Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 2 votes

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


  • Please log in to reply
1650 replies to this topic

#1321    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,057 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:45 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 29 November 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

SC: And yet they present these texts as AE texts.

You can dress a monkey in silk, will not turn into a gentleman.

That little details in the accounts of the ancient "historians", like an Egyptian mural "depicting the amount of cabbages the Pharaoh had to feed his pyramid builders" don't tip you off about the veracity of their accounts makes it all the more understandable that you want to peddle your own skewed version of Ancient Egypt.

It is very unlikely that, at any time between 0 an 1900 AD, anybody in the world could have understood any ancient Egyptian record,  and even in the time when there might still have been somebody not much attention was given to them, as one can easily discern from the intellectual diarrhea of a certain Mr. Herodotus.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#1322    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:45 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 29 November 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Still making up your own facts, I see. This was already shown to be wrong in Post #1229:



http://www.csicop.or...fting_cataclysm

cormac

SC: Still not with the program, I see.  Earth Crust Displacement (ECD) has NOTHING to do with Rapid TPW which is an entirely different mechanism. Get your facts straight.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 29 November 2012 - 08:47 AM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1323    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,249 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 29 November 2012 - 02:08 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 29 November 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

SC: Still not with the program, I see.  Earth Crust Displacement (ECD) has NOTHING to do with Rapid TPW which is an entirely different mechanism. Get your facts straight.

SC

Whether you move the entire planet as a whole or like the skin of an orange over its core you still get the same effect. That being the geographical North and South poles would be more in the path of direct sunlight that they were before, meaning they'd experience different climactic conditions. Yet, as I've posted earlier "The CLIMAP Project (1981) reconstructed climatic zones during the Last Glacial Maximum and the results obtained shows the North and South Poles (and the equator) in the same position as today". This would not be true if TPW were responsible. Nor would the almost permanent ice cover and glacio-marine sedimentation be the same since the mid-Pleistocene. Nor would the Arctic have remained colder than the oceans around it for the last 7 million years. Any kind of disruption of these would have left a record in the geological/climatological record, yet we see no such thing. What we DO see is a continuation of much the same pattern over 10's of thousands to millions of years. And as Bernhard Steinberger and Trond Torsvik have shown in their article "TPW unplugged: Absolute plate motions and true polar wander in the absence of hotspot tracks", the only evidence we do have is for a movement of one (1) degree per million years.

http://www.geodynami...w_unplugged.pdf

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#1324    lakeview rud

lakeview rud

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 242 posts
  • Joined:15 Oct 2009

Posted 29 November 2012 - 03:14 PM

Harte, I have never said that the pyramids pre-date the AE's.  What I am asking for is a reasonable explanation for the vertical erosion on the Sphinx.  If you can provide a picture of Mr. Hawass breaking off a 'chunk' of repair stone I'd like to see it. (where its located and how old it is estimated to be would help). it's obvious that this (erosion on repair blocks) is not common to most or all of the blocks since if it was we'd surely have lots of pictures.

The fact remains that erosion of this type, whether this happened when the Sphinx was exposed or buried, should be relatively uniform and dependent on the age of the block or stone at the time when it was cut or placed.

Awhile back our New York State 'experts' declared that if the limestone blocks from the Western Terminus of the Erie Canal were exposed to air they "might explode".  Our idiot leadership took this at face value until one local professor declared it to be rubbish.  The terminus has now been excavated and we have a bit of American history.  I find the attempt to place the reason for this vertical erosion on "dew" to be almost as preposterous.


#1325    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 03:29 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 29 November 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Whether you move the entire planet as a whole or like the skin of an orange over its core you still get the same effect. That being the geographical North and South poles would be more in the path of direct sunlight that they were before, meaning they'd experience different climactic conditions.

SC: But that was NOT the point you were trying to make. You employed a completely different pole shift model ECD with all the inherent problems and contradictions that model has in an attempt to debunk an entirely different model. You misrepresented what was being said in order to build a strawman argument that you could simply knock over. The theory under consideration is Rapid True Polar Wander. When this is combined with fluctuation of the axis (ECD maintains a fixed axis) then it is *not* necessarily the case that the North and South poles would gain more solar insolation since the change in axial tilt can be offset by the change in the geographical relocation of the pole itself. Combined axial tilt and RTPW can result in the the poles being relocated but with little difference in overall temperatures in these regions whilst other areas might experience considerable change; precisely the kind of sudden, rapid climate change that is now being posited by scientists to explain the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt and other Near East cultures in the early historical period.

Quote

CMA: the only evidence we do have is for a movement of one (1) degree per million years.

SC: Once again you misrepresent the actual facts. The research of George Dodwell clearly demonstrates a disturbance of the Earth's axis in the early historical period. Deal with the FACTS.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 29 November 2012 - 04:07 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1326    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:06 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 29 November 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

The research of George Dodwell clearly demonstrates a disturbance of the Earth's axis in the early historical period.

Speaking as someone who was apparently "lynched", I ask is this the Dodwell in the link below? some biblical literalist/creationist fool. By the way, in your book there is a chapter "Through the Veil", should this not be "Smoke and Mirrors"
http://www.creationi...WorldChap11.htm


#1327    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:11 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 29 November 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

...I ask is this the Dodwell in the link below? some biblical literalist/creationist fool....

SC: Shame on you. What has a person's religious views got to do with their science? Their science is what matters and it is their science that can be tested, not their religious views. I couldn't give a hee-haw if Dodwell's faith was Jedi - I am interested *only* in his science. Deplorable and utterly shameful that you should stoop to such low depths to try and win a point. So we are now to ignore any modern scientist who attends church, are we?

