[Damocles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damocles


The Helocene climate of North Africa was one of wide shallow lakes, grasslands and seasonal rainfall. To be honest we don't have good data from that region of the world because nobody has done the crap with the tree rings and the soil cores, seed spore counts, that we've done in Europe and North America.

And that's stated in that site with exactly how much evidence?

The archaeologists worked from background knowledge. With this evidence;


[url]http://www.faiyum.historians.co.uk/html/egypt.html[url]





Quote:


So we know they had grasslands and 1500 years of seasonal rain before they went bonedry about 7000 years ago. Not enough time to erode Mister Sphinx.

Well, if Mr. Sphynx like some say is more like 10,000 - 12,500 years old, it would be 3,000 to 5,500 years, and at a time when the last ice age ended, and there was MUCH more rain.

See above. The Nile like the Mississippi migrates over time all over the place. Including about ten thousand years ago OVER GIZA.


Quote:


Now we have a question. It took some kind of chisel and hammer to carve Mister Sphinx.

Has any remains of tools capable of working that stone Sphinx been uncovered that predates the Old Kingdom? Remember you can use a chisel made of hard obsidian on that soft crumbly stone but the stone tends to splinter and shatter when you strike it with too much force on the stone that forms the head. Wedge cutting is better, when worked with wooden mallets and animal horn or copper tools. When did copper show up?

http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/trades/metals.htm

About 7000 years ago at the earliest.

You wouldn't need hard obsidian, you can use softer stone. Some stones are sharper than our artificial metal tools. They could have been using them. Plus of course, something WIPED them out, virtually COMPLETELY. A natural disaster of immense magnitudes; can easily destroy and wash away tools. And if it IS done by a previous advanced civilization, they probably didn't use hammer and chisel at all.

We would see the evidence geologically. You can't miss that kind of civilization destroying event. The footprint is too big and there are always artifacts-always.


As to the type tools?


1.. The Sphinx shows tool marks.


2, Most hard stones struck either flake or shatter or split along cleave lines.





Quote:


Let us look at the nearest sizaqble groups of Egyptians to Giza circa 7000 Before present.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/Oldcivilization/Egyptology/Ecological/magf4a.htm

Mostly grain farmers, herders, and fishermen living in villages. This condition persisited for the most part until about 6000 thousand years before today.

Again, stated without evidence. That's their interpretation. Obviously if the Sphynx was carved some 10,000 years ago, there were a civilization there, wiped out beyond nearly all evidence.

We know that there is no footprint of a catastrophe to support this.(See above.)



Quote:


Probably when Thutmoses the fourth put his stupid Sthele between its paws.

Of course you could always buy into the theory that the face was carved to resemble one of these gentlemen:

http://guardians.net/egypt/sphinx/sphinx1.htm

I think that gives an idea that the Sphinx has been dug out at least four times.

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Maher/geo11...adiometric.html

You core drill the rock at selected sites to date the formation date.(Control), then you massspectrograph the surface samples to date the contamination against the core groups. Rock chiselled face is then dated. If you get lucky you find a piece of bone chisel stuck in the sculpture You carbon 14 that.

There are ways to do this. It isn't easy but you can measure the artifact with a lot less guessing than looking at runnels.

Speaking of erosion-waterborne versus windborne; has anyone on this forum ever sandblasted limestone? I am curious if you could describe the difference between wetblasting and dryblasting if you noticed any.

Wait, wait. You're saying that the head WAS recarved even if the Sphynx is young, but you're saying the head will show it was carved first anyhow? Any evidence of the earliest carving would be removed with the recarving, so the Sphynx head would STILL show to be the last carving, not the first either way.

That Sphinx head still has original surface present. You can see this. Look at the face around the broken off nose or the top of the head.

Second if it's recarved, as even you say it is judging by the obvious missmatch in size, then you'd have to do it for not just the head, but all of the Sphynx - you'd get the date of the youngest recarving after all, which has nothing to do with the actual age of the Sphynx, and the first time it was carved.

I said you would sample the whole sphinx, and as I pointed out the silly thing has original carving surface present.

And I would say it's even more guessing. Contamination? The biggest contamination would be our industrial pol[l]ut[a]nts; some of them might very well have removed earlier pollutants. An erosion pattern is an erosion pattern, and if that pattern can't have happened before at least this many years ago, you know it has to be at least that old.

Erosian patterns are subject to force of wear, size of grit, and the frangibility of the material worn. A sandblaster wears rock away in seconds. Wind blown sand takes decades. Water borne sand carried by rain takes CENTURIES.

Finally, radio-dating is rather useless. Unlike 'established' science would like you to believe, radioactive decay is anything but stable, it changes constantly. That's just one problem, but even if it were stable, any radio-dating will only work properly until the last time there was a significant climatologicaly change. With such a change, a difference in radioactive particles in the atmosphere and rock (if it's happened because of a (radioa-active) meteorite impact we'll have no idea about, and the whole dating is hinged on that we know the starting concentration of radioactive to non-radiaoctive decayed material.

True for carbon 14, not triue for potassium/argon dating where the half life is NOT SUBJECT to biological source contamination.or distortion;


http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/C...on_Dating.html

Quote:


Originally Posted by jjrakman


But could the climate have been different, perhaps tropical, if the axis of the Earth had changed at some point in antiquity.

The Piri Reis map was drawn 300 years before Antartica was discovered, and was said to be copied from older sources. What's even more unusual about it, is that it shows what the landmass of antartica looks like, under the ice cap. The last period of ice-free Antartic was what, 6000 years ago? What if the original source of the map was drawn at a time when the Earth's axis was different from it's present position, allowing for a warmer climate for Antartica, and thus a tropical climate for Egypt? Is that possible?

They SAY at least 400,000 years since Antartica was last not covered in ice. However, that is based on carbon dating, which is just plain silly. Carbon dating - even if it was totally the way the conventional 'scientists' sy it - is useless beyond 50,000. Of course, in real life if it were scientifically sound it's useless beyond the last major climatological change some 12,500 years ago. In real life though, the dating is ueless all together.

You should read a bit on carbon dates found, it's fantastically laughable. 1600 years here, 1000 years in the next tree over, and another tree a meter further it's 2,000 years, and then they say the samples are 1500 years old nicely in the middle.

Those antartica maps were inventions of fancy;


http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/...val_maps.shtml


Antartica has been under ice;http://www.polar.org/antsun/oldissue...nosaurs-t.html and stuck in place for more than fifteen million years.


Best wishes;