Many errors, misconceptions, and straw men here. 1) The older Sphinx theory is based on vertical erosion channels in the enclosure walls and seismic data measuring the erosion of the rock under the ditch. This has nothing to do with Edgar Cayce, Mars, Hall of Records, or Atlantis. 2) While we're at it, the idea of a hall/chamber/chest of records beneath the statue of an Egyptian god comes from no later than the Middle Kingdom. See ff p.139 Wael Sherbiny, "Through Hermopolitan Lenses". Again, this is not a concept invented by Edgar Cayce 3) The Sphinx is definitely not solid. There is a 2 meter gap through the waist almost all the way down to the ditch. 4) Schneiker ignores the fact that he and Schoch, West, and even Hawass agree that repairs date all the way back to the Old Kingdom. They even agree that the weathering is much older than this time. Schneiker agrees more with the people he ridicules in the beginning than the people he thinks he is supporting. 5) The fracture behind the neck of the Sphinx is not the type of vertical erosion Schoch and West cited as evidence for water erosion. In fact Lehner himself wrote that the missing nemes tail may have broken along this fissure. Schneiker's entire argument that this fracture should have a different shape if caused by rain is a straw man. No one claimed it was exposed to prehistoric rain falls. In fact, this fissure would have been covered by the neck of the lion from which the Sphinx head was carved in the Schoch model. The vertical erosion channels are mainly on the enclosure walls because that is where centuries of run-off would have occurred. The monument itself was exposed to little run-off and mostly direct rain impact. 6) Schneiker's urban evaporation lid theory actually supports what Schoch has been saying: There is ancient erosion and there is modern erosion: Two different mechanisms. The ancient erosion was due to many centuries of heavy rain and run-off. The modern erosion is due only a few decades of air pollution and salting due to sustained rising ground water levels. Cairo monument have been under attack from modern pollution. For published evidence of this see www.stone.rwth-aachen.de/limestone_cairo.pdf 7) Schneiker ignores textual Egyptological evidence which refers to a lioness at Giza before the Old Kingdom: Mehit. These are published data he should consult. 8) Before embracing the Reisner/Hassan/Ricke/Hawass/Lehner theory of a 4500-year old Sphinx, Schneiker should look at the evidence they present which dates it: Old Kingdom trash under an abandoned block to the northwest of the Sphinx Temple. That is it. All other evidence is indirect based on building sequence and presumed building logic, e.g. the builders would not have left a drain channel in the causeway if the Sphinx had already existed. This notion is based on the assumption that the Sphinx ditch was meant to be kept dry. Where does that notion come from? It is an assumption and that's it. 9) Schneiker makes it seem as if the older Sphinx theory is based on rain on only the Sphinx. This is of course not so. The negative controls are any likewise rock-cut monuments nearby made from the same limestone layers of the Mokkatam formation...for example the rock cut tombs to the west of the Sphinx and the mastaba of Kai and that of Khentkawes. Does Schneiker see vertical erosion channels in those monuments? I don't. 10) Schneiker ought to check to see who originally went to Egypt to find the Hall of Records and ended up drilling on that psychic hunch instead of where seismic data generated by Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobecki were pointing even when given a second chance in 2009. Hint: It was not Robert Schoch or John Anthony West. 11) When it comes to invasiveness: Schneiker should count the number of drill holes around the Sphinx and then find the holes left by seismic refraction testing. None of these holes were made in accordance with the data on position and estimated depth of measured voids. In summary, this presentation is highly misleading and non-scientific. The presenter needs to do a lot more reading and present the information in more scientific manner fairly debating the evidence on all sides of this argument. The worst thing to do is to personally ridicule the people behind opposing evidence with the nonsense Schneiker presents in the beginning which is only meant to manipulate the audience into a prejudiced view of the facts. This is the worst you can do in an honest scientific debate. If anyone is pseudo-scientific here it is Schneiker himself.
Thank you. I have never actually heard how Egyptologists explain this before. I am honestly shocked. I knew there was some bullshit involved but I never suspected it was a great pyramid sized pile. Your critique of his presentation is 100% accurate and honestly a little too kind. I managed to sit through about 30 of the first 47 minutes. I skipped ahead just after he mentioned martians. I do listen to opposing views but I just couldn't take any more. Egyptology is not a science. Zahi Hawass has made it a religion.
I see this kind of strawman or ad hominem attacks a lot, even with professors and scientists. I am not sure whether it is intentional or they just have poor formal logic skills. But it hurts my head to see this kind of debate again and again. You see a good example of ad hominem and strawman in the Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock vs Michael Shermer/Marc Defant Joe Rogan debate.
Love you. I could feel everything your saying even without the full knowledge base to back up my intuition. Manipulation. He doesn't feel like an authority figure to start with. Pseudo science.
So this is how you debate evidence? By making up stories about mars? I never heard Schoch talking about Mars. It would like a fact based debate and the beginning of this talk already let’s me know where this is going. Disappointing
He basically admitted he's just a businessman with a company who was engaged to counter Dr. Schoch's theory, their's nothing organic or scientific to this endeavour, and he fails miserable at countering the specifics of Schoch's arguments, his entire talk is generalization and name calling...
Schock is neither a geomorphologist or a geoarchaeologist and specialists trained in those professions ,who are better qualified to speak on the subject, dispute his speculations.
@@placova By all means post a link to those specialists counter theories, I have not seen one single such counter that is even remotely grounded in practical logic or common sense so it would be a pleasant surprise...
Disapointing presentation, he spent a lot of time downtalking everyone else's ideas rather then his own and providing his interpretation of the evidence. Wasted a lot of valuable time.
The Air Force doesn't debate UFO cranks. The Royal Society doesn't debate bigfoot cranks. The WHO doesn't debate anti-vaccine cranks. Debating cranks only gives them undeserved notoriety.
@@ambulocetusnatans "The Air Force doesn't debate UFO cranks." No, now they just release the video and say, "We don't know what it is but fuck is it fast"
The best way to combat wrong information is by comparing it to good information. That being said, idk if Schoch would debate him. That being said, I’m familiar with Schoch and his argument, and nowhere does he mention aliens. Not once.
