dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology

[DougWeller]

The geological evidence from Antarctica shows that it has never been habitable

let's not go there

Plant and animal fossils and coal beds indicate it was once warm here

http://octopus.gma.org/surfing/antarcti ... ctica.html

not a website that i can agree with but it indicates that there was life there at one time.

one would have to be able to explain how the ice got there and was able to become so thick with the following:

Antarctica is a continent of contradictions: volcanoes erupting from a frozen landscape; miles of snow and ice, yet hardly any snow falls each year; an arid land surrounded by three oceans.

seeing that we have another land mass with ice as thick as or almost as thick as anarctica, and is partially habitable we can come to the conclusion that the antarctica could have been habitable in the near past. there is no logical, evolutionary theory wthat would satisfy the ice forming and remaining frozen for such a long time. toomany assumptionshave to be made to evenattempt to make such explanations credible.

Oops, I meant habitable by human beings, I thought that was obvious. Sure, it was once elsewhere and had a different climate. But that was a very long time ago, when dinosaurs lived there.

What don't you agree with about the web site?
What does evolution have to do with the length of time that Antarctica has been at the south pole and frozen over?

And how do you reach the conclusion Antarctica was habitable in the near past?

[DougWeller]

Hmm...


This is interesting.


http://www.ebtx.com/theory/sahara.htm

First and last ... there is the Sphinx

This artifact, by the evidence first put forth by West and Schoch, is on the order of 10,000 years (or more) old. The evidence consists of water weathering patterns on the Sphinx enclosure (from a wet period) which could not have occurred if the Sphinx was anything like the 5000 or so years posited by formal Egyptologists (a dry period to the present day).

Schoch actually says more than 7000 years old, not 10000, that would be West who argues for that.

[Guest]

I meant habitable by human beings, I thought that was obvious

it was and i knew what you meant but i have my own theories based upon many different sources

What don't you agree with about the web site?

mainly its dating belief. no i do not buy into the timeline that puts things into millions of years.

And how do you reach the conclusion Antarctica was habitable in the near past?

i am a creationist but not a young earth one, the 6000 year age is very debatable but i hold to the Bible in its creation account. it is quite possible that people did inhabit all parts of the earth, given the skeletal finds in argentina and if any are under the ground in antarctica, we will never know.

given the fact that animal fossils have been found there, that lends to the credibility of humans being there if for nothing else but to hunt.

but since this is about schoch and pyramids,( a case can be built for that continent can be built for habitation by the finds under the sea that schoch, ryan, hapgood and others have discovered), i would like to stick to the relationships of all pyramids..


thought it is possible that the pyramids could have been built in a pre-flood world, i would need to see more evidence to support such thinking. the weathering marks on the sphynx do not seem to be found on the pyramids at giza nor any other pyramid attributed to that time.

unless someone here has more information on the state of those structures.

[DougWeller]

There is geological and biological evidence that makes a global flood impossible unless you posit a miracle, but never mind.
What skeletal finds in Argentina?

[Minimalist]

the weathering marks on the sphynx do not seem to be found on the pyramids at giza nor any other pyramid attributed to that time.

Congratulations, arch. That may be the first actual science-based and correct observation you have ever made!

[Minimalist]

Hmm...


This is interesting.


http://www.ebtx.com/theory/sahara.htm

First and last ... there is the Sphinx

This artifact, by the evidence first put forth by West and Schoch, is on the order of 10,000 years (or more) old. The evidence consists of water weathering patterns on the Sphinx enclosure (from a wet period) which could not have occurred if the Sphinx was anything like the 5000 or so years posited by formal Egyptologists (a dry period to the present day).

Schoch actually says more than 7000 years old, not 10000, that would be West who argues for that.

I saw West interviewed where he said he thought Schoch was being "too conservative."

Interesting show on Discovery Times last night, a repeat of the show with Lehner standing there crumbling bits of the Sphinx to show that it doesn't take rainwater to erode....meanwhile, the wall in the background shows the scars! Anyway, another speaker, an Egyptian whose name I did not catch, was arguing for the early emergence of Egyptian civilization as a result of the Sahara drying out sometime after 5,000 BC and when desert nomads flocked to the only other source of water, the Nile. The obvious flaw in that argument is that before the Sahara dried out they wouldn't have needed to be desert nomads. Still, it was an admission that there was a significant climate change from a well-watered savannah to a desert and that would seem to back Schoch's assertion.

[Beagle]

OMG - we're back to Schoch?

I can't speak for Schoch but he has stated that his "conservative" estimations for the Sphinx age is based on generally accepted dates for the area becoming a desert.

I read somewhere (please don't make me hunt it up and post it) that a climatologist has recently proposed that there was a more recent period in Egyptian history ( 50-100 yrs.) when rainfall was plentiful.

If that were true - I imagine Schoch would revise his thinking. I would too.

[DougWeller]

OMG - we're back to Schoch?

I can't speak for Schoch but he has stated that his "conservative" estimations for the Sphinx age is based on generally accepted dates for the area becoming a desert.

I read somewhere (please don't make me hunt it up and post it) that a climatologist has recently proposed that there was a more recent period in Egyptian history ( 50-100 yrs.) when rainfall was plentiful.

If that were true - I imagine Schoch would revise his thinking. I would too.

