Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

How old is the Sphinx ?

647 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

abhijit_b
2 hours ago, stereologist said:

You seem unable to understand the basics. Your claims of contradiction continue to illustrate your lack of understanding of the basics and your attempts at logical constructions are poor to bad.

Nothing you stated follows from statements I made. That is called a non sequitur.

You don't understand the processes being discussed and you can't follow statements in a rational or logical fashion.

My next point is that you keep falling back on an older paper, you cherry pick results, and are inappropriately mixing material. This problem appears to be a fall out from the first two issues.

I do exactly have the same feeling about you.

This is what happens when you don't have the complete knowledge and arrogant towards a single idea.

None of your points prove the peculiar pattern of erosion of the enclosure wall. Please don't mention repeatedly about "understanding of the basics", I can also state the same! Instead of explaining things in a proper and logical way, you are simply getting personal!

No point debating here! I do exactly understand the frustration of lateral thinkers.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
19 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

No point debating here! I do exactly understand the frustration of lateral thinkers.

Because, obviously, when it turns out you're wrong, it's not a fair debate.

Harte

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

so how do you account for the differences in both sphinxes in such a short span of time? 

Which differences are these?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
5 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

It's Dr Harrell's theory (I myself mentioned it one of my previous post) and it simply doesn't explain why the rounded fissures are observed only on the Western part of Southern wall and Western wall!

Not all of the walls are the original wall.  It is my understanding that during the repair of the Sphinx, walls were also repaired and rebuilt and often with different limestone. 

... I could be wrong but I remember reading this somewhere... can't find the source at the moment, though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Different elevations of any wall of the enclosure have physical properties that vary, some of them wildly, from other elevations on the same wall.

As Schoch admitted, the shape taken by a stone due to weathering and erosion has far more to do with the stone's makeup than with what caused the erosion.

For example, some layers of a couple of the walls are a mix of fossilized coral and deposited sandy limestone. Those two things, though found in the same layer of the same bed, will certainly not erode away with any similarity in shape.

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

I do exactly have the same feeling about you.

This is what happens when you don't have the complete knowledge and arrogant towards a single idea.

None of your points prove the peculiar pattern of erosion of the enclosure wall. Please don't mention repeatedly about "understanding of the basics", I can also state the same! Instead of explaining things in a proper and logical way, you are simply getting personal!

No point debating here! I do exactly understand the frustration of lateral thinkers.

 

You were wrong about it being a chemical issue.

I see you made zero attempt to address the fact that you posted non sequiturs.

Here is what I wrote.

Quote

1. Preferential weathering is common and is due to the physical environment that is being weathered. At best you can only suggest that the weathering surfaces on the exposures are different.

This is your unrelated response

Quote

You are totally contradicting, preferential weathering is one of the reason to believe why rainfall created the weathering pattern in the upper strata.

Erosion deals with preferential weathering. So no I am not contradicting. Not sure where you arrive at that weird idea.  The issue is that the weathering pattern differs across the enclosure. The reason is due to different actions occurring across the enclosure. Furthermore, the material is not homogeneous.

Here is what I wrote

Quote

2. Haloclasty works better on areas of smaller pore size.

This is your wacko response

Quote

You are contradicting. With that logic norther wall should have more fissures than southern.

There is no contradicting. You clearly have no idea what I wrote. The simple fact that everyone agrees on is that haloclasty works better on areas of smaller pore size. That is basic geological knowledge. You really need to learn what is being discussed instead of posting weird and wacky responses which people see as wacko.

I asked you where you got the odd idea that a chemical process was involved. Here is what you wrote. No. You did not explain why you don't understand what is in the papers.

Quote

I clearly posted above why I used the word chemical.

How can you pretend to understand the material when you repeatedly make the mistake that Gauri was discussing a chemical process?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
15 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

I do exactly have the same feeling about you.

This is what happens when you don't have the complete knowledge and arrogant towards a single idea.

None of your points prove the peculiar pattern of erosion of the enclosure wall. Please don't mention repeatedly about "understanding of the basics", I can also state the same! Instead of explaining things in a proper and logical way, you are simply getting personal!

No point debating here! I do exactly understand the frustration of lateral thinkers.

 

Hi abhijit_b 

yes I share your frustrations with some of our fellow posters. water erosion, artistic and proportional differences are the basis of our arguement, backed with reputable sources. While this cabal of naysayers seem to rely on Egyptology dogma that has its roots in the 1930’s. 

Excellent job mate, keep up the good work. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
44 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Hi abhijit_b 

yes I share your frustrations with some of our fellow posters. water erosion, artistic and proportional differences are the basis of our arguement, backed with reputable sources. While this cabal of naysayers seem to rely on Egyptology dogma that has its roots in the 1930’s. 

