Jammer,

The AERA report does have a 'probability' of sequence consistent with the reign of Khafre, however there are a few other possibilities and facts left out of its determination that can't be discarded. For one the member II existed over the location of both temples to some degree and would provide the same geological stone found in the member II around the sphinx, thus the body of the sphinx may have been quarried out earlier or later with no involvement of the temples. Also the Sphinx temple clearly was enlarged, such that the claim it came after the valley temple based on the northern enclosure wall evidence does not eliminate the sphinx and its temple being of an earlier date, it only highlights that the enlargement was done after the northern enclosure wall was built. Colin Reader points out a few other elements that geologically do not equate with the AERA report, which in my view was written and concluded more or less to disprove the 10,000 BCE hype. Furthermore, if Khafre built the Sphinx and the temple from scratch wouldn't we expect the face of the Sphinx to be his? Lehner went so far as to claim this long before the 2002 AERA report when he published TCP, hence his efforts in the report are motivated by his belief that the face of the Sphinx is Khafre's. Claiming that Khafre built the pyramid, pyramid temple, causeway, valley temple, Sphinx and the Sphinx temple by 'selective' scientific 'probability' analysis borders on opinion more than science; it requires the same degradation and technique characteristics across the spectrum of them all, and that is not the actual case.

Best Regards,

B.A. Hokom



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2008 02:30PM by Pistol.