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
Thirdwave wrote:
> What, in your view, is the exact reason for those 12 ft ?

First of all I don't think there is one single reason for the erosion on any part of the Sphinx, including those 12ft. Mr. West seems to think that I deny the fact that water runoff played a role in the erosion process of the Sphinx. However, in the initial thread I referred to various papers that acknowledged this water runoff, in ADDITION to the effects of wind, sand, exfoliation and industrial pollution. Mr. West on the other hand said:

That western third and rear end is weathered the way it is because of extensive water runoff, and for no other reason whatsoever.’

Of course it is incorrect that the other erosion processes had no effect on this particular part of the Sphinx.

So where do I disagree with the West/Schoch hypothesis? It seems that West is eager to see as much erosion as possible because he needs it to explain his extremely early dating of the monument. This earlier dating is not necessary though, as the current erosion damage is perfectly explainable for a Dynastic dating as well.

In his paper "A Geomorphological Study of the Giza Necropolis, with implications for the development of the site" Colin Reader writes:

"Under the processes of chemical weathering that Gauri et al. describe, it is the bedded nature of limestones that has controlled the development of the vertical degradation profile, with the less durable units receding further from the cut face than the interbedded more durable strata. The development of this vertical profile can be seen, therefore, to be consistent with chemical weathering of the stratified limestones."

BUT:

However, the development of the more intense degradation along the western Sphinx enclosure walls cannot be explained in this way. This lateral variation is independent of the bedding, with degradation becoming more intense along, rather than across, the exposed beds. Likewise, the processes of chemical weathering cannot explain the distribution of sub-vertical degradation features within the Sphinx enclosure.

Here we are witnessing erosion caused by rainfall run-off, or in other words flowing water. Schoch immediately set back the date of construction to 7,000 to 5,000 BC, because that is the wet period preceeding the Dynastic times. However, during the Old Kingdom The Giza plateau was subject to a transition phase between the wet period from before and the arid conditions from after the fifth Dynasty and on. In this transition period, heavy seasonal rains would take place, which could account for the water run-off erosion we see on the Sphinx. A Pre-Dynastic dating is not necessary though.



> Why did the geological society twice agree with West
> and Schoch ?

Well here there are a few things to consider. First of all how should we interpret this "agreement" by the Geological Society of America. The "twice" refers to the 1991 and 2000 Annual Meetings of this organization. Again I think it's best to quote someone about this topic. Geologist Paul Heinrich addressed the topic on the Ma'at message board :

The statement the "...1991 and 2000 Annual Meetings of the
Geological Society of America, effectively the Super Bowl
of Geology." is rather silly besides being completely
inaccurate. In meetings like the Geological Society of
America, the level of peer-review is minimal at best. Any
abstract that sounds the least bit plausible, regardless of its
validity of its science, is often accepted. A person would
have to send in an abstract that concludes something
patently absurd, i.e. that the Earth is only 6,000 years old
or the moon is made of Green cheese, to have it rejected."


In other words, this is not a meeting on which new theories are put to the test. They are presented, but there is no time for a complete study of the evidence. Therefore West's claim is not entirely correct.

Mr West's statement "Most geologists agree with us, not the other way around." is not valid at all. One could wonder where he gets that impression.

Guy, I have to admit I'm having trouble finding any papers from geologists that do accept the Schoch/West hypothesis. Perhaps you could refer me to some...

Hope this answers your questions.