Excellent job mate, keep up the good work. 

 

Yes, I for one trustvutterly the 1932 LIDAR scans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Hi abhijit_b 

yes I share your frustrations with some of our fellow posters. water erosion, artistic and proportional differences are the basis of our arguement, backed with reputable sources. While this cabal of naysayers seem to rely on Egyptology dogma that has its roots in the 1930’s. 

Excellent job mate, keep up the good work. 

The Giza Mapping Project is certainly newer that 1939.

I've used Schoch's own claims and shown why they are unreliable.

I linked to the pertinent information.

Apparently, you and others have a personal reason for not reading that and prefer to claim I am stuck in the 1930's. Probably so that you can hold on to your own sparkly worldview which does not align with reality.

Harte

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Hi abhijit_b 

yes I share your frustrations with some of our fellow posters. water erosion, artistic and proportional differences are the basis of our arguement, backed with reputable sources. While this cabal of naysayers seem to rely on Egyptology dogma that has its roots in the 1930’s. 

Excellent job mate, keep up the good work. 

 

Science is full of debates and this debate no longer exists. It was an interesting idea of course, but it has no panned out.

The argument of water erosion is flawed because it is not the only erosional process as pointed out. Artistic and proportional arguments are flawed as has been pointed out. You rely on reputable sources which is good. There are plenty of reputable sources that get things wrong. That happens in science.

The dogma you suggest seems to be all yours. You rely mainly on a paper than is nearly a quarter of a century old. Many things have happened since then.

I certainly would suggest that you and abhijit_b  learn some of the basics to make reading this material a bit easier.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

The problem still remains that even "IF" the Sphinx' current appearance could be definitively tied to water erosion the Sphinx, as a whole, does not exist prior to the quarrying of the Enclosure. The quarried material of which has, once again, been shown to match the quantity and quality of material used in the construction of the Valley Temple Complex. Which places its origin during the 26th century BC when the Nile ran up to the edges of the Giza Plateau. 

cormac

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
On April 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Captain Risky said:

they don't have to be real. they just have to be the sum total of the two represented. notice how Djedfre's sphinx has all the attributes of a lion with the face of the human? unlike the Giza sphinx that seems like human head on a indistinguishable body.  

A foolish consistentcy is the hobgoblin of little minds, Risky.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Hi abhijit_b 

yes I share your frustrations with some of our fellow posters. water erosion, artistic and proportional differences are the basis of our arguement, backed with reputable sources. While this cabal of naysayers seem to rely on Egyptology dogma that has its roots in the 1930’s. 

Excellent job mate, keep up the good work. 

 

Stop being wrong, Risky, and people will stop telling you you're wrong.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
9 hours ago, Harte said:

The Giza Mapping Project is certainly newer that 1939.

I've used Schoch's own claims and shown why they are unreliable.

I linked to the pertinent information.

Apparently, you and others have a personal reason for not reading that and prefer to claim I am stuck in the 1930's. Probably so that you can hold on to your own sparkly worldview which does not align with reality.

Harte

Nah, he's just being contrarian. Maybe it's for entertainment or it's just his character. But that's why there's no depth and just rereading his initial reading of the paper and his main thrust stating counter arguments are unconvincing. There no real there there. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Okay, to look at this from a different perspective, what are the consequences of an older Sphinx? 

Well, that situates a fairly competent stone working culture on the Giza plateau millennia before any other evidence of civilisation in the area. Complex cultures capable of dedicating time and energy to megalithic construction requires a lot of ancillary support services. You need reliable agriculture, a large population that can support a number of people not working to provide food and defence but rather working to shape rock. They leave a footprint, they leave detectable remains. Houses. Fires. Written records. Other megaliths.

Being lazy, I went to Wikipedia. Around the year 5,000BCE (which is Shoch’s date for the Sphinx IIRC) agriculture was in its very early days, as in “just discovered and people are a bit leery of this strange new thing and wonder what’s wrong with hunting anf gsthering?” early days. The world was still just thawing from the Würm Glaciation phase of the Ice Age. We’d just discovered that you could grown gourds and carry water in them. Copper was the metal of choice. We are in our “let’s make circles out of stones” phase.

 

Im sorry, but nothing there says “megalithic builders” to me. 

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
5 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Okay, to look at this from a different perspective, what are the consequences of an older Sphinx? 

Well, that situates a fairly competent stone working culture on the Giza plateau millennia before any other evidence of civilisation in the area. Complex cultures capable of dedicating time and energy to megalithic construction requires a lot of ancillary support services. You need reliable agriculture, a large population that can support a number of people not working to provide food and defence but rather working to shape rock. They leave a footprint, they leave detectable remains. Houses. Fires. Written records. Other megaliths.

