Win Failed is somewhat an ironic statement. When does a Win mean Fail. OK, now I'm just posting to make myself laugh. carry on everyone.
I'm a heat seeking missile for it sometimes; but thanks brother - just enjoying banter on an interesting topic for a change.
What puzzles me mostly is how some of the largest stones were quarried from like 500 miles away. Not saying this can't be explained, but it sure was a hell of a venture they were undertaking. Even with modern explanations, I still find the pyramids and their construction VERY mysterious, how could you not?
OK, here's my entry to the discussion. I have a Geology degree, but am not a Geologist like Dr. Schochs. (btw: anyone else love his name; is it pronounced like Dr. Shocks. As in, he was born to Shock the world.) The Way PhDs get their Research Proven Anyhow, though I'm not PhD, I had enough study to know that PhD's always seek peer review on their findings. If accepted, others will follow and study it more at different angles, and often in different disciplines, too. If not accepted, they either ditch their research or go back to improve their data to better support their hypothesis. Shocking findings will get published an many journals, and others will start getting grants to further the original "posters" research. When PhDs Rebel and operate on the fringes of peer review science methodologies A common internet phenomenon is some PhDs whose papers do not pass peer review go outside the fridges of their profession and start websites and write books to convince us laymen, instead. And they can make a lot of money doing that. But in the end, out of their peer group, their research has only sufficiently convinced themselves. That's not good science. How Journals and Publications fit into this If the Sphinx was found to be 10,000 yrs old with peer review, Dr. Schochs could get his findings published in highly regarded journals like Science or Nature. But he can't even get Science News or Scientific America to publish him. Instead, all his biography states is he publishes his own books and "Dr. Schoch has been quoted extensively in the media for his work on ancient cultures and monuments across the globe, including Egypt, Turkey, Bosnia, Romania, Wales, Scotland, Mexico, Peru, Chile (Easter Island), and Japan." That's true of the Alien guy on The History Channel, too. No regular scientific journals are mentioned in his CV, considering the schoching enormity of his conclusions. That's odd. I could spend time trying to understand his findings, but that would lead to an obnoxious amount of hours for me to research it myself. So, I instead look at whether the original paper is accepted by the author's peers, read their reviews and go with that. The realm of conspiracy theories Some will immediately say that the scientific method is flawed, because there are many mavericks throughout history who proved their peers wrong. Well, that's rare and leans on conspiracy theory too much for my taste. (It could fit anyone's story.) An NBA Basketball Analogy Here's a simple analogy. If I did a statistical analysis of the NBA and no one agrees with my findings at the Sloan Conference, could I still create professional graphs and charts, place them on a nicely done website, then write compelling conclusions of my data and now convince the GARM, instead? See this link of statistical analysis of coaches posted in the GARM,,,nicely presented, but hogwash. I know it, because I know this data better than Sphinx Geological data. http://wagesofwins.com/2012/09/26/ev...ux/#more-12005 That data is not accepted by peers. Dr Schochs might be the same way with his websites and books and speaking engagements. As the saying goes (not to say he's actively lying), if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will believe you. The Sphinx wasn't built 10,000 years ago. If it were, there would be images of it in other Egyptian ruins predating the currently accepted date of the Sphinx. So, I'm skeptical of geological "proof" that has little to no peer review.
When I was in grad school I was a research assistant for an Egyptologist who worked on some of the stages of the mapping of the builders city section of the Giza complex led by Mark Lehner (pretty much the number one authority on Giza). So I guess information has filled the gap that otherwise creates mystery. I have also used some of the same principles to move thousand pound objects with just two people. They had twenty thousand and were led by a god-king. As heypartner mentioned, things like this always come about and there is always some kind of outsider claim about a "restrictive" Egyptologist mindset that doesn't allow for great new thinking. That completely ignores the very nature of an academic field. If someone wants to make a name for the self they have to break new ground or destroy some canon. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis. New interpretations and challenges are made all the time. If they are sound there is usually a string of peer-reviewed articles, talks, challenges to the challenge, and then eventually synthesis if it all holds up. There is no conspiracy to prevent new ideas or to hold on to old (hell, Lehner's project has completely blown up the thought that Giza was built with slave labor ). Academics just want logic and a scientific rigor and vetting. The vast majors of geologists have disagreed with this erosion theory (it has been around for over a decade...not sure the exact beginning), so why should Egyptologists care if this ground has been covered?
