It was very interesting. I found the part about dating wood in the Old Kingdom particularly interesting as it could have been wood felled in different times. I only have a crude understanding of how the dating works, but considering both how long felled wood can last just left on the ground, let alone processed and cared for, as well as how long trees can live, the possible time-spans could get quite long. I don't know if they were importing cedar and pines from Lebanon in the Old Kingdom as in the New, but those cedars can hit get up to 1000 years and some pines close to half that. And then mixed in with local wood that could be burnt on the same day yet be decades if not centuries apart in age? That's fun to think about.
@@JH-pt6ihwhat's even neater is that you can in fact control for this. Reeds are fragile and shorter lived. If you date a burned Reed, it shouldn't be affected by this. BUT with any plant that lives in or near a body of water, you need to be careful that it isn't including old carbon from the water. This is why a good radiocarbon study should be linked with a full understanding of regional and local vegetation and ecosystem studies.
@@FlintDibbleflint, congrats on having the greatest name ever. 😂 In all seriousness you are always a great source of this stuff and I hope you Get well soon mate.
This video has some serious red flags. The slide at 7:46 claims Colin Reader “wants to rewrite history (lost civilization)”. I am not aware of any claims by Reader to this effect, and from what I know of his work this statement is categorically false. 17:02 The Sphinx & Valley Temple being constructed from the rock in the Sphinx enclosure is an assumption based upon context, but the stones for the temples could have come from anywhere at Giza. Lehner claims the stratigraphy of the Valley Temple matches the Sphinx, but never published the data. No claims were even made about the Sphinx Temple. 29:49 This Giza computer rendering with oversized golden pyramidions is wildly fanciful. 40:45 There is no evidence that ‘high quality material’ for pyramids ran out - this is Schneiker inventing narratives outside of his expertise - which he does often in this video. 48:35 Schneiker is unaware that the Sphinx could not be seen from a completed Khafre causeway because the causeway itself was almost entirely enclosed. His statement ‘you would want to see the Sphinx from the causeway’ is in direct conflict with his ideas about the creation of the Sphinx. Overall Schneiker’s argument is incredibly weakened by the fact that he does not engage with the geology research done by Colin Reader at all. And if he can’t demonstrate that groundwater wicking or subsurface moisture flow would shape the Southern Sphinx Enclosure Wall so differently from West-to-East (including the sudden drop-off at the fissure) - then he’s not engaging with this topic in a scientific way. Schneiker’s goal is merely to prove that Schoch’s work is rubbish, and cast himself as the protagonist of Geology. But nobody other than Hancock & company still takes Schoch seriously - so his is an argument about popular culture rather than science. A word of warning that Hancock will ‘defeat’ you in the debate (as perceived by the public) if he demonstrates that your ‘side’ engages in the same bad behavior that his side does. This includes ignoring evidence against one’s theories (as Schneiker does about Reader), smearing reputations (as you do about Reader) and supporting known charlatans (Hawass is a great example). Just because you are ‘team science’ doesn’t mean you get to cheat - that’s not science.
So should Flint delete your questions the way you delete people who question what you put on your channel? It is so rich that you come over to a channel with experts in their fields and leave this lengthy post yet if someone tries to leave a simply provide a link for people to see for themselves that the work has been going on you delete it - and you do it repeatedly. Every one of the people in this video could have tried to make a comment or a correction or an "alternative idea" on your channel and POOF! those comments would be gone, wouldn't they? I wonder how many people with knowledge on the subject have tried to make a comment for the benefit to your audience only to have you delete their comment so nobody can see it? Of course I know you will probably report this comment for some reason or other to get it taken down or shadow banned and I will re-post it. All it takes is a second account to see what gets shadow-banned. Now maybe you might want to go do a video giving credit to the people doing professional work rather than simply line-tracing video footage you got from someone else. It takes YEARS and DECADES to pull off this work, surrounded by uncertainties in funding, the greater economy, political upheaval, changes in technology and you make 20 minute videos using other peoples footage and pat yourself on the back for accomplishing what a 14 year old can do. I wonder how many comments get deleted from sites like yours and the Graham Hancocks (and you are just like him) to keep people uninformed and badmouthing those dumb old professional Egyptologists and archaeologists. I'll put the same link here that I tried to share on your video more than once with the simple comment that "they are working on it" and allow people to see the difference between what professionals are trying to do and your line-tracing of somebody else's video that contains all the information you "highlighted." It should make it a bit more obvious why it is these lame old Egyptologists are so slow and negligent to just simply do what you and Hancock should just have been done already in some stand-alone, one off RUclips video. It should be cued to 54 min 34 sec, Analyzing Egyptian Pyramids in the Digital Age ruclips.net/video/eku9o_q9OA4/видео.html
@@JH-pt6ih I understand that you have an axe to grind with me because I banned you from my channel for intentionally lying about its content. If Flint believes I am lying about his content, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he did the same. Everyone is welcome to make their own determination about who is acting in good-faith. Nobody reading your comment above would think you are anything but a troll led by emotion. You don't need to engage with me anymore, and I encourage you to not watch my videos. But know that I'm laughing about the fact that I know you won't be able to resist continuing to watch them.
Lots of little quibbles here, most of which amount to nothing. 1. Slide at 7:46 includes Egyptologists. It does not explicitly claim either Egyptologists nor Reader talk about a lost civilization. I can see how that is implied, and that's a mistake. Chill out, these things happen. 2. Lehner has fully published his data. I have links to multiple archives of datasets that he's created, including in the Open Context repository. Links are in the video description. 3. I agree. I don't think that the Egyptians ran out of high quality stone. I'm sure Schneiker was just off the cuff there. 4. The view of the sphinx from the causeway is irrelevant imho. Ask Bob, if you want to know more of his thoughts on this topic. 5. Good luck with your channel and research. I'll continue doing real archaeology and sharing what I can with the public in my free time.
@HistoryforGRANITE. 7:46. “wants to rewrite history (lost civilization)” is a footnote that applies to ALL the ”early date” guys as clearly marked with an asterisk. The first bit is demonstrably true, the bit in brackets probably should have read as ”and/or “. 17:02. Why would they “double handle” the excavated limestone? If they did then where did they dump and/or use it? It’s a shallow marine limestone so it is probably fairly uniform along bedding planes. Unless you can identify a specific feature you can’t prove either way, unless you can PROVE the excavated limestone went somewhere else. 29:49. Why? 40:45. No idea, but it’s well known that they did recycle older constructions. 48:35. That would probably merit it’s own separate explanation. Also Hancock and his fellow travellers operate in the “pop culture” realm. No one is pretending that this video is a serious scientific paper.
@@Manbearpig4456 It could be far worse. He could be advocating something really idiotic like Egyptians using psychic powers to raise blocks to build pyramids. Speaking of petulant childlike behavior, what's up with Hancock admitting to repeatedly verbally abusing his wife because of drug abuse induced paranoia?
@@Manbearpig4456 I need to understand why you and others project various attitudes on Flint. Hancock tried to restrain himself but he resorts to emotional arguments out of habit. Why not insult him?
Like someone else said, If it aligned with Leo first someone needs to prove they even looked at Leo and also attributed that constellation with a Lion, people see different things. Did the Egyptians follow Leo and see it as a lion? If there is any evidence at all about that then one could argue maybe that’s a possible theory but without that the entire argument gets pitched out the window .
also what I learned from this is that, the debate with GH and Dibble was scheduled months and months in advance!! and THAT was the presentation GH could come up with?? freaking YIKES.
Honestly with the looting of the facing stones, having the bottom layer being original also makes sense if the bottom layer was quickly covered by sediment, therefore preventing the looting of the original stones
@@Manbearpig4456 You, as always, suffer from confirmation bias. Who is running away? Schoch? Why does he not defend? Dr S certainly is ready to discuss.
It’s so funny that it actually explains why the head of the sphinx is disproportionally smaller to the body. Simply because the body was cut out of the ground and the head was something that was built upon. Its just less work to make it a bigger body.
Why does everybody assume the names of the constellations have always been the same? It is not as if the constellations actually look like anything. Leo is based on Greek mythology, and the term was coined like two thousand years ago. The idea that people 12.000 years ago had the exact same name for that constellation is absurd. It looks nothing like a lion, to me it looks more like a duck, or coat hanger. Just like how most people living today call Ursa major and minor a 'cooking pan/skillet/etc.'. It looks far more like that than a freaking bear. It is just ridiculous to think that the meaning behind the constellations is fixed and unchanging, and that you can use it to date the construction of artifacts.
It's not ridiculous. In essence they were right. It DOES allign with Leo and there is a reason. However Hancock/bauval looked at the wrong solar event. Spring equinox instead of summer solstice. I wrote an extensive article on my blog giving context to what I'm saying here. The sphinx is related to the sun, creator god Atum and the summer solstice, the Nile inundation of the lost branch. It's name on Tutmosis stele gives it away. Horemaketh-Khepri-Ra-Atum and yes this is my own work, a new hypothesis and obliterates Hancocks 9000bc dating as it was 2500bc when Leo was at summer solstice, exactly the time of the pyramids and exactly the Aketh season.
They been around long before the Greeks. Ptolemy based his info off of old Babylonian star charts dating as far back 1000 BC and the dendera zodiac is the first known depiction of the classical 12 signs in 50 BC, and that's from Egypt.
@@isutrikanda there is no new thing under the sun ..... All things in 3's there are 3 crosses at Golgotha in the Bible there are 3 crosses in the heavens in astrology there are 3 crosses in the elements in alchemy there are 3 pillars in the freemasonry tracing board there are 3 paths in the kabbalah tree of life there are 3 sticks in the Native American tradition there are 3 states of matter in science ( plasma animates matter ) there are 3 eyes in our heads 2 have temples the 3rd there is no temple therein , in the New Jerusalem there is no temple therein Revelation 22 all of these 3's are EXACTLY the same thing just taught in a different age by a different culture using a different language there is NO new thing under the Sun many of the above traditions teach us that EAST is actually up not north ! it is the spring equinox that is considered the starting line not the summer solstice that is considered the apex of the day but the stars cannot be seen during the day so at the summer sltice the stars of the opposite sign would be venerated not where the sun rises but the stars that rise when the sun sets .... we have all been programmed to think and see things in an upside down , inside out manner the shepherds watched their flocks by night is code for an astrologer / magi take all that Nibiru crap being spewed , well Nibiru is just one of the names of Jupiter used in the Aramaic / Arabic dialectics Jupiter along with Mars are the rulers or knowledge keepers of water and fire and are venerated by the yellow fire and white water races EurAsian & CaucAsian their symbols are a triangle pointed up for fire and pointed down for water , together / intertwine the battle of fire and ice a Game of Thrones if you will ... all the knowledge of air / heaven is embedded in the symbolism of India think Vimana all the knowledge of earth was given to the Africa , think digging gold and diamonds all the knowledge of water is Europe the white races rule the seas and fire Asia where we get gunpowder from if you understood symbolism it would be clear who it is and when it was built half man Aquarius & half lion Leo this is called the masculine axis of the fixed cross the symbolism for our current age is a siren / mermaid half woman Virgo an half fish Pisces this is called the feminine axis of the mutable cross as above so below .... EVERYTHING was encoded into the imagery in the heavens to preserve the knowledge that would be lost in the flood languages are just spells but symbolism is older than you can imagine it is universal across cultures and time it has never changed . we simply see it as art or architecture but it is much much more the Sphinx was built when Leo was in the spring equinox , pre-flood the man's face / name would be called Thalim from the Aramaic for teacher , guide , instructor , rabbi , master but we know it from the Greek as the star Fomalhaut the actual star of Bethlehem , the lamb ...
Thank you for the video. I had my own ideas about the apparent weathering on the Sphinx, and it's nice to find out that I was completely wrong before I said it out loud somewhere. By the way, I saw you mention your situation on Twitter. I hope your course of treatment is successful and you get well soon.
30:00 quarries. Should be a youtube short that would be very popular and grow your channel. Many people are completely unaware that the vast majority of stones were quarried right on the site. Unfortunately a common belief is ALL the stones came from "500 miles away" instead of only a small fraction
Yep, if you do a brief search online you can see that. It’s not exactly hidden or hard to find it’s just most people that follow pseudo science don’t “do their own research” like they always say they do
One of the early French Egyptologists likened the building in Giza with the building in Paris, where the stones were quarried in Paris itself, creating the catacombs and abandoned quarries all over the underground of Paris
Based on comments by Manu Seyfzadeh and others there appears to be some confusion or perhaps misunderstanding about some of the subjects we discussed. Sea Level Manu wrote: The Nile bed was much deeper during the African Humid period, hence the floodplain, as was the Mediterranean Sea level was lowers. The Sphinx is located within the Nile floodplain. Meaning that had it existed during the African Humid Period it would have been destroyed by the erosive force of the Wild Nile. The African Humid Period lasted from 12,000-5,500 years ago. However, the Sphinx shows no sign of river erosion. This fact alone is sufficient to show the Sphinx is not older as Schoch and others believe. Manu gets around this by claiming that during the African Humid Period, the Nile riverbed, like the Mediterranean, was at a substantially lower elevation. Hence the Sphinx was no longer within the Nile floodplain. Given that the Sphinx is located 100 miles (160 km) from the Mediterranean Sea that would seem unlikely. If Manu knows of any scientific papers on this subject, I would be very interested. Even if Manu were right sea level had risen to levels comparable to today by 7,000 years ago. Putting the Sphinx in the floodplain where it would be exposed to higher Nile flows for 2,500 years. More than enough time to destroy the Sphinx or, at the very least, leave a mark. Graph of post-glacial sea level rise. www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506 Advanced Civilization? Sitting in a floodplain begs the question, why would any advanced civilization be dumb enough to build the Sphinx in a floodplain? The Palermo Stone and other sources indicate a period of low Nile floods during the Old Kingdom. So the ancient Egyptians had no way of knowing they were building the Sphinx in a floodplain. The same cannot be said about an advanced civilization. Any civilization advanced enough to be aware of the precession of the equinoxes would also know about the Green Sahara Periods. Meaning they should have been aware that the Sphinx would be destroyed by the Wild Nile during the next Green Sahara Period. Which according to Schoch was imminent. Neck Erosion Manu wrote: There is no place in this paper from which you can reasonably reconstruct a Nile flood to the elevation of the neck of the Sphinx. I completely agree. Nor is there a way for precipitation to erode the Sphinx neck. Which would have been protected from precipitation by the Sphinx head. MECO Manu it seems, has failed to grasp the significance of the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum hyperthermal. Which is that if not for a catastrophic global warming event 40 million years ago the Giza pyramids and Sphinx would not exist. The MECO would also explain why the Member III limestone of the head looks so different from the softer fossiliferous Member II limestone beneath. In addition, variations in chemical isotopes produced by the MECO could be used to trace limestone blocks to specific quarries at Giza. Thickness Manu wrote: Schneiker doesn't know how big the Upper Member substrate was from which the head was made, and neither does Mark Lehner. The geologic strata at Giza is a simple layer cake pattern that dips slightly to the southeast. As a result, it is not difficult to estimate the original thickness of the Member III limestone. I agree with Egyptologist George Reisner that the top of the Sphinx head marks the original surface at Giza. The presence of a wadi to the south of the Sphinx indicates the Member III capstone was originally covered by a softer geologic strata that has since eroded away. A more accurate thickness could be obtained by drilling a boring to the south of the Sphinx. Still the actual thickness exposed at Giza would have been irregular and somewhat thinner due to millions of years of erosion. Wind Erosion Manu wrote: Contrary to what Robert Schneiker states in this video, Schoch compared the erosion pattern of the Sphinx and enclosure to other monuments nearby and concluded that there are features present on the former not present on the latter, for example the mastaba of Debehen. Manu is correct in saying that Schoch has compared the erosional pattern on the Sphinx with other monuments at Giza, including the Tomb of Debehen. To Schoch the Tomb of Debehen is an example of erosion by windblown sand. I have examined the Tomb of Debehen myself. I conclude there is little evidence of erosion by windblown sand or any other natural erosional process. The reality is the Tomb of Debehen, the Sphinx, and other below grade monuments at Giza were buried in windblown sand for most of the past 4,500 years which protected them from erosion. Seismic Tomography Manu questions why I used the seismic tomography survey by Dobecki and Schoch. Suggesting I should look at the seismic refraction survey instead. The seismic tomography survey maps the 2-dimensional distribution of seismic velocities at the level of the Sphinx Enclosure floor. Seismic tomography, unlike seismic refraction, offers a means of obtaining seismic velocities from beneath the Sphinx. Making it an ideal tool to test for an older Sphinx. Schoch reasoned that if the Sphinx was exposed to precipitation the limestone of the enclosure floor would have weathered more than the limestone beneath the Sphinx. All things being equal, Schoch reasoned the seismic velocity beneath the Sphinx should be higher than that of the weathered limestone of the enclosure floor. This is because the Sphinx itself would have protected the limestone beneath from weathering. Unfortunately for Schoch the seismic velocities beneath the Sphinx were actually lower than the enclosure floor. Schoch gets around this by saying the lower velocities beneath the Sphinx indicate voids at depth. The argument fails as the horizontal 2-dimensional seismic tomography measured seismic velocities at the level of the Sphinx Enclosure floor. As such it would not be capable of detecting voids at depth. I conclude the logic of this assumption is flawed. The reality is the Sphinx was carved from a karst limestone that had been weathered underground by acidic groundwater over millions of years. Long before the Sphinx was carved. Thus, invalidating their assumption that weathering of the Sphinx Enclosure began following construction. The Dobecki and Schoch paper indicates the presence of a high velocity anomaly “D” north of the Sphinx. But for whatever reason high velocity anomalies south of the Sphinx were not identified on the figure or discussed in the paper. The presence of these high seismic velocities are further evidence that the Sphinx was not weathered by precipitation.