Being lazy, I went to Wikipedia. Around the year 5,000BCE (which is Shoch’s date for the Sphinx IIRC) agriculture was in its very early days, as in “just discovered and people are a bit leery of this strange new thing and wonder what’s wrong with hunting anf gsthering?” early days. The world was still just thawing from the Würm Glaciation phase of the Ice Age. We’d just discovered that you could grown gourds and carry water in them. Copper was the metal of choice. We are in our “let’s make circles out of stones” phase.

 

Im sorry, but nothing there says “megalithic builders” to me. 

Well Göbekli Tepe is a prime example of megalithic builders bordering on the hunter  gatherer cusp. 

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
21 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Well Göbekli Tepe is a prime example of megalithic builders bordering on the hunter  gatherer cusp. 

Yet also fits a context. It's not the only or oldest source of the t shaped pillars, there's other lithic structures build with Gobekli Tepe being the pinnacle of theor work at the site. Before moving on to other areas. 

 Instead of what is proposed, that the Sphinx was constructed, and that culture leaving no other evidence of their existence. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
1 hour ago, ShadowSot said:

Yet also fits a context. It's not the only or oldest source of the t shaped pillars, there's other lithic structures build with Gobekli Tepe being the pinnacle of theor work at the site. Before moving on to other areas. 

 Instead of what is proposed, that the Sphinx was constructed, and that culture leaving no other evidence of their existence. 

Shadow! I was wondering where you've been hiding.

Those who carved the Sphinx 10,000 years ago are part of an elusive Stealth Culture, you know. They came from nowhere, never built their own villages or cities or shrines or tombs, did not weave or wear animal skins but must've slept in the open-air desert, never made pots or vessels, ate slugs and other critters that left no trace, did not use tools to carve the Sphinx so none were left behind, and when they were done, they all marched right into the sea so that no human remains were left anywhere. Now, see how it works?

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
24 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Shadow! I was wondering where you've been hiding.

Those who carved the Sphinx 10,000 years ago are part of an elusive Stealth Culture, you know. They came from nowhere, never built their own villages or cities or shrines or tombs, did not weave or wear animal skins but must've slept in the open-air desert, never made pots or vessels, ate slugs and other critters that left no trace, did not use tools to carve the Sphinx so none were left behind, and when they were done, they all marched right into the sea so that no human remains were left anywhere. Now, see how it works?

Damn it, you found me. 

 Tapping into some of what ever it is that Papageorge has eh? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
37 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Shadow! I was wondering where you've been hiding.

Those who carved the Sphinx 10,000 years ago are part of an elusive Stealth Culture, you know. They came from nowhere, never built their own villages or cities or shrines or tombs, did not weave or wear animal skins but must've slept in the open-air desert, never made pots or vessels, ate slugs and other critters that left no trace, did not use tools to carve the Sphinx so none were left behind, and when they were done, they all marched right into the sea so that no human remains were left anywhere. Now, see how it works?

Aha! 

Bigfoot built it then! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

One of the things I see fringies doing a lot is to employ dating methods that are not calibrated, or validated. Here there is a dating method based on subsurface weathering. The vanillin dating method  used to suggest that the shroud of Turin is much older than the C14 dating suggests has not been calibrated or validated either. Now the shroud of Turin folks  have invented yet another dating method: the strength of a fiber method. A proper dating method is one that is tested and shown to work. The circumstances under which it works are known.  But I am unable to find that the method used by Schoch has been validated and calibrated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
17 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Shadow! I was wondering where you've been hiding.

Those who carved the Sphinx 10,000 years ago are part of an elusive Stealth Culture, you know. They came from nowhere, never built their own villages or cities or shrines or tombs, did not weave or wear animal skins but must've slept in the open-air desert, never made pots or vessels, ate slugs and other critters that left no trace, did not use tools to carve the Sphinx so none were left behind, and when they were done, they all marched right into the sea so that no human remains were left anywhere. Now, see how it works?

you know sesh... generally I'm a big supporter of lateral thinking but you really are pushing the boundaries on your elusive stealth culture theory. at least provide a link, otherwise expect to be ridiculed with such fanciful claims.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

It amazes me how some people can't comprehend sarcasm. :w00t:

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
8 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

you know sesh... generally I'm a big supporter of lateral thinking but you really are pushing the boundaries on your elusive stealth culture theory. at least provide a link, otherwise expect to be ridiculed with such fanciful claims.  

You want him to prove a stealth culture? What’s next, tell us what the colour blue tastes like?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

I think Captain was kidding. I hope he was kidding.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.