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 369 Titus Livius 02-Jul-09 19:10
Re: debunking alternative theories 284 cladking 02-Jul-09 19:55
Re: debunking alternative theories 228 drew 02-Jul-09 23:11
Re: debunking alternative theories 262 Scott Creighton 02-Jul-09 23:52
Re: debunking alternative theories 232 survivalcell 03-Jul-09 00:01
Re: debunking alternative theories 248 cladking 03-Jul-09 01:37
Re: debunking alternative theories 259 survivalcell 03-Jul-09 18:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 241 cladking 04-Jul-09 00:07
Re: debunking alternative theories 317 Susan Doris 04-Jul-09 07:14
Re: debunking alternative theories 263 cladking 04-Jul-09 07:26
Re: debunking alternative theories 301 Susan Doris 04-Jul-09 07:31
Re: debunking alternative theories 271 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 07:31
Re: debunking alternative theories 249 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:10
Re: debunking alternative theories 290 cladking 03-Jul-09 22:56
Re: debunking alternative theories 254 papalou 05-Jul-09 22:27
Re: debunking alternative theories 274 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 06:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 328 carolb 06-Jul-09 18:13
Re: debunking alternative theories 258 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 20:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 250 papalou 06-Jul-09 23:29
Re: debunking alternative theories 322 carolb 07-Jul-09 16:43
Re: debunking alternative theories 245 NetWorkAngel 07-Jul-09 16:51
Re: debunking alternative theories 262 Bobajot 08-Jul-09 03:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 193 Andy McCallum 02-Jul-09 22:40
Re: debunking alternative theories 254 Archae Solenhofen 02-Jul-09 23:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 230 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 00:03
Re: debunking alternative theories 268 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 03:17
Re: debunking alternative theories 277 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 10:23
Re: debunking alternative theories 264 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:20
Scott 266 Warwick 03-Jul-09 17:54
Re: debunking alternative theories 279 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 18:13
Re: debunking alternative theories 276 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:08
Re: debunking alternative theories 259 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 23:59
Re: debunking alternative theories 272 cladking 04-Jul-09 01:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 277 Archae Solenhofen 04-Jul-09 18:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 278 cladking 04-Jul-09 18:54
Re: debunking alternative theories 245 papalou 05-Jul-09 22:47
The coiled serpent 248 Morph 06-Jul-09 13:58
Re: debunking alternative theories 264 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 07:03
Re: debunking alternative theories 257 cladking 06-Jul-09 21:46
Re: debunking alternative theories 298 Susan Doris 07-Jul-09 07:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 268 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:16
Re: debunking alternative theories 299 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 18:47
Re: debunking alternative theories 262 Morph 02-Jul-09 23:22
Re: debunking alternative theories 261 drew 02-Jul-09 23:25
Re: debunking alternative theories 267 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:48
Re: debunking alternative theories 232 Warwick 03-Jul-09 18:08
Re: debunking alternative theories 311 richarddullum 03-Jul-09 05:50
Re: debunking alternative theories 259 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:38
Re: debunking alternative theories 282 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:36
Re: debunking alternative theories 272 Titus Livius 04-Jul-09 11:57
Re: debunking alternative theories 295 cladking 04-Jul-09 19:14
Re: debunking alternative theories 241 Titus Livius 05-Jul-09 10:22
Re: debunking alternative theories 258 cladking 05-Jul-09 20:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 298 Susan Doris 03-Jul-09 07:36
Re: debunking alternative theories 311 Susan Doris 03-Jul-09 07:43
Re: debunking alternative theories 244 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 10:58
Re: debunking alternative theories 243 Essan 03-Jul-09 08:52
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 Laird Scranton 03-Jul-09 15:05
Re: debunking alternative theories 272 Warwick 03-Jul-09 17:47
more scholarly feedback 195 Warwick 03-Jul-09 18:00
Re: more scholarly feedback 257 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:45
Re: debunking alternative theories 362 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 18:42
actually.. 271 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:08
Re: actually.. 236 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:17
Re: actually.. 240 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:39
Re: actually.. 283 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:43
Re: actually.. 281 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:50
Re: actually.. 247 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:56
Re: actually.. 239 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:13
Re: actually.. 227 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 20:33
Posturing.. 257 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:46
Re: Posturing.. 269 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 20:54
Re: Posturing.. 255 Warwick 03-Jul-09 21:01
Re:Opinion Alert! 270 Sirfiroth 04-Jul-09 06:03
Re:Opinion Alert! 274 Warwick 04-Jul-09 17:58
Re:Opinion Alert! 226 Sirfiroth 04-Jul-09 19:49
Re:Opinion Alert! 226 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 20:03
Re:Opinion Alert! 244 Warwick 05-Jul-09 18:45
Re:Opinion Alert! 260 Sirfiroth 05-Jul-09 20:21
Re:Opinion Alert! 310 Warwick 05-Jul-09 21:05
Re: Posturing.. 280 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 08:15
Re: Posturing.. 247 Warwick 04-Jul-09 18:10
Re: Posturing.. 248 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 18:33
Re: Posturing.. 247 Warwick 04-Jul-09 19:09
Re: Posturing.. 295 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 19:27
Re: Posturing.. 267 cladking 04-Jul-09 20:01
Re: actually.. 324 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:15
Re: debunking alternative theories 266 drew 04-Jul-09 03:24
Titus 261 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 Diomede 05-Jul-09 22:39
Re: debunking alternative theories 313 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 06:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 266 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 14:56
Re: debunking alternative theories 277 Titus Livius 06-Jul-09 18:39
Re: debunking alternative theories 301 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 20:40
Re: debunking alternative theories 282 bookwise 06-Jul-09 15:24
Re: debunking alternative theories 251 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 15:47
Re: debunking alternative theories 234 Diomede 06-Jul-09 20:11
Re: debunking alternative theories 246 bookwise 06-Jul-09 20:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 277 Susan Doris 07-Jul-09 07:38
Re: debunking alternative theories 295 Titus Livius 08-Jul-09 18:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 220 Warwick 08-Jul-09 19:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.