Best,
Gerd

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
To John A West: I Honorably Object 510 R Avry Wilson 08-Jan-04 07:27
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 271 Dyrham 08-Jan-04 12:09
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 280 R Avry Wilson 08-Jan-04 12:27
Yes and No 260 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 15:29
Re: Yes and No 258 lobo-hotei 08-Jan-04 16:20
exactly! 289 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 16:44
Re: exactly! 282 Elizabeth Newton 09-Jan-04 01:31
Re: exactly! 264 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 08:34
that's a big help ...NOT!~ 237 W. L. Nixon 10-Jan-04 15:46
Re: that's a big help ...NOT!~ 273 Elizabeth Newton 11-Jan-04 05:07
I'll try again 272 W. L. Nixon 11-Jan-04 15:33
Re: I'll try again 202 Elizabeth Newton 11-Jan-04 15:57
Re: I'll try again 247 W. L. Nixon 11-Jan-04 16:19
Re: I'll try again 210 Elizabeth Newton 11-Jan-04 16:29
Re: exactly! 234 Cynnara 09-Jan-04 12:44
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 248 scimitar 08-Jan-04 16:46
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 221 rubberdown 08-Jan-04 12:28
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 234 R Avry Wilson 08-Jan-04 12:31
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 269 cardinal guzman 08-Jan-04 13:04
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 211 Dyrham 09-Jan-04 18:04
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 264 SunSword 09-Jan-04 19:29
On the way to the park 280 j_bowles 08-Jan-04 14:44
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 330 scimitar 08-Jan-04 16:20
An apology? Where? 280 G. VDC 08-Jan-04 16:33
I can only opine that... 246 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 16:56
Re: I can only opine that... 227 G. VDC 08-Jan-04 17:00
The Bludgeon of Ludicrous Wit... 256 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 17:20
Re: The Bludgeon of Ludicrous Wit... 256 G. VDC 08-Jan-04 17:23
Re: The Bludgeon of Ludicrous Wit... 252 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 17:31
Re: An apology? Where? 256 ArmchairObserver 08-Jan-04 17:01
You are ignoring.. 262 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 17:07
Re: You are ignoring.. 227 ArmchairObserver 08-Jan-04 22:38
hard to believe 244 j_bowles 08-Jan-04 23:04
Re: hard to believe 220 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 08:28
Re: hard to believe 258 mephisto 09-Jan-04 12:34
Re: hard to believe 235 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 12:36
Re: hard to believe 244 mephisto 09-Jan-04 12:39
Re: hard to believe 232 ArmchairObserver 09-Jan-04 18:00
in this thread 237 W. L. Nixon 10-Jan-04 15:54
Re: An apology? Where? 216 G. VDC 08-Jan-04 17:20
Re: An apology? Where? 229 ArmchairObserver 08-Jan-04 22:39
Re: An apology? Where? 241 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 08:26
Re: An apology? Where? 280 ArmchairObserver 09-Jan-04 18:05
Re: An apology? Where? 288 Bent 08-Jan-04 17:42
Re: An apology? Where? 254 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 17:48
Re: An apology? Where? 247 G. VDC 08-Jan-04 17:53
clarification 258 G. VDC 08-Jan-04 17:57
Warwick & Gerd......... 253 Bent 08-Jan-04 19:17
Bent 270 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 19:46
Re: Bent 223 Bent 08-Jan-04 19:56
Re: Bent 262 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 20:23
Re: Bent 244 Bent 08-Jan-04 20:26
Re: Bent 247 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 20:32
Re: Bent 215 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 08:25
