| May 14, 2024, 6:32 pm UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| May 13, 2003 07:56AM |
<HTML>LOL.
In a nutshell: yes, I read your conversation with Archae.
I think the key to the disagreement between geologists is that some have supplied their data and sources, and some have not. To me, this does not constitute a valid rebuttal. It's like "mystery evidence" that only Dr. Davidovits can see.... you get the point, I'm sure.
In the case of the egyptological context, I find that two people can look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions. We see this with Stadelmann on the Khafre/Khufu issue. I don't have a problem with that in the least, so long as they are BOTH accounting for the same data. At that point, separate opinions are welcome, in my book, because it makes the hunt for the bottom line that much stronger.
The issue I see on the relatedness of the two is that one (or more) geologists making a determination based on their professional opinion is not sufficient evidence to upset an applecart. This is where Reader has severely parted company with many of the other geologists, in my opnion. He has done more intensive on-site examination than some of the other archaeologists in the fray, and has come out with probably the best explanation for ALL the data... from exfoliation to run-off. His model is the most complex, most comprehensive, and most inclusive of all of them.
I think the question is... does Occam's razor say we should favor the SIMPLER solution? lol
Not really... it says we have to favor the solution that explains the most evidence. Clearly, this is not the mono-dimensional erosion model with hazy references based on approximate pitch and slope angles and rough measurements in feet for comparisons... without any footnotes.
So... we're back to Reader, and maybe even Stadelmann. I think these two, together, stand a very good chance of proving a new attribution for the Sphinx at Giza. Their methods are sound, their references are complete, and they are accounting for more variables than anyone else.
I'm just rambling now. It's so good to talk to you again.
Anthony</HTML>
In a nutshell: yes, I read your conversation with Archae.
I think the key to the disagreement between geologists is that some have supplied their data and sources, and some have not. To me, this does not constitute a valid rebuttal. It's like "mystery evidence" that only Dr. Davidovits can see.... you get the point, I'm sure.
In the case of the egyptological context, I find that two people can look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions. We see this with Stadelmann on the Khafre/Khufu issue. I don't have a problem with that in the least, so long as they are BOTH accounting for the same data. At that point, separate opinions are welcome, in my book, because it makes the hunt for the bottom line that much stronger.
The issue I see on the relatedness of the two is that one (or more) geologists making a determination based on their professional opinion is not sufficient evidence to upset an applecart. This is where Reader has severely parted company with many of the other geologists, in my opnion. He has done more intensive on-site examination than some of the other archaeologists in the fray, and has come out with probably the best explanation for ALL the data... from exfoliation to run-off. His model is the most complex, most comprehensive, and most inclusive of all of them.
I think the question is... does Occam's razor say we should favor the SIMPLER solution? lol
Not really... it says we have to favor the solution that explains the most evidence. Clearly, this is not the mono-dimensional erosion model with hazy references based on approximate pitch and slope angles and rough measurements in feet for comparisons... without any footnotes.
So... we're back to Reader, and maybe even Stadelmann. I think these two, together, stand a very good chance of proving a new attribution for the Sphinx at Giza. Their methods are sound, their references are complete, and they are accounting for more variables than anyone else.
I'm just rambling now. It's so good to talk to you again.
Anthony</HTML>
| Subject | Author | Posted |
|---|---|---|
|
Garrett | May 12, 2003 11:57AM |
|
Claire | May 12, 2003 12:14PM |
|
Garrett | May 12, 2003 12:26PM |
|
Claire | May 12, 2003 12:40PM |
|
Mikey Brass | May 12, 2003 12:25PM |
|
Garrett | May 12, 2003 12:28PM |
|
Mikey Brass | May 12, 2003 12:38PM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 12, 2003 12:40PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 02:25PM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 12, 2003 03:40PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 04:03PM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 12, 2003 05:12PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 05:21PM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 12, 2003 05:31PM |
|
Mikey Brass | May 12, 2003 03:49PM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 12, 2003 03:59PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 04:15PM |
|
Garrett | May 13, 2003 09:28AM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 09:53AM |
|
John Wall | May 13, 2003 09:57AM |
|
Garrett | May 13, 2003 10:12AM |
|
John Wall | May 13, 2003 10:28AM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 10:35AM |
|
Mikey Brass | May 13, 2003 12:33PM |
|
Garrett | May 13, 2003 10:09AM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 13, 2003 10:43AM |
|
Garrett | May 14, 2003 11:06AM |
|
Mikey Brass | May 13, 2003 12:30PM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 01:11PM |
|
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano | May 13, 2003 08:18PM |
|
Garrett | May 14, 2003 10:15AM |
|
Damian Walter | May 12, 2003 02:51PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 02:54PM |
|
KatDawg | May 12, 2003 03:29PM |
|
donald raab | May 12, 2003 04:56PM |
|
Mikey Brass | May 12, 2003 05:08PM |
|
Garrett | May 13, 2003 09:51AM |
|
donald raab | May 13, 2003 10:49AM |
|
Jack | May 12, 2003 05:45PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 05:54PM |
|
Jack | May 12, 2003 06:18PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 06:25PM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 12, 2003 06:42PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 06:44PM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 12, 2003 06:50PM |
|
Anthony | May 12, 2003 07:45PM |
|
Joe_S | May 13, 2003 02:19AM |
|
Pete Clarke | May 13, 2003 07:20AM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 13, 2003 08:54AM |
|
John Wall | May 13, 2003 08:57AM |
|
Joanne Conman | May 13, 2003 09:11AM |
|
Pete Clarke | May 13, 2003 09:59AM |
|
Damian Walter | May 13, 2003 11:36AM |
|
Pete Clarke | May 14, 2003 05:01AM |
|
Jack | May 12, 2003 06:45PM |
|
Jack | May 12, 2003 07:00PM |
|
donald raab | May 12, 2003 08:55PM |
|
Katherine Reece | May 12, 2003 09:31PM |
|
Don Holeman | May 12, 2003 09:56PM |
|
donald raab | May 12, 2003 10:33PM |
|
Katherine Reece | May 12, 2003 10:39PM |
|
Mercury Rapids | May 13, 2003 02:26AM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 03:03AM |
|
Mercury Rapids | May 13, 2003 07:14AM |
|
Claire | May 13, 2003 07:48AM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 09:04AM |
|
Claire | May 13, 2003 10:13AM |
|
Joe_S | May 13, 2003 02:33AM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 03:08AM |
|
Claire | May 13, 2003 06:52AM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 07:01AM |
|
Claire | May 13, 2003 07:23AM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 07:56AM |
|
Claire | May 13, 2003 10:11AM |
|
Anthony | May 13, 2003 10:16AM |
|
Claire | May 13, 2003 10:20AM |
|
Garrett | May 13, 2003 10:01AM |
|
Jim Lewandowski | May 13, 2003 10:54AM |
|
John Wall | May 13, 2003 10:59AM |
|
Warwick L. Nixon | May 13, 2003 01:15PM |
|
John Wall | May 15, 2003 11:54AM |
|
Tooms | May 15, 2003 01:12PM |
|
Anthony | May 15, 2003 01:24PM |
|
Stephen Tonkin | May 15, 2003 01:56PM |
|
Anthony | May 15, 2003 01:58PM |
|
Tooms | May 15, 2003 02:02PM |
|
John Wall | May 15, 2003 05:55PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.