How old is the Sphinx ?

[stereologist 16,935]

I am now used to the fringie lovers thinking that a published paper can only speak truth. A published paper means someone did some work. They formed a hypothesis and collected data and came to a conclusion. The work has consistency with such things as the conclusion follows from the work and addresses the hypothesis. After that the work is up for discussion.  In this case the work has been dismissed due to problems with the work.

Apparently, not everyone got the message or they refuse to accept that Schoch was in error.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

25 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The Sphinx is far below the level of the pyramids. You seem to  be  implying that they are at the same level. Not true.

I have implied nothing of the sort.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

18 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You seem so certain that this is rain erosion.  You seem so certain that only torrential rainfall is responsible.

1.Limiting the decision to only wind and rain is a mistake

2. Limiting yourself to torrential rains is another mistake

mate the Schock is a geologist and you are not. 

[Captain Risky 8,621]

12 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Glad you found it compelling because other geologists did not.

Who?

[stereologist 16,935]

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I have implied nothing of the sort.

Actually you did. I'm not surprised. You seem to not kow anything at all but just parroting Schoch.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

12 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Again you assign water as the agent when that is at best a guess.

1. There are other mechanisms

2. The rock  is not homogeneous

 

I’d be happy to consider any new information. Give me examples and i’ll look into them.

[stereologist 16,935]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Who?

Geologists have as a whole rejected Schoch. Are you even following the thread?

[stereologist 16,935]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

I’d be happy to consider any new information. Give me examples and i’ll look into them.

As I stated you seem to be completely ignorant in this matter and are trolling with Schoch long ago rejected idea. I think it was an interesting idea but it was made in a vacuum - without consideration of the archaeological evidence.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

As I stated you seem to be completely ignorant in this matter and are trolling with Schoch long ago rejected idea. I think it was an interesting idea but it was made in a vacuum - without consideration of the archaeological evidence.

that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I’m interested in this theory of Schock’s. you don’t. no big deal still friends. 

[stereologist 16,935]

22 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

of course there would have been. the pyramid has foundations, foundations and even chambers underneath the level of the Egyptian sands and the Giza plateau that should also be suffering from your rising water table theory. the boat buried at the foot of the pyramid should have also suffered water damage. even a little bit of water would have rotted the structure. as it is, it has no damage whatsoever. 

besides, i have provided a link and Schock clearly says that the damage to the sphinx is water, torrential rain, falling heavily that has caused this damage. such weather damage should have theoretically damaged all structures or at the least left lasting signs, assuming that the pyramids and the sphinx suffered this damage together.     

Here is a post in which Captain Risky suggests that the pyramid and its associated structures should be affected by the water table as the sphinx has been. This implies that the sphinx and pyramids are at the same elevation. Quite wrong.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Here is a post in which Captain Risky suggests that the pyramid and its associated structures should be affected by the water table as the sphinx has been. This implies that the sphinx and pyramids are at the same elevation. Quite wrong.

Torrential rain also seeps into sand and bedrock. Also at what point on the Giza Plataeu does the water table rise? Only up until the Sphinx ? Or beyond. There are pleanty of structures between the Sphinx and pyramids I’m guessing.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Captain Risky

[stereologist 16,935]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I’m interested in this theory of Schock’s. you don’t. no big deal still friends. 

The archaeological evidence is that the enclosure was used to build temples. That invalidates Schoch's idea. Schoch overlooked this. Clearly, his torrential rain idea is wrong. Is there another mechanism to cause this type of erosion?

[stereologist 16,935]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Torrential rain also seeps into sand and bedrock. That’s my meaning. 

Guess you don't know much about geology.  Torrential rains do not seep into bedrock. They produce flash floods.  Please continue.

Please tell us the direction of drainage. Please tell us about other surface marks from these flash floods.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

The archaeological evidence is that the enclosure was used to build temples. That invalidates Schoch's idea. Schoch overlooked this. Clearly, his torrential rain idea is wrong. Is there another mechanism to cause this type of erosion?

depends I guess. Geology has nothing to do with history. 

[Captain Risky 8,621]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Guess you don't know much about geology.  Torrential rains do not seep into bedrock. They produce flash floods.  Please continue.

Please tell us the direction of drainage. Please tell us about other surface marks from these flash floods.

you’re not a geologist so don’t get ahead of this discussion. 

[stereologist 16,935]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

depends I guess. Geology has nothing to do with history. 

Again you are wrong. Earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc. are part of history. The Archaeological work invalidates Schoch.

[kmt_sesh 36,098]

11 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

you keep saying that you’ve read Schock’s report yet you miss the single biggest conclusion. Torrential rain does not care for elevation.

now who’s making the mistake?

Yes, torrential rain cares very much about elevation, and it will always flow downhill. You'd think it would settle in the Sphinx enclosure, except torrential rains were few and far between by the time the Sphinx was built. That might be beside the point. As has been explained numerous times, torrential rains are not really the gist of Schock's theory. I don't know why you're still arguing that. Go back and specifically read Harte's posts on this matter. He explained it well.