@@ambulocetusnatans There were civilisations in Egypt that pre dated the pharoahs, is that a crank thing to say? humans just popped up in Egypt from nowhere and built the pyramid and sphinx? is that what you think? like Lehner? and you call people cranks? Nobody's talking about way out theories of Bigfoot or UFOs, Schock's work is actually objective examination backed by proper geological expertise, Lehner on the other hand.. is backed by ego, a few good ideas but not really answering the mysteries anywhere CLOSE to Schock's compelling and rigorous arguments. But anyone who threatens to upset the establishment will be labelled a crank, that's how you protect faltering theories from being exposed. Crank.
@@motherofallemails Just because Galileo was persecuted does not mean that everybody who is persecuted is another Galileo. Anytime a new theory becomes accepted, it is because of peer review from other scientists, not debates in youtube comments. Science is a method, not a class of people.
The introduction of this lecture amounts to slander. Firstly, John Anthony West was not anti-science, his thesis was trying to apply actual science to archaeology and it's chronology which lest we forget is fixed to prove the Bible. Secondly, he had no interest in the work of Edgar Casey. He used to refer to those who follow the ideas that this idiot is trying to ridicule as "Sichininnies". His "pro-magic" stance is that the Egyptians believed in magic, which they did. JAW did not. This speaker deliberately tries to conflate the work of JAW with with the work of Graham Hancock with whom he never worked. What the two men had in common was that they both believed that civilization was much older than mainstream science claims, which again lest we forget is a theory set 150 years ago to prove the chronology of the Bible. What they posited is that civilization is around at the time that Papta Plays and Gobekli Tepe, which I presume this speaker thinks were built by Lucy. I
What JAW and Hancock have in common is that they make claims which sound like science, to the layman not savvy in the process of science. But after a cursory examination of the "science" they base their claims on, its easy to see they are charlatans. To call them pseudo-scientists is an insult to pseudo-scientists. They are hacks and frauds, preying on a general public's lack of science education.
Hancock is a journalist, West was a mystic. Neither claim to be scientists. The bulk of what west presents comes from interpretations of the Egyptian religion originally put forward by schwaller. Id say calling West anti science isn’t unfair because he was anti science. It’s not a debate that’s going to be settled in the arena established by science because it isn’t science. Archaeology is hardly science, the collection and cataloging of archaeological data is a science. The interpretation of the data is much more philosophical and based on current knowledge.
Managed to get 12 minutes in but can't take any more. This is just a whiney voiced soy boys opinion attacking the new researchers who dare to disagree with established archeology.
Schneiker does not present any evidence against the erosion pattern on the top of the benches of the quarry surrounding the sphinx, I am sorry but when you carve blocks to construct the pyramid or the temples around , you do not smoothen the edges of the bench tops and increase fracture width... This presentation is definitely not the presentation of a scientist.. what did he specifically do ? compile slides from other people to try to debunk the water erosion patterns on the sides of the quarry without even showing them (visible here on a random site taken on google image www.davidpbillington.net/southwalllarge.jpg )...Not even mentioning that his percolating theory does not work when the benches are also walls of internal temples presenting no erosion. The only interesting point he is making in his presentation is the MECO facies changes between the head and the bottom of the sphinx which is quite interesting but does not bring anything on his (non) demonstration. Put randall in front of this pseudo geologist (i am a geologist as well), and i would have a very good laugh. University of wisconsin biotechnology center should avoid trying to do geomorphology demonstration... A side comment, "they took stones to build mosque" the guy lost it completely with such a comment.
"I had no idea what/who that was." He seems to say that a lot. It's like he's been told to do a school project on something he knows barely anything about. Randall would have this guy for breakfast. :)
Last gasp to save traditional academic civilization paradigms. Should say everything that he predicts Sphinx will end up in Ocean due to global warming. Eyes rolled back when I heard that. Look at the climate data going back to last Ice Age. Average temperatures have been relatively flat since the end of the Younger Dreyfus (aprox 10000-9000 BCE). Normal state of earth is an ice age with intermediate warm periods. Also ignores walls around the Sphinx with deep water erosion as others have commented on. One thing I noted too is that *** HIS BIO DOES NOT SHOW THAT HE HAS EVER VISITED EGYPT, EVEN ONCE ***. Dr. Schoch stated that he realized within minutes of visiting the Sphinx for the first time, that the traditional explanations claimed by Egyptologists were incorrect.
Robert Schoch's has a lot of fringe views, including believing that there were ancient astronauts, that telepathy and telekinesis could be real, and that all pyramids across the world are evidence of an older advanced civilization. *You know... dumb shit.* Just because he said something once doesn't make it true, and geology and archeology are not based around one person making claims that remain unchallenged and little pricks like you becoming their annoying fanboys.
Yeah, this person comes late to the party. It does not show any proof of his findings and show little respect to science applied to the plateau before his.... own Observations...
Robert Shock has never argued the weathering on the Sphinx. It's the vertical erosion on the enclosure that's in question. His frankly rude and insulting dismissal of a tenured Phd Geologist is completely self indulgent and unworthy of any genuine researcher. This Man seems to think he's the only intelligent person to ever investigate the topic and everyone else (Unless he wants to use them as a supporting source) are laughably foolish. Can't even pronounce half of what he's referencing.
The enclosure are the remains of a quarry. The stones from that match those in the Sphinx Temple. The vertical 'erosion' is a combination of quarry cut marks and fissures in teh limestone- many of which run diagonally that wouldn't have been caused bty water erosion. Schock is not a specialist in this material and his speculations are dismissed by geologists who are,,,
Great no nonsense lecture. The line "Schneiker’s findings more than 25 years ago ...etc." in the introduction should read "Schoch’s findings ...." I suppose.
So the multi ton blocks from the sphinx enclosure were removed with pounding stones and copper tools?!. Robert Schoch talks about the weathering of the sphinx enclosure walls being classic water erosion so that happened when in the last 5k years?, I think it is evidence the sphinx enclosure was excavated in one of the other 5 thousand year periods and got water eroded when the Nile last flooded it. That dates it to 10 thousand years plus
In the interest of fairness, Schneiker is not making a case for how multi-ton blocks were moved. He did not say pounding stones and copper tools were used to move multi-ton stones. He was talking about he believes limestone is shaped, not moved. Schoch talks about weathering on the enclosure walls being precipitation induced, but geologist Jorn Christiansen agrees water was responsible but demonstates in his work how he belives it took place before the Sphinx was carved, not after the Sphinx was carved within the last 5,000 years. Consider reviewing the work of Christiansen. If the sphinx is eroded by rain water, imagine how it would look if it was eroded by vicious nile flooding - which is what Schneiker believes happened.
