s when working for the US Geological Survey dated stone tools found at Hueyatlaco, Mexico to be over 200,000 years old!! How could this be if modern humans supposedly only crossed the Bering Strait land-bridge to enter the Americas at MOST 25,000 years ago?
Steen-McIntyre checked and triple-checked the tests by using four different methods: uranium series, tephra hydration, fission track and stratigraphy. And still the result came back with the same date - 200,000 years. Steen-McIntyre to her eternal credit stood by her findings even although modern humans were not (supposedly) to have been in the Americas at that time nore indeed were they using such tools until around 50,000 years ago. Steen-McIntyre's refused to change her results when asked to do so by the anthropologist in charge of the project, Cynthia Irwin-Williams. As a result Steen-McIntyre was discredited and ridiculed by her peers, did not have her work published and even lost her teaching position at a US university. In a letter to Estelle Leopold, editor of the journal Quaternary Research, Steen-McIntyre commented:


"The problem I see is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data', [read anomarts], data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking." - Virginia Steen-McIntyre


This is just one example of how the academic mafia exerts undue pressure on professional scientists to yield to the consensus view. Steen-McIntyre refused to do so and paid a heavy price for her refusal.

What if these anomarts such as those discovered by Steen-McIntyre are indeed genuine evidence of an intelligent hominid species having existed on Earth perhaps millions of years before our species had even evolved but which became extinct (perhaps along with the dinosaurs)?


Kandinsky: The quotes from David Down and Niède Guidon support my contention that science is perpetually open to challenge and change. Dr Guidon seeks to extend the presence of humans in the Americas (predominantly S America) by only a few thousand years. She doesn't support the idea of civilized cultures from the Early Pleistocene era.


SC: I'm not suggesting that Dr Guidon supports such. What I am demonstrating here is once again the undue pressure on scientists by the academic mafia to conform to a particular paradigm even when the evidence found by these scientists often conflcits with that paradigm. That Dr Guidon's work conflicts by only a few thousand is actually immaterial to the point of undue pressure being exerted. One can only imagine the pressure placed on Steen-McIntyre to withdraw her findings which were infinitely more controversial than Dr Guidon's.


SC: Consider, for example, the single phylogenetic tree model of Darwinian evolution – why should it be considered that such a model is correct? Why couldn’t there have been, for example, multiple root phylogentic trees (of life) sprouting forth from the primordial goo at the very beginnings of life on Earth? And why could it not have been possible that each individual root phylo-tree could not have produced its own unique (though often similar in appearance) life forms to other phylo-trees? Consider, for example, the questions of “missing links” between species, the so-called transitional forms. Why should it be considered that such pivotal transitional forms are missing at all?

Kandinsky: I think that here we are drifting away from the Sphinx and into possibilities. Of course it's 'possible' that a distinct phylogenetic tree (or branch?) could have existed.


SC: Drifting away? Well I am merely responding to the fact that it was YOU that raised this (evolution) as an issue by commenting that humans had not evolved the wherewithall to have been able to construct the Great Sphinx and then posted a link to Homo Erectus. And I think it is more than possible that many root phylogenetic trees would have taken root and flourished at the very beginning of life of Earth, each tree evolving its own distintc (but often similar) life forms from a common primoridal DNA goo.


Kandinsky: Unfortunately, there is no evidence of such a presence in the fossil record.


SC: There are fossils in the fossil record. How do you know for certain these fossils did not sprout from different phylogenetic trees? Fact is you don't know and probably won'tr be able to know. However, the multiple phylo-tree model can explain the absence of the pivotal transitional species (e.g. non-flowering to flowering plants) that the single phylo-tree model can't. That, to me at least, is a strong indicator of the multiple tree model of evolution.

Continued.....

[edit on 14/3/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Continued....


Kandinsky: On the other hand, there is a wealth of supporting evidence for the evolution of Man through mitochondrial DNA and haplogroups.


SC: I am not disputing that we have a wealth of data from different sources that tell us about how homo sapiens sapiens evolved. But this data cannot explain the anomalous artefacts that predate homo sapiens sapiens. That we are the intellectual culmination of our own phylogenetic tree is not in dispute here. What is questioned is whether our tree was the ONLY such tree. I think it is more probable that other such trees would have taken root from the beginning and could have evolved intelligent hominid life forms not entirely unlike modern humans. And this perhaps explains why we are finding these supposed anomalous artefacts all over the world. It might not in fact be that the artefacts are anomalous - it could just as easily be that our model of evolution is not quite right.


Kandinsky: When this evidence is allied to models of population movement (Human Journey), it becomes compelling.


SC: Again you are dealing with what we think are the population migrations of homo sapiens sapiens. Again this bears no relationship to the anomalous aretfacts and is not being disputed.


SC: Again you take the view of the present evolutionary paradigm where us humans are the culmination of everything that has gone before, anomart hominid skulls notwithstanding. There is no reason to take the view that only a single phylogenetic tree took root an evolved all life. It is more probable that many such trees would have done so and that homo sapiens sapiens represents only the culmination of advanced species along our own particular tree

Kandinsky: Which 'anomart hominid skulls?'


SC: The Calaveras skull (and other skeletal remains) as reported by J.D. Whitney.


Kandinsky: I'd question your basis for assuming that a distinct phylogenetic tree was 'probable.' Without any evidence, it remains a speculative possibility.


SC: And likewise - I would equally question your basis for assuming that only one phylogenetic tree was probable. Without any evidence this also remains a speculative possibility.


SC: I would also suggest that if a hunter-gatherer community could construct the temple site at Göbekli Tepe, carving the Sphinx, would not have presented them with any more difficulty.

Kandinsky: Gobekli Tepe is a useful example for the contention that the Sphinx is nearly a million years old. It's been provisionally dated to around 9000BC. It features potsherds, pictographs, carvings, human refuse, stone tools and multiple examples of a human presence. None of these examples are present in the early-Pleistocene era.


SC: That's because such pot shards, pictographs, human refuse, stone tools etc from such an early age are now collectively disregarded as anomarts and lie gathering dust in university broom cupboards because the prevailing historical paradigm cannot find a context for them. Well it may simply be that the evidence is in fact correct (i.e. not anomalous) and that it is our prevailing historical paradigm that is flawed.

Yes, I think perhaps we need to agree to disagree here. I do, however, appreciate your input to this discussion.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 14/3/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



SC: That's because such pot shards, pictographs, human refuse, stone tools etc from such an early age are now collectively disregarded as anomarts and lie gathering dust in university broom cupboards because the prevailing historical paradigm cannot find a context for them. Well it may simply be that the evidence is in fact correct (i.e. not anomalous) and that it is our prevailing historical paradigm that is flawed.

Yes, I think perhaps we need to agree to disagree here. I do, however, appreciate your input to this discussion.


Your reference to Virginia Steen-Mcintyre is a good one. Although she's mildly discredited herself over the years, the facts of Valsequillo remain very interesting. Diatoms from the site have been repeatedly tested and cannot be younger than 80, 000 years. The stone tools would therefore be similar in age and would draw the conclusion that man was in the Americas much earlier than thought. There's an open-minded discussion on Hall of Maat, that supports the possibility of much earlier occupation of America. Much work remains to be done before population dates are extended so far beyond Clovis.

Of course, none of these ideas require a separate evolutionary branch or phylogenetic tree to explain their existence. It's when we need to rearrange so many areas of science to allow for speculative ancient cultures and million-year old Sphynx that we come unstuck.

Whilst you may balk at reading the link, I do recommend it. Although we disagree on several points, I've enjoyed the discussion and you've made interesting points. It's been a pleasure, thank you


Yours
K,





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join