>Archae Solenhofen wrote:
>>>Archae Solenhofen wrote:
>>>Tell me what NOTABLE "fringe" author, book and p.#, that
>>>originally wrote there are "HUNDREDS OF 200 TON" blocks a any
>>>of the temples at Giza?
>I retracted this before you responded.
Why did you fail to provide the quote to 100s of 200 ton block neighboring the Sphinx?
>>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
>I grasp it completely, but they are putting it in the context
>of "all the temples and Sphinx" not just the Valley Temple as
>you keep claiming, which nowhere do they say the Valley Temple
>alone has "hundreds of 200 ton blocks".
So you grasped the "Sphinx and it's neighboring temples" to mean more than just the Valley and Sphinx temples? So can you now tell us where these 100s of 200 ton block were? I ask because Mr. Bauval back in 2008 when he was asked to determiner the validity of this claim went to Khafre's Valley temple to check 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.
>>Why? There are lots of other blocks between 400 and 150 ton to
>>chose from and their dimensions are actually known.
>but good to
>know you agree with Egyptologists that there are "lots" of
>blocks at Giza in the 150-400 ton range.
I did not state that.... since when were there 150-400 "NK" constructions at Giza? Just how many 200 ton block do you actually imagine are there?
>>>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
>My foundation extends to my porch. Nothing on that either. I'll
>have to research that myself anyways.
>>>conservatively they are estimated at 200 tons and as Hawass
>>>says as much as 400.
>>Yes, the actual thickness is not known.....
>So it could even be more than 400 tons.
If they placed it in a hole I guess it could be any weight you imagine.
>>>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.
>A picture with your interpretation means very little at this
As opposite to what your ability to "grasp" the actual context of qoutes?
>>>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
>I know you have, but the point as stated is that regardless you
>continuously make it "seem" like they don't exist by repeating
>the same thing over and over and over again every opportunity
>you get for the last 6yrs in which by now you are only arguing
>with yourself. This still doesn't change the fact whether 100
>or 200 tons is meaningless which you ignore, and as it turns
>out they may have moved 400 ton or more blocks so what is your
>point? And the matter with Hancock was thoroughly resolved in
>2009, but you keep going on and on about it like it was
>yesterday every opportunity you get no matter what the thread
>is about. And despite what Hancock says, you keep erroneously
>referring to it as ALL of these fringe writers who keep
>repeating there are "HUNDREDS OF 200 TON BLOCKS" yet this only
>comes from Hancock and none of these other writers even cite
>him in this regard. You keep repeating it again and again
>applying it to the whole but it is simply not true what you are
Because it was an integral part of the ancient Sphinx claim..... and that particular aspect of it was all a "gross exaggeration" as pointed out by Mr. Bauval..... there are no 200+ blocks in Khafre's Valley temple let along 100s. and shifting them to the Sphinx temple which does not have as many big blocks in it as the Valley temple (although it does have the largest at about 100 tons according to Mr. West dimensions) is not going to affect the validity of that.
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Post Edited (16-Jan-13 09:32)