>Archae Solenhofen wrote:
>>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"?
>Tell me what NOTABLE "fringe" author, book and p.#, that
>originally wrote there are "HUNDREDS OF 200 TON" blocks at any
>of the temples at Giza?
If you are having difficulty grasping the actual context of "hundreds" in Hancock (1995), how about the part you missed in Hancock and Bauval (1996) to clear that up, specifically page 20 in the sentence that clearly states that the temples near the Sphinx are built of "hundreds of 200-ton limestone blocks". If you think they are now all in the Sphinx temple, think again......
>>>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.
Why? There are lots of other blocks between 400 and 150 ton to chose from and their dimensions are actually known.
>So, if I pave something and
>build on top of it is that a foundation?
There is nothing built on top of that block. it's clearly pavement.
>conservatively they are estimated at 200 tons and as Hawass
>says as much as 400.
Yes, the actual thickness is not known.....
>I suspect if I actually obtained these
>books for myself they would tell a different story than what
>you are trying to pass off.
I have a picture of it..... so it's pretty clear to me.
>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 somehow that makes it easy
>compared to 200.
I have repeatedly stated on this site how many 200 ton there are known at Giza...... so just like above you would be wrong there.
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)