My point is that he implies the sphinx age is within academia's 5,000 year timeline which is copper tool territory and a conundrum regarding how the dynastic Egyptians moved the multi ton blocks. So my apologies I felt it necessary to point out a pretty important point. Secondly, Robert Schoch on his own website, I believe, mentions when he visited the site with John Anthony West in the early 90's, they found weathering on the enclosure walls AND Sphinx he attributes to rain and water 'run-off' which indicates an age of construction possibly 12,000 years ago. He also states the Sphinx would only have been affected by rain erosion not the run-off erosion also affecting the enclosure walls (ie run-off over the sides from the surrounding plateau). May I also refer you to Manu Seyfzadeh's comprehensive comments further down covering similar ground and much more.....
If you are interested in the origins of H. Sapiens (and all other members of the genus), you may enjoy watching a new theory’s short introductory video presentation ua-cam.com/video/pCJq7fKsxjs/v-deo.html (8 min.) proposing as the birthplace/natural environment of our species a permanent warm coastal fog most likely existing for 2.6 million years at the periphery of the Irish Sea Glacier (during late Pleistocene). Is proposed in parallel that the Human higher cognition is, in fact, the outcome of a few types of transgenerational traumas/inflammations. Also, as the source of all the unique skeletomuscular features of modern Humans presented in this National Geographic video is proposed a severe transgenerational photo-trauma suffered by an earlier depigmented form of our species as the individuals were adapting to their new sunny environments (the rest of the planet). The lack of pigmentation readily inferred as the result of living away from light for 2.6 my inside the said permanent warm coastal fog.
This guy thinks he's going to debunk the geologist's science ... WRONG! Gobekli Tepe has proven there were far more advanced civilizations dating back to 9000 BC ... the Sphinx needs to be seen through Occam's razor .... which means you have to understand "When" the Sphinx was carved, and which epoch makes better sense. Pointing towards LEO 10,000 years ago is a better fit.
Excellent ! I appreciate it very much. It explains a lot. 30:25 but 1 point I am against is human evolution (you shouldn't have brought this onto the table) Ouroboros moment at 1:12:54 ;) We are not from Aliens but we are no animals either. Hence ... The sphinx and religion...
What Schoch proposes is a hypothesis and what Schneiker proposes is a hypothesis - great, let's see what the evidence confirms. For now I see this lecture as water-mudding - too little proof, too much unrelated impressive words and all of that to finally say "there was no renovation, no rain, no erosion since the construction". You know well you can't prove the negative - so it's groundless speculation for now.
It isn't speculation- all the archaeological evidence points to the 4th Dynasty as the date of the creation of the sphinx. Schock goes on only one line of evidence which is open to other interpretations. Wind and chemical erosion as well as human actiion are alternative, and logical causes for what he interprets as water erosion.
@@placova I find your response out of place. 1. It only repeated what I'd heard in the video my comment was in response to. 2. Clearly you haven't read any Schoch's paper - or any his critic's. 3. You don't know who's right, so you bet on the egyptologysts rather than on random people on internet. 4. Clearly you confuse "consensus" with evidence, gatekeeping with research, faith with science, refutation with critique, paradigm shifting with generation of alternate hypotheses, zelotry with discussion, parroting with using own mind. 5. In fact the official story of the Sphinks's origins has bases as weak as Schoch's. No written testimony, no tools, no settlements, no nothing after 200 years of intense efforts. 6. Writings, the pharaohs added to artifacts to claim the authorship, are no conclusive proof. Memories of reconstruction are no proof of erection. Speculations based on assumptions are no evidence. 7. Schoch's theory, however weak, can be "debunked" only in its distorted shape, and only "based on" cherry-picked evidence. The same applies to the "official science". 8. Soon we'll see what happens when a new generation of egyptologysts, who have no personal, mercantile interest in turning blind eye on Schoch's point, takes over.
What an interesting lecture! The internet is lousy with ridiculous nonsense spouted by people who have no idea what they are talking about but non-the-less still claim they have all the answers. So much so It's become really difficult to find a coherent story told by people who actually have a clue on issues like the history of the Sphinx. What a refreshing breath of fresh air it is to come across a presentation based on reason by someone who has done proper research and is qualified to speak.
Wow , how arrogant people can get these days just because we have the technology to research and study online about a geological site on the other side of the globe, from the comfort of our homes. Searching and research the internet and visiting BOSTON to talk to a Egyptologist , does not make you the leader in the field above Robert Schoch and others who have actually VISITED the site in EGYPT. nevermind the fact that you failed to understand the competing theries. No-one is pointing to the erosion or as you claim, the carving of the body on sphinx. It is A.) the erosion on the back wall of the sphinx ENCLOSURE, the quarried out area that was cleared to use blocks to build the temple . therefore the erosion came after the sphinx enclosure and the temple were constructed . but more importantly B:) the sub surface seismic studies that the geoligist did on site, showing sentiment build up within the enclosure after the sphinx was originally carved. and C.) just to add insult to injury , his water level theory is completely incorrect as well. If he was aware of the Osiris Shaft , which begins right off the causeway a few steps toward the middle pyramid from the sphynx enclosure, he would find the entrance to a 3 tiered level shaft is dug in down to a depth of 60 meters , where only the 3rd level 50-60 meters down the ceremonial sarcophagus room for Osiris is the begining of when the water table is leaking in and filling up the 150 ft underground chamber in 5 foot of clear water.
I still don't understand how natural erosion of a rock that happened over a long time scale prove the head was carved much earlier than the entire body of evidence points to? A leap of faith, jumping to a conclusion. The lowest section is eroded and may well have been under sand at the time of carving, the main lower section has carved steps, the neck has natural erosion and some carving and the head is carved.... The original rock probably had a very rough sphinx head.. I could believe it started as a lion and the head was altered later but I doubt it a lot.
It would have been a better lecture if he wasn't taking cheap shots at Professor Schock who BTW never said it was aliens, just suggests an older civilization.