It hasn't been brought up yet but, again, Schoch has argued that the Sphinx is actually 10.000 years old. This would place it about a millennium before the neolithic subpluvial, a period of pronounced wetness beginning at earliest about 7500 BCE. As my link relates, the periods before and after the subpluvial were very arid. So even our knowledge of geology discards Schock's idea. Besides which, there certainly were no prehistoric societies in that region 10,000 years ago that could marshall the manpower and logistics to accomplish such a feat. It would take the power and resources of a state,

In point of fact we can't be specific on the precise means of weathering on the Sphinx because it probably involved several processes. That is another weak point on Schock's part. He zeroed in on one segment of the Sphinx while ignoring the weathering patters and erosion of the rest of the Plateau.

These mistakes are yours. You're not addressing the entirety of the situation, just like Schock didn't.

And I'll say it again: Schock's theory has been discarded.

[stereologist 16,935]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

you’re not a geologist so don’t get ahead of this discussion. 

Torrential rains produce flash floods. Apparently you are clueless about torrential rains in desert zones. Please try to learn for a change.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Again you are wrong. Earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc. are part of history. The Archaeological work invalidates Schoch.

i disagree. It again it’s your opinion and I respect that. 

[stereologist 16,935]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

i disagree. It again it’s your opinion and I respect that. 

Are you really that ignorant?  Very likely I suppose.

The Archaeological work invalidates Schoch is not opinion. It is fact.

I saw a documentary that suggested that water flowed near the pyramids. This may indicate where the Nile was redirected to allow stones to be delivered closer to the pyramids.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

5 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Yes, torrential rain cares very much about elevation, and it will always flow downhill. You'd think it would settle in the Sphinx enclosure, except torrential rains were few and far between by the time the Sphinx was built. That might be beside the point. As has been explained numerous times, torrential rains are not really the gist of Schock's theory. I don't know why you're still arguing that. Go back and specifically read Harte's posts on this matter. He explained it well.

It hasn't been brought up yet but, again, Schoch has argued that the Sphinx is actually 10.000 years old. This would place it about a millennium before the neolithic subpluvial, a period of pronounced wetness beginning at earliest about 7500 BCE. As my link relates, the periods before and after the subpluvial were very arid. So even our knowledge of geology discards Schock's idea. Besides which, there certainly were no prehistoric societies in that region 10,000 years ago that could marshall the manpower and logistics to accomplish such a feat. It would take the power and resources of a state,

In point of fact we can't be specific on the precise means of weathering on the Sphinx because it probably involved several processes. That is another weak point on Schock's part. He zeroed in on one segment of the Sphinx while ignoring the weathering patters and erosion of the rest of the Plateau.

These mistakes are yours. You're not addressing the entirety of the situation, just like Schock didn't.

And I'll say it again: Schock's theory has been discarded.

you could very well be right and Schock wrong. but you need more to convince me.

[kmt_sesh 36,098]

6 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

depends I guess. Geology has nothing to do with history. 

It actually does, which is why there's a whole field of study called geoarchaeology. Mankind has had significant affects on geological formations all around the world. Man changes the landscape to suit his needs.

5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

you’re not a geologist so don’t get ahead of this discussion. 

But he's right. It's very basic science. Rock formations are not sponges. Porous rock will of course absorb some water. but the brunt of rainfall will run right off them. This has been observed down through time in the Valley of the Kings, when the rare heavy rain will run off the rocks and gather on the valley floor, causing floods.

[Captain Risky 8,621]

there you go. The brunt of water run off moves down hill. So all that water that hit the pyramids just ran off without any seepage or pooling? The Sphinx has water damage consistent with water run off not pooling.

[kmt_sesh 36,098]

6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Are you really that ignorant?  Very likely I suppose.

The Archaeological work invalidates Schoch is not opinion. It is fact.

I saw a documentary that suggested that water flowed near the pyramids. This may indicate where the Nile was redirected to allow stones to be delivered closer to the pyramids.

Archaeologists have used advanced mapping methods to establish some of the waterways at Giza. For one thing, in the third millennium BCE the Nile used to flow a lot closer to the foot of the Plateau, and a channel was dug to diverge the water in a direction perpendicular to the pyramids higher up. In other words, the stones were floated on barges right to the location. In a convenience of source evidence, the writings in the records of the foreman Merer (found in the Sinai not so long ago) confirm this. And on top of that, quite some time ago archaeologists were even able to establish a lot of the perimeters of the quays that were out front of the Plateau. They'll never have a perfect plot of the ancient quays because the city of Cairo has grown very close to the Plateau, and urban sprawl has destroyed areas of the quays.

[kmt_sesh 36,098]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

there you go. The brunt of water run off moves down hill. So all that water that hit the pyramids just ran off without any seepage or pooling? The Sphinx has water damage consistent with water run off not pooling.

No again, but for a while I'll just let you have your fun. You're outright dismissing all of the science people have tried to show you, as you generally do in your threads. I don't have the staying power anymore to deal with sort of silliness. so I'm calling it a night.