In the documentary "Mystery Of The Sphinx", outlined in the post linked above, Mark Lehner & James F. Romano, mainstream Egyptologists, present their arguments for ignoring hard science (geology). Since these are very easy arguments to debunk so I thought I would get it out of the way. I would like to point out that while I'm debunking these guys they are already ignoring the hard science of geology and so they are really nothing more than cultists, so the fact that I can make their beliefs seem even more backwards and out of date should come as no surprise.
The following is what Mark Lehner said followed by a piece by piece analysis.
Dr. Mark Lehner, Egyptologist from the University of Chicago: My own reaction as a non-geologist is I was waiting to see some hardcore data that the weathering to the Sphinx is in fact water induced. Induced by the periods of rain such that it has to date during the period with more heavy rains. I didn’t see any evidence. I saw many slides that yes this dramatically undulating profile of what we call number two (?) of the Sphinx… but various people, mostly… well, various people standing in the view but I didn’t see any data that convinces me one way or another that it is in fact rain inducing. Our reaction is if it was birth (?) by a civilization or a culture that is that much earlier where is the other evidence of this culture? Where? Show me a pot shard. Show me a tomb. Show me an inscription. Show me any other piece of sculpture. Show me any archaeological site that dates to this period.
Mark's words are in bold italic and mine are in regular type.
Mark: My own reaction as a non-geologist is I was waiting to see some hardcore data that the weathering to the Sphinx is in fact water induced.
When a bunch of GEOLOGISTS are explaining their scientific observations to you, you ARE receiving hardcore data. For this not to be hardcore data you would have to debunk ALL of Geology. In other words, the first piece of the argument is so bad that I wonder if he is trying to protect his degree/reputation from being dragged through the dirt by a non-Egyptologist.
Mark: Induced by the periods of rain such that it has to date during the period with more heavy rains.
That evidence was also provided by Geologists and historical data such as the sort you can find online on any reputable science site;
Live Science: Sahara Was Once Lush & Populated
Mark: I didn’t see any evidence. I saw many slides that yes this dramatically undulating profile of what we call number two (?) of the Sphinx…
As I outlined in a previous post (Geologists Agree That The Sphinx Has Rain Erosion Patterns On It Indicating It Was Built Before 5000 BC! 2500 Years BEFORE Mainstream Egyptologists Claim It Was Built!) there are certain features that, with an explanation, even a child can understand and observe accurately. I wonder what Mark is up to?
Mark:... but various people, mostly… well, various people standing in the view but I didn’t see any data that convinces me one way or another that it is in fact rain inducing.
"various people standing in the view" is a clear sign that he's lying, in my opinion. There is more than enough visual data from Wikipedia to notice the types of erosion on the Sphinx. Mark is definitely lying. May I suggest we ask him if he is willing to take a lie detector test? If he says no that is probably good enough to indicate he's lying and doesn't want to be caught given how much the science of lie detection has advanced in our time.
Mark: Our reaction is if it was birth (?) by a civilization or a culture that is that much earlier where is the other evidence of this culture? Where? Show me a pot shard. Show me a tomb. Show me an inscription. Show me any other piece of sculpture. Show me any archaeological site that dates to this period.
When a bunch of GEOLOGISTS are explaining their scientific observations to you, you ARE receiving hardcore data. For this not to be hardcore data you would have to debunk ALL of Geology. In other words, the first piece of the argument is so bad that I wonder if he is trying to protect his degree/reputation from being dragged through the dirt by a non-Egyptologist.
Mark: Induced by the periods of rain such that it has to date during the period with more heavy rains.
That evidence was also provided by Geologists and historical data such as the sort you can find online on any reputable science site;
Live Science: Sahara Was Once Lush & Populated
Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.
But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.
...
Humans also frolicked in the rain pools, as depicted in rock art from Southwest Egypt.
In the more southern Sudanese Sahara, lush vegetation, hearty trees, and permanent freshwater lakes persisted over millennia. There were even large rivers, such as the Wadi Howar, once the largest tributary to the Nile from the Sahara.