Is this guy trying to say the pounded rocks to make the Sphinx ?? Get real, get a job in construction. It can not be done ? Have you been out there ? Seen the corners on the temple ? Some kind of high technology was used.
What a waste of time. The whole premise of this lecture is based on false assumptions. I thought this guy was a scientist and in the first 10 minutes it's obvious he hasn't even read the actual papers or done any scientific research at all. He found 2 pictures on the internet and makes a bunch of baseless claims about them lol.
He never heard of Cayce, well I've never heard of this guy so I'll stick to the real geologists who already got it right. Nothing new here, just another person trying to make a name for himself by "challenging" the better teachers.
Thank you for this! Schoch is either a liar or an idiot, imo. People need to start doing their own research and stop following some wannabe Indiana Jones
Perhaps you are a layman like me, and you wonder at the validity of the hypotheses presented in this lecture. One clue will be to look at the cranks in the comments who can only make ad hominem attacks because they lack actual evidence to support their claims. Thanks for all the comments, cranks. You are doing your side more harm than good. By all means, keep talking.
It was right at the top of the list. But you can ignore it if it contradicts your hypothesis. "Manu Seyfzadeh 8 months ago (edited) Many errors, misconceptions, and straw men here. 1) The older Sphinx theory is based on vertical erosion channels in the enclosure walls and seismic data measuring the erosion of the rock under the ditch. This has nothing to do with Edgar Cayce, Mars, Hall of Records, or Atlantis. 2) While we're at it, the idea of a hall/chamber/chest of records beneath the statue of an Egyptian god comes from no later than the Middle Kingdom. See ff p.139 Wael Sherbiny, "Through Hermopolitan Lenses". Again, this is not a concept invented by Edgar Cayce 3) The Sphinx is definitely not solid. There is a 2 meter gap through the waist almost all the way down to the ditch. 4) Schneiker ignores the fact that he and Schoch, West, and even Hawass agree that repairs date all the way back to the Old Kingdom. They even agree that the weathering is much older than this time. Schneiker agrees more with the people he ridicules in the beginning than the people he thinks he is supporting. 5) The fracture behind the neck of the Sphinx is not the type of vertical erosion Schoch and West cited as evidence for water erosion. In fact Lehner himself wrote that the missing nemes tail may have broken along this fissure. Schneiker's entire argument that this fracture should have a different shape if caused by rain is a straw man. No one claimed it was exposed to prehistoric rain falls. In fact, this fissure would have been covered by the neck of the lion from which the Sphinx head was carved in the Schoch model. The vertical erosion channels are mainly on the enclosure walls because that is where centuries of run-off would have occurred. The monument itself was exposed to little run-off and mostly direct rain impact. 6) Schneiker's urban evaporation lid theory actually supports what Schoch has been saying: There is ancient erosion and there is modern erosion: Two different mechanisms. The ancient erosion was due to many centuries of heavy rain and run-off. The modern erosion is due only a few decades of air pollution and salting due to sustained rising ground water levels. Cairo monument have been under attack from modern pollution. For published evidence of this see www.stone.rwth-aachen.de/limestone_cairo.pdf 7) Schneiker ignores textual Egyptological evidence which refers to a lioness at Giza before the Old Kingdom: Mehit. These are published data he should consult. 8) Before embracing the Reisner/Hassan/Ricke/Hawass/Lehner theory of a 4500-year old Sphinx, Schneiker should look at the evidence they present which dates it: Old Kingdom trash under an abandoned block to the northwest of the Sphinx Temple. That is it. All other evidence is indirect based on building sequence and presumed building logic, e.g. the builders would not have left a drain channel in the causeway if the Sphinx had already existed. This notion is based on the assumption that the Sphinx ditch was meant to be kept dry. Where does that notion come from? It is an assumption and that's it. 9) Schneiker makes it seem as if the older Sphinx theory is based on rain on only the Sphinx. This is of course not so. The negative controls are any likewise rock-cut monuments nearby made from the same limestone layers of the Mokkatam formation...for example the rock cut tombs to the west of the Sphinx and the mastaba of Kai and that of Khentkawes. Does Schneiker see vertical erosion channels in those monuments? I don't. 10) Schneiker ought to check to see who originally went to Egypt to find the Hall of Records and ended up drilling on that psychic hunch instead of where seismic data generated by Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobecki were pointing even when given a second chance in 2009. Hint: It was not Robert Schoch or John Anthony West. 11) When it comes to invasiveness: Schneiker should count the number of drill holes around the Sphinx and then find the holes left by seismic refraction testing. None of these holes were made in accordance with the data on position and estimated depth of measured voids. In summary, this presentation is highly misleading and non-scientific. The presenter needs to do a lot more reading and present the information in more scientific manner fairly debating the evidence on all sides of this argument. The worst thing to do is to personally ridicule the people behind opposing evidence with the nonsense Schneiker presents in the beginning which is only meant to manipulate the audience into a prejudiced view of the facts. This is the worst you can do in an honest scientific debate. If anyone is pseudo-scientific here it is Schneiker himself."
Many errors, misconceptions, and straw men here.
1) The older Sphinx theory is based on vertical erosion channels in the enclosure walls and seismic data measuring the erosion of the rock under the ditch. This has nothing to do with Edgar Cayce, Mars, Hall of Records, or Atlantis.
2) While we're at it, the idea of a hall/chamber/chest of records beneath the statue of an Egyptian god comes from no later than the Middle Kingdom. See ff p.139 Wael Sherbiny, "Through Hermopolitan Lenses". Again, this is not a concept invented by Edgar Cayce
3) The Sphinx is definitely not solid. There is a 2 meter gap through the waist almost all the way down to the ditch.
4) Schneiker ignores the fact that he and Schoch, West, and even Hawass agree that repairs date all the way back to the Old Kingdom. They even agree that the weathering is much older than this time. Schneiker agrees more with the people he ridicules in the beginning than the people he thinks he is supporting.