"Manu wrote: The Nile bed was much deeper during the African Humid period, hence the floodplain, as was the Mediterranean Sea level was lowers." You: "The Sphinx is located within the Nile floodplain. Meaning that had it existed during the African Humid Period it would have been destroyed by the erosive force of the Wild Nile. The African Humid Period lasted from 12,000-5,500 years ago. However, the Sphinx shows no sign of river erosion. This fact alone is sufficient to show the Sphinx is not older as Schoch and others believe." My response: I first recite your argument: The floor of the Sphinx ditch is 20 meters above current Sea Level. The neck of the Sphinx is at 33 meters ACSL. The top of the head is at 40 meters ACSL. You have interpreted the data published in the Shisha et al. PNAS paper to mean that seasonal floods of a reconstructed Khufu branch of the Nile during the African Humid Period would have undermined the enclosure walls, and eroded any statue and temples that may have existed. Therefore, we wouldn't be observing either in their current state-for example the enclosure walls should be undermined, not everted-and no one in their right mind would have build them in the first place while the Nile came up this high. We disagree on the quantification of the flood levels that can be reconstructed from the data presented by Shisha et al. If you want to claim that flood water reached up to 20 meters ACSL then you should be able to see evidence of water erosion, e.g. Karst formation, elsewhere on the plateau at equivalent sea levels, for example the escarpment that terminates the East Field, or the east face of Jebel Gibli. On the other hand, there is evidence of subterranean Karst formation, i.e. at lower elevations, and other geologists have commented on this. You: "Manu gets around this by claiming that during the African Humid Period, the Nile riverbed, like the Mediterranean, was at a substantially lower elevation. Hence the Sphinx was no longer within the Nile floodplain. Given that the Sphinx is located 100 miles (160 km) from the Mediterranean Sea that would seem unlikely. If Manu knows of any scientific papers on this subject, I would be very interested." My response: Unlike you, I am citing data. I am not "getting around," Dr. Schneiker. Please review the 14C-dated sediment levels of Core 1 and 4 in the Shisha et al. paper. Also, there is a sizable collection of drill core date from all across the Delta published by the Smithsonian Institute. These data are indispensable, if you want to get an idea of the depth of the arms of the Nile and its floodplain during the Holocene, and even earlier in some cores. Mediterranean Sea Levels: Ehud Galili, Jonathan Benjamin, Vered Eshed, Baruch Rosen, John McCarthy, Liora Kolska Horwitz. A submerged 7000-year-old village and seawall demonstrate earliest known coastal defence against sea-level rise. From the paper: "Between 9000 and 7000 BP, MSL rose ca. 8m (from -16 to -8m), at a mean annual rate of ca. 4mm/year. From 7000 to 4000 BP, MSL rose an additional 8m (from -8m to the present level), at a mean annual rate of ca. 2.6mm/year." To sum this up, The Nile, its branches, the floodplain, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile Valley were at significantly lower elevations relative to the elevation of the Sphinx ditch during the AHP. You cannot draw qualitative conclusions without quantifying the data and observing geological evidence of rock erosion due to flood waters. You are speculating. Also, Shisha et al. found water-proximal plant pollen at C1 and C4, even as early as the tail end of the AHP, their earliest time span. Just like Elkhorn coral survival and terracing is a proxy for flood heights, any plant life able to sustain itself at the banks of this hypothetical Khufu branch tells you that floods could not possibly have been as high as you think. The biggest misconception I see abound with respect to the Shisha et al. paper is that they were able to reconstruct absolute flood levels relative to current or past seal levels. They didn't. Their flood levels are a) relative, and b) reconstructed based on relative pollen amounts used as a proxy for floodplain flora.
You: "Thickness. Manu wrote: Schneiker doesn't know how big the Upper Member substrate was from which the head was made, and neither does Mark Lehner. The geologic strata at Giza is a simple layer cake pattern that dips slightly to the southeast. As a result, it is not difficult to estimate the original thickness of the Member III limestone. I agree with Egyptologist George Reisner that the top of the Sphinx head marks the original surface at Giza. The presence of a wadi to the south of the Sphinx indicates the Member III capstone was originally covered by a softer geologic strata that has since eroded away. A more accurate thickness could be obtained by drilling a boring to the south of the Sphinx. Still the actual thickness exposed at Giza would have been irregular and somewhat thinner due to millions of years of erosion." My response: No way to prove it, Dr. Schneiker. It's all opinions. There is no way for your to know what has been carved away. Therefore, you cannot falsify a competing model that says the statue had a bigger head. This is not how you prove your case, especially when your are staring at evidence that contradicts your model. The competing model of a prior lioness statue does not, in fact require a much larger substrate lump of rock, as Rob Neyland who is a world champion sculptor has shown. You: "Wind Erosion. Manu wrote: Contrary to what Robert Schneiker states in this video, Schoch compared the erosion pattern of the Sphinx and enclosure to other monuments nearby and concluded that there are features present on the former not present on the latter, for example the mastaba of Debehen. Manu is correct in saying that Schoch has compared the erosional pattern on the Sphinx with other monuments at Giza, including the Tomb of Debehen. To Schoch the Tomb of Debehen is an example of erosion by windblown sand. I have examined the Tomb of Debehen myself. I conclude there is little evidence of erosion by windblown sand or any other natural erosional process. The reality is the Tomb of Debehen, the Sphinx, and other below grade monuments at Giza were buried in windblown sand for most of the past 4,500 years which protected them from erosion. My response: The horizontal defects across the rock-cut mastabas on the west end of the Central Field cut through the jambs of these mastabas, and, there is no shelve to hold casing stones. The faces of these mastabas are smooth. The rock face is the casing. Also, further down on both the east and south faces of the mastaba of Kai you can see how the horizontal defect cuts through the human-made niches. This is not consistent with your model of human-made quarry marks. If you want to see quarry marks, then you should visit the Khufu quarry remnant on the south side of the Khafre causeway, near the Pyramid Temple. There, you will see tool marks left behind by the stone masons. For open pit stone extraction, you should take a look north and west of Khafre's pyramid. In neither case, do you see the vertical/oblique defects as you see at the Sphinx. You model of vertical defect formation lacks a positive control elsewhere on the plateau, and especially in the Central Field. The few oblique and vertical erosion features have actually been morphologically classified by an Egyptian team of geologists that surveyed the Giza Plateau in the 1987. Paleokarst processes in the Eocene limestones of the Pyramids Plateau, Giza, Egypt by Aref and Refai. I will let you examine figure 3 in their paper and decide for yourself if you think the vertical/oblique defects in the Central Field are phreatic or vadose in formation. You: Seismic Tomography. Manu questions why I used the seismic tomography survey by Dobecki and Schoch. Suggesting I should look at the seismic refraction survey instead. The seismic tomography survey maps the 2-dimensional distribution of seismic velocities at the level of the Sphinx Enclosure floor. Seismic tomography, unlike seismic refraction, offers a means of obtaining seismic velocities from beneath the Sphinx. Making it an ideal tool to test for an older Sphinx. Schoch reasoned that if the Sphinx was exposed to precipitation the limestone of the enclosure floor would have weathered more than the limestone beneath the Sphinx. All things being equal, Schoch reasoned the seismic velocity beneath the Sphinx should be higher than that of the weathered limestone of the enclosure floor. This is because the Sphinx itself would have protected the limestone beneath from weathering. My response: I am going to prepose the main observation of the Dobecki/Schoch paper: The low/high velocity boundary is more than twice as deep beneath the surface of the ditch on its north, south, and east sides than its west side. This is the raw observation. It has nothing to do with what's under the Sphinx, not does the analysis depend on it. The reason why seismic tomography was performed was to detect voids, not to compare perimeter decay to an internal standard obtained by measuring rock soundness beneath the statue. By all means, contact Robert Schoch or Thomas Dobecki and verify what I am writing here. The most basic conclusion from this observation is that three sides of the ditch were exposed to the elements long before the fourth, the narrow channel behind the haunch. This conclusion must be appended with the qualification that the data are measuring what Dobecki and Schoch thought they were measuring, time-dependent sub-surface rock decay. Colin Reader's critique targeted this qualification (i.e., he thought the data reflect the west-to-east component of the dip), but the experiment controlled for it by measuring two different elevations of the Lower Member, north and south. The rationale you are citing addresses a different data set: How deep is the velocity boundary around the Sphinx compared with its depth below the statue. To make that comparison, you would compare refractive and tomographic profiles. But this isn't why Dobecki and Schoch performed tomography. As per their comments, they noticed geophone ringing between 25 and 31 meters of S1 and between 45 and 49 meters of S2. They attributed this ringing to nearby voids. On the other hand, Anomaly D, a high velocity signal between 32 and 55 meters had no effect on the refraction trace, please review the boundary trace shown in figure 4a between those meter markers and compare to the rest of the trace. This directly contradicts what you stated in this video, Dr. Schneiker.
You: "Unfortunately for Schoch the seismic velocities beneath the Sphinx were actually lower than the enclosure floor. Schoch gets around this by saying the lower velocities beneath the Sphinx indicate voids at depth. The argument fails as the horizontal 2-dimensional seismic tomography measured seismic velocities at the level of the Sphinx Enclosure floor. As such it would not be capable of detecting voids at depth." My response: Schoch isn't getting around this, Dr. Schneiker. The experiment was designed to detect voids, which by their very nature, slow down seismic conduction, independent of rock decay due to exposure at the surface to the element. You misunderstood the experimental design, and I think I now understand why looking at the way the paper's figures and headings line up. The observation you must explain is what I preposed. This is what forms the core of Schoch's argument that the ditch was cut at two different times, thousands of years apart, one of those times was the Old Kingdom since we know that work was done on the Sphinx during that time. You: "I conclude the logic of this assumption is flawed. The reality is the Sphinx was carved from a karst limestone that had been weathered underground by acidic groundwater over millions of years. Long before the Sphinx was carved. Thus, invalidating their assumption that weathering of the Sphinx Enclosure began following construction." My response: If you didn't understand the rationale and the data, I am not surprised to came away with this conclusion. Regardless, your model has no controls and is contradicted by what you see elsewhere in the Central Field. Your model appeals to those who want to be confirmed in their belief that the Sphinx and its temples are Old Kingdom original creations. The only way I see this go forward, ever, to some agreement between all sides is to go back with a team of peers including Schoch and repeat a set of experiments and observations that you plan ahead, observe together, and interpret based on standards that you all agree on before hand. Will that ever happen? Oh well. Not with the current monopoly over investigations that rules over Giza. You: "The Dobecki and Schoch paper indicates the presence of a high velocity anomaly “D” north of the Sphinx. But for whatever reason high velocity anomalies south of the Sphinx were not identified on the figure or discussed in the paper. The presence of these high seismic velocities are further evidence that the Sphinx was not weathered by precipitation. My response: I already addressed Anomaly D above. The interpretation of this unique zone (unique because it suggests a very sound, fracture free area of the Lower Member) is on page 540. It has nothing to do with either the refraction data nor the search for voids. On the south side, there is a low velocity void labelled B. The signal confirms a gravitometry signal measured by Waseda University a few years prior. Waseda also confirmed Anomaly D with the same method. The most important Anomaly is A. This is a zone that has never been probed with a drill. I think you need to publish your paper, Dr. Schneiker. Let your peers and Egyptologists alike give you feed-back once you are committed on paper. What we are doing here, internet debates and endless posts, won't move the needle. My suggestion is talk to Lehner and ask him to publish the cores he pulled out of the ditch in 2009 to inject some new data into the discussion. I predict that within a year we will get satellite data on subsurface voids around the Sphinx using the new Biondi method and within a couple of years you will have an entire map of subsurface Karstification of the Giza Plateau and the elevations of it.
31:00 I never heard mentioned is the base of Queen Khentkaus tomb/mustaba/pyramid near the sphynx is carved out of the bedrock and has very similar "erosion" to the Sphynx enclosure. We know the rock around it was quarried for Khafre's pyramid
Just a note, since we discussed it at the end in this talk that was recorded a couple weeks ago. My conversation with Graham Hancock on the Joe Rogan Experience has been delayed until mid-April 2024. Sorry for delaying, but it's for health reasons. You can read the statements here: twitter.com/Graham__Hancock/status/1699755690489794829 And, as usual, if you are interested in helping support me so we make more similar archaeology videos, please buy me a coffee at www.ko-fi.com/flintdibble or subscribe at www.patreon.com/flintdibble
@@danielfallu5716 Go to Europe and India, you will see hard stone artifacts of a better quality then the Egyptian ones, from the ancient era, all the way to the modern era. The real mystery is why do you believe the Egyptian ones are special?
Don’t worry, the person post the video won’t reply because they’re paid to make sure these type of comments don’t get traction. They’re literally just people who don’t know anything about history, but are paid to push a narrative.
Flint, just watched you a Rogan... Holy hell man... You rock!! Thank you so very much for the work you and your colleagues do. Just fascinating. I think its great that Graham got a lot of people interested in ancient archeology, but its great to have someone like you come in and clarify. Thank you!
This isn't just a question of geology but also of stone cutting and masonry. This is not a natural cliff face, it was cut and so the soft sedimentary rock will erode much faster than an uncut face of stone.
An interesting aside that occured to me yet I rarely hear mentioned in these discussions is that it is even simpler to disprove this Hancockian notion that the Sphinx pointed towards leo 12,500 years ago, or for rhat matter that Gobekli Tepe carvings depict astrological signs dating form 11,000 years agoo is simply that those concepts didn’t actually exist that long ago. The Zodiac system was first invented by the ancient Babylonians in 500BCE and the modern system that we're all familiar with derives from ancient Greek adaptations dating from 200CE so those theories are instantly redundant.
Great chat on JRE Flint ~ We were waiting for that talk for a very long time and we are glad that it finally happened. You did really well with the discussion, im glad that Graham was willing to debate you! We have been following your work for a while now and we also just recently had a talk with Bob Schneiker on our channel ~ we watched this video in preparation for that. You might enjoy our series on the Serapeum ~ it was a turning point for us on our journey of learning about the ancient world and it could be helpful in your discussions of LAHT with people. Thank you for your dedication to bringing truth to the world ~ we too believe that respectful discussions about these topics can be had between all sides of the debate. Cheers!
there's no debate, graham has ideas that he then tries to find plausible puzzle pieces for, but comes up way, way short, as in no evidence at all beyond.. hey these rocks looks weird... start from the known to the unknown was a great way to put it!:) i'm a reformed conspiracy guy btw.. used to believe all that stuff.
Flint was a condescending asshole the entire time. He’d speak for 45 min let graham have 5 min then back onto incoherent ramblings for another 45 minutes this clown needs his degrees revoked as he clearly hasn’t a fucking clue what he’s talking about
@@None_yabusiness69420I am not sure that Hancock fans actually understand the meaning of condescension. They should however, because Hancock is a master.
I discovered you on JRE, really great job debunking Hancock’s fantasies during the debate. I learned a lot. You handled yourself very well, not many would have been able to exercise so much patience when the victim card was being played over and over.
I think Hancock has an overly high opinion of his intellectual acuity. AND I think he is one of those people who has a hammer and everything looks like a nail. A little humility and a few more tools would help him greatly. other opinions may vary. Lovely chat gentlemen! thanks for posting!
42:00 I think a good explanation of the use of "old wood to make charcoal" is the dried up former African green period trees. Trees will not rot in extreme dry conditions. There are examples of 700 year old dead trees still standing in the Sahara today.
Every winter season the salt i use to de-ice my concrete walkway lays a beating on it. The salt content of the giza plateau's sand is more than enough to disintegrate the layers of soft limestone.
Not related to the video but since I just came across you (and your work) yesterday and seeing that you don't believe in a theory that a comet or the sun caused the last (mini) ice age around 12,000 years ago then what caused this ice age from ur view point and what ended it around 9600 BC?