It still rains there, sometimes heavily. Has anyone read the geological arguments against Schoch?

[Beagle]

Yes - I think I've read them all.

[Minimalist]

It still rains there, sometimes heavily. Has anyone read the geological arguments against Schoch?

Modern rainstorms would have eroded all the sites....not just the Sphinx and its wall.

[Beagle]

Well Mini, I really do need to look up that climatologist that I mentioned above. It seems to me that he mentioned a period of heavy rainfall around 5500ya. That is still a pre-dynastic date.

I'll find it later.

[Minimalist]

That is still a pre-dynastic date.

Yes and on the show last night Lehner and Hawass sat there insisting that there is no way in HELL that anyone except the 4th Dynasty pharoahs built it. (They were hedging a bit on Khafre or Kufu...)

Still the other fellow, who may have been a geologist pointed out that because of the prevailing winds the Sphinx enclosure which (he said) is a hole in the ground which serves no purpose, as far as nature is concerned, is filled in with sand within 20 years. That would mean while they were building the Second and Third Pyramid they would have been watching the laboriously carved Sphinx fill up with sand.

I said earlier, I doubt that the ancient 4th Dynasty Egyptians would have been so unfamiliar with blowing sand that they would not have known what would happen if they built the Sphinx in a hole in the ground.

[Guest]

That would mean while they were building the Second and Third Pyramid they would have been watching the laboriously carved Sphinx fill up with sand.

possible but maybe not probable.

Yes and on the show last night Lehner and Hawass sat there insisting that there is no way in HELL that anyone except the 4th Dynasty pharoahs built it

and you thought i was blind. what would happen to egyptian history if schoch and others are right? i am not talking about the pyramids, but only the sphynx here.

would it be damaged at all? i don't think so personally but maybe there is something i am missing

[f9]

There is geological and biological evidence that makes a global flood impossible unless you posit a miracle, but never mind.
What skeletal finds in Argentina?

In fact I have come up with the miracle.I realy dont know from where you get geological and biological evidence?One way to get that data is to have clear oportunity.To have you have first to know where to look.All sediments from the soil dont contain that kind of data or they can be eazy dismised from range of different factors.Seas and costal areas hold simmilar arguments.River beds have changing paterns.Most of the lakes are to young to be able to give real and secure data.We are left only with three or four old and long standing lakes from which we can have drill examples from lake beds and which can be researched with many methods like chemical radioactive and biological and which can give us real picture from history.
Did have been done this all ready?Yes ,have been done and years of mass flood is 10 000 BC to 12.500 BC based on C14 dating and precentage of carbonation and bicarbonation.I am one of rare people who have read report which have been done some 35 years before .That report have been thrown for long time in one atic of one institution and hopefuly it is still there.How I remember that report have been Geological Phd tematic from some lady from Ohio university.Interesting enough before that flood in two of the lakes have been traced deposit from polution from domestic animals with precentage
simmilar like precentages in the seventhies from last century pointing out that areas have been populated.
About Sahara and all with that...latest genetic research have pointing out
that famous OUT OF AFRICA traveling in many direction.It is looking like reservoar for humanoids have been depopulated in some patern and there are some research in the direction to trace these migration on the continent.For Antartica I dont know what impact will be recent discovery of huge crater pointing out some masive geological event.Theory have been that is asteroid,and I dont know that is holding well?...I havent find up till now option for masive comet.

[Minimalist]

and you thought i was blind. what would happen to egyptian history if schoch and others are right? i am not talking about the pyramids, but only the sphynx here.

would it be damaged at all? i don't think so personally but maybe there is something i am missing

Yes, you are blinded by belief in that one book which prevents you from seeing anything which upsets your belief system but I have to agree with you about the same mentality being evident in the Lehner/Hawass school of thought. They have made it a matter of faith that Khafre built the Sphinx and they cling to it (religiously) in spite of all the other evidence. Similar to the Grand Inquisitors they accuse any who dispute the faith of heresy and while they lack the power to burn Schoch at the stake (although I'm sure they'd like to) they can deny access to the site for further study to anyone who is outside of the standard Egyptological view.

The second part of your question hits the nail on the head. What would happen? I also suspect that nothing would happen beyond a general re-energizing of interest in the pre-dynastic history of Egypt. Perhaps that is what Hawass fears? I have heard him say "The Sphinx is the soul of Egypt," as if it were built by 21st century Egyptians and changing that attribution would somehow impact modern Egypt. The Egyptians of today are not the people who built it - nor were their ancestors. Egypt was overrun many times between the present and whenever those monuments were built. There has been a lot of splashing in the gene pool. I get the same sense in the Bosnian Pyramid debate. Whatever the damn thing is it happens to be located in a relatively modern political construct known as "Bosnia." However, it was not built by Bosnians who did not exist as an identifiable ethnic group until well into historical times.
Again, whoever built it are separated from the present by waves of conquest and migration throughout the area. But I digress.

Why does Egyptology fear Schoch? Maybe it is as simple as saying that they and their reputations are far too invested in the status quo. Obviously, any antiquities found from pre-dynastic Egypt would still fall under Hawass' control as Director of Antiquities so it does not seem to be any sort of 'turf-war'...he would still be the recognizable face but perhaps he simply feels that he is too old to give up the chronology he has been defending for years. Who can say?