5) The fracture behind the neck of the Sphinx is not the type of vertical erosion Schoch and West cited as evidence for water erosion. In fact Lehner himself wrote that the missing nemes tail may have broken along this fissure. Schneiker's entire argument that this fracture should have a different shape if caused by rain is a straw man. No one claimed it was exposed to prehistoric rain falls. In fact, this fissure would have been covered by the neck of the lion from which the Sphinx head was carved in the Schoch model. The vertical erosion channels are mainly on the enclosure walls because that is where centuries of run-off would have occurred. The monument itself was exposed to little run-off and mostly direct rain impact.
6) Schneiker's urban evaporation lid theory actually supports what Schoch has been saying: There is ancient erosion and there is modern erosion: Two different mechanisms. The ancient erosion was due to many centuries of heavy rain and run-off. The modern erosion is due only a few decades of air pollution and salting due to sustained rising ground water levels.
Cairo monument have been under attack from modern pollution. For published evidence of this see www.stone.rwth-aachen.de/limestone_cairo.pdf
7) Schneiker ignores textual Egyptological evidence which refers to a lioness at Giza before the Old Kingdom: Mehit. These are published data he should consult.
8) Before embracing the Reisner/Hassan/Ricke/Hawass/Lehner theory of a 4500-year old Sphinx, Schneiker should look at the evidence they present which dates it: Old Kingdom trash under an abandoned block to the northwest of the Sphinx Temple. That is it. All other evidence is indirect based on building sequence and presumed building logic, e.g. the builders would not have left a drain channel in the causeway if the Sphinx had already existed. This notion is based on the assumption that the Sphinx ditch was meant to be kept dry. Where does that notion come from? It is an assumption and that's it.
9) Schneiker makes it seem as if the older Sphinx theory is based on rain on only the Sphinx. This is of course not so. The negative controls are any likewise rock-cut monuments nearby made from the same limestone layers of the Mokkatam formation...for example the rock cut tombs to the west of the Sphinx and the mastaba of Kai and that of Khentkawes. Does Schneiker see vertical erosion channels in those monuments? I don't.
10) Schneiker ought to check to see who originally went to Egypt to find the Hall of Records and ended up drilling on that psychic hunch instead of where seismic data generated by Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobecki were pointing even when given a second chance in 2009. Hint: It was not Robert Schoch or John Anthony West.
11) When it comes to invasiveness: Schneiker should count the number of drill holes around the Sphinx and then find the holes left by seismic refraction testing. None of these holes were made in accordance with the data on position and estimated depth of measured voids.
In summary, this presentation is highly misleading and non-scientific. The presenter needs to do a lot more reading and present the information in more scientific manner fairly debating the evidence on all sides of this argument. The worst thing to do is to personally ridicule the people behind opposing evidence with the nonsense Schneiker presents in the beginning which is only meant to manipulate the audience into a prejudiced view of the facts. This is the worst you can do in an honest scientific debate. If anyone is pseudo-scientific here it is Schneiker himself.
This comment is better than the lecture. Schneiker seems to be not very well read and presents nothing credible to back himself up.
Thank you.
I have never actually heard how Egyptologists explain this before. I am honestly shocked. I knew there was some bullshit involved but I never suspected it was a great pyramid sized pile. Your critique of his presentation is 100% accurate and honestly a little too kind.
I managed to sit through about 30 of the first 47 minutes. I skipped ahead just after he mentioned martians. I do listen to opposing views but I just couldn't take any more. Egyptology is not a science. Zahi Hawass has made it a religion.
I see this kind of strawman or ad hominem attacks a lot, even with professors and scientists. I am not sure whether it is intentional or they just have poor formal logic skills. But it hurts my head to see this kind of debate again and again. You see a good example of ad hominem and strawman in the Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock vs Michael Shermer/Marc Defant Joe Rogan debate.
Love you. I could feel everything your saying even without the full knowledge base to back up my intuition. Manipulation. He doesn't feel like an authority figure to start with. Pseudo science.
Well said good sir.
So this is how you debate evidence? By making up stories about mars? I never heard Schoch talking about Mars. It would like a fact based debate and the beginning of this talk already let’s me know where this is going. Disappointing
but Schoch does believe in psychokinesis and telepathy and has said so many times... a bizarre belief based on zero scientific evidence.
He basically admitted he's just a businessman with a company who was engaged to counter Dr. Schoch's theory, their's nothing organic or scientific to this endeavour, and he fails miserable at countering the specifics of Schoch's arguments, his entire talk is generalization and name calling...
Schock is neither a geomorphologist or a geoarchaeologist and specialists trained in those professions ,who are better qualified to speak on the subject, dispute his speculations.
@@placova By all means post a link to those specialists counter theories, I have not seen one single such counter that is even remotely grounded in practical logic or common sense so it would be a pleasant surprise...
Disapointing presentation, he spent a lot of time downtalking everyone else's ideas rather then his own and providing his interpretation of the evidence. Wasted a lot of valuable time.
I'd like to see him debate Robert schoch on stage
The Air Force doesn't debate UFO cranks. The Royal Society doesn't debate bigfoot cranks. The WHO doesn't debate anti-vaccine cranks. Debating cranks only gives them undeserved notoriety.
@@ambulocetusnatans "The Air Force doesn't debate UFO cranks." No, now they just release the video and say, "We don't know what it is but fuck is it fast"
The best way to combat wrong information is by comparing it to good information. That being said, idk if Schoch would debate him.
That being said, I’m familiar with Schoch and his argument, and nowhere does he mention aliens. Not once.
@@ambulocetusnatans There were civilisations in Egypt that pre dated the pharoahs, is that a crank thing to say? humans just popped up in Egypt from nowhere and built the pyramid and sphinx? is that what you think? like Lehner? and you call people cranks?
Nobody's talking about way out theories of Bigfoot or UFOs, Schock's work is actually objective examination backed by proper geological expertise, Lehner on the other hand.. is backed by ego, a few good ideas but not really answering the mysteries anywhere CLOSE to Schock's compelling and rigorous arguments.
But anyone who threatens to upset the establishment will be labelled a crank, that's how you protect faltering theories from being exposed.
Crank.
@@motherofallemails Just because Galileo was persecuted does not mean that everybody who is persecuted is another Galileo. Anytime a new theory becomes accepted, it is because of peer review from other scientists, not debates in youtube comments. Science is a method, not a class of people.
I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, but his argument isn't quite convincing.
