Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 13:13:16 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: Sphinx date

Katherine Griffis wrote:

> However, ALL knowledge is temporally-bound, SF: therefore, absence of
> evidence is, nonetheless, for this point in time,  *ABSENCE*.  So, aguing
> such a speculative point as *fact*, when it is, of course, **proof by
> absence** (tm) is a fool's folly, and not to be take credibly...

This seems quite incoherent to me.  When it is clarified, and 
a point emerges, I may engage it.

> The stone of the Sphinx can be dated to 10,000 BCE?  Ooooeee....let's call
> a news conference here!!

I certainly said no such thing.

> Of course, the stone is been *in place* for Lord knows *how long*...this
> does *not* mean that it shows *all evidence* of a civilization from that
> time, or even whether the stone was worked from that period...the
> *****stone**** is there: it was worked later...

This also is quite incoherent... and I'm not complaining about
the unorthodox grammar... rather the content, or lack thereof.
It certainly does not seem to be responding to anything I
said.

> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> Member of the Americn Research Center in Egypt

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next