Re: Bent 214 W. L. Nixon 10-Jan-04 15:56
Re: Bent 242 G. VDC 10-Jan-04 16:13
Re: An apology? Where? 219 lobo-hotei 08-Jan-04 18:16
Lobo... 229 Bent 08-Jan-04 18:31
Re: An apology? Where? 222 Jaimi 08-Jan-04 23:59
And the body faced east 211 j_bowles 08-Jan-04 16:53
Re: And the body faced east 189 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 17:03
Re: And the body faced east 223 j_bowles 08-Jan-04 18:21
Hold on a minute 244 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 18:32
Re: The Measured Sphinx 266 JDMilller 08-Jan-04 18:31
Re: The Measured Sphinx 232 G. VDC 08-Jan-04 18:38
I'll try! 247 W. L. Nixon 08-Jan-04 18:46
*GRINS* 234 G. VDC 08-Jan-04 18:53
Re: *GRINS* 244 Cynnara 09-Jan-04 12:43
Re: The Measured Sphinx 250 cardinal guzman 09-Jan-04 00:17
Re: The Measured Sphinx 227 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 08:20
Re: The Measured Sphinx 271 ArmchairObserver 08-Jan-04 22:54
Great example of the fluff JAW was complaining about 242 Laird Scranton 08-Jan-04 23:09
Re: To John A West: I Honorably Object 195 Diomede 09-Jan-04 00:50
The Sakkara Tombs 275 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 12:34
G.VDC Some Questions for you to answer directly please 246 Thirdwave 09-Jan-04 15:43
Re: G.VDC Some Questions for you to answer directly please 261 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 17:03
Re: G.VDC Some Questions for you to answer directly please 218 Thirdwave 09-Jan-04 20:55
Re: G.VDC Some Questions for you to answer directly please 249 G. VDC 10-Jan-04 14:33
Original Thinking and Common Sense 235 Thirdwave 10-Jan-04 17:32
can we please.. 259 W. L. Nixon 10-Jan-04 17:40
Walk this way ..... 220 Thirdwave 10-Jan-04 17:53
Re: Walk this way ..... 231 W. L. Nixon 10-Jan-04 17:58
Oh deary dear ! 236 Thirdwave 10-Jan-04 18:10
the Topic is.. 232 W. L. Nixon 10-Jan-04 18:41
Re: the Topic is.. 237 Thirdwave 10-Jan-04 18:48
Re: Original Thinking and Common Sense 280 Greg Reeder 10-Jan-04 19:49
nonsense reigns 236 j_bowles 10-Jan-04 20:02
Re: Original Thinking and Common Sense 280 Thirdwave 10-Jan-04 20:07
Re: Original Thinking and Common Sense 283 R Avry Wilson 11-Jan-04 08:03
are you saying... 281 W. L. Nixon 11-Jan-04 15:40
Re: Original Thinking and Common Sense 281 G. VDC 11-Jan-04 13:18
Re: Original Thinking and Common Sense 232 Laird Scranton 11-Jan-04 16:00
Re: Original Thinking and Common Sense 268 Greg Reeder 12-Jan-04 03:32
Re: Original Thinking and Common Sense 246 G. VDC 12-Jan-04 05:56
Re: Original Thinking and Common Sense 203 G. VDC 12-Jan-04 05:58
Mr West... 243 Cynnara 09-Jan-04 16:16
Re: Mr West... 229 Laird Scranton 09-Jan-04 19:47
Re: Mr West... 246 Cynnara 09-Jan-04 23:37
Re: Mr West... 229 Laird Scranton 09-Jan-04 23:45
Re: Mr West... 266 Cynnara 10-Jan-04 00:14
Re: Mr West... 234 Laird Scranton 10-Jan-04 05:10
Re: Mr West... 214 Archae Solenhofen 10-Jan-04 06:03
Re: Mr West... 226 Laird Scranton 10-Jan-04 16:32
I could be wrong but... 227 W. L. Nixon 10-Jan-04 16:46
Re: Mr West... 232 Archae Solenhofen 10-Jan-04 19:33
Archae...... 263 Bent 10-Jan-04 20:11
Re: Mr West... 302 Cynnara 10-Jan-04 12:26
Re: Mr West... 234 Archae Solenhofen 10-Jan-04 06:00
Re: Mr West... 254 Laird Scranton 10-Jan-04 16:35
Re: Mr West... 253 Archae Solenhofen 10-Jan-04 19:36
Re: Mr West... 237 Laird Scranton 11-Jan-04 00:08
Re: Mr West... 220 W. L. Nixon 11-Jan-04 16:59
Re: Mr West... 205 Archae Solenhofen 12-Jan-04 06:30
Episode 3 of JAW's Magical Tour 213 Atlantida 09-Jan-04 20:59


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.