The introduction of this lecture amounts to slander. Firstly, John Anthony West was not anti-science, his thesis was trying to apply actual science to archaeology and it's chronology which lest we forget is fixed to prove the Bible. Secondly, he had no interest in the work of Edgar Casey. He used to refer to those who follow the ideas that this idiot is trying to ridicule as "Sichininnies". His "pro-magic" stance is that the Egyptians believed in magic, which they did. JAW did not. This speaker deliberately tries to conflate the work of JAW with with the work of Graham Hancock with whom he never worked. What the two men had in common was that they both believed that civilization was much older than mainstream science claims, which again lest we forget is a theory set 150 years ago to prove the chronology of the Bible. What they posited is that civilization is around at the time that Papta Plays and Gobekli Tepe, which I presume this speaker thinks were built by Lucy. I
What JAW and Hancock have in common is that they make claims which sound like science, to the layman not savvy in the process of science. But after a cursory examination of the "science" they base their claims on, its easy to see they are charlatans. To call them pseudo-scientists is an insult to pseudo-scientists. They are hacks and frauds, preying on a general public's lack of science education.
Hancock is a journalist, West was a mystic. Neither claim to be scientists. The bulk of what west presents comes from interpretations of the Egyptian religion originally put forward by schwaller. Id say calling West anti science isn’t unfair because he was anti science. It’s not a debate that’s going to be settled in the arena established by science because it isn’t science. Archaeology is hardly science, the collection and cataloging of archaeological data is a science. The interpretation of the data is much more philosophical and based on current knowledge.
Managed to get 12 minutes in but can't take any more. This is just a whiney voiced soy boys opinion attacking the new researchers who dare to disagree with established archeology.
It is easy to criticize the messenger when you can't criticize the message.
Schneiker does not present any evidence against the erosion pattern on the top of the benches of the quarry surrounding the sphinx, I am sorry but when you carve blocks to construct the pyramid or the temples around , you do not smoothen the edges of the bench tops and increase fracture width...
This presentation is definitely not the presentation of a scientist.. what did he specifically do ? compile slides from other people to try to debunk the water erosion patterns on the sides of the quarry without even showing them (visible here on a random site taken on google image www.davidpbillington.net/southwalllarge.jpg )...Not even mentioning that his percolating theory does not work when the benches are also walls of internal temples presenting no erosion.
The only interesting point he is making in his presentation is the MECO facies changes between the head and the bottom of the sphinx which is quite interesting but does not bring anything on his (non) demonstration.
Put randall in front of this pseudo geologist (i am a geologist as well), and i would have a very good laugh. University of wisconsin biotechnology center should avoid trying to do geomorphology demonstration...
A side comment, "they took stones to build mosque" the guy lost it completely with such a comment.
"I had no idea what/who that was." He seems to say that a lot. It's like he's been told to do a school project on something he knows barely anything about. Randall would have this guy for breakfast. :)
Last gasp to save traditional academic civilization paradigms. Should say everything that he predicts Sphinx will end up in Ocean due to global warming. Eyes rolled back when I heard that. Look at the climate data going back to last Ice Age. Average temperatures have been relatively flat since the end of the Younger Dreyfus (aprox 10000-9000 BCE). Normal state of earth is an ice age with intermediate warm periods. Also ignores walls around the Sphinx with deep water erosion as others have commented on. One thing I noted too is that *** HIS BIO DOES NOT SHOW THAT HE HAS EVER VISITED EGYPT, EVEN ONCE ***. Dr. Schoch stated that he realized within minutes of visiting the Sphinx for the first time, that the traditional explanations claimed by Egyptologists were incorrect.
Robert Schoch's has a lot of fringe views, including believing that there were ancient astronauts, that telepathy and telekinesis could be real, and that all pyramids across the world are evidence of an older advanced civilization. *You know... dumb shit.* Just because he said something once doesn't make it true, and geology and archeology are not based around one person making claims that remain unchallenged and little pricks like you becoming their annoying fanboys.
Steve Lenores you mean "YOUNGER DRYAS" (not "Dreyfus")!!
Yeah last crass just to try to hold onto old ideas... I think the pyramids 30,000 years old
8:25 so the sphinx was already ancient and covered in sand when it was first mentioned?
Yeah, this person comes late to the party. It does not show any proof of his findings and show little respect to science applied to the plateau before his.... own Observations...
Stopped watching after he ridiculed other ppl trying to find the truth.
Robert Shock has never argued the weathering on the Sphinx. It's the vertical erosion on the enclosure that's in question. His frankly rude and insulting dismissal of a tenured Phd Geologist is completely self indulgent and unworthy of any genuine researcher. This Man seems to think he's the only intelligent person to ever investigate the topic and everyone else (Unless he wants to use them as a supporting source) are laughably foolish. Can't even pronounce half of what he's referencing.
It is easy to criticize the messenger when you can't criticize the message.
The enclosure are the remains of a quarry. The stones from that match those in the Sphinx Temple. The vertical 'erosion' is a combination of quarry cut marks and fissures in teh limestone- many of which run diagonally that wouldn't have been caused bty water erosion. Schock is not a specialist in this material and his speculations are dismissed by geologists who are,,,
The comments are rich enough to allow me to move on ... after 8 mins. Lots of holes right off the bat.
Argument needs to be more coherent. Hard to follow
It was weathered by rain
Is the microphone up his nose? That's just brutal, can't do it.
He said, “it was like the silicone valley of its day” 😂 I think you meant to say silicon sir.
This should have also mentioned Milutin Milanković since the orbital cycles causing climate change are named after him.
You mean: that quarry was eroded and there before the construction...smart...very smart...dohhhhhhhhhh.
Great no nonsense lecture.
The line "Schneiker’s findings more than 25 years ago ...etc." in the introduction should read "Schoch’s findings ...." I suppose.
So the multi ton blocks from the sphinx enclosure were removed with pounding stones and copper tools?!. Robert Schoch talks about the weathering of the sphinx enclosure walls being classic water erosion so that happened when in the last 5k years?, I think it is evidence the sphinx enclosure was excavated in one of the other 5 thousand year periods and got water eroded when the Nile last flooded it. That dates it to 10 thousand years plus
In the interest of fairness, Schneiker is not making a case for how multi-ton blocks were moved. He did not say pounding stones and copper tools were used to move multi-ton stones. He was talking about he believes limestone is shaped, not moved. Schoch talks about weathering on the enclosure walls being precipitation induced, but geologist Jorn Christiansen agrees water was responsible but demonstates in his work how he belives it took place before the Sphinx was carved, not after the Sphinx was carved within the last 5,000 years. Consider reviewing the work of Christiansen. If the sphinx is eroded by rain water, imagine how it would look if it was eroded by vicious nile flooding - which is what Schneiker believes happened.