We are still in an ice age... Technically. You can tell by the ice on our poles. 12.000 years ago was the last Glacial period. (Besically highs and lows in temperature and ice during the ice ages. The glacial periods are the peaks, the most ice covering) Highly recommend looking into this topic if its not something you are familiar with. Its very interesting. Have a great day =)
You don't just date the sphinx, you've got to really wine and dine her, take her some place fancy, get to know your wines, have topics to talk about...and have her home by 10pm
The way the nike increased its flow drastically after building the pyramids at Giza, and with their mastery of water, prehaps the pyramids were some massive pump for the nile that increased its flow into the underground chambers for use.
Yardangs, Hoodoos, etc. constitute an interesting topic on its own, one that has to be addressed in the context of pareidolia. Pareidolia plus magic [if it looks like X it is x] seem to form the basis of most pseudoscience. I'm glad that Prof. Miano mentioned this site, and will be a regular visitor.
I agree, and although I am ultimately unsure the head was a yardang (as quite a bit of stone used in the Sphinx temple seems to come from the upper member) it is still interesting to think how unusual stone outcroppings may have inspired early monuments.
@@danielfallu I agree, but it seems to mostly work in the other direction, assuming that natural formations were purposely built, by aliens, Atlantians, gods, etc. Ancient Architects [afaik] had a video mentioning the "Sphinx of Baluchistan." from one direction it does look like a sphinx, but from every other direction it was obviously natural.
@@danielfallu5716 Those pyramids are incredibly complex seems like way too much involved to be just tombs - but of course you don't know any more than anyone else when it comes right down to it it
@@rocknrollkitchen I've read as much or more as anyone who isn't paid to study pyramids, burial traditions were an early specialty of mine. And burial traditions can be more elaborate than not. Beliefs are strong things, man. Hunter S. Thompson demanded to be fired into the sky on a rocket. And he wasn't a God.
@@danielfallu5716 We are all at the mercy of our source material - what if THAT is wrong (and it often is). Millions of people base their opinions on things that are later proven to be wrong, every day.
Agreed, claims of any features here being diagnostic to rainfall or flowing water are a bit of a stretch. What we know of the hydrology, geochemistry, and structural geology of the Plateau suggests that degree of weathering is controlling what we se.
@@danielfallu5716 Hi Daniel .. Add to that, that the Nile is 4 miles away from the Giza plateau today but was right next to it when they built there. They even made canals to get the stone near the monuments they were building. All factual, ground penetrative surveys have shown the Nile was so close. The Nile is renowned for flooding, its what made Egypt to fertile. The other thing cited for an older sphinx is that it pointed to the constellation of Leo in 10,000 bc. The great statue may be a lion, however it also is representative of Ra the sun god. The sphinx points to the rising sun every morning, pointing directly at Ra. No need for any lion/constellation link whatsoever.
@@Paul-hl8ygNo need for any lion link? How about to explain the fact it’s shaped like a lion? How is that not a reason for a link? Oh and would ya look at that if you do “acknowledge” that it just so happens to line up perfectly with the constellation of Leo which just so happens to be a lion, and it also so happens to line up with the Younger Dryas and great flood which as you pointed out it is right next to Nile so the Sphinx would have been flooded which is why it was also buried under sand for 700 years.
@@Byronic19134 No need for a leo constellation link when Ra represented in his lion form points directly at himself (Ra) every morning. To have pointed directly at the leo constellation would mean a 10,000 + year old sphinx, as it would have only pointed at leo way back then & that is not true. There is zero evidence the sphinx is that old. Nothing else shows a civilisation of 10, 000 + years old in the area either. And yes thank you after 40+ years of study, i know the body of the structure represents a lion.
I found u on Jre , Flint, Subscribed , gonna check u stuff out, Been watching lotsa Randalls( getting tired of RC now) and Grahams stuff , wanna see ur side of it...
It began and ended with the the same message which I think is something people forget: archaeologists know what they are doing, they have a lot of different lines of evidence and decades and decades of experience in how to interpret this evidence. This is something I see in loads of people that reject scientific consensus because they think they know better. They lack a basic respect for the expertise of people that devote their lives to the field of research. Whether they are archaeologists, climate scientists or medical experts, they are smart, dedicated individuals with tons of experience and to reject their conclusions as a lay person, like Schoch did, is disrespectful and, frankly, stupid...
@@bobolovski Yes, but he had taken one close look at it and concluded that all the historians, archaeologists and geologists that had previously examined it over decades and came to a fairly conclusive answer that was carried by a very, very large majority of relevant scientists, were all wrong and he had the right answer immediately despite all the evidence of the historians and archaeologists... That is hubris. He went in to the field thinking he knew better than the entire field of scientists that had dedicated their lives to such questions...
@@varyolla435 his qualifications mean he's not a 'lay person' he knows what he's talking about. And he's entitled to challenge the conventional theory with one of his own and be proved right or wrong on its merits. He's also entitled to alter his theory and resubmit for critique. That's how science progresses. To say his theory is definitely wrong because it runs against the general consensus is close minded.
@@varyolla435 folk - including the scientific community -thought the earth was 6000 years old and created by God until very recently. This only changed when so called fringe and outlandish theories were finally accepted. I'm not saying schoch is correct but he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
I don't think the groves around the Sphinx are caused by erosion. In the black and white photos(the ones from 1800's) you can see what looks like the true grain of the rock on the neck, chest and shoulders, and that grain is swooping up, down and all around and not conforming to the groves that I believe were deliberately cut around the body.
@HI-pi1er - It is not water erosion nor were there fishermen moored to the sculpture. Why not take the time to actually WATCH the video? Your questions are answered there.
"Instead of joking around and constantly saying 'I would ask Schoch about this or that, or I would tell him...' It would be easier to just invite him and talk. It's nice to have a discussion in a group where everyone agrees and there are no counterarguments."
All good, most of what’s put forward here makes sense and I can understand as a member of the general public, … but the guy at the bottom of the screen who repeatedly looks at the ceiling, rolling his head back, and giggles, doesn’t seem to say anything that makes much sense at all. I often found myself wondering what point he was making … to the ceiling?
Very informative and entertaining. Looking forward to the upcoming paper Bob Schneiker mentioned. The debate with Carlson would be so much fun...and this is why it will never happen😂
you are helping push the needle back the other way flint. get back on rogan, present the facts, the ingenuity and intelligence of previous humans. people are interested.
Its flood runoff. It's not all rain. It's current from receding water that eroded the sphinx. That's what it looks like. The Nile flood plain was broader, after the flood.
@@aaronlarsen7447because the earth looked completely different in the cambrian and even when dinosaurs lived to now. Mount Everest didn't exist and was still below sea level. Are you a child have you not finished elementary school?
@@pranays Yes the mountain was thrust up, as other areas sank into deep ocean trenches, when the caverns below the waters broke open, when mainland broke into continents, when the Grand canyon was formed from cataclysmic violence. Those clam fossils could not last in that environment for millions of years. They would be weathered and gone.
Wow! It makes so much sense now. The nice facing stones that were still above the sand were robbed in antiquity to build other structures. Perhaps the Romans?
My thoughts are that it was placed in the sunken area with water from a decorative area coming down the sides creating natural erosion on soil below. But I think it was a giant fountain. Surrounded by fast moving water.
Here are two of the most egregious errors by Robert Schneiker, both based on his lack of properly reviewing what Robert Schoch observed and what he wrote. I am not faulting the host or the other guest since they are the disposal of Robert Schneiker in forming their opinions: 1) Water Erosion Hypothesis: Contrary to what Robert Schneiker states in this video, Schoch compared the erosion pattern of the Sphinx and enclosure to other monuments nearby and concluded that there are features present on the former not present on the latter, for example the mastaba of Debehen. Further down the hill, there are rock-cut mastabas and a quarry island called GCF1 where the erosion pattern is different. So Schoch has a negative control for his observation. The mastaba of Kai, for example is horizontally eroded and you can prove that this is erosion and not quarrying because the lowest horizontal line erodes a known human-made palace facade motive. Schneiker does not mention this. He also doesn't mention the horizontal erosion across the walls of Debhen's mastaba, and the entire Mokattam shelve as it dips under the Maadi formation. On the other hand, there is actually a positive control of intentional shelving to accomodate casing stones and that is Khentkawes. Did Schneiker show this? That is where you can see how Old Kingdom masons created shelves which doesn't look like the horizontal channels on the Sphinx he thinks are intentionally placed. Schneiker also mis-represents the actual evidence for enclosure eversion due to water run-off, the more important of the two water effects, rain and pooled rain run-off, which is what causes Rillen (German for grooves). The negative control for this is the easternmost end of the southern enclosure wall by the VT. There, you see how the wall was spared the run-off, which Colin Reader has explained with the topography and dip of the plateau behind the Sphinx. For Schneiker's model to work, he has to show a positive control: Show any rock-cut face at Giza that has the same vertical erosion pattern that he thinks is caused by the MECO-Effect, heat-induced CO2-blow off that caused fissuring during rock formation. 2) Seismic refraction: It is beyond me why Schneiker is using the seismic tomography data to criticize Dobecki and Schoch's refraction data. In fact, if Schneiker had made an honest effort to read the paper he would be showing figure 4 and cite Schoch's explanation of Anomaly D on the signal on pages 535-536. The void anomaly called D affects a 6-meter stretch of the refraction signal, the length of it is 80 meters. Look at the signal, Dr. Dibble. Don't take Schneiker's word for it. Does this look to you as negating the overall signal of the boundary? At the outset, Dobecki and Schoch are measured in their mission: see page 528. Please confirm or falsify Schneikers insinuation that this paper is testing for a lost civilization to have made the Sphinx. Here is my advice: Get a real scientist with geology background to look at the data with you. You're not gonna accept what I say. Get a second and a third opinion. This one is one big pile of limestone chips.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the evidence on the Sphinx that falsifies Robert Schneiker's theory that the horizontal grooves aren't wind/sand erosion channels, but quarried shelves made to clad the Sphinx with casing stones. The evidence can be viewed in Mark Lehner's thesis, figures 6.4-6.7. Compare this to true shelving on the west side of Khentkawes. Also, look at the orientation of these casing shelves on Khentkawes relative to the angle of the erosion channels on the Middle Member. Hence, here we have a positive control that proves that Schneiker cannot be correct about the origin of the horizontal grooves that classify the Middle Member beds according to Tom Aigner.
Authoritatively stated resting on nothing but your word in contra-distinction to evidence I cite neither you nor Schneiker cited, nor read, @@danielfallu Strong showing you're making here. I have no idea why Dr. Dibble invited you to participate on this panel without asking you to prepare for it with AT LEAST a review of Mark Lehner's thesis on the very subject you were all discussing.
@@ManuSeyfzadeh you have no evidence. You have cherry-picked studies, insinuations and logical fallacies. I had read Lehner's thesis, as well as your "paper" on the lion symbols in advance of the discussion. "The tablet with the whole lion is not an oil tag" does not automatically translate into "the tablet with the whole lion is actually the original configuration of the Sphinx" Your pretend one implies the other, which is a rhetorical trick and a fallacy. Its dishonest.
This panel, as the prior production by David Miano, demonstrates that they are not in command of the literature on the subject. It begins with Robert Schneiker mis-identifiying Robert Schoch's co-author, continues with his omission of doing what real scholars do, to first recite the data instead of ridiculing what he thinks the conclusions are, and continues onward to his profound mis-understanding of the Shisha paper. The Shisha paper does not reconstruct the floodplain to an elevation equivalent to the neck of the Sphinx Dr. Dibble! Read the paper. The Nile bed was much deeper during the African Humid period, hence the floodplain, as was the Mediterranean Sea level was lowers. These are all verifiable from the literature. The Shisha paper itself identifies the 14C ages of various floodplain sediment depths. In addition to that we know the relative flood levels of the Nile from the Early Dynastic Period through the Old Kingdom: That flood level ranged between 4 and 1 meters (in cubits) as recorded on the Palermo Stone. These flood levels are estimated, in the paper, to be 40% of those during the tail end of the AHP, for which data are being presented. You do the math yourselves, but please make sure you start from a deeper Nile bed. There is no place in this paper from which you can reasonably reconstruct a Nile flood to the elevation of the neck of the Sphinx. Onward to Dr. Schneiker's theory. The panel here professes to be scientific. Robert Schneiker's theory has no controls, neither positive nor negative. Show us the CO2-blow off fissuring on rock-cut structures in the Central field! Schneiker's excuse for not having a comparative standard is that the Sphinx ditch is unique. Prove it! Schneiker's "evidence" for the small head of the Sphinx, relative to body, is a modified version of that of Lehner: There wasn't enough fissure-free rock to make a bigger head. This isn't evidence, this is pseudo-evidence out of thin air. Schneiker doesn't know how big the Upper Member substrate was from which the head was made, and neither does Mark Lehner. How could they? The substrate is gone, carved away. The only reason why you folks find this appealing is because it confirms your biases that Khafre made the Sphinx from scratch. What is the actual evidence for this? No mention of it in this video. Here it is gentlemen, for your education: 1) Lehner made a context argument that it fits in with the context of the Khafre monument 2) Lehner found Old Kingdom debris under a quarried rock in the northeast corner of the ditch 3) Lehner found Old Kingdom items in the depression on the north ledge of the Sphinx ditch. 4) Thutmose IV mentioned the name of Khafre on the Dream Stele. 5) The temples must have been created at the same time as the substrate rock island from which the statue was made. 6) There are Khafre-era inscriptions on the granite ashlars of the Valley Temple. 7) Charcoal found in the cracks of the Sphinx Temple date to the Old Kingdom 8) Khafre statues found in the Valley Temple 9) The Sphinx Temple was left unclad and unfinished when Khafre died. Lehner found granite dust inside the ST and the NW corner is missing blocks. 10) Reisner dated the Sphinx to Khafre based on the headdress style when he found a bust of Menkaure in his VT. Prior to him Borchardt thought the head was a Middle Kingdom (re)model. None of these falsify the alternative model that Khafre ordered an older statue and temples to be remodeled. And there is evidence for an older statue and temples coming from Lehner himself, and Herbert Ricke who surveyed the Sphinx Temple. Lehner reconstructed three phases for the VT. Ricke reconstructed an earlier phase that had two gutters no longer used in the next phase. There is iconography on written records from the First Dynasty that show a lioness statue next to a temple, that shows a lioness with chisels above her head. The mention of this lioness disappears during the reign of Khafre which is what you would expect when one cult is erased and a new one is created. And this is just scratching the surface. The problem archeologists have when it comes to science is that they resort to context arguments that they believe give them the plausibility they need to construct probable scenarios. Neither of these are scientific standards. There is no such thing choosing the correctness of a model based on its context-informed plausibility. A valid scientific model must account for all the reproducibly observable data and make testable predictions. Robert Schoch performed a controlled seismic refraction experiment in the Sphinx ditch to measure subsurface decay of the limestone once exposed to air. The result of this experiment was that north, south, and east of the statue the signal boundary between high and low velocity is twice as deep than west of the statue. Schneiker has to explain these data. When Colin Reader tried to explain these data he thought the signal traces the dip and not decay. However, he did not consider that Schoch controlled for this by running a geophone line both north and south of the statue. Both produce the same signal depth, which is not expected if the the signal were tracing the strata dip. All of this discussion was missing from this panel. Instead, the panel resorts to snark and ridicule. Poorer scholarship cannot be show-cased better than in this video. Good scholarship starts with first correctly citing and reciting what it is that you wish to criticize. It requires a good understanding of the scientific method, which none of the participants here appears to have a grasp on.
Not a panel, just three dudes talking. And the flooding didn't need to be to the neck of the sphinx to preclude its construction in earlier periods, just up to the level of the enclosure, which it certainly was. That was a sneaky trick, though. You should keep going. This is an excellent way to teach folks the rhetorical tricks you are using to make your beliefs seem more plausible.
49:08 are you assuming the entire area was all done and a finished area? Doesnt seem like that to me. maybe the causeway was only there to build and they just never got finished building the area, quarrying the area. Have you ever watched Land of Chem youtube page? awesome videos and some wild stuff there. It was a chemical plant .
You also have houses made from blocks that were made by busting up arts of the avebury henge . A henge that was important in the past and important now but obviously not important when it was busted up. You also have all sorts of structures built from blocks taken from hadrians wall or other romsn structures
@@raina4732 The Hitat was written by Al Makrizi. He tells us about the two pyramids at Gizah and that there was a body in the sarcophagus. Several times is tried to find the entrance. No sources mentioned.
Dating the sphinx! Why was my 1st thought to picture u sat in front of it at little table with wine n candles laid out trying to make small talk with her? 😂
Not true. Minute 13 onwards in this video by World of Antiquity puts together much of the evidence that pyramids were tombs. Including the mummified human remains found in or near the sarcophagi in the pyramids ruclips.net/video/asJneqxPnjU/видео.htmlsi=zr26BWSAPwIi2Fjx
Archaeology and science have taught me one thing in my 50 years. They always think they are 100% correct about whatever it is and within a generation more than 50% of the claims are proven false. Always remember you dont know very much and should constantly be asking and questioning everything.
