Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Scott Creighton wrote:

>Broken record, Archae. Bauval and Hancock have conceded that
>they got the numbers wrong but that the AEs quarried, raised
>and moved 200+ ton blocks at Giza is indisputable - as you well
>know. Bauval and Hancock are materially correct - 200+ ton
>blocks were moved at Giza.

Yes that's right "material correct" in that they are no where near the Valley Temple and the Sphinx, all at ground level, they are not stacked in walls 3 courses high, they did not actually have to lift them very high if at all, there are only 4-5 of them and not hundreds, the smallest are not even remotely close to being greater than 50 tons, all right next to the quarry 10s of meters away if not in it, modern cranes are more than quite capable moving them just as the were for claims of 100s, the 4th dynasty ancient Egyptians can move the actual blocks as well with levers since lever slots were found, etc. etc. etc/ etc..... Ya that's right, the ancient lost ones must still have done the actual more than just considerably less of a feat than originally claimed..... but that is quite ridiculous since the 4th dynasty ancient Egyptians were quite capable of building the Valley Temple just like they were able to build the Kings Chamber in the GP. Is not the King's Chamber now considered by Mr. Hancock to be 4th dynasty or is it now to be considered suspended in mid air by the "Lost's" antigravity projector for thousands of years just waiting for the primatives to come along and give it a coat of pyramid? Yes when one is forced to tweak the treads on the pretty tapestry it starts to unravel. I noticed you have not created a new house to fit the revised smaller and now quite unsound foundations, I guess it's a little hard with all the smoke, flashing mirrors, rubber arming in the way, and a quarter deck of limp noodles to do so..... ooh Ye must yearn for a return of the Good old Days when it was so easier to get away with it.

>And let us not obfuscate here - it
>takes the same amount of force to move said blocks 1 inch as it
>does to move it one mile.

Not if it's downhill.... after all the nearest quarry of hard massive limestone like that used in much of the Valley temple is the Sphinx's head and that deposit is above all the blocks in Khafre's Valley temple. And if it's over a level surface or up hill it didn't stop the 4th dynasty ancient Egyptians for moving greater than 50 ton granite roofing beams into the King's Chamber over and over and over again, oh and transport them 100s of km from Aswan as well.

>It is the energy expended that is
>different.

"It's the force needed stupid" doesn't really have the same oomph as 100 of 200+ ton blocks too heavy for modern cranes to build into walls. For someone who uses the word "obfuscate" you seem to be rather selective in its use on actual examples of such.

>And let us not forget here, Graham has publicly stated on this
>forum that if he has the opportunity, he will update future
>editions of his books. No doubt when this occurs you will
>STILL be harping like a broken record of he they got the
>numbers wrong in the earlier editions.

"opportunity"? Ya, only if.... I guess he it too busy writing another novel to correct the websites that are now on the net that actually have the complete text of FOG on them. Maybe you will have more luck in finding an opportunity in that then he has.... were all waiting.

Here is some for a start.....
<[www.bibliotecapleyades.net];
[www.scribd.com]

Oh when you finished with those then there is the other book's links.....

>Tell me - how long do you think it will be before we get an
>orthodox book that corrects the misleading "Queens Chamber"
>label? There's a wee task for you - get a hold of every
>orthodox book published with this misleading attribution and
>correct it.

Well, you're one who has such a problem with it.... you should spend you valuable time getting them to correct it instead of on me because I am doing the same with something that clearly is held so dear to your heart. I really does not matter to me what Mr. Hancock calls the blocks in Khafre's Valley Temple as long as he removes all the trash on his way out and not just sweep it up a bit and hope no one will notice the rest of the mess left behind.

>And when you have done that, why not update all
>those ortho books that label these structures "tombs of the
>Pharaohs" when we all know that not a single body has ever been
>found in any of them. Why don't we see this little fact
>emphasised in the ortho books, Archae?

I see it ponted out all the time.... in case you didn't know it's in the cahpters on the Queen's Chamber.

>And why is the Sphinx
>attributed to Khafre when the evidence for doing is tenuous in
>the extreme?

Well, I am quite willing to go with a number of people in the Khufu's family since the uraeus on the Sphinx head (that clearly was not recarved much, if at all) is known to have been used by them and not the Lost Ancients.

>Glass houses, Archae. Get your own house in order first before
>casting stones at others.

Oh, that rights Scott.... I can't now point out any more examples of where there is gross exaggerations in alternative literature (gross exaggerations, I might add, that clearly had no validity in reality when they were made and contradicted what was known to have been there as well as common sense), add to this your last attempt at such so that I can't make criticism of an alternative author's claims until the author makes an explanation for it first, taking years in ever to do so.... anything else you want to hamstring me with for your's and your freind's benefit, and not that of others. So much for the advancement of truth....

Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)

>SC

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
debunking alternative theories 323 Titus Livius 02-Jul-09 19:10
Re: debunking alternative theories 252 cladking 02-Jul-09 19:55
Re: debunking alternative theories 198 drew 02-Jul-09 23:11
Re: debunking alternative theories 205 Scott Creighton 02-Jul-09 23:52
Re: debunking alternative theories 195 survivalcell 03-Jul-09 00:01
Re: debunking alternative theories 207 cladking 03-Jul-09 01:37
Re: debunking alternative theories 213 survivalcell 03-Jul-09 18:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 203 cladking 04-Jul-09 00:07
Re: debunking alternative theories 282 Susan Doris 04-Jul-09 07:14
Re: debunking alternative theories 232 cladking 04-Jul-09 07:26
Re: debunking alternative theories 269 Susan Doris 04-Jul-09 07:31
Re: debunking alternative theories 225 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 07:31
Re: debunking alternative theories 207 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:10
Re: debunking alternative theories 245 cladking 03-Jul-09 22:56
Re: debunking alternative theories 201 papalou 05-Jul-09 22:27
Re: debunking alternative theories 239 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 06:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 290 carolb 06-Jul-09 18:13
Re: debunking alternative theories 218 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 20:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 226 papalou 06-Jul-09 23:29
Re: debunking alternative theories 279 carolb 07-Jul-09 16:43
Re: debunking alternative theories 205 NetWorkAngel 07-Jul-09 16:51
Re: debunking alternative theories 192 Bobajot 08-Jul-09 03:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 146 Andy McCallum 02-Jul-09 22:40
Re: debunking alternative theories 206 Archae Solenhofen 02-Jul-09 23:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 194 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 00:03
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 03:17
Re: debunking alternative theories 236 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 10:23
Re: debunking alternative theories 219 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:20
Scott 229 Warwick 03-Jul-09 17:54
Re: debunking alternative theories 236 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 18:13
Re: debunking alternative theories 240 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:08
Re: debunking alternative theories 219 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 23:59
Re: debunking alternative theories 234 cladking 04-Jul-09 01:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 Archae Solenhofen 04-Jul-09 18:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 236 cladking 04-Jul-09 18:54
Re: debunking alternative theories 205 papalou 05-Jul-09 22:47
The coiled serpent 209 Morph 06-Jul-09 13:58
Re: debunking alternative theories 236 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 07:03
Re: debunking alternative theories 217 cladking 06-Jul-09 21:46
Re: debunking alternative theories 247 Susan Doris 07-Jul-09 07:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 225 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:16
Re: debunking alternative theories 260 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 18:47
Re: debunking alternative theories 225 Morph 02-Jul-09 23:22
Re: debunking alternative theories 216 drew 02-Jul-09 23:25
Re: debunking alternative theories 220 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:48
Re: debunking alternative theories 198 Warwick 03-Jul-09 18:08
Re: debunking alternative theories 252 richarddullum 03-Jul-09 05:50
Re: debunking alternative theories 211 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:38
Re: debunking alternative theories 216 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:36
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 Titus Livius 04-Jul-09 11:57
Re: debunking alternative theories 253 cladking 04-Jul-09 19:14
Re: debunking alternative theories 207 Titus Livius 05-Jul-09 10:22
Re: debunking alternative theories 223 cladking 05-Jul-09 20:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 251 Susan Doris 03-Jul-09 07:36
Re: debunking alternative theories 279 Susan Doris 03-Jul-09 07:43
Re: debunking alternative theories 201 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 10:58
Re: debunking alternative theories 207 Essan 03-Jul-09 08:52
Re: debunking alternative theories 199 Laird Scranton 03-Jul-09 15:05
Re: debunking alternative theories 229 Warwick 03-Jul-09 17:47
more scholarly feedback 174 Warwick 03-Jul-09 18:00
Re: more scholarly feedback 203 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:45
Re: debunking alternative theories 328 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 18:42
actually.. 229 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:08
Re: actually.. 196 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:17
Re: actually.. 207 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:39
Re: actually.. 251 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:43
Re: actually.. 248 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:50
Re: actually.. 196 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:56
Re: actually.. 202 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:13
Re: actually.. 187 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 20:33
Posturing.. 225 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:46
Re: Posturing.. 233 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 20:54
Re: Posturing.. 218 Warwick 03-Jul-09 21:01
Re:Opinion Alert! 224 Sirfiroth 04-Jul-09 06:03
Re:Opinion Alert! 234 Warwick 04-Jul-09 17:58
Re:Opinion Alert! 194 Sirfiroth 04-Jul-09 19:49
Re:Opinion Alert! 192 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 20:03
Re:Opinion Alert! 214 Warwick 05-Jul-09 18:45
Re:Opinion Alert! 222 Sirfiroth 05-Jul-09 20:21
Re:Opinion Alert! 276 Warwick 05-Jul-09 21:05
Re: Posturing.. 247 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 08:15
Re: Posturing.. 195 Warwick 04-Jul-09 18:10
Re: Posturing.. 210 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 18:33
Re: Posturing.. 203 Warwick 04-Jul-09 19:09
Re: Posturing.. 253 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 19:27
Re: Posturing.. 213 cladking 04-Jul-09 20:01
Re: actually.. 285 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:15
Re: debunking alternative theories 224 drew 04-Jul-09 03:24
Titus 222 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 196 Diomede 05-Jul-09 22:39
Re: debunking alternative theories 267 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 06:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 226 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 14:56
Re: debunking alternative theories 232 Titus Livius 06-Jul-09 18:39
Re: debunking alternative theories 269 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 20:40
Re: debunking alternative theories 245 bookwise 06-Jul-09 15:24
Re: debunking alternative theories 217 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 15:47
Re: debunking alternative theories 196 Diomede 06-Jul-09 20:11
Re: debunking alternative theories 202 bookwise 06-Jul-09 20:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 247 Susan Doris 07-Jul-09 07:38
Re: debunking alternative theories 238 Titus Livius 08-Jul-09 18:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 187 Warwick 08-Jul-09 19:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.