My point is that he implies the sphinx age is within academia's 5,000 year timeline which is copper tool territory and a conundrum regarding how the dynastic Egyptians moved the multi ton blocks. So my apologies I felt it necessary to point out a pretty important point. Secondly, Robert Schoch on his own website, I believe, mentions when he visited the site with John Anthony West in the early 90's, they found weathering on the enclosure walls AND Sphinx he attributes to rain and water 'run-off' which indicates an age of construction possibly 12,000 years ago. He also states the Sphinx would only have been affected by rain erosion not the run-off erosion also affecting the enclosure walls (ie run-off over the sides from the surrounding plateau). May I also refer you to Manu Seyfzadeh's comprehensive comments further down covering similar ground and much more.....
If you are interested in the origins of H. Sapiens (and all other members of the genus), you may enjoy watching a new theory’s short introductory video presentation ua-cam.com/video/pCJq7fKsxjs/v-deo.html (8 min.) proposing as the birthplace/natural environment of our species a permanent warm coastal fog most likely existing for 2.6 million years at the periphery of the Irish Sea Glacier (during late Pleistocene). Is proposed in parallel that the Human higher cognition is, in fact, the outcome of a few types of transgenerational traumas/inflammations. Also, as the source of all the unique skeletomuscular features of modern Humans presented in this National Geographic video is proposed a severe transgenerational photo-trauma suffered by an earlier depigmented form of our species as the individuals were adapting to their new sunny environments (the rest of the planet). The lack of pigmentation readily inferred as the result of living away from light for 2.6 my inside the said permanent warm coastal fog.
This guy thinks he's going to debunk the geologist's science ... WRONG! Gobekli Tepe has proven there were far more advanced civilizations dating back to 9000 BC ... the Sphinx needs to be seen through Occam's razor .... which means you have to understand "When" the Sphinx was carved, and which epoch makes better sense. Pointing towards LEO 10,000 years ago is a better fit.
Bought and paid for
This person is no credit to Wednesday Nite at the Lab. Many errors and deceptions/diversions.
Excellent ! I appreciate it very much. It explains a lot. 30:25 but 1 point I am against is human evolution (you shouldn't have brought this onto the table) Ouroboros moment at 1:12:54 ;) We are not from Aliens but we are no animals either. Hence ... The sphinx and religion...
What Schoch proposes is a hypothesis and what Schneiker proposes is a hypothesis - great, let's see what the evidence confirms. For now I see this lecture as water-mudding - too little proof, too much unrelated impressive words and all of that to finally say "there was no renovation, no rain, no erosion since the construction". You know well you can't prove the negative - so it's groundless speculation for now.
It isn't speculation- all the archaeological evidence points to the 4th Dynasty as the date of the creation of the sphinx. Schock goes on only one line of evidence which is open to other interpretations. Wind and chemical erosion as well as human actiion are alternative, and logical causes for what he interprets as water erosion.
@@placova I find your response out of place.
1. It only repeated what I'd heard in the video my comment was in response to.
2. Clearly you haven't read any Schoch's paper - or any his critic's.
3. You don't know who's right, so you bet on the egyptologysts rather than on random people on internet.
4. Clearly you confuse "consensus" with evidence, gatekeeping with research, faith with science, refutation with critique, paradigm shifting with generation of alternate hypotheses, zelotry with discussion, parroting with using own mind.
5. In fact the official story of the Sphinks's origins has bases as weak as Schoch's. No written testimony, no tools, no settlements, no nothing after 200 years of intense efforts.
6. Writings, the pharaohs added to artifacts to claim the authorship, are no conclusive proof. Memories of reconstruction are no proof of erection. Speculations based on assumptions are no evidence.
7. Schoch's theory, however weak, can be "debunked" only in its distorted shape, and only "based on" cherry-picked evidence. The same applies to the "official science".
8. Soon we'll see what happens when a new generation of egyptologysts, who have no personal, mercantile interest in turning blind eye on Schoch's point, takes over.
What an interesting lecture!
The internet is lousy with ridiculous nonsense spouted by people who have no idea what they are talking about but non-the-less still claim they have all the answers. So much so It's become really difficult to find a coherent story told by people who actually have a clue on issues like the history of the Sphinx.
What a refreshing breath of fresh air it is to come across a presentation based on reason by someone who has done proper research and is qualified to speak.
Oh so you're speaking of Randall Carlson
The funny thing is that you think that was coherent.
Wow , how arrogant people can get these days just because we have the technology to research and study online about a geological site on the other side of the globe, from the comfort of our homes. Searching and research the internet and visiting BOSTON to talk to a Egyptologist , does not make you the leader in the field above Robert Schoch and others who have actually VISITED the site in EGYPT. nevermind the fact that you failed to understand the competing theries. No-one is pointing to the erosion or as you claim, the carving of the body on sphinx. It is A.) the erosion on the back wall of the sphinx ENCLOSURE, the quarried out area that was cleared to use blocks to build the temple . therefore the erosion came after the sphinx enclosure and the temple were constructed . but more importantly B:) the sub surface seismic studies that the geoligist did on site, showing sentiment build up within the enclosure after the sphinx was originally carved. and C.) just to add insult to injury , his water level theory is completely incorrect as well. If he was aware of the Osiris Shaft , which begins right off the causeway a few steps toward the middle pyramid from the sphynx enclosure, he would find the entrance to a 3 tiered level shaft is dug in down to a depth of 60 meters , where only the 3rd level 50-60 meters down the ceremonial sarcophagus room for Osiris is the begining of when the water table is leaking in and filling up the 150 ft underground chamber in 5 foot of clear water.