@@varyolla435 wow, you really like the sound of your own voice. I’m simply stating, don’t accept what people say simply because they say so. Do your own research and realize the people claiming they know the answer mostly are as unknowing as you are. And yes, people should always assume the answer given is probably wrong so keep digging.
@@varyolla435 facts in the case of science and archaeology are arguable in a large percent of cases. The FACT you don’t know this shows a la k of understanding of the world. Wisdom comes from failure so hopefully yours is starting to increase. You really like to word salad a lot though.
@@varyolla435 no attacks, only observation and as you say to dispute facts you must provide other facts that dispute. Observational is one such way. Thus I observed your words and the lack of wisdom, providing you with the feedback so you can learn.
The Green Sahara. The scientists who are, I assume still actively doing research. Soil, water and what ever else they use they can find out these things
I think it's unfair that Robert Schoch gets labeled a pseudo scientist due to his theory. He is a geologist who has come up with a genuine scientific theory and has given his opinion. It has been disputed by other geologists. That doesn't make him pseudo, science is all about theories and disputing those theories. 99% of theories ever created have been disputed.
@@varyolla435but he doesn't. If you take the time to look him up at all, you will see that he doesn't actually work with pseudo scientists. One of the main sites Hancock talks about as being evidence for this ancient civilization is the Yonaguni Monument, which he says he has made hundreds of dives to and categorically states that it is man made. Schoch has done multiple dives at the site and has come to the conclusion that while very impressive, is actually natural geological formations. He even says exactly this on his own website. He is an academy at Boston University. Yes, he came up with a theory that other geologists have said is wrong. As I said, there is nothing new there in the world of science, that happens all the time. He has also never specifically said that he believes in an ancient advanced civilization, he came up with a theory, as an unbiased geologist and came to the conclusion, albeit wrong, that it was a lot older than previously thought. It was Hancock that put two and two together and came up with ancient advanced civilization.
Pseudo science is not a title per se. You could have a legit PhD and still do pseudoscience. Pseudo is just like saying fake science. Einstein could’ve done fake science if he wanted to, anyone could even you.
@@varyolla435 he went to Egypt with the assumption that Egyptologists had the dating correct. His theory of water erosion put it back further, to between 5000 and 10000 BCE. Hancock took the older age and ran with it, with no mention of the earlier estimate. Schoch, through his work at the Sphinx found a cavity underneath the Sphinx, which has since been confirmed by Egyptologists. Another site that is key to Hancock's theory is the Yonaguni Monument. Hancock has said he has dived there hundreds of times and is convinced it is man made. Schoch, on his own website, has stated that he has dived multiple times at the site and while impressive, has concluded that the site is a natural formation. The only evidence he sees of human work is touching up of the above ground structures. You say his peers reject his claims, which is actually his theory. I will counter you with the same 'so what' you gave me. Scientists in different disciplines have their theories rejected by their peers all the time. This is not a rarity, but is extremely common in science. In all of academia actually. Theories are subjected to scrutiny, very few theories that are proposed get accepted. That doesn't mean that it is bad science or that the scientist is a fraud. The fact that his methods are replicable means that it is good science, just that his interpretation of the results aren't agreed upon by other scientists. Bear in mind when he did his work at the Sphinx, it was 30+ years ago. The technology he was using was very new and not easy to understand and the technology is a lot more advanced now. Moral, just because some of these crackpots like Hancock have used his analysis to further their own narrative, doesn't mean he is in their camp. His analysis was done BEFORE Hancock and his theory, not after. Do your own research, find out for yourself, it's not hard, before jumping to conclusions and judging.
There are some weird people. This is about dating the Sphinx, but I saw a show where someone was in love with Eiffel Tower. I just can’t watch people in their depravity.
How many mummies were found in the Great Pyramids? Because they weren't tombs. The ancient Egyptians did not claim that the pyramids were tombs … it is just a modern theory, not supported by any hard evidence. No contemporaneous bodies, mummies or human remains have ever been found in any of the Old Kingdom pyramids. a simple search..
And a simple search would tell you this is incorrect. The intact remains of Djedkare Isesi were found in his Old Kingdom pyramid. The Pyramid of Unas also contained partial remains in the looted sarcophagus. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djedkare_Isesi
And Flint one more thing ....joking about aliens etc. and talking about prof Schoch 's work as sudoscience (in the end) only proofs you've learnt nothing about being respectful. IT could be so much better without these!
@@varyolla435 God the hubris is insane. why justify being a fucking asshole bro? you can disagree politely and respectfully without all this white noise hogwash. science is about remaining unbias, the moment you get emotional the moment your beliefs aren't rooted in science
Yeah man, I'm pumped for the debate! The fact that pseudoscience is so popular nowadays is unfortunate. People pay charlatans like unchartedX thousands of dollars to go on a tour of Egypt. That's pretty friggin' ridiculous. People can do what they want with their money. However when the product is directly attacking archeology and taking away revenue from actual experts, that's bullshit. I hope you mention the other debate with Randall Carlson to Joe. The more the better.
@@313barrygmail Generally Ben measures things with a lidar scanner that's only good to about an inch, then he wildly speculates at length. Not really science. He also goes to great lengths to avoid changing his opinion.
@@313barrygmail like that time he run away from the Ancient Presence podcast as soon as he was presented with Mariette's Serapeum report? Also, what science is he doing? Seriously?
@@313barrygmail he scanned one vase. One. A vase which both him and the owner cherry picked out of a collection. A collection which by it's nature was a cherry picked creation. The guy said himself "my wife and I only buy ones which look as if they have high level precision." They ignore the rest. But do go on about how that's good science.
@@_MikeJon_ what a time to be alive! You can basically talk out of your ass on you tube and gain a following of cult like fanboys who will try to defend and adore you, despite being completely illiterate on the topic they try to discuss... it's not only the case with Ben, but with a lot of fringe anti-scientific communities.
I’d like to see your discussion, include Robert Schoch and Graham Hancock. You guys are smart and know your stuff, however… you’re so cocky about ancient history, like you’re absolutely, certain. You’re making a lot of assumptions as well. Also, the reference to aliens, and Martian granite is juvenile.
I may have missed the point, but I do believe your intention was to be dismissive of those thinking outside of your interpretation, with the old UFO barb.
@@karenconley9807 nope, it was meant to be a fun segue into the geology of Giza. There is no known limestone of Mars, so the Sphinx can't be from Mars. You take too much offense. This was not a debate, or even part of one. It was sharing facts and interpretations, as well as how archaeologists do things like interpreting difficult chronology. Martians didn't build the pyramids, by the way. Also, archaeologists take a lot of crap from people like Graham Hancock and others while we are just trying to do our job responsibly. Let us have a little fun now and again.
@@danielfallu you mean because you’re lying and also trying to suppress anyone who’s exposing the fact of water erosion actually proving the date to be much farther back than consensus science you’re paid to push says?
Talk about gass lighting... if you want to debunk an idea you should firsr understand that idea. I would have listened to this whole video if 5 minutes in im bombarded with such intellectual dishonesty. People like you three are part of the problem and why people dont believe anything anymore. Congrats
This isn't entirely accurate, we have depictions of royals earlier without that particular headdress. So we can make a slightly stronger inference that the headdress is introduced at a certain point. It's not certain, but a bit more indicative than you are making it seem.
you guys are way off the sphinxs is way to symmetrical to be done with crud chizlezes ill go one further and say it was not done by egyptians they adopted it and carved some very primitive claims that are so obviously child like in comparison to the real art that everything else is as far as quality it was leo the constellation it was created in and to represent and has been rebuilt several times as is obvious how disproportionate the head is to the body
@@danielfallu5716 To only begin to get up to speed look at Petrie's Royal Tombs, Extra Plates, Va #13 for an image of an elongated lioness next to a temple that predates Khafre by at least four centuries. This Ebony tablet was found in the Abydos grave of Horus-Djer. I will spare you the time to learn about First Dynasty Oil tags into which this Ebony plate has been assorted, quite erroneously I might add. But to be even-handed I will give you the reference for this classification: Emily Teeter's "Before the Pyramids," page 234. For general background on these tags, I refer you to Wolfgang Helck, (1987) Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, chapter 13. These tags of which there are 20, including this anomalous Ebony Tablet, typically contain information as to a significant event that marked that year in the top tiers/sectors. In the bottom sector, the quality, source, amount, and origin were variably marked. Quality is the key concept here that matters in terms of understanding that this Ebony Plate does not belong into the oil tag group into which it has been assigned. The frontal lion/lioness was the prime ḥꜣt.t fraction. The rear of the lion/lioness was the pḥ lesser end fraction of the oil fruit effluent. The ḥꜣt.t fraction was only found in the royal tombs. The pḥ fraction only in private or prince/princess mastabas, for example Saqqara. If this Ebony Tablet were an oil tag, the product would have to have contained both prime and subprime effluent fractions. There are no other clear indices on this tablet that this is an oil tag, except the hieroglyph for nw. Dr. Teeter read this as the second part of thnw, Lybian oil, however, she omitted Helck's observation that this designation only appears in grave goods of Horus-Den, twokings after Horus-Djer. There is no such thing as an oil composed of both prime and subprime fractions in a king's tomb. There is one example of prime and whem (repeat/intermediate) fraction in a servant grave 3503-Q. In addition, as you will see, the lioness depicted is comparable in size to a nearly square temple. As I said, this is just the beginning, but all three of you have to know way more about Egyptology before we can even begin to diffuse your completely unwarranted incoming biases, since none of you are in command of the literature that applies to this topic.
@@ManuSeyfzadeh that was a lot of fancy talk to impress folks, but you never actually presented the evidence connecting the Sphinx to a full lion form, just evidence lions were associated with royalty from early on (And the Sphinx as we know it is already a royal fused with a lion). But I understand, it takes a certain level of understanding to present things simply and directly. An understanding you don't seem to have. The "broken lion" symbol has no apparent connection to Giza, and lion iconography is common anyway. This does not serve as evidence of a giant carved lion, no matter how you attempt to obfuscate. (Note to all: this is how pseudoscientists speak, they make every effort to sound professional, all in hopes of making their house of cards cherry picked narrative more plausible, note how Manu never connected his argument to Giza)
@@danielfallu this is the elitist speaking in you who is covering up the fact that he doesn't know the literature on the subject. Fancy talk is what you and Robert Schneiker do, since you have no knowledge on the subject at hand. Hence, you are bluffing. As I said, this is only the beginning. The Ebony Tablet shows a full lioness next to a temple, how many lions the size of a temple do you know from ancient Egypt? The next step is to locate where that lioness is, i.e. Giza. After that, the next step is to show how the iconography of this lioness next to a temple and royal shrine ends up with a lioness on top of it, the intermediate form in other words, before the iconography you see on the Dream Stele. All this is in the publicly available record. After that comes the hand-over from lioness to the sphinx. The very person who was Khafre's chief scribe was a priest of the very iconography that is represented in the remodeled head and he was the last to carry the lioness title. The names of the Sphinx Horemakhet and Horakhty emerge from another title of this man. Have you ever looked at any of this, or is this the first time? The Egyptological evidence-next to the geological evidence that Schoch and Dobecki presented which no one in this panel correctly recited, in addition to the fact that archaeo-astronomers have determined that due east is not what the ancient Egyptians used to align their monuments-sums up to enough of a challenge to the Reisner/Hassan/Hawass/Lehner model that Khafre made the Sphinx de novo that a falsification test is in order. I am speaking to you in science method terms. I am talking about falsification. This is what we, real scientists, do. What you do is guessing the meaning of ancient remnants based on what you think is plausible from the context of what you previously guessed and then you flex your credentials authoritatively to dismiss any challenge from outside your field. An educated guess is what Mark Lehner did. He guessed that Khafre made the Sphinx based on a circumstantial case. I am not saying it's baseless. I am saying there is enough evidence from his own camp, which is what he lamented 30 years ago that Schoch wasn't acknowledging, that argues against his model and it is time for an experiment to put his model to a test, and this experiment is doable.
I found you through JRE. I enjoyed your input. I like Hancock but have to take his ideas with a pinch of salt. I only disliked the racism smears, drop that stuff and ill be a new comsumer of your content.
The popular alt theory is as you guys said since the Egyptians were obsessed with alignment and the Sphinx is actually under base level, than the fact the thing is a lion that also happens to line up with Leo at the same time of the Younger Dryas flooding period makes perfect sense. The head dress could have easily been inspired by the maim of a lion after the Egyptians remodeled the Sphinx as we know happened. The only reason these dates were initially put down is because is was thought humans weren’t capable of having civilization that advanced that far back in antiquity and yet what we found in Turkey blows all that up in smoke. But at the end of the day all you guys are doing is what they are doing and that’s guessing. These are all guesses. Nobody knows for certain.
The Great Pyramids are aligned to one 15th of one degree to true north and Orion’s Belt. But the Sphinx doesn’t have to be because there are lion fountains in Europe? Am I on acid? 😂
Mr. Flint Dibble, I'm taking your presentation very seriously, please don't joke around so much about the aliens- it's not necessary and its not funny. I'm a layperson concentrating on what you are explaining. These alien jokes are very disruptive and distracting. Otherwise, thank you for the informative content.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for having me! It was a fun discussion. I hope everyone enjoys it.
It was very interesting. I found the part about dating wood in the Old Kingdom particularly interesting as it could have been wood felled in different times. I only have a crude understanding of how the dating works, but considering both how long felled wood can last just left on the ground, let alone processed and cared for, as well as how long trees can live, the possible time-spans could get quite long. I don't know if they were importing cedar and pines from Lebanon in the Old Kingdom as in the New, but those cedars can hit get up to 1000 years and some pines close to half that. And then mixed in with local wood that could be burnt on the same day yet be decades if not centuries apart in age? That's fun to think about.
Thanks for joining us!
@@JH-pt6ihwhat's even neater is that you can in fact control for this. Reeds are fragile and shorter lived. If you date a burned Reed, it shouldn't be affected by this.
BUT with any plant that lives in or near a body of water, you need to be careful that it isn't including old carbon from the water. This is why a good radiocarbon study should be linked with a full understanding of regional and local vegetation and ecosystem studies.
Great contribution, thanks Dan👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
@@FlintDibbleflint, congrats on having the greatest name ever. 😂
In all seriousness you are always a great source of this stuff and I hope you Get well soon mate.
This video has some serious red flags.
The slide at 7:46 claims Colin Reader “wants to rewrite history (lost civilization)”. I am not aware of any claims by Reader to this effect, and from what I know of his work this statement is categorically false.
17:02 The Sphinx & Valley Temple being constructed from the rock in the Sphinx enclosure is an assumption based upon context, but the stones for the temples could have come from anywhere at Giza. Lehner claims the stratigraphy of the Valley Temple matches the Sphinx, but never published the data. No claims were even made about the Sphinx Temple.
29:49 This Giza computer rendering with oversized golden pyramidions is wildly fanciful.
40:45 There is no evidence that ‘high quality material’ for pyramids ran out - this is Schneiker inventing narratives outside of his expertise - which he does often in this video.
48:35 Schneiker is unaware that the Sphinx could not be seen from a completed Khafre causeway because the causeway itself was almost entirely enclosed. His statement ‘you would want to see the Sphinx from the causeway’ is in direct conflict with his ideas about the creation of the Sphinx.
Overall Schneiker’s argument is incredibly weakened by the fact that he does not engage with the geology research done by Colin Reader at all. And if he can’t demonstrate that groundwater wicking or subsurface moisture flow would shape the Southern Sphinx Enclosure Wall so differently from West-to-East (including the sudden drop-off at the fissure) - then he’s not engaging with this topic in a scientific way. Schneiker’s goal is merely to prove that Schoch’s work is rubbish, and cast himself as the protagonist of Geology. But nobody other than Hancock & company still takes Schoch seriously - so his is an argument about popular culture rather than science.
A word of warning that Hancock will ‘defeat’ you in the debate (as perceived by the public) if he demonstrates that your ‘side’ engages in the same bad behavior that his side does. This includes ignoring evidence against one’s theories (as Schneiker does about Reader), smearing reputations (as you do about Reader) and supporting known charlatans (Hawass is a great example).
Just because you are ‘team science’ doesn’t mean you get to cheat - that’s not science.