"Wildlife included very demanding species such as elephants, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles, and more than 30 species of fish up to 2 meters (6 feet) big," Kroepelin told LiveScience.
A timeline of Sahara occupation [See Map]:
- 22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.
- 10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.
Mark: I didn’t see any evidence. I saw many slides that yes this dramatically undulating profile of what we call number two (?) of the Sphinx…
As I outlined in a previous post (Geologists Agree That The Sphinx Has Rain Erosion Patterns On It Indicating It Was Built Before 5000 BC! 2500 Years BEFORE Mainstream Egyptologists Claim It Was Built!) there are certain features that, with an explanation, even a child can understand and observe accurately. I wonder what Mark is up to?
Mark:... but various people, mostly… well, various people standing in the view but I didn’t see any data that convinces me one way or another that it is in fact rain inducing.
"various people standing in the view" is a clear sign that he's lying, in my opinion. There is more than enough visual data from Wikipedia to notice the types of erosion on the Sphinx. Mark is definitely lying. May I suggest we ask him if he is willing to take a lie detector test? If he says no that is probably good enough to indicate he's lying and doesn't want to be caught given how much the science of lie detection has advanced in our time.
Mark: Our reaction is if it was birth (?) by a civilization or a culture that is that much earlier where is the other evidence of this culture? Where? Show me a pot shard. Show me a tomb. Show me an inscription. Show me any other piece of sculpture. Show me any archaeological site that dates to this period.
Sure, no problem.
Here is a trace of Megalithic Cultures from 9500 BC down to recent times...
Tracing Lost Megalithic Cultures From 9500 BC To The Present
Here is a quick outline of how different aspects of our culture (stuff we still do today) can be traced well into the Paleolithic age...
Tracing The Sources Of Our Culture To The Paleolithic Age... With Art & Music Being Well Over 40,000 Years Old!
Debunking James F. Romano - Curator of the Egyptian collection at the Brooklyn Museum
James: “We’re relatively certain of the accuracy of our reconstruction of Egyptian civilization because if we were to take the alternative view, think of what we’re stuck with. We have an antediluvian civilization with all the trappings of later pharaonic civilization like the Sphinx with the characteristic Egyptian head cloth or the characteristic use of the lion in the guise of the king, and then you have nothing.
This is a better argument from the Cult of Egyptology. But it shouldn't bee seen as a logical one because ignoring a hard science in favor of not having a theory to begin with isn't a science but a cult. That said, these are questions that finding the hard scientific facts need to be asked and answered by the professionals... who happen to be novice explorers like in the early age of science as the "professionals" are nothing more than accredited cults.
Quote form the Guardian on Gobekli Tepe: "Look at this", he said, pointing at a photo of an exquisitely carved sculpture showing an animal, half-human, half-lion. "It's a sphinx, thousands of years before Egypt. South-eastern Turkey, northern Syria - this region saw the wedding night of our civilization." - Article: 7,000 years older than Stonehenge: the site that stunned archaeologists Circles of elaborately carved stones from about 9,500BC predate even agriculture
James: You have nothing for 1000 years, 2000 years and then it starts up again. Where’s the link? What ties this antediluvian culture to what came later? Are you saying that two exactly parallel cultures evolved at the same place, 3, 4, 5 thousand years apart?
This is actually normal in the world of, what I'm guessing must have been, Megalith temple, ritual, worship and dance areas for those cultures. In this post I outlined this possibility based on the behavior/construction of other megalithic sites:
Was The Egyptian Pyramid Complex Built Up Over Time? From About 10,500 BC To About 2,500 BC?
James: It sounds like a star trek episode. It simply doesn’t work that way.
