posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Bunkered
Evidence folks evidence
I agree with you, Hanslune,
I found this article that describes a debate between two scientists:
As far as I can tell:
1) The Great Sphinx was covered with sand for 4/5ths of its existence. This is supported by evidence.
2) The Great Spinx displays significant
rain-based erosion on its flanks. This is supported by evidence.
3) No rainfall was recorded until around 10,000BC, when that time was the last time that rain fell and the Great Spinx shows thousands of years
of erosion. This is supported by evidence.
4) I had a verbal conversation with someone who knew a lot about the Great Sphinx and he related a story -- I'm looking for it on the net -- about
some pictures that were taken of the flanks of the Great Spinx and he showed them to a number of hydrological mineralogists and most of them estimated
that the rock appeared to show several thousand years of rain-based erosion. I don't know how accurate this story is and I'm looking for it on the
net and I do understand that the rate of erosion and the total time span of the exposed rocks are key variables, so I don't know how much stock that
one can put into this little anecdote.
5) Keep in mind that virtually NO rain fell after 10,000BC, or at least, very, very little rain fell after that date and certainly not enough to
generate significant erosion that is typical of tropical rains.
6) The Great Sphinx was added on, patched-over and fiddled with over the years -- but that was AFTER it had the rain-based erosion, hence the
different rates of wear and tear that is apparent today.
[edit on 17-10-2009 by Historical-Mozart]