So should Flint delete your questions the way you delete people who question what you put on your channel? It is so rich that you come over to a channel with experts in their fields and leave this lengthy post yet if someone tries to leave a simply provide a link for people to see for themselves that the work has been going on you delete it - and you do it repeatedly. Every one of the people in this video could have tried to make a comment or a correction or an "alternative idea" on your channel and POOF! those comments would be gone, wouldn't they? I wonder how many people with knowledge on the subject have tried to make a comment for the benefit to your audience only to have you delete their comment so nobody can see it? Of course I know you will probably report this comment for some reason or other to get it taken down or shadow banned and I will re-post it. All it takes is a second account to see what gets shadow-banned. Now maybe you might want to go do a video giving credit to the people doing professional work rather than simply line-tracing video footage you got from someone else. It takes YEARS and DECADES to pull off this work, surrounded by uncertainties in funding, the greater economy, political upheaval, changes in technology and you make 20 minute videos using other peoples footage and pat yourself on the back for accomplishing what a 14 year old can do. I wonder how many comments get deleted from sites like yours and the Graham Hancocks (and you are just like him) to keep people uninformed and badmouthing those dumb old professional Egyptologists and archaeologists. I'll put the same link here that I tried to share on your video more than once with the simple comment that "they are working on it" and allow people to see the difference between what professionals are trying to do and your line-tracing of somebody else's video that contains all the information you "highlighted." It should make it a bit more obvious why it is these lame old Egyptologists are so slow and negligent to just simply do what you and Hancock should just have been done already in some stand-alone, one off RUclips video. It should be cued to 54 min 34 sec, Analyzing Egyptian Pyramids in the Digital Age ruclips.net/video/eku9o_q9OA4/видео.html
@@JH-pt6ih I understand that you have an axe to grind with me because I banned you from my channel for intentionally lying about its content. If Flint believes I am lying about his content, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he did the same. Everyone is welcome to make their own determination about who is acting in good-faith. Nobody reading your comment above would think you are anything but a troll led by emotion. You don't need to engage with me anymore, and I encourage you to not watch my videos. But know that I'm laughing about the fact that I know you won't be able to resist continuing to watch them.
There's nothing better than a good nerd battle. I love this!
Lots of little quibbles here, most of which amount to nothing.
1. Slide at 7:46 includes Egyptologists. It does not explicitly claim either Egyptologists nor Reader talk about a lost civilization. I can see how that is implied, and that's a mistake. Chill out, these things happen.
2. Lehner has fully published his data. I have links to multiple archives of datasets that he's created, including in the Open Context repository. Links are in the video description.
3. I agree. I don't think that the Egyptians ran out of high quality stone. I'm sure Schneiker was just off the cuff there.
4. The view of the sphinx from the causeway is irrelevant imho. Ask Bob, if you want to know more of his thoughts on this topic.
5. Good luck with your channel and research. I'll continue doing real archaeology and sharing what I can with the public in my free time.
@HistoryforGRANITE. 7:46. “wants to rewrite history (lost civilization)” is a footnote that applies to ALL the ”early date” guys as clearly marked with an asterisk. The first bit is demonstrably true, the bit in brackets probably should have read as ”and/or “.
17:02. Why would they “double handle” the excavated limestone? If they did then where did they dump and/or use it? It’s a shallow marine limestone so it is probably fairly uniform along bedding planes. Unless you can identify a specific feature you can’t prove either way, unless you can PROVE the excavated limestone went somewhere else.
29:49. Why?
40:45. No idea, but it’s well known that they did recycle older constructions.
48:35. That would probably merit it’s own separate explanation. Also Hancock and his fellow travellers operate in the “pop culture” realm. No one is pretending that this video is a serious scientific paper.
More people should see this! This is solid science, not fiction.
The sphinx ghosted me after the first date, so good luck
Just found you on JRE and had to hear more!
Same flint was awesome
@@Manbearpig4456 It could be far worse. He could be advocating something really idiotic like Egyptians using psychic powers to raise blocks to build pyramids.
Speaking of petulant childlike behavior, what's up with Hancock admitting to repeatedly verbally abusing his wife because of drug abuse induced paranoia?
@@Manbearpig4456 I need to understand why you and others project various attitudes on Flint. Hancock tried to restrain himself but he resorts to emotional arguments out of habit. Why not insult him?
@@Manbearpig4456 What were the personal accusations?
@@Manbearpig4456 I am not interested enough to rewatch.
A real archaeologist like you deserves more views. Great job!
Like someone else said,
If it aligned with Leo first someone needs to prove they even looked at Leo and also attributed that constellation with a Lion, people see different things.
Did the Egyptians follow Leo and see it as a lion? If there is any evidence at all about that then one could argue maybe that’s a possible theory but without that the entire argument gets pitched out the window .
House could aline with Leo someday, what does that mean?
also what I learned from this is that, the debate with GH and Dibble was scheduled months and months in advance!! and THAT was the presentation GH could come up with?? freaking YIKES.
Honestly with the looting of the facing stones, having the bottom layer being original also makes sense if the bottom layer was quickly covered by sediment, therefore preventing the looting of the original stones
That definitely makes sense as a possibility
Great video. Thanks for posting. Keep it up
Thanks!
Excited for this one !! Please keep these coming !
Hope you enjoy it!
Great discussion. Thanks much for hosting and posting.
@@Manbearpig4456 You, as always, suffer from confirmation bias. Who is running away? Schoch? Why does he not defend? Dr S certainly is ready to discuss.
@@Eyes_OpenSchoch Jock has nothing.
It’s so funny that it actually explains why the head of the sphinx is disproportionally smaller to the body. Simply because the body was cut out of the ground and the head was something that was built upon. Its just less work to make it a bigger body.
Why does everybody assume the names of the constellations have always been the same? It is not as if the constellations actually look like anything. Leo is based on Greek mythology, and the term was coined like two thousand years ago. The idea that people 12.000 years ago had the exact same name for that constellation is absurd. It looks nothing like a lion, to me it looks more like a duck, or coat hanger. Just like how most people living today call Ursa major and minor a 'cooking pan/skillet/etc.'. It looks far more like that than a freaking bear. It is just ridiculous to think that the meaning behind the constellations is fixed and unchanging, and that you can use it to date the construction of artifacts.
It's not ridiculous. In essence they were right. It DOES allign with Leo and there is a reason. However Hancock/bauval looked at the wrong solar event. Spring equinox instead of summer solstice. I wrote an extensive article on my blog giving context to what I'm saying here. The sphinx is related to the sun, creator god Atum and the summer solstice, the Nile inundation of the lost branch. It's name on Tutmosis stele gives it away. Horemaketh-Khepri-Ra-Atum and yes this is my own work, a new hypothesis and obliterates Hancocks 9000bc dating as it was 2500bc when Leo was at summer solstice, exactly the time of the pyramids and exactly the Aketh season.
They been around long before the Greeks. Ptolemy based his info off of old Babylonian star charts dating as far back 1000 BC and the dendera zodiac is the first known depiction of the classical 12 signs in 50 BC, and that's from Egypt.
@@isutrikanda there is no new thing under the sun .....
All things in 3's
there are 3 crosses at Golgotha in the Bible
there are 3 crosses in the heavens in astrology
there are 3 crosses in the elements in alchemy
there are 3 pillars in the freemasonry tracing board
there are 3 paths in the kabbalah tree of life
there are 3 sticks in the Native American tradition
there are 3 states of matter in science ( plasma animates matter )
there are 3 eyes in our heads 2 have temples the 3rd there is no temple therein , in the New Jerusalem there is no temple therein Revelation 22
all of these 3's are EXACTLY the same thing just taught in a different age by a different culture using a different language
there is NO new thing under the Sun
many of the above traditions teach us that EAST is actually up not north ! it is the spring equinox that is considered the starting line not the summer solstice that is considered the apex of the day but the stars cannot be seen during the day so at the summer sltice the stars of the opposite sign would be venerated not where the sun rises but the stars that rise when the sun sets .... we have all been programmed to think and see things in an upside down , inside out manner
the shepherds watched their flocks by night is code for an astrologer / magi
take all that Nibiru crap being spewed , well Nibiru is just one of the names of Jupiter used in the Aramaic / Arabic dialectics
Jupiter along with Mars are the rulers or knowledge keepers of water and fire and are venerated by the yellow fire and white water races EurAsian & CaucAsian
their symbols are a triangle pointed up for fire and pointed down for water , together / intertwine the battle of fire and ice a Game of Thrones if you will ...
all the knowledge of air / heaven is embedded in the symbolism of India think Vimana
all the knowledge of earth was given to the Africa , think digging gold and diamonds
all the knowledge of water is Europe the white races rule the seas and fire Asia where we get gunpowder from
if you understood symbolism it would be clear who it is and when it was built
half man Aquarius & half lion Leo this is called the masculine axis of the fixed cross
the symbolism for our current age is a siren / mermaid half woman Virgo an half fish Pisces this is called the feminine axis of the mutable cross
as above so below .... EVERYTHING was encoded into the imagery in the heavens to preserve the knowledge that would be lost in the flood
languages are just spells but symbolism is older than you can imagine it is universal across cultures and time it has never changed . we simply see it as art or architecture but it is much much more
the Sphinx was built when Leo was in the spring equinox , pre-flood
the man's face / name would be called Thalim from the Aramaic for teacher , guide , instructor , rabbi , master but we know it from the Greek as the star Fomalhaut the actual star of Bethlehem , the lamb ...
@@eyeknewit9158 no it was not.
@@eyeknewit9158What do you make of the seven sisters? Just curious.
Great conversation! Thank you!
Thank you for the video. I had my own ideas about the apparent weathering on the Sphinx, and it's nice to find out that I was completely wrong before I said it out loud somewhere.
By the way, I saw you mention your situation on Twitter. I hope your course of treatment is successful and you get well soon.
Keep it up. One of my favorite nerds on RUclips!
30:00 quarries. Should be a youtube short that would be very popular and grow your channel. Many people are completely unaware that the vast majority of stones were quarried right on the site. Unfortunately a common belief is ALL the stones came from "500 miles away" instead of only a small fraction
Yep, if you do a brief search online you can see that. It’s not exactly hidden or hard to find it’s just most people that follow pseudo science don’t “do their own research” like they always say they do
One of the early French Egyptologists likened the building in Giza with the building in Paris, where the stones were quarried in Paris itself, creating the catacombs and abandoned quarries all over the underground of Paris
Based on comments by Manu Seyfzadeh and others there appears to be some confusion or perhaps misunderstanding about some of the subjects we discussed.
Sea Level
Manu wrote: The Nile bed was much deeper during the African Humid period, hence the floodplain, as was the Mediterranean Sea level was lowers.
The Sphinx is located within the Nile floodplain. Meaning that had it existed during the African Humid Period it would have been destroyed by the erosive force of the Wild Nile. The African Humid Period lasted from 12,000-5,500 years ago. However, the Sphinx shows no sign of river erosion. This fact alone is sufficient to show the Sphinx is not older as Schoch and others believe.
Manu gets around this by claiming that during the African Humid Period, the Nile riverbed, like the Mediterranean, was at a substantially lower elevation. Hence the Sphinx was no longer within the Nile floodplain. Given that the Sphinx is located 100 miles (160 km) from the Mediterranean Sea that would seem unlikely. If Manu knows of any scientific papers on this subject, I would be very interested.
Even if Manu were right sea level had risen to levels comparable to today by 7,000 years ago. Putting the Sphinx in the floodplain where it would be exposed to higher Nile flows for 2,500 years. More than enough time to destroy the Sphinx or, at the very least, leave a mark.
Graph of post-glacial sea level rise.
www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506
Advanced Civilization?
Sitting in a floodplain begs the question, why would any advanced civilization be dumb enough to build the Sphinx in a floodplain? The Palermo Stone and other sources indicate a period of low Nile floods during the Old Kingdom. So the ancient Egyptians had no way of knowing they were building the Sphinx in a floodplain.
The same cannot be said about an advanced civilization. Any civilization advanced enough to be aware of the precession of the equinoxes would also know about the Green Sahara Periods. Meaning they should have been aware that the Sphinx would be destroyed by the Wild Nile during the next Green Sahara Period. Which according to Schoch was imminent.
Neck Erosion
Manu wrote: There is no place in this paper from which you can reasonably reconstruct a Nile flood to the elevation of the neck of the Sphinx.
I completely agree. Nor is there a way for precipitation to erode the Sphinx neck. Which would have been protected from precipitation by the Sphinx head.
MECO
Manu it seems, has failed to grasp the significance of the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum hyperthermal. Which is that if not for a catastrophic global warming event 40 million years ago the Giza pyramids and Sphinx would not exist. The MECO would also explain why the Member III limestone of the head looks so different from the softer fossiliferous Member II limestone beneath. In addition, variations in chemical isotopes produced by the MECO could be used to trace limestone blocks to specific quarries at Giza.
Thickness
Manu wrote: Schneiker doesn't know how big the Upper Member substrate was from which the head was made, and neither does Mark Lehner.
The geologic strata at Giza is a simple layer cake pattern that dips slightly to the southeast. As a result, it is not difficult to estimate the original thickness of the Member III limestone. I agree with Egyptologist George Reisner that the top of the Sphinx head marks the original surface at Giza. The presence of a wadi to the south of the Sphinx indicates the Member III capstone was originally covered by a softer geologic strata that has since eroded away. A more accurate thickness could be obtained by drilling a boring to the south of the Sphinx. Still the actual thickness exposed at Giza would have been irregular and somewhat thinner due to millions of years of erosion.
Wind Erosion
Manu wrote: Contrary to what Robert Schneiker states in this video, Schoch compared the erosion pattern of the Sphinx and enclosure to other monuments nearby and concluded that there are features present on the former not present on the latter, for example the mastaba of Debehen.
Manu is correct in saying that Schoch has compared the erosional pattern on the Sphinx with other monuments at Giza, including the Tomb of Debehen. To Schoch the Tomb of Debehen is an example of erosion by windblown sand. I have examined the Tomb of Debehen myself. I conclude there is little evidence of erosion by windblown sand or any other natural erosional process. The reality is the Tomb of Debehen, the Sphinx, and other below grade monuments at Giza were buried in windblown sand for most of the past 4,500 years which protected them from erosion.
Seismic Tomography
Manu questions why I used the seismic tomography survey by Dobecki and Schoch. Suggesting I should look at the seismic refraction survey instead. The seismic tomography survey maps the 2-dimensional distribution of seismic velocities at the level of the Sphinx Enclosure floor. Seismic tomography, unlike seismic refraction, offers a means of obtaining seismic velocities from beneath the Sphinx. Making it an ideal tool to test for an older Sphinx.
Schoch reasoned that if the Sphinx was exposed to precipitation the limestone of the enclosure floor would have weathered more than the limestone beneath the Sphinx. All things being equal, Schoch reasoned the seismic velocity beneath the Sphinx should be higher than that of the weathered limestone of the enclosure floor. This is because the Sphinx itself would have protected the limestone beneath from weathering.
Unfortunately for Schoch the seismic velocities beneath the Sphinx were actually lower than the enclosure floor. Schoch gets around this by saying the lower velocities beneath the Sphinx indicate voids at depth. The argument fails as the horizontal 2-dimensional seismic tomography measured seismic velocities at the level of the Sphinx Enclosure floor. As such it would not be capable of detecting voids at depth.
I conclude the logic of this assumption is flawed. The reality is the Sphinx was carved from a karst limestone that had been weathered underground by acidic groundwater over millions of years. Long before the Sphinx was carved. Thus, invalidating their assumption that weathering of the Sphinx Enclosure began following construction.
The Dobecki and Schoch paper indicates the presence of a high velocity anomaly “D” north of the Sphinx. But for whatever reason high velocity anomalies south of the Sphinx were not identified on the figure or discussed in the paper. The presence of these high seismic velocities are further evidence that the Sphinx was not weathered by precipitation.
"Manu wrote: The Nile bed was much deeper during the African Humid period, hence the floodplain, as was the Mediterranean Sea level was lowers."
You: "The Sphinx is located within the Nile floodplain. Meaning that had it existed during the African Humid Period it would have been destroyed by the erosive force of the Wild Nile. The African Humid Period lasted from 12,000-5,500 years ago. However, the Sphinx shows no sign of river erosion. This fact alone is sufficient to show the Sphinx is not older as Schoch and others believe."
My response:
I first recite your argument: The floor of the Sphinx ditch is 20 meters above current Sea Level. The neck of the Sphinx is at 33 meters ACSL. The top of the head is at 40 meters ACSL. You have interpreted the data published in the Shisha et al. PNAS paper to mean that seasonal floods of a reconstructed Khufu branch of the Nile during the African Humid Period would have undermined the enclosure walls, and eroded any statue and temples that may have existed. Therefore, we wouldn't be observing either in their current state-for example the enclosure walls should be undermined, not everted-and no one in their right mind would have build them in the first place while the Nile came up this high.
We disagree on the quantification of the flood levels that can be reconstructed from the data presented by Shisha et al. If you want to claim that flood water reached up to 20 meters ACSL then you should be able to see evidence of water erosion, e.g. Karst formation, elsewhere on the plateau at equivalent sea levels, for example the escarpment that terminates the East Field, or the east face of Jebel Gibli. On the other hand, there is evidence of subterranean Karst formation, i.e. at lower elevations, and other geologists have commented on this.
