Comments by "Hallands Menved" (@Hallands.) on "World of Antiquity" channel.

Everything up until 35:00 is prevarications to the 2 questions asked, but finally at long last comes a real explanation – even a convincing one at that! So why, oh why is this so hard for you to get to?
2
How can I speculate with all these experts and their detailed interpretations? I didn’t even know the Nile could flood the Sphinx basin. All I ever thought was that water-erosion of varying depth seems to have gone on for a considerable time and that the true age of the Sphinx must be possible to estimate by experienced geologists if the yearly rainfall can be determined reliably. But I didn’t know that modern day flooding by the Nile can still occur and didn’t think any significant precipitation would play a role, forgetting about the acidity of Industrial Age rain and its impact on limestone. I tend to think that the salt and sponge effect would be minor compared to the effect of streaming water, and that this possibility is overdone in the video. I find it hard to believe that any ruler would be so thoughtless as to create such a monument at a time of regular flooding and would therefore prefer the creation be placed in a period of aridity which would much later be followed by a period of heavier precipitation. Is that possible? Do we have sufficient knowledge of the climate in the area to say one way or the other?
2
Wow, how condescending your ego comes off, explaining peripheral details not in need of explaining, while skirting every single point made by your target. That is distinctly disingenuous! Take 11:25 for instance: It’s clear that the tight fitting, polygonal blocks – as compared to later repair – is what your target is putting forward, but instead of addressing this very real conundrum, you chose to lecture us about the use of the term »open mind« going so far as to provide a silly illustration! How about you get serious instead and with common decency try to explain that, which he says isn’t well explained? Another deception of yours is the critique of his »unfair advantage«: How can he ascribe his chosen items to any known culture or era, when the whole premiss is that this is unknown and unattempted? He may not even claim to possess the ability to do so, I don’t know, but why would that prevent him or anyone else from pointing out jarring inconsistencies for you professional scientist to manage and explain better? If this is the level of your rebuttals, you’re a complete waste of time, and if it isn’t, you should make much shorter, much less self-indulgent videos, which gets directly to the core issues and either rebuts the implied critique, admits to a partial conundrum or admits your detractors were correct and contribute to start some serious new research – with an open mind! – no further explanation of the term needed, thank you very much…
2
I’m seeing this emoticon more often in random comments recently (there’s one further down): {:-:-:} What’s the meaning, if any, please?
1
@wfcoaker1398 Yes, I do, but without the fake certainty you seems to crave. As it turns out, I was right, because flooding by the Nile cannot explain the water-erosion on the sphinx since the entire basin was filled with sand up until recent time. When the sphinx first attracted some attention, only the head and neck rose above the sand! This is documented by ample photos, easily found on the net. So this brings us back to the only other possibility, namely that the sphinx was already there in its basin when the desert was lush with vegetation and precipitation plentiful. How else would water erosion be present on it as well as on the sides of the basin?
1
@WorldofAntiquity (He didn't make any point about polygonal masonry. He just showed an image of Cusco for a few seconds. There was no argument about polygonal masonry even to address! Come on now.) Yes, he did, because like most uploads his video pictures and narrative forms a whole. Address it! (How is that deceptive? I stated the truth. And if he doesn't have a better explanation for what we see than the theories that are generally accepted, you should not have any expectation that someone who cares about evidence is going to change their mind.) Is that seriously you stance? Then I’m out, I don’t waste time on fools. It is completely within the bounds of science to point out a problem without having any solution. Quantum Physics wouldn’t have much to say otherwise. It’s you are the problem, because you can’t see that progress can never be made without open ended questions. (He does a lot more than just point out inconsistencies. He makes definitive statements about the age of the artifacts and the tools that were used.) How rude? So, just point this out and move on. (It doesn't appear you even got past the introduction. You have no idea what evidence I present.) Oh, I got past that, I can assure you, but that isn’t really the point either, even though you're correct insofar as I became sufficiently annoyed at this video to cut out, but I have watched several others in full. The problems are the same and seems to stem from a bloated ego. Apply some self-critique and MOVE!
1