>Per JAW there are gentlemanly differences of opinion between
>JAW, Schoch, and Colin Reader about exactly how long a time
>period is involved -differences he suggested on another
>thread that they could work out pretty quickly among
>themselves on site. JAW's and Schoch's original point (the
>one concurred with by the geological society) was that the
>geology shows that it was much longer than traditional
>Egyptology was willing to accept.
These GSA poster sessions are 4 hours long with a few hundred geologists walking through a large number of other poster presenters. Takes about 5-10 mins to read someone's poster and look carefully at the pictures in order to make some judgment on the validity of their claims.... concurred from a poster, no I do not think so. Because no one may have said anything critical or some asked for reprints (giving their business or reprint request card) indicates nether support or opposition.
> It gets the cart before
>the horse to say "JAW's timeframe is way too long" without
>first conceding that the traditional timeframe is way too
>short - obviously it is, regardless of which weathering
>mechanism one ascribes it to.
They would not be too concerend about conservation of the Sphinx if these rocks were not highly suceptable to weathering in a timeframe of hundreds not thousands of years.
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> - Laird