This is a discussion that is interesting. To the best of my knowledge, the pyramids were built in the 3rd millennium BC. (http://www.aeraweb.org/projects/how-o...) My argument is not based on 19th C assumptions, but on 20th C radiocarbon dating. I will readily agree that the pyramids could be a few hundred years older, but not 10K years older. If you have any sources for scientific dating that shows the pyramids are millennia older, I would like to take a look at it.

Gheorghiu's interpretation of the carvings at Gobekli Tepe is an interesting hypothesis - but it is only that. Schmidt, the original excavator of the site, does not endorse Gheorghiu's interpretation.

Jan

In that time period little if anything was known about the obliquity of the eliptic , or the progression of the equinoxes yet the ancient's knew all about it and it was fundamental in many megalithic places.

Indeed, and the various cycles of clearing and burying was one reason they did the sampling at various locations to try to incorporate that issue into the data, which is more proof of the fact people with alternative theories that match facts are just as interested in the truth, and the mainstream are, and why they should give all view equal weight until it is conclusively proven. A lot of "conclusively" to day is based on political maneuvers made in the 1900's and 20th century to appease certain funding sources and university positions.

The Sphinx was buried in sand up until it was partially excavated in1858 then less than one hundred years ago in 1926. The statute cannot erode when buried. It was also known to have been
Cleared from sand during Thutmosis IV when the Stella was erected.The erosion took place when the rain fell and that was around 8500bc to 7000bc

This is politicized in a sense by the" czar" of Egyptology Dr. Zahi Hawass who controls the ability in Egypt to study the past record. He damns Dr. Robert Schoch and anyone else it seems that have fresh fact based ideas. Today with modern day knowledge and state of the art equipment vs 100 year old guesses that in many cases become status quo. A case in point the pyramids in Egypt. It is stated as fact they were built as tombs for pharaoh.
Yet not one mummy was ever found in a pyramid in Egypt. That is a pretty fundamental flaw in the foundation of Egyptian history.
New ideas historically have been shunned by the hierarchy going back many centuries.
The tendency to dismiss ancient historical stories
Only to find more truth than fiction is a reoccurring theme.

Here is a good link to the actual paper, there is a lot of good information as to how they came to their conclusion and support it with astronomical observations that match up, and get confirmed by the known zodiacal symbols that have been used by many civilizations.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/...

Exactly, couple this with the recent discussion on the outer ring of "planetoids" and large objects in the Oort cloud, and if every system has such, maybe intelligent life is just a cosmic lottery where only 1 in 93 million get the jackpot and survive.

Jan, the interpretation of the Gobekli Tepe pillars is pretty concrete, in that there is definitely a provable set of facts that match up to the paper's theories. The biggest issue is that it takes what has been enshrined in archeology as the "definitive narrative" and takes it, and all the bulk of scientists who have supported and claimed it as "fact", and tosses it away. This has been a major issue in Egyptology where there are clear indications that the Sphinx is at least 12,000 years old, based on scientific data from weathering analysis, and yet they still say it was made by Khufu and his dynasty in about 2500BC. Because any other facts would mean they would have to reinterpret 100 years of "settled science". If there is a periodic cometary debris field the Earth goes through, it would be nice if someone had kindly pointed it out so we could find it and maybe do something while the doing is good.

Exactly, and is included in the work of Graham Hancock and his books. He also detailed how many scientists of the 20th century had documented all the material they used in this study and came to the conclusin, but were ridiculed because they could not produce some kind of hard artifact that "said so", but all the logic and hard evidence that does exist can be said to support the theory. It seems there is enough data to move past "hypothesis" to more of a "fact". Which means the cometary fragments they say may be coming back, which is also one of the items others have also talked about, Enke being one of the best candidates. Funny that Enke is almost like Enkie, who is one of the primary gods mentioned through out the ancient texts.

Thanks Nickursis for your many informative posts.
Gobekli tepe has destroyed much of the mainstream narrative regarding human civilization.
Mesopotania is not the cradle of civilization.
In fact civilization (organized societies are more than twice as old as most recite. The site has been slowly excavated only 10% or so.
It is also a true cover up, as they uncover and discover it is quickly reburied. One of the reburied t shape megaliths had beautiful carvings that is said to depict the current alignment in the galaxy as we are located today similar to many ancient's
Focus on this era. Perhaps they were pointing to a potential repeat of that event. With so many possible cataclysms everyone should be living life like there is no tomorrow.

We really, as a culture, need to do a better job of handling scientific disagreement. Continental drift, Lamarkism/Lysencoism, blank slate/genetic inheritance, pre-Clovis settlement of the Americas...all of these issues have been politicized and one side or the other declared anathema.

People have to learn that everything is a hypothesis; nothing is settled. Change is normal in science and disagreements need to be seen as part of the usual process.

I have read about the astronomical figures in Gobekli Tepe and think that is possible, but certainly not clear. And the cometary event is far from 'confirmed.

Jan

Reminds me of the horrid response made by those representing "accepted" science (including the popular pseudo-scientist Carl Sagan) to the theories of Velikovsky.
This is not to say that Velikovsky was correct, but that so-called scientists attacked him like liberal statists instead of rationally discussing the theories.

The particular theory in this article indicates another conclusion to me. If the probability of this sort of collision between comets and planets could be estimated with any reliability it could help explain the thus-far observed low density of advanced technology space faring species in the vicinity.