You: "Manu gets around this by claiming that during the African Humid Period, the Nile riverbed, like the Mediterranean, was at a substantially lower elevation. Hence the Sphinx was no longer within the Nile floodplain. Given that the Sphinx is located 100 miles (160 km) from the Mediterranean Sea that would seem unlikely. If Manu knows of any scientific papers on this subject, I would be very interested."
My response:
Unlike you, I am citing data. I am not "getting around," Dr. Schneiker. Please review the 14C-dated sediment levels of Core 1 and 4 in the Shisha et al. paper. Also, there is a sizable collection of drill core date from all across the Delta published by the Smithsonian Institute. These data are indispensable, if you want to get an idea of the depth of the arms of the Nile and its floodplain during the Holocene, and even earlier in some cores.
Mediterranean Sea Levels: Ehud Galili, Jonathan Benjamin, Vered Eshed, Baruch Rosen, John McCarthy, Liora Kolska Horwitz. A submerged 7000-year-old village and seawall demonstrate earliest known coastal defence against sea-level rise. From the paper: "Between 9000 and 7000 BP, MSL rose ca. 8m (from -16 to -8m), at a mean annual rate of ca. 4mm/year. From 7000 to 4000 BP, MSL rose an additional 8m (from -8m to the present level), at a mean annual rate of ca. 2.6mm/year."
To sum this up, The Nile, its branches, the floodplain, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile Valley were at significantly lower elevations relative to the elevation of the Sphinx ditch during the AHP. You cannot draw qualitative conclusions without quantifying the data and observing geological evidence of rock erosion due to flood waters. You are speculating. Also, Shisha et al. found water-proximal plant pollen at C1 and C4, even as early as the tail end of the AHP, their earliest time span. Just like Elkhorn coral survival and terracing is a proxy for flood heights, any plant life able to sustain itself at the banks of this hypothetical Khufu branch tells you that floods could not possibly have been as high as you think. The biggest misconception I see abound with respect to the Shisha et al. paper is that they were able to reconstruct absolute flood levels relative to current or past seal levels. They didn't. Their flood levels are a) relative, and b) reconstructed based on relative pollen amounts used as a proxy for floodplain flora.
You: "Thickness. Manu wrote: Schneiker doesn't know how big the Upper Member substrate was from which the head was made, and neither does Mark Lehner. The geologic strata at Giza is a simple layer cake pattern that dips slightly to the southeast. As a result, it is not difficult to estimate the original thickness of the Member III limestone. I agree with Egyptologist George Reisner that the top of the Sphinx head marks the original surface at Giza. The presence of a wadi to the south of the Sphinx indicates the Member III capstone was originally covered by a softer geologic strata that has since eroded away. A more accurate thickness could be obtained by drilling a boring to the south of the Sphinx. Still the actual thickness exposed at Giza would have been irregular and somewhat thinner due to millions of years of erosion."
My response: No way to prove it, Dr. Schneiker. It's all opinions. There is no way for your to know what has been carved away. Therefore, you cannot falsify a competing model that says the statue had a bigger head. This is not how you prove your case, especially when your are staring at evidence that contradicts your model. The competing model of a prior lioness statue does not, in fact require a much larger substrate lump of rock, as Rob Neyland who is a world champion sculptor has shown.
You: "Wind Erosion. Manu wrote: Contrary to what Robert Schneiker states in this video, Schoch compared the erosion pattern of the Sphinx and enclosure to other monuments nearby and concluded that there are features present on the former not present on the latter, for example the mastaba of Debehen. Manu is correct in saying that Schoch has compared the erosional pattern on the Sphinx with other monuments at Giza, including the Tomb of Debehen. To Schoch the Tomb of Debehen is an example of erosion by windblown sand. I have examined the Tomb of Debehen myself. I conclude there is little evidence of erosion by windblown sand or any other natural erosional process. The reality is the Tomb of Debehen, the Sphinx, and other below grade monuments at Giza were buried in windblown sand for most of the past 4,500 years which protected them from erosion.
My response: The horizontal defects across the rock-cut mastabas on the west end of the Central Field cut through the jambs of these mastabas, and, there is no shelve to hold casing stones. The faces of these mastabas are smooth. The rock face is the casing.
Also, further down on both the east and south faces of the mastaba of Kai you can see how the horizontal defect cuts through the human-made niches. This is not consistent with your model of human-made quarry marks. If you want to see quarry marks, then you should visit the Khufu quarry remnant on the south side of the Khafre causeway, near the Pyramid Temple. There, you will see tool marks left behind by the stone masons. For open pit stone extraction, you should take a look north and west of Khafre's pyramid.
In neither case, do you see the vertical/oblique defects as you see at the Sphinx. You model of vertical defect formation lacks a positive control elsewhere on the plateau, and especially in the Central Field. The few oblique and vertical erosion features have actually been morphologically classified by an Egyptian team of geologists that surveyed the Giza Plateau in the 1987. Paleokarst processes in the Eocene limestones of the Pyramids Plateau, Giza, Egypt by Aref and Refai. I will let you examine figure 3 in their paper and decide for yourself if you think the vertical/oblique defects in the Central Field are phreatic or vadose in formation.
You: Seismic Tomography. Manu questions why I used the seismic tomography survey by Dobecki and Schoch. Suggesting I should look at the seismic refraction survey instead. The seismic tomography survey maps the 2-dimensional distribution of seismic velocities at the level of the Sphinx Enclosure floor. Seismic tomography, unlike seismic refraction, offers a means of obtaining seismic velocities from beneath the Sphinx. Making it an ideal tool to test for an older Sphinx. Schoch reasoned that if the Sphinx was exposed to precipitation the limestone of the enclosure floor would have weathered more than the limestone beneath the Sphinx. All things being equal, Schoch reasoned the seismic velocity beneath the Sphinx should be higher than that of the weathered limestone of the enclosure floor. This is because the Sphinx itself would have protected the limestone beneath from weathering.
My response: I am going to prepose the main observation of the Dobecki/Schoch paper: The low/high velocity boundary is more than twice as deep beneath the surface of the ditch on its north, south, and east sides than its west side. This is the raw observation. It has nothing to do with what's under the Sphinx, not does the analysis depend on it. The reason why seismic tomography was performed was to detect voids, not to compare perimeter decay to an internal standard obtained by measuring rock soundness beneath the statue. By all means, contact Robert Schoch or Thomas Dobecki and verify what I am writing here.
The most basic conclusion from this observation is that three sides of the ditch were exposed to the elements long before the fourth, the narrow channel behind the haunch. This conclusion must be appended with the qualification that the data are measuring what Dobecki and Schoch thought they were measuring, time-dependent sub-surface rock decay. Colin Reader's critique targeted this qualification (i.e., he thought the data reflect the west-to-east component of the dip), but the experiment controlled for it by measuring two different elevations of the Lower Member, north and south.
The rationale you are citing addresses a different data set: How deep is the velocity boundary around the Sphinx compared with its depth below the statue. To make that comparison, you would compare refractive and tomographic profiles. But this isn't why Dobecki and Schoch performed tomography. As per their comments, they noticed geophone ringing between 25 and 31 meters of S1 and between 45 and 49 meters of S2. They attributed this ringing to nearby voids. On the other hand, Anomaly D, a high velocity signal between 32 and 55 meters had no effect on the refraction trace, please review the boundary trace shown in figure 4a between those meter markers and compare to the rest of the trace. This directly contradicts what you stated in this video, Dr. Schneiker.
You: "Unfortunately for Schoch the seismic velocities beneath the Sphinx were actually lower than the enclosure floor. Schoch gets around this by saying the lower velocities beneath the Sphinx indicate voids at depth. The argument fails as the horizontal 2-dimensional seismic tomography measured seismic velocities at the level of the Sphinx Enclosure floor. As such it would not be capable of detecting voids at depth."
My response: Schoch isn't getting around this, Dr. Schneiker. The experiment was designed to detect voids, which by their very nature, slow down seismic conduction, independent of rock decay due to exposure at the surface to the element. You misunderstood the experimental design, and I think I now understand why looking at the way the paper's figures and headings line up.
The observation you must explain is what I preposed. This is what forms the core of Schoch's argument that the ditch was cut at two different times, thousands of years apart, one of those times was the Old Kingdom since we know that work was done on the Sphinx during that time.
You: "I conclude the logic of this assumption is flawed. The reality is the Sphinx was carved from a karst limestone that had been weathered underground by acidic groundwater over millions of years. Long before the Sphinx was carved. Thus, invalidating their assumption that weathering of the Sphinx Enclosure began following construction."
My response: If you didn't understand the rationale and the data, I am not surprised to came away with this conclusion. Regardless, your model has no controls and is contradicted by what you see elsewhere in the Central Field. Your model appeals to those who want to be confirmed in their belief that the Sphinx and its temples are Old Kingdom original creations.
The only way I see this go forward, ever, to some agreement between all sides is to go back with a team of peers including Schoch and repeat a set of experiments and observations that you plan ahead, observe together, and interpret based on standards that you all agree on before hand. Will that ever happen? Oh well. Not with the current monopoly over investigations that rules over Giza.
You: "The Dobecki and Schoch paper indicates the presence of a high velocity anomaly “D” north of the Sphinx. But for whatever reason high velocity anomalies south of the Sphinx were not identified on the figure or discussed in the paper. The presence of these high seismic velocities are further evidence that the Sphinx was not weathered by precipitation.
My response: I already addressed Anomaly D above. The interpretation of this unique zone (unique because it suggests a very sound, fracture free area of the Lower Member) is on page 540. It has nothing to do with either the refraction data nor the search for voids. On the south side, there is a low velocity void labelled B. The signal confirms a gravitometry signal measured by Waseda University a few years prior. Waseda also confirmed Anomaly D with the same method.
The most important Anomaly is A. This is a zone that has never been probed with a drill.
I think you need to publish your paper, Dr. Schneiker. Let your peers and Egyptologists alike give you feed-back once you are committed on paper. What we are doing here, internet debates and endless posts, won't move the needle. My suggestion is talk to Lehner and ask him to publish the cores he pulled out of the ditch in 2009 to inject some new data into the discussion. I predict that within a year we will get satellite data on subsurface voids around the Sphinx using the new Biondi method and within a couple of years you will have an entire map of subsurface Karstification of the Giza Plateau and the elevations of it.
31:00 I never heard mentioned is the base of Queen Khentkaus tomb/mustaba/pyramid near the sphynx is carved out of the bedrock and has very similar "erosion" to the Sphynx enclosure. We know the rock around it was quarried for Khafre's pyramid
Just a note, since we discussed it at the end in this talk that was recorded a couple weeks ago. My conversation with Graham Hancock on the Joe Rogan Experience has been delayed until mid-April 2024. Sorry for delaying, but it's for health reasons. You can read the statements here: twitter.com/Graham__Hancock/status/1699755690489794829
And, as usual, if you are interested in helping support me so we make more similar archaeology videos, please buy me a coffee at www.ko-fi.com/flintdibble or subscribe at www.patreon.com/flintdibble
Awesome. Looking forward to the debate!
im confused , Im at 8:12 and I thought the alt theory of erosion was referring to the walls of the enclosure , not the sphynx itself.
how do you explain the accuracy of hard stone artifacts and the machining marks.
Artisans who were well practiced and knew what they were doing.
@@danielfallu5716 That is not an explanation of how the accuracy is physically acheived.
@@Monsteriosus yes it is, because it is a lie that it can't be achieved with the available hand tools or with modern tools.
A lie you bought hard.
@@danielfallu5716 The burden of proof falls on you.
@@danielfallu5716 Go to Europe and India, you will see hard stone artifacts of a better quality then the Egyptian ones, from the ancient era, all the way to the modern era. The real mystery is why do you believe the Egyptian ones are special?
Yayyy! Diving into this this evening
It's funny how the causeway wall the Egyptians built has the same erosion as the 'original walls' which are supposedly older.
Don’t worry, the person post the video won’t reply because they’re paid to make sure these type of comments don’t get traction. They’re literally just people who don’t know anything about history, but are paid to push a narrative.
Flint, just watched you a Rogan... Holy hell man... You rock!! Thank you so very much for the work you and your colleagues do. Just fascinating. I think its great that Graham got a lot of people interested in ancient archeology, but its great to have someone like you come in and clarify. Thank you!
Yup, important to hear both sides.
This isn't just a question of geology but also of stone cutting and masonry. This is not a natural cliff face, it was cut and so the soft sedimentary rock will erode much faster than an uncut face of stone.
I have subscribed after watching the JRE episode. I think you've smashed it Flint, on many occasions Graham didn't even have anything to answer
An interesting aside that occured to me yet I rarely hear mentioned in these discussions is that it is even simpler to disprove this Hancockian notion that the Sphinx pointed towards leo 12,500 years ago, or for rhat matter that Gobekli Tepe carvings depict astrological signs dating form 11,000 years agoo is simply that those concepts didn’t actually exist that long ago. The Zodiac system was first invented by the ancient Babylonians in 500BCE and the modern system that we're all familiar with derives from ancient Greek adaptations dating from 200CE so those theories are instantly redundant.
Dinner and a movie?
Great chat on JRE Flint ~ We were waiting for that talk for a very long time and we are glad that it finally happened. You did really well with the discussion, im glad that Graham was willing to debate you! We have been following your work for a while now and we also just recently had a talk with Bob Schneiker on our channel ~ we watched this video in preparation for that. You might enjoy our series on the Serapeum ~ it was a turning point for us on our journey of learning about the ancient world and it could be helpful in your discussions of LAHT with people. Thank you for your dedication to bringing truth to the world ~ we too believe that respectful discussions about these topics can be had between all sides of the debate. Cheers!
there's no debate, graham has ideas that he then tries to find plausible puzzle pieces for, but comes up way, way short, as in no evidence at all beyond.. hey these rocks looks weird... start from the known to the unknown was a great way to put it!:) i'm a reformed conspiracy guy btw.. used to believe all that stuff.
Flint was a condescending asshole the entire time. He’d speak for 45 min let graham have 5 min then back onto incoherent ramblings for another 45 minutes this clown needs his degrees revoked as he clearly hasn’t a fucking clue what he’s talking about
@@seamarsh3756”all that stuff”
The fact that you label as such suggests you never did. Shill.
@@None_yabusiness69420I am not sure that Hancock fans actually understand the meaning of condescension. They should however, because Hancock is a master.
I discovered you on JRE, really great job debunking Hancock’s fantasies during the debate. I learned a lot. You handled yourself very well, not many would have been able to exercise so much patience when the victim card was being played over and over.
I think Hancock has an overly high opinion of his intellectual acuity. AND I think he is one of those people who has a hammer and everything looks like a nail. A little humility and a few more tools would help him greatly. other opinions may vary. Lovely chat gentlemen! thanks for posting!
Graham Hancock is a Madame Helena Blavatsky Guru.
He's arrogant, ignorant and very dishonest and spreads old outdated racist myths.
42:00 I think a good explanation of the use of "old wood to make charcoal" is the dried up former African green period trees. Trees will not rot in extreme dry conditions. There are examples of 700 year old dead trees still standing in the Sahara today.
i love how everyone has the spinx as their zoom background
@4:00, what was the sea level circa 2000bce ?
How far apart were the coastlines then ?
Nautical miles ? Tonnes of marble moved ?
Every winter season the salt i use to de-ice my concrete walkway lays a beating on it. The salt content of the giza plateau's sand is more than enough to disintegrate the layers of soft limestone.
Not related to the video but since I just came across you (and your work) yesterday and seeing that you don't believe in a theory that a comet or the sun caused the last (mini) ice age around 12,000 years ago then what caused this ice age from ur view point and what ended it around 9600 BC?
We are still in an ice age... Technically. You can tell by the ice on our poles. 12.000 years ago was the last Glacial period. (Besically highs and lows in temperature and ice during the ice ages. The glacial periods are the peaks, the most ice covering) Highly recommend looking into this topic if its not something you are familiar with. Its very interesting. Have a great day =)
@@redqueeen2950 Thanks for the info but I did come across or heard of what you said before at some point.
You don't just date the sphinx, you've got to really wine and dine her, take her some place fancy, get to know your wines, have topics to talk about...and have her home by 10pm
The way the nike increased its flow drastically after building the pyramids at Giza, and with their mastery of water, prehaps the pyramids were some massive pump for the nile that increased its flow into the underground chambers for use.
If an artificial rover was being channeled it could have been smack in the middpe of rushing waters.
Here on the suggestion of Dr. Miano of _World of Antiquity._
Yardangs, Hoodoos, etc. constitute an interesting topic on its own, one that has to be addressed in the context of pareidolia. Pareidolia plus magic [if it looks like X it is x] seem to form the basis of most pseudoscience. I'm glad that Prof. Miano mentioned this site, and will be a regular visitor.
