Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Go to: Forum HomeBoardNew Topic

Pages: 12345...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 120
Results 1 - 30 of 3588
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
>Coxill and Reader both put the date back to c.3,000BC, namely sometime in the early >Dynastic period. What are their weathering mechanisms for the Sphinx (by weathering I am not referring to the erosion process but what is deteriorating the rock in-situ so that erosion can actually occur)? >Regardless of how "cautious" Schoch claims to have originally been, >his
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
From the geological literature on this subject it is pretty clear that everyone excepts that the Sphinx has been eroded by rain runoff. The issue is in regards to the weathering mechanism or mechanisms which is the process by which the rock breaks down so that when it does rain that broken down limestone can get washed away and thus produce an erosion morphology. You got everyone else and then on
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Corpuscles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >I have searched >but not found a good description of techniques >used, do you suppose bow saw with toothpicks >tipped with diamonds? Why are the fringe now so desperate for the shrinking flow of gullibles they're asserting advanced LoSt OnEs used diamond to make ground stone tools during the Neolithic?
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
R Avry Wilson Wrote: >I am looking for an >answer to what the mudbrick wall tells us about >the rate of erosion from the mid-3rd Millennium to >the New Kingdom. The 'far older' notion may well >qualify as an explanation, but to me, not a >'rational' one. It can just tell us that the weathering rate and therefore the erosion rate were greater during that time period. J
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Got a clearer old image? Erosion morphology looks rounder in 2005. Photograph by John Wall. Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Origyptian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >>What is so curious about that? >One thing that's curious is that the wall still >looks tightly abutted to that eroded enclosure >wall in the old photo even though millennia have >passed since the Enclosure and that segment of >wall was created. If that enclosure eroded during >what yo
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
R Avry Wilson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >That's my question, I guess. Can that amount of >weathering occur in the approximated time-span >(500-600 years of exposure), also given the very >little rainfall of the period. Foe weathering moisture does not need to come from just rain (dew and fog are more common then rain at Giza (however rai
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
I do not remember if I have seen this before....... No one who I know of (i.e. the qualified geologists who actually know what they are talking about) are suggesting that the western enclosure wall was immune to weathering and erosion in the interval between the 4th dynasty and Amenhotep II (even Schoch (2002) suggested it's at most 550 years for Old Kingdom to New Kingdom cleared, West (1993)
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
The erosion 87 years ago looks less compared to today because the western enclosure wall is one step away from a lot of transported weathered sediments (the area around that mud brick is full of joints though). The mud brick wall look like it has not held up so good either....... Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Don't tell that to our host..... he's asserted "metamorphic schist" stone vessels from AE are beyond tungsten carbide welding modern sculptors, and the cement pyramid crowd has claimed that the same "metamorphic schist" is harder than iron. Now we are left with the mystery of whether either one or both were talking about soapstone because that was the only actual metamorphic s
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
The column at the 2:39 mark was not lathed......... time linked ---> That one is carved...... how about someone just re-invented the pointing machine...... originally from the Greeks and/or Romans, a concepts still used today to copy clay/plaster forms (or even other statues) into stone statures? Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Thanos5150 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Archae Solenhofen Wrote: >-------------------------------------------------- >----- >>Looks like big stone vessels without holes. >Egads. These columns are over 21ft high. The only >thing similar to stone vessels is that they are >"round" and made of "stone". Yes, I
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Looks like big stone vessels without holes. Stone vessels------> stone blocks/sarcophagi-------> pilasters-------> stone columns. Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Were do pilasters and square/rectangular free standing columns/pillar fit into that? Do they go from just granite or is there some limestone ones (specifically of Tura or travertine)that they started with first? Something like the AEs originally making them for houses and such out of wood and bundled reeds, somebody comes along from the Tura quarry and says to the king "hey if you pay us a b
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
>Which is exactly the opposite of what we see in AE statues. we see Webs, >lots of webs, webs by the dozen! >Hence my response to your post . >You started it.. Why are the webs there in statues (i.e. for the protrusions on the statues like beards and such, that are missing to the same degree in carved softer rocks)….. certainly not due to LoSt onEs molding skills? >The
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Why did they change back again? Wow!!!! In the 2008 book it says natural granite in reference to the Kings Chamber, oh and apparently carved with fire and water too..... LOL! Well; if they did change it back again one can only guess why........ how about complete lack of a creative effort. Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
>What difference does AE make? You introduced it "Then why do we see quite the opposite in AE hard granite statuary?".... not me. I think the reason why the LoSt OnEs needed webs would be more useful here..... care to enlighten us? >So what does any of that have to do with arms breaking off? Again you introduced it "So you're just talking about surface hardness. A
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
It's not just that, the mineral grains, specifically, the feldspar phenocrysts in the Aswan granite are cut by the polished surfaces on the statues. The cement pyramid crowd got hammered with that over and over again, as well as the above rock texture argument...... I guess is the reason they are now are claiming it is natural. Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
>Then why do we see quite the opposite in AE hard granite statuary? >Webs! in abundance. Show me exactly were I said AE in regards to "An arm can be carved separated from the body because the rock is hard"? Certainly can do it today...... Rather shocking how these loSt OnEs with their advanced Spurt & Spew technology (in case you didn't get it the first time, tha
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
"almost unique"........ I noticed you did not show any of those "almost"s . Got any examples of such? Make sure it's in a soft rock so it's perfectly clear to everyone........ What is meant by "hard" here is those rocks hard enough to be finely carved and polished. Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Rock is considerably weaker in it's tensile strength than its compressive (something like 20% of such)..... so just like in carving, where an arm can be carved separated from the body because the rock is hard, in less hard rocks the arm might break off so they don't usually do it. Sedimentary rock in Egypt that are generally hard are ones like travertine (Egyptian alabaster), the siliceous sandst
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
"if you're so sure those stones are natural stones"..... and you are somehow not sure, again? If you imagine they are now not "natural granite rocks" then please enlighten us what you imagine they are? Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Well, we know one thing since they are now "natural granite rocks". the bosses are not spurt spews. So why not now enlighten us what you imagine they are for? Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Nice try, but a slurry is not "Igneous rock" either...... try again. Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Origyptian wrote: >My primary concern is more about igneous rock and not so >much about sedimentary. As I recall, those “marshmallow” >bulbous blocks are igneous (granite, gneiss, andesite, etc.), >not limestone. Likewise, we don't see "bosses" on sedimentary >rock. It's almost exclusively limited to igneous rock. “almost exclusively”…….. what like in the s
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Little lopsided for those neck “recarvings” too….. I guess they can assert it’s consistent with the apparent congenital deformities carved into the Sphinx’s face. Heck maybe there were Khafre drunkards as well…….. (fig. 2 p. 84) Yes, it really needs to be “recarved” to look that way otherwise the OK to present “weathering” rate on that neck is cutting about 50,000 years off that attempt a
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Fellow's sitting on it now...... Archae Solenhofen
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
Just curious but does this image of their claimed neck "ring" from the south side of the neck look to be in the same place as the bump on the south side of their Fig. 12 Sphinx image(above the siting fellow's head, below that lump of rock just under the Sphinx's south side ear). They all don't seem to line up as the north side of their "ring" is traced around the back of the S
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
Archae Solenhofen
The US Library of Congress website has a lot of old images including the one I posted a link to. I believe it is/was (back in the 1990s at least) being asserted that any relevant erosion after this claimed "precipitation weathering"/erosion or whatever was just superficial. One would think it has to be that way or else every percent of erosion morphology depth that isn't pre-recarve
Forum: Mysteries
Pages: 12345...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 120