It DOES work that way and Star Trek DID use history and theories in it's story making... so poor Egyptologists are right and wrong at the same time though this time due to a lack of knowledge about TV shows
James: Culture evolves in a linear fashion. To accept the theories that you’re reporting means that you’ve got culture A, culture B, and in between nothing. And it simply doesn’t work that way”
This is a better argument from the Cult of Egyptology. But it shouldn't bee seen as a logical one because ignoring a hard science in favor of not having a theory to begin with isn't a science but a cult. That said, these are questions that finding the hard scientific facts need to be asked and answered by the professionals... who happen to be novice explorers like in the early age of science as the "professionals" are nothing more than accredited cults.
Anyways, to the debunking on this guy. It isn't necessarily, originally, a Sphinx, although a sphinx appears to have been found at Gobekli Tepe so I won't go into it any further here.
Quote form the Guardian on Gobekli Tepe: "Look at this", he said, pointing at a photo of an exquisitely carved sculpture showing an animal, half-human, half-lion. "It's a sphinx, thousands of years before Egypt. South-eastern Turkey, northern Syria - this region saw the wedding night of our civilization." - Article: 7,000 years older than Stonehenge: the site that stunned archaeologists Circles of elaborately carved stones from about 9,500BC predate even agriculture
James: You have nothing for 1000 years, 2000 years and then it starts up again. Where’s the link? What ties this antediluvian culture to what came later? Are you saying that two exactly parallel cultures evolved at the same place, 3, 4, 5 thousand years apart?
This is actually normal in the world of, what I'm guessing must have been, Megalith temple, ritual, worship and dance areas for those cultures. In this post I outlined this possibility based on the behavior/construction of other megalithic sites:
Was The Egyptian Pyramid Complex Built Up Over Time? From About 10,500 BC To About 2,500 BC?
James: It sounds like a star trek episode. It simply doesn’t work that way.
It DOES work that way and Star Trek DID use history and theories in it's story making... so poor Egyptologists are right and wrong at the same time though this time due to a lack of knowledge about TV shows
James: Culture evolves in a linear fashion. To accept the theories that you’re reporting means that you’ve got culture A, culture B, and in between nothing. And it simply doesn’t work that way”
That statement is incorrect as the signs of culture are very clear AND traceable.
Tracing Lost Megalithic Cultures From 9500 BC To The Present
Tracing The Sources Of Our Culture To The Paleolithic Age... With Art & Music Being Well Over 40,000 Years Old!
Was Ancient Egyptian Culture Influenced By Shamans & Shamanism In Its Early Development Stages?
Was The Egyptian Pyramid Complex Built Up Over Time? From About 10,500 BC To About 2,500 BC?
Evidence is clear.
Note: This debunking takes for granted that Egyptology is nothing more than a cult as it rejects hard science such as that explained in the background post on what Geologists say about the age of the Sphinx because of the rain erosion patterns on it. Geology and the accepted views of multiple geologists IS hard evidence, my own analysis should be seen as secondary no matter how badly I just debunked the Egyptologists. Hard science comes first. Geology is a physical science Egyptology isn't a science but a study of Egypt. If a hard science disproves a theory man came up with from fantasizing then obviously the science will take precedence in any advanced civilization. That Egyptologists and Archaeologists may be going through a dark age like psychology seems likely.
i.e.:
{Subject: Archaeology} The Fragmentation of Knowledge Part 1 [Or, The case against over-specialization in theory based academics] - This may not have all it's dates the most accurate BUT it does provide an overview of the problem with PhD's such as Egyptologists.
{Subject Psychology} Fragmentation Of Knowledge 2 - [Or, The case against over-specialization in theory based academics]
When a hard science debunks a theory the polite thing to o is to redo the theory to take into account the hard scientific evidence. What theory you like or hold on to as the way to measure reality is what religious people do. Egyptology should just admit they are a cult of old theories they got from their textbooks.
The Church could once control information such as science and now cults have formed around textbooks who seek to hold scientific discovery at a standstill. Seems to be a normal part of human psychology to become so egotistical so as to create little cults around their favorite beliefs like Chimpanzees sitting in stunned fascination round their favorite &/or fun activity (not like there isn't a link through dancing). Such non-scientific and egotistical behavior does halter progress by decades if not centuries... which may explain alot of human history.
No comments:
Post a Comment