I agree, and although I am ultimately unsure the head was a yardang (as quite a bit of stone used in the Sphinx temple seems to come from the upper member) it is still interesting to think how unusual stone outcroppings may have inspired early monuments.
@@danielfallu I agree, but it seems to mostly work in the other direction, assuming that natural formations were purposely built, by aliens, Atlantians, gods, etc. Ancient Architects [afaik] had a video mentioning the "Sphinx of Baluchistan." from one direction it does look like a sphinx, but from every other direction it was obviously natural.
Thanks!
Thank you for showing that the true scientific inquiry is far more intriguing than the wildest speculations of the fabulists.
Hancock doesn't speculate, he is "just asking questions" lol
created as tombs? Many would argue about that one
And they would be very wrong
@@danielfallu5716 Those pyramids are incredibly complex seems like way too much involved to be just tombs - but of course you don't know any more than anyone else when it comes right down to it it
@@rocknrollkitchen I've read as much or more as anyone who isn't paid to study pyramids, burial traditions were an early specialty of mine. And burial traditions can be more elaborate than not. Beliefs are strong things, man. Hunter S. Thompson demanded to be fired into the sky on a rocket. And he wasn't a God.
@@danielfallu5716 We are all at the mercy of our source material - what if THAT is wrong (and it often is). Millions of people base their opinions on things that are later proven to be wrong, every day.
@@rocknrollkitchen thats why archaeology uses separate lines of evidence.
The Sphinx enclosure was not eroded by 'rain weathering'. Therefore an older date for the sphinx cannot be claimed for that reason.
Agreed, claims of any features here being diagnostic to rainfall or flowing water are a bit of a stretch. What we know of the hydrology, geochemistry, and structural geology of the Plateau suggests that degree of weathering is controlling what we se.
@@danielfallu5716 Hi Daniel .. Add to that, that the Nile is 4 miles away from the Giza plateau today but was right next to it when they built there. They even made canals to get the stone near the monuments they were building. All factual, ground penetrative surveys have shown the Nile was so close. The Nile is renowned for flooding, its what made Egypt to fertile. The other thing cited for an older sphinx is that it pointed to the constellation of Leo in 10,000 bc. The great statue may be a lion, however it also is representative of Ra the sun god. The sphinx points to the rising sun every morning, pointing directly at Ra. No need for any lion/constellation link whatsoever.
@@Paul-hl8ygNo need for any lion link? How about to explain the fact it’s shaped like a lion? How is that not a reason for a link? Oh and would ya look at that if you do “acknowledge” that it just so happens to line up perfectly with the constellation of Leo which just so happens to be a lion, and it also so happens to line up with the Younger Dryas and great flood which as you pointed out it is right next to Nile so the Sphinx would have been flooded which is why it was also buried under sand for 700 years.
@@Byronic19134 No need for a leo constellation link when Ra represented in his lion form points directly at himself (Ra) every morning. To have pointed directly at the leo constellation would mean a 10,000 + year old sphinx, as it would have only pointed at leo way back then & that is not true. There is zero evidence the sphinx is that old. Nothing else shows a civilisation of 10, 000 + years old in the area either. And yes thank you after 40+ years of study, i know the body of the structure represents a lion.
I found u on Jre , Flint, Subscribed , gonna check u stuff out, Been watching lotsa Randalls( getting tired of RC now) and Grahams stuff , wanna see ur side of it...
Would've watched a four hour discussion on this lol
honestly, with all the nit-picky comments from the "other side," maybe it should have been 4 hours...
@@danielfallu definitely. The cult of lost high technology need a pedantic amount of debunking.
It began and ended with the the same message which I think is something people forget: archaeologists know what they are doing, they have a lot of different lines of evidence and decades and decades of experience in how to interpret this evidence.
This is something I see in loads of people that reject scientific consensus because they think they know better. They lack a basic respect for the expertise of people that devote their lives to the field of research. Whether they are archaeologists, climate scientists or medical experts, they are smart, dedicated individuals with tons of experience and to reject their conclusions as a lay person, like Schoch did, is disrespectful and, frankly, stupid...
Schoch is an associate professor with a PhD in geology. So quite qualified to comment.
@@bobolovski Yes, but he had taken one close look at it and concluded that all the historians, archaeologists and geologists that had previously examined it over decades and came to a fairly conclusive answer that was carried by a very, very large majority of relevant scientists, were all wrong and he had the right answer immediately despite all the evidence of the historians and archaeologists... That is hubris. He went in to the field thinking he knew better than the entire field of scientists that had dedicated their lives to such questions...
@@varyolla435 his qualifications mean he's not a 'lay person' he knows what he's talking about. And he's entitled to challenge the conventional theory with one of his own and be proved right or wrong on its merits. He's also entitled to alter his theory and resubmit for critique. That's how science progresses.
To say his theory is definitely wrong because it runs against the general consensus is close minded.
@@varyolla435 folk - including the scientific community -thought the earth was 6000 years old and created by God until very recently. This only changed when so called fringe and outlandish theories were finally accepted.
I'm not saying schoch is correct but he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
I don't think the groves around the Sphinx are caused by erosion. In the black and white photos(the ones from 1800's) you can see what looks like the true grain of the rock on the neck, chest and shoulders, and that grain is swooping up, down and all around and not conforming to the groves that I believe were deliberately cut around the body.
Is that water erosion around the sphinx enclosure ? What do majority of archaeologists think about those fishers
@HI-pi1er - It is not water erosion nor were there fishermen moored to the sculpture. Why not take the time to actually WATCH the video? Your questions are answered there.
love this!
"Instead of joking around and constantly saying 'I would ask Schoch about this or that, or I would tell him...' It would be easier to just invite him and talk. It's nice to have a discussion in a group where everyone agrees and there are no counterarguments."
All good, most of what’s put forward here makes sense and I can understand as a member of the general public, … but the guy at the bottom of the screen who repeatedly looks at the ceiling, rolling his head back, and giggles, doesn’t seem to say anything that makes much sense at all. I often found myself wondering what point he was making … to the ceiling?
What didn't make sense about what he was saying?
Beware a man who introduces himself with his PHD's
@@Monsteriosus the guy at the bottom doesn't have a PhD
Very informative and entertaining. Looking forward to the upcoming paper Bob Schneiker mentioned. The debate with Carlson would be so much fun...and this is why it will never happen😂
you are helping push the needle back the other way flint. get back on rogan, present the facts, the ingenuity and intelligence of previous humans. people are interested.
Its flood runoff. It's not all rain. It's current from receding water that eroded the sphinx. That's what it looks like. The Nile flood plain was broader, after the flood.
You mean the biblical flood? it never happened.
@@ProfezorSnayp How did clam fossils get on top of Mt. Everest?
@@aaronlarsen7447because the earth looked completely different in the cambrian and even when dinosaurs lived to now.
Mount Everest didn't exist and was still below sea level.
Are you a child have you not finished elementary school?
@@pranays Yes the mountain was thrust up, as other areas sank into deep ocean trenches, when the caverns below the waters broke open, when mainland broke into continents, when the Grand canyon was formed from cataclysmic violence. Those clam fossils could not last in that environment for millions of years. They would be weathered and gone.
43:29 who said martians built them?
Wow! It makes so much sense now. The nice facing stones that were still above the sand were robbed in antiquity to build other structures. Perhaps the Romans?
Not the video I came here for but guess I'll stay and still take notes..
My thoughts are that it was placed in the sunken area with water from a decorative area coming down the sides creating natural erosion on soil below. But I think it was a giant fountain. Surrounded by fast moving water.
With strong other than limestone, harder stone, that would have looked amazing
What about Reader's claims? This was mostly Schoch, Carlson and Hancock.
@20:00, Milancovich Cycles, bro
Here are two of the most egregious errors by Robert Schneiker, both based on his lack of properly reviewing what Robert Schoch observed and what he wrote. I am not faulting the host or the other guest since they are the disposal of Robert Schneiker in forming their opinions:
1) Water Erosion Hypothesis: Contrary to what Robert Schneiker states in this video, Schoch compared the erosion pattern of the Sphinx and enclosure to other monuments nearby and concluded that there are features present on the former not present on the latter, for example the mastaba of Debehen. Further down the hill, there are rock-cut mastabas and a quarry island called GCF1 where the erosion pattern is different. So Schoch has a negative control for his observation. The mastaba of Kai, for example is horizontally eroded and you can prove that this is erosion and not quarrying because the lowest horizontal line erodes a known human-made palace facade motive. Schneiker does not mention this. He also doesn't mention the horizontal erosion across the walls of Debhen's mastaba, and the entire Mokattam shelve as it dips under the Maadi formation. On the other hand, there is actually a positive control of intentional shelving to accomodate casing stones and that is Khentkawes. Did Schneiker show this? That is where you can see how Old Kingdom masons created shelves which doesn't look like the horizontal channels on the Sphinx he thinks are intentionally placed.
Schneiker also mis-represents the actual evidence for enclosure eversion due to water run-off, the more important of the two water effects, rain and pooled rain run-off, which is what causes Rillen (German for grooves). The negative control for this is the easternmost end of the southern enclosure wall by the VT. There, you see how the wall was spared the run-off, which Colin Reader has explained with the topography and dip of the plateau behind the Sphinx.
For Schneiker's model to work, he has to show a positive control: Show any rock-cut face at Giza that has the same vertical erosion pattern that he thinks is caused by the MECO-Effect, heat-induced CO2-blow off that caused fissuring during rock formation.
2) Seismic refraction: It is beyond me why Schneiker is using the seismic tomography data to criticize Dobecki and Schoch's refraction data. In fact, if Schneiker had made an honest effort to read the paper he would be showing figure 4 and cite Schoch's explanation of Anomaly D on the signal on pages 535-536. The void anomaly called D affects a 6-meter stretch of the refraction signal, the length of it is 80 meters. Look at the signal, Dr. Dibble. Don't take Schneiker's word for it. Does this look to you as negating the overall signal of the boundary?
At the outset, Dobecki and Schoch are measured in their mission: see page 528. Please confirm or falsify Schneikers insinuation that this paper is testing for a lost civilization to have made the Sphinx.
Here is my advice: Get a real scientist with geology background to look at the data with you. You're not gonna accept what I say. Get a second and a third opinion. This one is one big pile of limestone chips.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the evidence on the Sphinx that falsifies Robert Schneiker's theory that the horizontal grooves aren't wind/sand erosion channels, but quarried shelves made to clad the Sphinx with casing stones. The evidence can be viewed in Mark Lehner's thesis, figures 6.4-6.7. Compare this to true shelving on the west side of Khentkawes. Also, look at the orientation of these casing shelves on Khentkawes relative to the angle of the erosion channels on the Middle Member. Hence, here we have a positive control that proves that Schneiker cannot be correct about the origin of the horizontal grooves that classify the Middle Member beds according to Tom Aigner.
@@ManuSeyfzadeh That isn't anything
Authoritatively stated resting on nothing but your word in contra-distinction to evidence I cite neither you nor Schneiker cited, nor read, @@danielfallu Strong showing you're making here. I have no idea why Dr. Dibble invited you to participate on this panel without asking you to prepare for it with AT LEAST a review of Mark Lehner's thesis on the very subject you were all discussing.
@@ManuSeyfzadeh you have no evidence. You have cherry-picked studies, insinuations and logical fallacies.
I had read Lehner's thesis, as well as your "paper" on the lion symbols in advance of the discussion.
"The tablet with the whole lion is not an oil tag" does not automatically translate into "the tablet with the whole lion is actually the original configuration of the Sphinx"
Your pretend one implies the other, which is a rhetorical trick and a fallacy. Its dishonest.
This panel, as the prior production by David Miano, demonstrates that they are not in command of the literature on the subject. It begins with Robert Schneiker mis-identifiying Robert Schoch's co-author, continues with his omission of doing what real scholars do, to first recite the data instead of ridiculing what he thinks the conclusions are, and continues onward to his profound mis-understanding of the Shisha paper. The Shisha paper does not reconstruct the floodplain to an elevation equivalent to the neck of the Sphinx Dr. Dibble! Read the paper. The Nile bed was much deeper during the African Humid period, hence the floodplain, as was the Mediterranean Sea level was lowers. These are all verifiable from the literature. The Shisha paper itself identifies the 14C ages of various floodplain sediment depths. In addition to that we know the relative flood levels of the Nile from the Early Dynastic Period through the Old Kingdom: That flood level ranged between 4 and 1 meters (in cubits) as recorded on the Palermo Stone. These flood levels are estimated, in the paper, to be 40% of those during the tail end of the AHP, for which data are being presented. You do the math yourselves, but please make sure you start from a deeper Nile bed.
There is no place in this paper from which you can reasonably reconstruct a Nile flood to the elevation of the neck of the Sphinx.
Onward to Dr. Schneiker's theory. The panel here professes to be scientific. Robert Schneiker's theory has no controls, neither positive nor negative. Show us the CO2-blow off fissuring on rock-cut structures in the Central field! Schneiker's excuse for not having a comparative standard is that the Sphinx ditch is unique. Prove it!
Schneiker's "evidence" for the small head of the Sphinx, relative to body, is a modified version of that of Lehner: There wasn't enough fissure-free rock to make a bigger head. This isn't evidence, this is pseudo-evidence out of thin air. Schneiker doesn't know how big the Upper Member substrate was from which the head was made, and neither does Mark Lehner. How could they? The substrate is gone, carved away. The only reason why you folks find this appealing is because it confirms your biases that Khafre made the Sphinx from scratch. What is the actual evidence for this? No mention of it in this video. Here it is gentlemen, for your education:
1) Lehner made a context argument that it fits in with the context of the Khafre monument
2) Lehner found Old Kingdom debris under a quarried rock in the northeast corner of the ditch
3) Lehner found Old Kingdom items in the depression on the north ledge of the Sphinx ditch.
4) Thutmose IV mentioned the name of Khafre on the Dream Stele.
5) The temples must have been created at the same time as the substrate rock island from which the statue was made.
6) There are Khafre-era inscriptions on the granite ashlars of the Valley Temple.
7) Charcoal found in the cracks of the Sphinx Temple date to the Old Kingdom
8) Khafre statues found in the Valley Temple
9) The Sphinx Temple was left unclad and unfinished when Khafre died. Lehner found granite dust inside the ST and the NW corner is missing blocks.
10) Reisner dated the Sphinx to Khafre based on the headdress style when he found a bust of Menkaure in his VT. Prior to him Borchardt thought the head was a Middle Kingdom (re)model.
None of these falsify the alternative model that Khafre ordered an older statue and temples to be remodeled. And there is evidence for an older statue and temples coming from Lehner himself, and Herbert Ricke who surveyed the Sphinx Temple. Lehner reconstructed three phases for the VT. Ricke reconstructed an earlier phase that had two gutters no longer used in the next phase. There is iconography on written records from the First Dynasty that show a lioness statue next to a temple, that shows a lioness with chisels above her head. The mention of this lioness disappears during the reign of Khafre which is what you would expect when one cult is erased and a new one is created. And this is just scratching the surface.
The problem archeologists have when it comes to science is that they resort to context arguments that they believe give them the plausibility they need to construct probable scenarios. Neither of these are scientific standards. There is no such thing choosing the correctness of a model based on its context-informed plausibility. A valid scientific model must account for all the reproducibly observable data and make testable predictions. Robert Schoch performed a controlled seismic refraction experiment in the Sphinx ditch to measure subsurface decay of the limestone once exposed to air. The result of this experiment was that north, south, and east of the statue the signal boundary between high and low velocity is twice as deep than west of the statue. Schneiker has to explain these data. When Colin Reader tried to explain these data he thought the signal traces the dip and not decay. However, he did not consider that Schoch controlled for this by running a geophone line both north and south of the statue. Both produce the same signal depth, which is not expected if the the signal were tracing the strata dip.
All of this discussion was missing from this panel. Instead, the panel resorts to snark and ridicule. Poorer scholarship cannot be show-cased better than in this video. Good scholarship starts with first correctly citing and reciting what it is that you wish to criticize. It requires a good understanding of the scientific method, which none of the participants here appears to have a grasp on.
Not a panel, just three dudes talking.
And the flooding didn't need to be to the neck of the sphinx to preclude its construction in earlier periods, just up to the level of the enclosure, which it certainly was. That was a sneaky trick, though.
You should keep going. This is an excellent way to teach folks the rhetorical tricks you are using to make your beliefs seem more plausible.
49:08 are you assuming the entire area was all done and a finished area? Doesnt seem like that to me. maybe the causeway was only there to build and they just never got finished building the area, quarrying the area. Have you ever watched Land of Chem youtube page? awesome videos and some wild stuff there. It was a chemical plant .