If you can't beat the science, beat the scientist. Contemptible.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 29 November 2012 - 04:31 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1328    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,249 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 29 November 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

SC: But that was NOT the point you were trying to make. You employed a completely different pole shift model ECD with all the inherent problems and contradictions that model has in an attempt to debunk an entirely different model. You misrepresented what was being said in order to build a strawman argument that you could simply knock over. The theory under consideration is Rapid True Polar Wander. When this is combined with fluctuation of the axis (ECD maintains a fixed axis) then it is *not* necessarily the case that the North and South poles would gain more solar insolation since the change in axial tilt can be offset by the change in the geographical relocation of the pole itself. Combined axial tilt and RTPW can result in the the poles being relocated but with little difference in overall temperatures in these regions whilst other areas might experience considerable change; precisely the kind of sudden, rapid climate change that is now being posited by scientists to explain the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt and other Near East cultures in the early historical period.



SC: Once again you misrepresent the actual facts. The research of George Dodwell clearly demonstrates a disturbance of the Earth's axis in the early historical period. Deal with the FACTS.

SC

You have the same problem in either case, whether you use the ECT or RTPW. The evidence does not support your conclusion.

Dodwell's conclusions are not currently shared by anyone with a background in geodynamics or related areas. But I can see why you had to find someone from 50+ years ago. Because no one today takes you or him seriously.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#1329    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:30 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 29 November 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

You have the same problem in either case, whether you use the ECT or RTPW.

SC: Nonsense. ECD keeps the axis fixed, RTPW causes the axis to fluctuate (and change location). Different dynamic, different model, different results.


Quote

CMA: The evidence does not support your conclusion.

SC: Well, you would say that. The facts, however, support my position. Like the fact that the Old Kingdom and other Near East cultures collapsed in the early historical period as a result of sudden, dramatic climate change.

Quote

CMA: Dodwell's conclusions are not currently shared by anyone with a background in geodynamics or related areas. But I can see why you had to find someone from 50+ years ago. Because no one today takes you or him seriously.

SC: And the only reason why Dodwell's research was not considered more fully by his peers at the time was because he died before completing it, and 50 years ago it was the general view of science that it would take a body about the size of the Earth itself to knock it off its axis and such an impact would vaporise every living thing on the planet.  Since that had not (obviously) occurred, it was believed that Dodwell's research was flawed. But this long-held view of the Earth's axis being tipped only by a massive planetary collision is no longer the view and, as such, Dodwell's data should be reconsidered in light of this modern research which presents various models that show how the Earth's axis and its geographic position can be changed relatively easily and rapidly without it resulting in an Extinction Level Event.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 29 November 2012 - 04:38 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1330    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,249 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:39 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 29 November 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

SC: Nonsense. ECD keeps the axis fixed, RTPW causes the axis to fluctuate (and change location). Different dynamic, different model, different results.




SC: Well, you would say that. The facts, however, support my position. Like the fact that the Old Kingdom and other Near East cultures collapsed in the early historical period as a result of sudden, dramatic climate change.



SC: And the only reason why Dodwell's research was not considered more fully by his peers at the time was because he died before completing it, and 50 years ago it was the general view of science that it would take a body about the size of the Earth itself to knock it off its axis and such an impact would vaporise every living thing on the planet.  Since that had not (obviously) occurred, it was believed that Dodwell's research was flawed. But this long-held view of the Earth's axis being tipped only by a massive planetary collision is no longer the view and, as such, Dodwell's data should be reconsidered in light of this modern research which presents various models that show how the Earth's axis and its geographic position can be changed rapidly without it resulting in an Extinction Level Event.

SC

Which is not evidence of an axial tilt, regardless of what theory you want to use to explain it.

Right, models by two other people who aren't taken seriously by the scientific community. There's a continuing pattern of irrelevancy in your sources.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#1331    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:45 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 29 November 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Which is not evidence of an axial tilt, regardless of what theory you want to use to explain it.

SC: Well I expect you to say that.  Dodwell's data, however, bears the lie to your comment.

Quote

CMA: Right, models by two other people who aren't taken seriously by the scientific community. There's a continuing pattern of irrelevancy in your sources.

SC: Which doesn't actually make them wrong. But if that is what you are trying to say, then present a paper from another scientist that point-by-point debunks their paper(s). Let's see it.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 29 November 2012 - 04:46 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1332    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:48 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 29 November 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

So we are now to ignore any modern scientist who attends church, are we?
Religion clouds the mind, belief in some supernatural fantasy is incompatible with fully understanding the physical world. I beleive there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Mengele's science, he conducted his experiments is a proper scientific manner, should I not then criticise Herr Doktor Mengele? Honestly, you English eat too many prunes as they wither your minds and destroy all sense of humour and the ridiculous. The smell of starch in this forum is very strong...


#1333    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:52 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 29 November 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Religion clouds the mind, belief in some supernatural fantasy is incompatible with fully understanding the physical world. I beleive there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Mengele's science, he conducted his experiments is a proper scientific manner, should I not then criticise Herr Doktor Mengele?

SC: Strawman.

Quote

AP: Honestly, you English ...

SC: I'm not English.

Quote

AP: The smell of starch in this forum is very strong...

SC: Time then to wash your mouth out with soap.

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1334    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 29 November 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

SC: Strawman.
Ridiculous comment. You certainly sat on a thistle haven't you, English


#1335    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,563 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:05 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 29 November 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Religion clouds the mind, belief in some supernatural fantasy is incompatible with fully understanding the physical world.

A statement like this made perfect sense to me only a few years ago.  I could have
made it myself.

At least religion contains a lot of truth while science tends to dispense only technol-
ogy with its comforts and a false sense of understanding.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users