I still don't understand how natural erosion of a rock that happened over a long time scale prove the head was carved much earlier than the entire body of evidence points to? A leap of faith, jumping to a conclusion. The lowest section is eroded and may well have been under sand at the time of carving, the main lower section has carved steps, the neck has natural erosion and some carving and the head is carved.... The original rock probably had a very rough sphinx head.. I could believe it started as a lion and the head was altered later but I doubt it a lot.
computer model theory
This guy is such a mud slinger. He mentions the opposition in the most reductive way possible
It would have been a better lecture if he wasn't taking cheap shots at Professor Schock who BTW never said it was aliens, just suggests an older civilization.
This makes a lot more sense than the extraordinary claims entrepreneurs make concerning the Sphinx..
What extraordinary claims? That there were people around 10,000 years ago that could could have made this?
Is this guy trying to say the pounded rocks to make the Sphinx ?? Get real, get a job in construction. It can not be done ? Have you been out there ? Seen the corners on the temple ? Some kind of high technology was used.
You're on the wrong channel, buddy. This is a science-based program.
Lol. High technology? To make corners in rock? Why'd a high-tech civilization want to build a big sphinx made of rock? Ugh, conspiracy theorists...
Why not?
You said "Get real, get a job in construction." Please look at schneikerconcrete.com/
@@puck9306 Because rocks last?
What a waste of time. The whole premise of this lecture is based on false assumptions. I thought this guy was a scientist and in the first 10 minutes it's obvious he hasn't even read the actual papers or done any scientific research at all. He found 2 pictures on the internet and makes a bunch of baseless claims about them lol.
He never heard of Cayce, well I've never heard of this guy so I'll stick to the real geologists who already got it right. Nothing new here, just another person trying to make a name for himself by "challenging" the better teachers.
Very ignorant presentation. Wrong and he is miss representing others theories.
Dude this guy is so misleading and arrogant. A bad combination for a guy who that is so unconvincing.
Nah Schoch is correct.
Bull
Rubbish 🗑
Booooo
Thank you for this! Schoch is either a liar or an idiot, imo. People need to start doing their own research and stop following some wannabe Indiana Jones
Perhaps you are a layman like me, and you wonder at the validity of the hypotheses presented in this lecture. One clue will be to look at the cranks in the comments who can only make ad hominem attacks because they lack actual evidence to support their claims. Thanks for all the comments, cranks. You are doing your side more harm than good. By all means, keep talking.
It was right at the top of the list. But you can ignore it if it contradicts your hypothesis.
"Manu Seyfzadeh
8 months ago (edited)
Many errors, misconceptions, and straw men here.
1) The older Sphinx theory is based on vertical erosion channels in the enclosure walls and seismic data measuring the erosion of the rock under the ditch. This has nothing to do with Edgar Cayce, Mars, Hall of Records, or Atlantis.
2) While we're at it, the idea of a hall/chamber/chest of records beneath the statue of an Egyptian god comes from no later than the Middle Kingdom. See ff p.139 Wael Sherbiny, "Through Hermopolitan Lenses". Again, this is not a concept invented by Edgar Cayce
3) The Sphinx is definitely not solid. There is a 2 meter gap through the waist almost all the way down to the ditch.
4) Schneiker ignores the fact that he and Schoch, West, and even Hawass agree that repairs date all the way back to the Old Kingdom. They even agree that the weathering is much older than this time. Schneiker agrees more with the people he ridicules in the beginning than the people he thinks he is supporting.
5) The fracture behind the neck of the Sphinx is not the type of vertical erosion Schoch and West cited as evidence for water erosion. In fact Lehner himself wrote that the missing nemes tail may have broken along this fissure. Schneiker's entire argument that this fracture should have a different shape if caused by rain is a straw man. No one claimed it was exposed to prehistoric rain falls. In fact, this fissure would have been covered by the neck of the lion from which the Sphinx head was carved in the Schoch model. The vertical erosion channels are mainly on the enclosure walls because that is where centuries of run-off would have occurred. The monument itself was exposed to little run-off and mostly direct rain impact.
6) Schneiker's urban evaporation lid theory actually supports what Schoch has been saying: There is ancient erosion and there is modern erosion: Two different mechanisms. The ancient erosion was due to many centuries of heavy rain and run-off. The modern erosion is due only a few decades of air pollution and salting due to sustained rising ground water levels.
Cairo monument have been under attack from modern pollution. For published evidence of this see www.stone.rwth-aachen.de/limestone_cairo.pdf
7) Schneiker ignores textual Egyptological evidence which refers to a lioness at Giza before the Old Kingdom: Mehit. These are published data he should consult.
8) Before embracing the Reisner/Hassan/Ricke/Hawass/Lehner theory of a 4500-year old Sphinx, Schneiker should look at the evidence they present which dates it: Old Kingdom trash under an abandoned block to the northwest of the Sphinx Temple. That is it. All other evidence is indirect based on building sequence and presumed building logic, e.g. the builders would not have left a drain channel in the causeway if the Sphinx had already existed. This notion is based on the assumption that the Sphinx ditch was meant to be kept dry. Where does that notion come from? It is an assumption and that's it.
9) Schneiker makes it seem as if the older Sphinx theory is based on rain on only the Sphinx. This is of course not so. The negative controls are any likewise rock-cut monuments nearby made from the same limestone layers of the Mokkatam formation...for example the rock cut tombs to the west of the Sphinx and the mastaba of Kai and that of Khentkawes. Does Schneiker see vertical erosion channels in those monuments? I don't.
10) Schneiker ought to check to see who originally went to Egypt to find the Hall of Records and ended up drilling on that psychic hunch instead of where seismic data generated by Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobecki were pointing even when given a second chance in 2009. Hint: It was not Robert Schoch or John Anthony West.
11) When it comes to invasiveness: Schneiker should count the number of drill holes around the Sphinx and then find the holes left by seismic refraction testing. None of these holes were made in accordance with the data on position and estimated depth of measured voids.
In summary, this presentation is highly misleading and non-scientific. The presenter needs to do a lot more reading and present the information in more scientific manner fairly debating the evidence on all sides of this argument. The worst thing to do is to personally ridicule the people behind opposing evidence with the nonsense Schneiker presents in the beginning which is only meant to manipulate the audience into a prejudiced view of the facts. This is the worst you can do in an honest scientific debate. If anyone is pseudo-scientific here it is Schneiker himself."