<HTML>Claire wrote:
>
> >>If he is a practictioner of a reputable scientific method
> he should seek a solution that encompasses ALL the evidence.
>
> Robert Schoch is a reputable geologist, and his geological
> solution encompasses ALL the geological evidence available to him.
So it's alright for him to ignore the archaeological evidence but not alright for archaeologists to challenge the geological "evidence" - particularly when his geological views seem to be in a minority ?
> >>That's why the views of geologists who seek an explanation
> that fits within the well established stoneworking
> capabilities of the Egyptians are preferable,
>
> They aren't well established according to some Egyptologists
> - when I find my book, I'll provide Schoch's sources for
> you. In any case, if Schoch is right then we can update our
> knowledge on the stoneworking capabilities of the people in
> question huh? Also they are comtemporary examples of similar
> stoneworking skills - Jericho, Nabta Playa thingy and that
> Turkish city. So some people in the general region had
> stoneworking capabilities.
There's temples in Malta that predate the pyramids - these are not massive stoneworking on the scale of the Sphinx. If there'd been a culture in Egypt at that time that was capable of carving something like the Sphinx it would have been reasonably well organised, would have almost certainly left more "artifacts" and would have left traces in the archaeological record. This is more Mike's area though.....
> Why not read Voices of the Rocks?
I've got far too many books to read already:-( I'm acquiring books faster than I can read them !
John</HTML>
