Robert Schoch

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:38 am

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:40 am

double post
oops

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:41 am

triple post oops

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:41 am

quadruple post oops

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:47 am

'hes about as qualified to talk about the ancient world as you are beagle.'
Or any of us perhaps?

exactly

IMO it is healthy to ask these questions

its healthy to ask them but its not healthy to believe that Schoch has all the answers
if you've ever read any of his (ahem) archaelogical books you'd soon realise that just because someone is qualified in one area it doesn't neccesarily follow that he has a clue what hes talking about in another

his claim for instance that the sphinx is older by far than the pyramids because it shows signs of water damage doesn't take into account many factors that could easily have caused the same damage in a much shorter timeframe but he barely mentions this in any of his work. like hes playing poker and only showing you one of his cards
he has decided that the sphinx is very old so therefore it must be very old
the fact of this matter is that it was Graham Hancock who put thetheory to him before hed ever seen the sphinx and since that partnership Schoch has been motivated by money alone
not truth
not answers
hes quite happy as are other pseudoscientists to string along the public as long as they keep buying into what hes shovelling

Imo this kind of speculation is extremely damaging to Joe Publics understanding of our own history
how many hours have you spent reading about things that never happened when you would have better served your time reading about things that did.
maybe you would have discovered something yourself
instead you just have a bastardized and heavily fictional view of what might have been
thats not the truth by any measure
thats is a lie

deep breath steve
in out in out

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:54 am

what comes after quadruple
anyone ?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:55 am

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:56 am

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:58 am

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:22 am

Ye gods! My computer's taken over!

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:24 am

for a minute there I thought I'd gone bonkers
now I know that you have as well I don't feel too bad
perhaps its something in the water

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:24 am

Quick!

Call an exorcist.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:25 am

Call an exorcist.

the power of christ compels you
the power of christ compels you
no hang on
thats just Arch

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:25 am

Quote: his claim for instance that the sphinx is older by far than the pyramids because it shows signs of water damage doesn't take into account many factors that could easily have caused the same damage in a much shorter timeframe.
Such as?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:27 am

well just off the top of my head theres two reasons
1) frost which causes porous limestone surfaces to flake in a manner resembling rain damage
2) the meteorologists have got it wrong and the Giza plateau had been experiencing rain more recently than they claimed back in the 50s when the climate data was compiled