Robert M. Schoch on Joe Rogan podcast.

Cheerful Spring

endacl wrote: »

On the contrary, opinion is the easiest dismissable to dismiss in academia.

He has never reinforced his 'fringier' opinions with anything resembling evidence.

Shoch does not believe in ancient aliens build the pyramids so the gif is irrelevant. If you listen to him he grounded in science and reasoning in everything he says.

He found plenty of evidence and he trying to get a dig going to investigate the void underneath the sphinx and asking the Egyptian government to allow it. Opposition from Egyptologists is stopping it.

riffmongous

Since it seems he does have a legitimate physical science background, can you link to some peer reviewed papers he's written about his findings?

Cheerful Spring

riffmongous wrote: »

Since it seems he does have a legitimate physical science background, can you link to some peer reviewed papers he's written about his findings?

This was published by Archaeology discovery in a peer review journal.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ad/

Archaeological Discovery (AD) is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of the study of Archaeology. The goal of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of Archaeological studies.

All manuscripts must be prepared in English and are subject to a rigorous and fair peer-review process. Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks followed by printed hard copy. The journal publishes original papers covering a wide range of fields but not limited to the following:


http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AD_2017072615041268.pdf

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This was published by Archaeology discovery in a peer review journal.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ad/

Archaeological Discovery (AD) is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of the study of Archaeology. The goal of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of Archaeological studies.

All manuscripts must be prepared in English and are subject to a rigorous and fair peer-review process. Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks followed by printed hard copy. The journal publishes original papers covering a wide range of fields but not limited to the following:


http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AD_2017072615041268.pdf

Yup. Definitely legit there...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yup. Definitely legit there...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

Nice try but

To present their preliminary results at the October 1991 meeting of the Geological Society of America, West and Schoch submitted a proposal for a poster presentation that met the approval of a review panel on archaeological geology. The GSA did not formally endorse the argument for an earlier Sphinx. But those geologists who visited the West-Schoch poster presentation expressed an interest in their findings and many asked to be notified of further research. Schoch gave a brief update of the case for an earlier Sphinx before an audience of about 300 at the GSA meeting in 2000. At the end of his talk, two members of the audience rose to question the findings and express skepticism. The remainder of the audience listened with interest and did not approve or dissent.

Schoch's 1992 paper appeared in Geoarchaeology, a peer-reviewed journal, and Gauri and his colleagues published their response in the same journal. Colin Reader published his case for a less old Sphinx in a peer-reviewed journal, Archaeometry, in 2001 (see the page after next). Several scholars commented in the same issue. Reader and the Belgian observer Gerd Vandecruys exchanged views in the peer-reviewed online journal, PalArch, in 2006. It does not appear that any other contributions on either side of the Sphinx controversy have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

]

Nice try but

But what?
It's a vanity journal you presented as legitimate.
Did you not know that?
Did you think people would fall for it?

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

But what?
It's a vanity journal you presented as legitimate.
Did you not know that?
Did you think people would fall for it?

Actually it is legit: https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1520-6548_Geoarchaeology

Compare to JFM something I'm already familiar with: https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0022-1120_Journal_of_Fluid_Mechanics

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

Actually it is legit: https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1520-6548_Geoarchaeology

Compare to JFM something I'm already familiar with: https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0022-1120_Journal_of_Fluid_Mechanics

I was refering to this post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107180837#post107180837
Where CS describes an obvious sham journal that takes two seconds to google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

pedroeibar1

General Charles Vallencey was a noted military man and an excellent engineer, (e.g. designer/overseer of Dublin’s oldest bridge - Mellows’ Bridge (1764). He had a sizeable academic following for his proposition that the Irish were descended from ancient Egyptians (Scuthae) and wrote a (then) much-acclaimed and convincing dictionary of ancient Irish, with references to its links with Chaldean, Arabic and Hindustani. He also claimed that Staigue Fort in Kerry was one of their amphitheaters and that Buddhism, not Druidism was the religion of Ireland. Despite his august following we now know that on Staigue fort he was wrong by about 3,000 years, and on the language & religion he was completely up the wrong tree.

John O’Donovan was right -
“It is curious that men in general, and not unfrequently men of sound sense and learning look upon antiquarians as a race of maniacs…This will be the case as long as the world exists, and still there will be antiquarians as long as the hand of cultivation has left a single trace of the barbarity or civilization of the ‘olden time’ on the surface of the earth; and when every trace is removed from the earth – which will be the case some time or other, they will then seek for historical monuments in the clouds!”

J.O’D (Ordnance Survey Letters, 1838)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I was refering to this post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107180837#post107180837
Where CS describes an obvious sham journal that takes two seconds to google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

Shoch theory was peer-reviewed by another site that was pointed out to you to be credible.

Regarding that other site Shoch work was peer reviewed on there, but it seems they took liberties and were in just for the money in the past. Closer look you can find information is pre 2017 before Shoch article was published on there. That information is only good up to 2014. Since then that site may have changed since their no negative feedback since 2014.

riffmongous

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Shoch theory was peer-reviewed by another site that was pointed out to you to be credible.

Regarding that other site Shoch work was peer reviewed on there, but it seems they took liberties and were in just for the money in the past. Closer look you can find information is pre 2017 before Shoch article was published on there. That information is only good up to 2014. Since then that site may have changed since their no negative feedback since 2014.

I had a look at another journal that's in my area from that publishing house, and I'm afraid to say it didn't look legit at all, they had about 10 articles in one year from one Israeli guy, with no co-authors on any of the papers

Cheerful Spring

riffmongous wrote: »

I had a look at another journal that's in my area from that publishing house, and I'm afraid to say it didn't look legit at all, they had about 10 articles in one year from one Israeli guy, with no co-authors on any of the papers

The site Kingmob linked to just for clarification purposes?

riffmongous

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The site Kingmob linked to just for clarification purposes?

Yes, this publishing house where the recent paper was published, not the 1992 one http://www.scirp.org/journal/Index.aspx
I can't judge every journal they have but from the ones I looked at, I would be very wary of publishing there myself.

Also in this 2017 paper it's worth noting there are no references for the introduction section, which suggests there is not much else published.

Cheerful Spring

riffmongous wrote: »

Yes, this publishing house where the recent paper was published, not the 1992 one http://www.scirp.org/journal/Index.aspx
I can't judge every journal they have but from the ones I looked at, I would be very wary of publishing there myself.

Also in this 2017 paper it's worth noting there are no references for the introduction section, which suggests there is not much else published.

Ok, that fair enough but Shoch theory was peer-reviewed in 1992. I doubt much has changed with his theory since then.

The 2017 paper has new information (about Egyptian texts) but mostly old stuff already known about and there are no new updates about the Geology of the Sphinx.

enno99

Ipso wrote: »

He’s well read in a lot of ancient texts, which seems to be a source for much of the fringe crowd.
Hancock’s stuff seems to be a re-hash of much of Ignatius Donnelly’s stuff.
I used to be into Hancock but like the UFO and fonspiracy theory industry, this area now seems to be over populated with cranks, liars and plagiarists.
From memory, one of the arguements from The Keeper of Genesis was rain marks on stone and there was no rain in Egypt when the Sphinx was built, but that doesn’t rule out the Sphinx being built with rain damaged stone

So how did they build the Sphinx enclosure where the bulk of the evidence for his theory id found