> Not in the Valley temple..... and he does not exaggerate what
> is actually there. That block is at ground level and right next
> to the quarry from which it was extracted, and it's no where
> near the Sphinx. Enlighten us as to how many 200 ton blocks are
> at Giza and show us where any fringe author ever pointed that
> out correctly before one of them let out what was in their book
> was all just a "gross exaggeration"?
"Hundreds of 200 ton blocks"?
John Anthony West? Hmm, lets see.
Traveller's Key to Ancient Egypt p. 144 RE:Valley Temple "Some of these blocks weigh well over 100 tons".
Ok. Not there. Let's try:
Serpent in the Sky-nope, not there.
David Hatcher Childress says "up to 100 tons" <[books.google.com];
Robert Temple says at least 100 tons:[www.egyptiandawn.info]
Let's go more fringe:
Ancient Aliens supporter says up to 100 tons:[ancientaliens.wordpress.com]
Even Lloyd Pie says "up to 150 tons"[www.lloydpye.com]
All these fringe authors and their "hundreds of 200 ton blocks".
Fingerprints of the Gods p.341. This must be it. "The majority of these measured about 18 feet long x 12 feet wide x 10 feet high and some were as long as 30 feet x 12 feet wide x 10 feet high. Routinely exceeding 200 tons in weight, each was heavier than a modern locomotive-and there were hundreds of blocks".
Though the "exaggeration" is clear, it should be obvious he is not saying there are "hundreds of 200 ton blocks", but rather there are "hundreds of blocks" some of which "routinely" weigh 200 tons. Considering only several may weigh up to 200 tons, even "routinely" is overstating it which he has later acknowledged, but obviously he is not saying "hundreds". Other than his actual words, we have the measurements with the largest "some" being 12ft longer on average which should give the reader no doubt as to these being the 200 ton blocks in question given this is the highest weight given. If the 18x12x10 block was supposedly "200 tons" then what does this say about the 30x12x10 block? 300 tons? He makes no mention of such things. Only a modicum of common sense is required to understand what is what here in that there are obviously not "hundreds" of 200 ton blocks, but "some". It is unfortunate that some laymen have mistakenly taken this to mean "100's" of 200 ton blocks, but this is not what was actually said though to be fair, it was implied there were more than there are.
But maybe it's in the Message of the Sphinx p.28:"[regarding the temples]...many of which [the blocks] weigh in the range of 200 tons a piece. There are no small blocks here at all:every single stone is enormous-the least of them weighing more than 50 tons..." And when talking about these 50-200 ton blocks p.29, "The biggest technical challenge of building a replica of the Valley Temple would be the need to lift hundreds of such weights..." Again, pretty clear "many" does not equate to "hundreds" and he is referring to "such weights" in the 50-200 ton range. Again, the meaning is obvious.
So far, Archae-all I see is you taking out of context what these authors are actually saying and belligerently proclaiming "all of these lying fringe authors keep repeating there are hundreds of 200 ton blocks" when in reality if anyone is saying that it is those who didn't understand it in the first place. Hancock has already said he was wrong to stress the largest blocks in lui of the average block, but whether 100 or 200 tons makes no difference unless you want to argue about the capability of modern cranes, which to me is irrelevant anyways.
In researching this a little bit, I can see that you have been droning on and and on about these "hundreds of 200 ton blocks" literally for several years and continue to interject it into any discussion regardless of the context despite the fact the matter was conclusively settled here in 2009:[www.grahamhancock.com]. Yet you still keep bringing it up 6yrs later every chance you get.
I read both of Hanckock's books when they were released and never took them to mean "hundreds of 200 ton blocks" though obviously he was highlighting the heaviest stones which he admits he was wrong to do. But whether 100 or 200 tons does nothing to weaken the general argument which you seem to willfully ignore. It's funny to me that you use large New Kingdom blocks to "prove" it was no big deal to do it in the OK and that the Egyptians were even capable of such things, and yet when it serves your purposes you make every argument that the blocks are lighter than they are reported to be to "prove" the same thing.
> >Granted, those other "fringe" authors Siliotti, Alberto, Zahi
> >Hawass, 1997 "Guide to the Pyramids of Egypt" p.63-9 only say
> >that the largest are somewhere "over 100 tons".
> So what.... Where do they claim there are 100s of 200+ ton
Yes-so what? No one is saying there are 100's of 200 ton blocks except for you. They are only up to 100+ tons, everyone understands this. Get over it.
> >Or how about those same nut-job fringe authors Alberto and
> >Hawass (p.62) claiming the foundation blocks of the Sphinx
> >Temple weigh as much as "400 tons"?
> No they don't..... it's in the pavement of Khafre's mortuary
> temple and the thickness is in unknown.... it can be anywhere
> between 400 and 150 tons depending on thickness and it's still
> in the quarry from which it was extracted and at ground level
> (i.e. was not moved very far or lifted very high).
So now you argue for the lighter weight when it serves your purposes. If it were in the NK you would favor the heavier to show how easy it was. Convenient. So, if I pave something and build on top of it is that a foundation? Regardless, conservatively they are estimated at 200 tons and as Hawass says as much as 400. I suspect if I actually obtained these books for myself they would tell a different story than what you are trying to pass off. Regardless, you make it seem that there are no stones at Giza remotely close to being over 100 tons yet there are several up to possibly 400 tons if not more, and also that if "only" 100-150 tons this somehow makes it "easy" compared to 200. The only reason you keep sticking on this despite the fact (most) everyone gets it is to confuse the real issue. At this point you only discredit yourself to continue to bring it up out of nowhere every chance you get. The matter is settled.
> >What is your point "Ancient Limestone"? Are you calling
> >Edwards, Alberto and Hawass "liars"?
> I never called anyone a liar in this..... that is entirely
> someone else's claim.
Post Edited (16-Jan-13 05:45)