Thanks for the enlightening post, hp... Are you saying there are images or documents from near by (or about) Egyptian ruins predating the accepted date of the Sphinx? I'd like to see that... Not saying I accept Dr Schochs conclusions, you in fact are persuasive/sensible. What say you of R A Schwaller de lubicz and all the symbolism and the idea of a more ancient sacred science (than recorded Egyptian writings) which even Newton and Da Vinci seemed to buy in to? Is all this bunk? I can appreciate the Fibonacci Series... Can't say i really understand it or if there is any real connection.
No, I said that there would be images of the Sphinx. Not that there is. btw: rimbaud is the expert on this, by far. not me.
Exactly. If we would have trouble building them with modern technology, how could they 4,000+ years in the past? While it's easier for some to say "aliens," the most realistic explanation is we just don't know for sure. Quantum physicist Nassim Haramein (I think that's his last name) laughs at the idea.
That way of thinking can be misguided. I personally think it's on a person to person basis to try and figure out what makes sense and what doesn't, not the academic consensus. Galileo would have been (and probably did get) laughed at for his views on the Sun but he was obviously right (an interesting take on it though is that we don't revolve around the sun like we think but that's another thread). Believing the official, supposedly most credible explanation all the time is no different than believing in EVERY conspiracy theory just because it sounds like it makes sense.
In my fourth paragraph above, I predicted this post would occur. I could have even said Galileo would be the example used -- he always is. Do you know what a paradigmatic shift in science is? That is Galileo. Those are rare. You can't say paradigmatic shifts in thinking (where someone sheds new light on science that changes the established belief system) happens all the time. From the Renaissance up to the time of Einstein's Theory of Relativity (1905), by my count, there are less than 10 paradigmatic shifts in major sciences and math--Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Maxwell, Einstein, Pasteur, Darwin and Steno quickly come to mind. Using the Galileo argument is weak to use to say every wacko like Galileo could be right. I predicted you would make that argument. It's a rare accurance. Very rare. Dr. Schoch's is not rare. His is a self-made argument with no one agreeing, when in fact, his peers would LOVE to agree with him, because it would be a huge windfall of new grant opportunities for everyone. As rimbaud said, scientists don't hold onto the old. They LOVE to break new ground. They live for it. And in today's world (vs Galileo's) no one will stop them if they have compelling data. Sphinx built in 8,000 BC would be huge and many other scientists would love to join that badwagon. but no, no one has. And your argument is "but he could be right like Galileo?" weak sauce. btw: it was the church who stopped Galileo, not other scientists.
How can one be so sure that those survive or have been found? This reasoning is very flawed in that sense.
Also the idea of something being built about 8,000 BC is not so crazy if you take into account that 10,000 BC something like this was built by hunters and gathers and has been accepted in the academic community to an extent to count as a significant paradigm shift. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157784/Do-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html
So are you saying I have to prove my hypothesis but Dr Schoch doesn't. Is it because he has a website and I don't?
Who said anything about nothing was built in 8000 BC. The question is was the Sphinx built in Egypt in 8000 BC. No one said nothing was built in 10000 BC. Hell, Homer is thought to be from that era, which means we might someday find the Trojan War horse. lol btw: thanks for the link. That's a cool read. I vaguely remember hearing about that find. Hopefully we find more sites like that. It's pretty cool. side note: isn't saying that site is from the Garden of Eden blasphemous in its dating vs the bible's. Those scientists should be stopped right now.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence is all I was getting at in regard to your statement. No disrespect. I agree it would be great evidence if writings and carvings did exist. Also, in regard to Doc Shock's findings, I'm just pointing out that our understanding is limited in this area so his hypothesis could be valid. I'm not disagreeing that he needs to go through peer review, which seems to be a major complaint here. Again I'm just saying it could be true that the structure is much older, especially with our limited understanding of these things. Hell, almost all of what we were taught about civilization was only recently shown to be limited and short sighted. One can only imagine what else remains to be figured out by archeology. Time and time again is science and history is turned on its head because acadamia is slow and stubborn and just waiting to be shaken up. Can't wait to see if this theory ever gains grounding, however with the way that it's being presented it's unlikely anyone in the scientific community will take him seriously. That's not to say he's wrong. I'm just saying he could be on to something.
