But we should move forward, not stand still, shouldn't we? We present (even more) probable cause to justify an invasive study around the Great Sphinx....take it or leave, but don't say you're on a scientific mission to find out what really happened, if you ignore it. This is what we say to the community with this paper. You are reading into this something that isn't there. This is not the hammer on the gavel for ever after...come on!
Anyone can make theories, but they are worthless without testing them. In this case, the standard model has some internal (ie non-dating) consistencies (eg the fact that the Sphinx temple was built after the Valley temple based on "respected" perimeter features) but does not account for all the data (West/Schoch/Bauval) and, surprisingly to me, rests on a flimsy foundation (OK trash under an abandoned mega-block on the NE aspect of the enclosure for example, or the so-called "solar theme" which is being associated with Khafre) for dating the whole complex. The current model has enough holes to justify a decisive test if we weren't dealing with precious and fragile historical sites. This test is not much different in kind compared to Gantenbrink's project. I completely understand that the Ministry of A. wants to limit investigations, especially those based on invasive methods and so the bar to get a permit is much higher. I think we have matched that bar now. If Dr. Hawass was able to drill 8 (or is it 12 now) holes to protect the Sphinx from ground water, then I think one guided drill into the most likely man-made void under the Sphinx is within the realm of due consideration.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26-Oct-17 14:49 by Manu.