Doofus recommending dingus. I love it
You also have houses made from blocks that were made by busting up arts of the avebury henge . A henge that was important in the past and important now but obviously not important when it was busted up. You also have all sorts of structures built from blocks taken from hadrians wall or other romsn structures
An old Arabic book, The Hitat, claims that the Great Pyramid is more than 72,000 years old. Maybe the Spinx is from the same age.
When was the book written and by whom? And what evidence does the author/s use to prove the date of the Great Pyramid?
@@raina4732 The Hitat was written by Al Makrizi. He tells us about the two pyramids at Gizah and that there was a body in the sarcophagus. Several times is tried to find the entrance. No sources mentioned.
@nibiruresearch Interesting it was know a body was in there though
@@redqueeen2950 That's right. The book tells us about three times that the body was discovered.
Dating the sphinx! Why was my 1st thought to picture u sat in front of it at little table with wine n candles laid out trying to make small talk with her? 😂
Heard a mummy or body has never been found in a sarcophagus
Not true. Minute 13 onwards in this video by World of Antiquity puts together much of the evidence that pyramids were tombs. Including the mummified human remains found in or near the sarcophagi in the pyramids
ruclips.net/video/asJneqxPnjU/видео.htmlsi=zr26BWSAPwIi2Fjx
can't be the only one with a ron swanson shout out...
Who'd want to date the Sphynx?
Archaeology and science have taught me one thing in my 50 years. They always think they are 100% correct about whatever it is and within a generation more than 50% of the claims are proven false. Always remember you dont know very much and should constantly be asking and questioning everything.
The nature of science is to search and update existing knowledge whenever possible.
@@varyolla435 wow, you really like the sound of your own voice. I’m simply stating, don’t accept what people say simply because they say so. Do your own research and realize the people claiming they know the answer mostly are as unknowing as you are. And yes, people should always assume the answer given is probably wrong so keep digging.
@@varyolla435 facts in the case of science and archaeology are arguable in a large percent of cases. The FACT you don’t know this shows a la k of understanding of the world. Wisdom comes from failure so hopefully yours is starting to increase. You really like to word salad a lot though.
@@varyolla435 no attacks, only observation and as you say to dispute facts you must provide other facts that dispute. Observational is one such way. Thus I observed your words and the lack of wisdom, providing you with the feedback so you can learn.
You didn’t learn that from an actual archaeologist.
Documented 230 times over millions of years. What? Who documented that?
The Green Sahara. The scientists who are, I assume still actively doing research. Soil, water and what ever else they use they can find out these things
Dan Fallu looks like one of the Thunderbirds.
I think it's unfair that Robert Schoch gets labeled a pseudo scientist due to his theory. He is a geologist who has come up with a genuine scientific theory and has given his opinion. It has been disputed by other geologists. That doesn't make him pseudo, science is all about theories and disputing those theories. 99% of theories ever created have been disputed.
@@varyolla435but he doesn't. If you take the time to look him up at all, you will see that he doesn't actually work with pseudo scientists. One of the main sites Hancock talks about as being evidence for this ancient civilization is the Yonaguni Monument, which he says he has made hundreds of dives to and categorically states that it is man made. Schoch has done multiple dives at the site and has come to the conclusion that while very impressive, is actually natural geological formations. He even says exactly this on his own website. He is an academy at Boston University. Yes, he came up with a theory that other geologists have said is wrong. As I said, there is nothing new there in the world of science, that happens all the time. He has also never specifically said that he believes in an ancient advanced civilization, he came up with a theory, as an unbiased geologist and came to the conclusion, albeit wrong, that it was a lot older than previously thought. It was Hancock that put two and two together and came up with ancient advanced civilization.
Pseudo science is not a title per se. You could have a legit PhD and still do pseudoscience. Pseudo is just like saying fake science. Einstein could’ve done fake science if he wanted to, anyone could even you.
@@garymaidman625Schoch very much believes that ancient civilizations were wiped out by catastrophes.
@@Eyes_Open if he does, you tell me where he says such a thing.
@@varyolla435 he went to Egypt with the assumption that Egyptologists had the dating correct. His theory of water erosion put it back further, to between 5000 and 10000 BCE. Hancock took the older age and ran with it, with no mention of the earlier estimate. Schoch, through his work at the Sphinx found a cavity underneath the Sphinx, which has since been confirmed by Egyptologists. Another site that is key to Hancock's theory is the Yonaguni Monument. Hancock has said he has dived there hundreds of times and is convinced it is man made. Schoch, on his own website, has stated that he has dived multiple times at the site and while impressive, has concluded that the site is a natural formation. The only evidence he sees of human work is touching up of the above ground structures. You say his peers reject his claims, which is actually his theory. I will counter you with the same 'so what' you gave me. Scientists in different disciplines have their theories rejected by their peers all the time. This is not a rarity, but is extremely common in science. In all of academia actually. Theories are subjected to scrutiny, very few theories that are proposed get accepted. That doesn't mean that it is bad science or that the scientist is a fraud. The fact that his methods are replicable means that it is good science, just that his interpretation of the results aren't agreed upon by other scientists. Bear in mind when he did his work at the Sphinx, it was 30+ years ago. The technology he was using was very new and not easy to understand and the technology is a lot more advanced now. Moral, just because some of these crackpots like Hancock have used his analysis to further their own narrative, doesn't mean he is in their camp. His analysis was done BEFORE Hancock and his theory, not after. Do your own research, find out for yourself, it's not hard, before jumping to conclusions and judging.
There are some weird people. This is about dating the Sphinx, but I saw a show where someone was in love with Eiffel Tower. I just can’t watch people in their depravity.
How many mummies were found in the Great Pyramids?
Because they weren't tombs. The ancient Egyptians did not claim that the pyramids were tombs … it is just a modern theory, not supported by any hard evidence. No contemporaneous bodies, mummies or human remains have ever been found in any of the Old Kingdom pyramids.
a simple search..
There's only 1 Great Pyramid...
You are misinformed. Plenty of mummified human remains have been found in Egyptian pyramids.
And a simple search would tell you this is incorrect. The intact remains of Djedkare Isesi were found in his Old Kingdom pyramid. The Pyramid of Unas also contained partial remains in the looted sarcophagus.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djedkare_Isesi
@@FlintDibble im not misinformed. they were never built to be tombs. thats ridiculous
@@sukonmiskunkso you admit you intentionally ignore the evidence, including the ham remains?
i wish i was born in the era of green sahara
And Flint one more thing ....joking about aliens etc. and talking about prof Schoch 's work as sudoscience (in the end) only proofs you've learnt nothing about being respectful. IT could be so much better without these!
@@varyolla435 No. I don't know what is the truth,but having respect for every one is basic thing, my Friend
@@varyolla435 Everyone deserves respect
@@varyolla435 God the hubris is insane. why justify being a fucking asshole bro?
you can disagree politely and respectfully without all this white noise hogwash. science is about remaining unbias, the moment you get emotional the moment your beliefs aren't rooted in science
Schoch's work is 100% pseudoscience. His initial studies were just poor science, but he pushed it into pseudoscience with his strong assertions.
Too bad Robert Ritner is gone. No one understands ancient Egypt more than him.
You can date the sphinx but she’ll never make an honest man out of you. Also, no where for the wedding ring anyway
Yeah man, I'm pumped for the debate! The fact that pseudoscience is so popular nowadays is unfortunate. People pay charlatans like unchartedX thousands of dollars to go on a tour of Egypt. That's pretty friggin' ridiculous. People can do what they want with their money. However when the product is directly attacking archeology and taking away revenue from actual experts, that's bullshit. I hope you mention the other debate with Randall Carlson to Joe. The more the better.
@@313barrygmail Generally Ben measures things with a lidar scanner that's only good to about an inch, then he wildly speculates at length. Not really science. He also goes to great lengths to avoid changing his opinion.
@@313barrygmail like that time he run away from the Ancient Presence podcast as soon as he was presented with Mariette's Serapeum report?
Also, what science is he doing? Seriously?
@@313barrygmail he scanned one vase. One. A vase which both him and the owner cherry picked out of a collection. A collection which by it's nature was a cherry picked creation. The guy said himself "my wife and I only buy ones which look as if they have high level precision." They ignore the rest. But do go on about how that's good science.
@@MrAchile13 watching that interview was so cringey 😂 guy is a total grifter.
@@_MikeJon_ what a time to be alive! You can basically talk out of your ass on you tube and gain a following of cult like fanboys who will try to defend and adore you, despite being completely illiterate on the topic they try to discuss... it's not only the case with Ben, but with a lot of fringe anti-scientific communities.
Neither an experimental scientist nor an empirical pragmatist would make any declarations about the rocks on Mars.
Who are these guys ?
Dude, it was a joke about geology.
I've dated a harpy!
I’d like to see your discussion, include Robert Schoch and Graham Hancock. You guys are smart and know your stuff, however… you’re so cocky about ancient history, like you’re absolutely, certain. You’re making a lot of assumptions as well. Also, the reference to aliens, and Martian granite is juvenile.
*Martian limestone. You sort of missed the point of the joke, and how it segued into the geological context of Giza.
I may have missed the point, but I do believe your intention was to be dismissive of those thinking outside of your interpretation, with the old UFO barb.
@@karenconley9807 nope, it was meant to be a fun segue into the geology of Giza. There is no known limestone of Mars, so the Sphinx can't be from Mars.
You take too much offense. This was not a debate, or even part of one. It was sharing facts and interpretations, as well as how archaeologists do things like interpreting difficult chronology.
Martians didn't build the pyramids, by the way. Also, archaeologists take a lot of crap from people like Graham Hancock and others while we are just trying to do our job responsibly. Let us have a little fun now and again.
@@danielfallu you mean because you’re lying and also trying to suppress anyone who’s exposing the fact of water erosion actually proving the date to be much farther back than consensus science you’re paid to push says?
Talk about gass lighting... if you want to debunk an idea you should firsr understand that idea. I would have listened to this whole video if 5 minutes in im bombarded with such intellectual dishonesty.
People like you three are part of the problem and why people dont believe anything anymore. Congrats
Are you able to cite this intellectual dishonesty?
I dont care what they tell you in school, Cleopatra was black and the Sphinx was made by Annunaki. - netflix grandma
@7:00, no, we don't know when the headdress was started, but we know the age of earliest evidence.
Doesn't speak as precisely a scientist would.
This isn't entirely accurate, we have depictions of royals earlier without that particular headdress. So we can make a slightly stronger inference that the headdress is introduced at a certain point. It's not certain, but a bit more indicative than you are making it seem.
Fallu looks like a thunderbird, thunderbirds are go.
you guys are way off the sphinxs is way to symmetrical to be done with crud chizlezes ill go one further and say it was not done by egyptians they adopted it and carved some very primitive claims that are so obviously child like in comparison to the real art that everything else is as far as quality it was leo the constellation it was created in and to represent and has been rebuilt several times as is obvious how disproportionate the head is to the body
And what is the evidence it was a complete lion?
@@danielfallu5716 To only begin to get up to speed look at Petrie's Royal Tombs, Extra Plates, Va #13 for an image of an elongated lioness next to a temple that predates Khafre by at least four centuries. This Ebony tablet was found in the Abydos grave of Horus-Djer. I will spare you the time to learn about First Dynasty Oil tags into which this Ebony plate has been assorted, quite erroneously I might add. But to be even-handed I will give you the reference for this classification: Emily Teeter's "Before the Pyramids," page 234. For general background on these tags, I refer you to Wolfgang Helck, (1987) Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, chapter 13. These tags of which there are 20, including this anomalous Ebony Tablet, typically contain information as to a significant event that marked that year in the top tiers/sectors. In the bottom sector, the quality, source, amount, and origin were variably marked. Quality is the key concept here that matters in terms of understanding that this Ebony Plate does not belong into the oil tag group into which it has been assigned. The frontal lion/lioness was the prime ḥꜣt.t fraction. The rear of the lion/lioness was the pḥ lesser end fraction of the oil fruit effluent. The ḥꜣt.t fraction was only found in the royal tombs. The pḥ fraction only in private or prince/princess mastabas, for example Saqqara. If this Ebony Tablet were an oil tag, the product would have to have contained both prime and subprime effluent fractions. There are no other clear indices on this tablet that this is an oil tag, except the hieroglyph for nw. Dr. Teeter read this as the second part of thnw, Lybian oil, however, she omitted Helck's observation that this designation only appears in grave goods of Horus-Den, twokings after Horus-Djer.
There is no such thing as an oil composed of both prime and subprime fractions in a king's tomb. There is one example of prime and whem (repeat/intermediate) fraction in a servant grave 3503-Q. In addition, as you will see, the lioness depicted is comparable in size to a nearly square temple. As I said, this is just the beginning, but all three of you have to know way more about Egyptology before we can even begin to diffuse your completely unwarranted incoming biases, since none of you are in command of the literature that applies to this topic.
@@ManuSeyfzadeh that was a lot of fancy talk to impress folks, but you never actually presented the evidence connecting the Sphinx to a full lion form, just evidence lions were associated with royalty from early on (And the Sphinx as we know it is already a royal fused with a lion). But I understand, it takes a certain level of understanding to present things simply and directly. An understanding you don't seem to have. The "broken lion" symbol has no apparent connection to Giza, and lion iconography is common anyway. This does not serve as evidence of a giant carved lion, no matter how you attempt to obfuscate.
(Note to all: this is how pseudoscientists speak, they make every effort to sound professional, all in hopes of making their house of cards cherry picked narrative more plausible, note how Manu never connected his argument to Giza)
Symmetry is actually simpler to achieve than naturalistic asymmetry
@@danielfallu this is the elitist speaking in you who is covering up the fact that he doesn't know the literature on the subject. Fancy talk is what you and Robert Schneiker do, since you have no knowledge on the subject at hand. Hence, you are bluffing. As I said, this is only the beginning. The Ebony Tablet shows a full lioness next to a temple, how many lions the size of a temple do you know from ancient Egypt? The next step is to locate where that lioness is, i.e. Giza. After that, the next step is to show how the iconography of this lioness next to a temple and royal shrine ends up with a lioness on top of it, the intermediate form in other words, before the iconography you see on the Dream Stele. All this is in the publicly available record. After that comes the hand-over from lioness to the sphinx. The very person who was Khafre's chief scribe was a priest of the very iconography that is represented in the remodeled head and he was the last to carry the lioness title. The names of the Sphinx Horemakhet and Horakhty emerge from another title of this man. Have you ever looked at any of this, or is this the first time?
The Egyptological evidence-next to the geological evidence that Schoch and Dobecki presented which no one in this panel correctly recited, in addition to the fact that archaeo-astronomers have determined that due east is not what the ancient Egyptians used to align their monuments-sums up to enough of a challenge to the Reisner/Hassan/Hawass/Lehner model that Khafre made the Sphinx de novo that a falsification test is in order. I am speaking to you in science method terms. I am talking about falsification. This is what we, real scientists, do. What you do is guessing the meaning of ancient remnants based on what you think is plausible from the context of what you previously guessed and then you flex your credentials authoritatively to dismiss any challenge from outside your field. An educated guess is what Mark Lehner did. He guessed that Khafre made the Sphinx based on a circumstantial case. I am not saying it's baseless. I am saying there is enough evidence from his own camp, which is what he lamented 30 years ago that Schoch wasn't acknowledging, that argues against his model and it is time for an experiment to put his model to a test, and this experiment is doable.
I found you through JRE. I enjoyed your input. I like Hancock but have to take his ideas with a pinch of salt. I only disliked the racism smears, drop that stuff and ill be a new comsumer of your content.
Hancock is a racist.
You should have mentioned the name Milutin Milanković who discovered the relation between astronomical cycles and climate.
The popular alt theory is as you guys said since the Egyptians were obsessed with alignment and the Sphinx is actually under base level, than the fact the thing is a lion that also happens to line up with Leo at the same time of the Younger Dryas flooding period makes perfect sense. The head dress could have easily been inspired by the maim of a lion after the Egyptians remodeled the Sphinx as we know happened. The only reason these dates were initially put down is because is was thought humans weren’t capable of having civilization that advanced that far back in antiquity and yet what we found in Turkey blows all that up in smoke.
But at the end of the day all you guys are doing is what they are doing and that’s guessing. These are all guesses. Nobody knows for certain.
The Great Pyramids are aligned to one 15th of one degree to true north and Orion’s Belt. But the Sphinx doesn’t have to be because there are lion fountains in Europe? Am I on acid? 😂
✨🌟✨🌟✨🌟👽truth
Aliens did it
Mr. Flint Dibble, I'm taking your presentation very seriously, please don't joke around so much about the aliens- it's not necessary and its not funny. I'm a layperson concentrating on what you are explaining. These alien jokes are very disruptive and distracting. Otherwise, thank you for the informative content.
Debate? 👀
Genetically, how close are the current Sudanese peoples to the ancient Egyptians?
Truth is always stranger than fiction…