Robert Schoch

Harte · Post by **Harte** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:18 pm

You guys are still going on and on about water erosion in the Sphinx complex.

Beating my head against the wall here, I guess, but I pointed out to you all last summer that Schoch's theory for the date of the Sphinx's construction in no way relies on rainfall. Not in any way shape or form.

His entire thesis rests on subsurface weathering of the limestone bedrock. This weathering is caused by exposure to air. Not rainfall.

Schoch only uses the (apparent) water erosion as a small matter in support of his weathering theory, which he bases entirely on seismic surveys.

These surveys indicated (to Schoch) that the front area was carved out before the rear. Schoch took the date of the carving of the rear of the monument to agree with the Egyptologist's agreed-upon Sphinx carving date, then extrapolated to the deeper weathering in the front floor of the monument to arrive at his date.

Read his work again, then go get the dunce cap and sit on that stool in the corner. Rude enough, Marduk?

Harte

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:36 pm

I don't know anything about this Harte so perhaps you can enlighten me. What is meant by erosion by exposure to air?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:54 pm

Rude enough, Marduk?

getting there
go bang your head a few more times then you'll get it

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:17 am

Harte wrote:You guys are still going on and on about water erosion in the Sphinx complex.

Beating my head against the wall here, I guess, but I pointed out to you all last summer that Schoch's theory for the date of the Sphinx's construction in no way relies on rainfall. Not in any way shape or form.

His entire thesis rests on subsurface weathering of the limestone bedrock. This weathering is caused by exposure to air. Not rainfall.

Schoch only uses the (apparent) water erosion as a small matter in support of his weathering theory, which he bases entirely on seismic surveys.

These surveys indicated (to Schoch) that the front area was carved out before the rear. Schoch took the date of the carving of the rear of the monument to agree with the Egyptologist's agreed-upon Sphinx carving date, then extrapolated to the deeper weathering in the front floor of the monument to arrive at his date.

Read his work again, then go get the dunce cap and sit on that stool in the corner. Rude enough, Marduk?

Harte

I see that Marduk has asked you to be rude. Good boy. However, he has caused you to look foolish. We did not go "on and on" about the Sphinx and I only mentioned that the discussion had moved on to Colin Readers' article. I've told you that before and suggested you read it.

Now you need to go back and read the whole thread this time.. While doing that you have to keep your foot firmly in your mouth.

I'm sure you know that I don't read any of Marduks post, I'm just not going to read that nonsense.

Harte, dropping in just to be rude shows a serious lack of class.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:10 am

In Schoch's own words:

If the Great Sphinx was weathered heavily, and at an early period, by precipitation, this suggests that it may have been carved prior to the last period of major precipitation in this part of Egypt. Egypt was subjected to erratic floods and what is sometimes referred to as the "Nabtian Pluvial" (a period of relatively heavy rainfall) from 12,000 or 10,000 to about 5,000 years ago, and it has been suggested that there were sporadic but relatively heavy rains during the fourth millennium (4,000 to 3,000) B.C., and a less arid climate along the Nile as late as the middle of the third millennium B.C. (with relatively wetter conditions and unusually high Nile floods recorded sporadically during historical times; for a recent summary of the evidence bearing on the Holocene climatic history of northern Egypt see Said, 1990; see also Bower and Lubell, 1988, Clark and Brandt, 1984, Close, 1987, Holmes, 1989, and references cited therein).

http://www.robertschoch.net/Geological% ... 202000.htm

He's pretty clear about the rain-induced weathering and certainly one of his mechanisms for dating is looking for the last time in pre-history when Egypt was that rain-soaked.

Another obvious comment, made in John Anthony West's Serpent in the Sky has to do with recognizable ( i.e. inscribed) 4th Dynasty mud brick structures which show no sign of rainfall weathering.

Granted, he used the results of the seismic surveys to further refine his ideas but it is simply incorrect to state that rainfall plays no part in the decision making process.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:48 am

I'm sure you know that I don't read any of Marduks post, I'm just not going to read that nonsense.

