Robert M. Schoch on Joe Rogan podcast.

Ipso wrote: »

A bit of a run down on the old Sphinx idea.
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/who-built-the-sphinx.html

Another idea from the academic.
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/robert-schoch-werewolves-are-actually-humans-who-form-psychic-connections-to-animals-through-drugs

Whos Jason Colavito? Has he visited Egypt and done work on it? Skeptics are known to write half-truths and spread lies and misquote people.

This happened recently when Graham Hancock and Micheal Shermer (skeptic) debated ancient civilizations on Joe Rogan podcast. Micheal even apologised to Graham for lying about what he said. I have heard since this podcast Graham and Micheal have become friendly with each other Graham invited Micheal to Peru for a trip.

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

It less fringe now because of the discovery of Gobekli Tepe this has changed everything we know about how civilization started. Scientists have calculated it age as 12,000 years old this not disputed. 15 years ago Graham Hancock was ridiculed for his theories nowadays their more acceptance of his work on ancient civilizations.

The Micheal Shermer and Hancock debate on Joe Rogan was interesting. Shermer even brought on an expert to discuss the subject and everyone at the end ended up being friendly and accepting each other opinions on the subject. Micheal even apologised to Graham for misquoting his work in the past and writing false narratives about him.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Skepticism is a type of thinking. It essentially means questioning everything within reason and doubt. It's a fundamental part of science, law, reason, logic, everything.

If for example 99 experts claim X and 1 expert claims Y. Logic and reason dictates that X is the claim most likely to be correct, because it's backed by a consensus of 99 other experts. Y is backed by just one (who could be a crackpot)

People who engage in conspiracy thinking don't work to this type of logic or reason. In their minds, that 1 expert knows some sort of "real truth" and the 99 other experts are "in on a conspiracy". It's belief over reason.

My reading into this situation is that in this case we have one expert who maintains the age of the Sphinx is X, whereas most other experts maintain it is aged Y

Most experts are Egyptologists who have no background in geology to know what they are looking at. Schoch was a real scientist, has the qualifications to know and went to Egypt to carry out the work on the ground that most skeptics have not done. Even said he went to Egypt believing he debunk Anthony West ( (a famous revisionist on ancient Egypt) many theories the sites at Giza are much older. What he found supported Anthony West theory. Schoch evens states it more than just the weathering on the rock that turned him into a believer. He did measurements and did seismic work on the structure and found that the human head was too small to match the body. He discusses the scientific stuff in the podcast and finding an ancient text and hieroglyph that names the Sphinx ( i forget now that) and was a lioness head and text describing the Sphinx as an archive. Schoch is trying to get the Egyptian government to allow an archaeological dig near the paw of the Sphinx. Schoch found a void in a room of sorts underneath when he did seismic tests.

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I'd appreciate it if you saved your strawman arguments. I never stated he was a loon or that he had no qualifications. It is no different than one climatologist out of thousands saying that climate change isn't real or isn't influenced by human activity.

As for his claim that most scientists who study Egypt have no scientific background at all, I don't know if that's a claim he can verify or you can validate. You would have to look at all the peer-reviewed literature on Egypt and then look at who has produced it, and from what field of science it comes from.

If his claims had merit, more geologists would support it.

It, not a strawman argument he has gone to Egypt and carried out work on it. Your argument is a strawman argument more geologists would support if he was right. Did ever cross your mind they have not done so? Schoch theory seems to suffer more pushback from Egyptologists who have dogma to protect! Travelling to Egypt and investigation of this is not cheap. Shoch even laughed at the suggestion there is this big community against him about his ideas about Sphinx. Of course, you can validate you just to have to know who the big hitters are who have legitimately done their work on Ancient Egypt. Some who read a book about Egypt and never been is reading other peoples work on the subject. Schoch knows who the main people are in this field for last 30 years he knows what their background is.

Ipso wrote: »

The people who disagree with him have also studied in Egypt, their ideas for weather erosion on the Sphinx are just as legitimate as his.
He claims rain, others claim existing rain or from sand erosion.
Personally I ignore anyone who does the "oppressed by the main stream" schtick, they seem to be contrarians as much as anything.

They have studied Egypt but they have no scientific background to date ancient buildings made of limestone and granite. Their claims are not legitimate because Shoch is qualified in the proper field to know what he's talking about. If you can list people who have been to Egypt and are of similar calibre to Schoch and they disagree with him that's a different matter.

It, not just weather erosion that he basing his theory on but when you don't take the time to listen to other people theories you just assume his wrong. It always best to listen to both sides versions or take on things and then come away with an opinion whos correct.

He talks about why rain could only have caused this effect on the limestone, but like he said he would not only use this only finding for he believes the dating of the Sphinx was wrong.

Ipso wrote: »

What is Schoch's background gives him more credibility in his dating claims?

It obvious from this background his put the work in studying Geology. Yale University would be one of the top schools globally.

Dr. Robert M. Schoch, a full-time faculty member at the College of General Studies at Boston University since 1984, and a recipient of its Peyton Richter Award for interdisciplinary teaching, earned his Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics at Yale University in 1983. He also holds an M.S. and M.Phil. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, as well as degrees in Anthropology (B.A.) and Geology (B.S.) from George Washington University

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

So why do you believe that his views carry more credibility than every other scientist who has studied the pyramids and the sphinx? He's not the first scientist with a PhD in geology who has done so. Is it because it supports your confirmation bias?

Shoch theory is mostly about the Sphinx. They're not scientists they are people with history and art and linguistics degrees. They are dating the pyramids and Sphinx on finding a culture already there. The Egyptologist's main problem is who else could have built the pyramids and was sophisticated enough to have done so some of them are just afraid of just being wrong about their beliefs. That's irrelevant though because of the geology and sphinx measurements don't support a 2,500 bc build. The Egyptians don't even claim to have to build it and they depicted their lifestyle and surroundings during this time in hieroglyphic texts.

Ipso wrote: »

So you're saying Schoch is the only geologist or archaeologist to look into ancient Egypt?
The thing is, that on the face of it the claims are not that outlandish. But look deeper and you enter into a rabbit hole, despite his wonderful credentials Schoch also endorses some bat sh1t nonsense (he made claims about the Turkish hunter gatherer site being linked to Easter Island or somewhere like that), Robert Bauval tries to tie the Giza site into Mars and Hancock strays into some awful new age nonsense.

I file this stuff under things I'd like to be true and wouldn't be surprised if it was, but I'm not wasting my time with the usual suspects you alos find in industries like UFOs or crypt zoology.

Well of course archaeologists have been to Egypt, but it is a different study they go to places to recover stuff. Shoch theory is relatively new discovery and people missed this. Being a geologist what he saw puzzled him and he started his own investigation and came out with a new theory the dating of the Sphinx was wrong.

Skeptics often misquote and misinterpret graham Hancock. Micheal Shermer numerous times in that podcast apologised to Graham for writing stuff he did not say. The highly enlightening podcast that shows they often write things wrong to discredit someone with an alternative opinion. But good to see now since I heard Micheal and Graham have become friends, before this they were opposed to each others opinion. Micheal went away from that podcast liking Graham and wasn't a crackpot after all.

Mars? No, I think it was something to do with the Pyramids position to the Orion belt.

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 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 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.