I see that Marduk has asked you to be rude. Good boy. However, he has caused you to look foolish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:04 pm

Firstly, I have never been to Egypt. Some of the images, Wiki etc, are not of the best, but living in an area of high rainfall, lots of sand, high winds, frost, and rocky out crops, the weathering certainly looks like that which is normally associated here with water.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:50 pm

I see that Marduk has asked you to be rude. Good boy. However, he has caused you to look foolish. We did not go "on and on" about the Sphinx

ah but you do go on and on about how brilliant Hancock is

Graham Hancock “I am sure it will be of great quality and I will happily post it on my website”

he wrote this about my work
or should we ask your other perrenial favourite

Dr Robert Schoch said “I will be happy to have it posted as a guest article on my website”

or how about this guy

Dr C.A.Winters “I loved your site. The information and graphics are great. Thanks for the fine article.”

I'm sure you know that I don't read any of Marduks post, I'm just not going to read that nonsense.

seems you live in a minority of one eh Beagle

pity I had to give up pseudoscience in the end as apparently I had a bright future in it
now i rely on facts instead
perhaps thats why you think my posts are "rubbish"

Harte · Post by **Harte** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:07 pm

Beagle wrote: I see that Marduk has asked you to be rude. Good boy. However, he has caused you to look foolish. We did not go "on and on" about the Sphinx and I only mentioned that the discussion had moved on to Colin Readers' article. I've told you that before and suggested you read it.

Maybe I didn't tell you Beagle, but I'd read Reader's article years before I even joined this site.

And yes, it appears generally accepted here at this forum that Schoch's thesis is based on runoff, when it in fact certainly is not, as Reader's article shows with his demolishing of Schoch's runoff ideas. It is this apparent fact I was responding to, once again.

Schoch is not stupid enough (unlike some around here) to simply say "Hmmm, runoff erosion. Well, last time it rained that much around here was in 5,000 B.C..." and think he can get away with such a ridiculously illogical theory.

If you read Schoch's estimated date, from Schoch's paper, you'll see that it is a calculated date based on extrapolation of subsurface weathering. Said weathering is caused by exposure, not by rain.

Beagle wrote: Now you need to go back and read the whole thread this time.. While doing that you have to keep your foot firmly in your mouth.

WTF? It's only 5 pages, almost half of which (prior to my first post) consists of accidental (I presume) duplicate posts. Why on Earth would you think I hadn't read the whole thread?

Beagle wrote: I'm sure you know that I don't read any of Marduks post, I'm just not going to read that nonsense.

Sort of like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA LA LA...?

Beagle wrote:Harte, dropping in just to be rude shows a serious lack of class.

Didn't mean to be rude, but re-reading before submitting I saw how it might be construed thusly, hence my poke at Marduk, who is constantly being called rude here and elsewhere (possibly for good reason.

)

But if you think I'm just dropping in to be rude, think again. I'm a member of several other forums that keep me somewhat busy, also my hardrive crashed around Dec. 20 and I only got back online (at home) last week. Miss me?

Harte

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm

You again say that the erosion is credited to exposure, exposure to what?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:15 pm

our incredulity ?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:28 pm

How fast does that erode sand stone Marduk?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:29 pm

Didn't mean to be rude, but re-reading before submitting I saw how it might be construed thusly, hence my poke at Marduk, who is constantly being called rude here and elsewhere (possibly for good reason. )

I don't see how it could have been construed any other way. But I'll take your word for. I appreciate it. Take care Harte.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:54 pm

How fast does that erode sand stone Marduk?

whatever we need it to

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:01 am

http://www.robertschoch.net/Egypt%20Sha ... l%20CT.htm

The Daily Grail has created a link to Schochs' website where Colette Dowell offers a two part blog on herself and her feelings about her trip to Egypt.

Not a scientific report, and quite esoteric, but interesting.
This link is to Part 1, which then links to part 2.