> >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
> >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?
Are you an alcoholic Archae? I'm serious. There is something wrong with you that quite frankly at a certain point it gets kind of creepy to keep communicating with you. What was there in my post that did not specifically address this and yet you repeat the same thing over again as if it didn't happen. Why do you do this? Do you think if you cry loud enough and often enough about something you are only arguing with yourself about somebody "famous" like Graham, Robert or John will come and rub your tummy?
> 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?
You didn't say NK. But now we know there are 150-400 ton blocks at Giza which apparently no one can agree how many, so I'm not sure what your point is. I "imagine" there are HUNDREDS Archae-THOUSANDS of 200 ton blocks. All made of candy!!
> If they placed it in a hole I guess it could be any weight you
Kind of like the Thunderstone, huh?
> As opposite to what your ability to "grasp" the actual context
> of qoutes?
> >I know you have, but the point as stated is that regardless
> >continuously make it "seem" like they don't exist by
> >the same thing over and over and over again every opportunity
> >you get for the last 6yrs in which by now you are only
> >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
> >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
> >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
> 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.
But we all know it was an exaggeration Archae-no one is arguing this but you and yet you keep bringing it up over and over again. I even say you keep bringing it up over and over again and your response is to bring it up yet again. Amazing.
Regardless, [Moderator Edit] are you talking about Ancient Limestone? So this has been the bee in your bonnet all this time stinging you 40 times a day that makes you barf up "hundreds of 200 ton blocks" every chance you get? But what does the size of a block have to do with precipitation based weathering, carbon dating, 4th Dynasty repairs or construction style? Whether 50-80-100 or 200 tons is irrelevant to an older Sphinx-there are HUNDREDS of blocks 50 tons or more at Giza, "many" 100 ton blocks and "several" 200 tons or more. The Sphinx (and Giza) is still older than accepted.
You seem to think that all "fringe" authors or anyone who does not agree with you are capable of is thinking only what Hancock or Bauval said 20yrs ago and are incapable of discriminating the facts for themselves. I just gave you several links, which you ignore, all of fringe or fringier authors who make no mention of 200 ton blocks in the Valley Temple let alone "hundreds" of them. The mistake you make, and others like you, "Ancient Limestone", is that you think "alternative" proponents are just like you in that all they are capable of doing is repeating someone else's opinion and are unable to differentiate between fact and fiction, therefore everyone thinks exactly what Hancock and Bauval wrote 20yrs ago as if that were some kind of textbook or something.
Ask yourself this: In all of these discussions about the age of the Sphinx, especially in the last few years, except for that rare exception; who on these boards says the Sphinx is older because there are "hundreds of 200 ton blocks"? Ironically, you are the only one and AGAIN, I say the only reason you do it is to discredit a greater argument to which it is wholly irrelevant whether the blocks are 100 or 200 tons. Every time it comes up you get the same response-"who cares"-but you still cannot help but bring it up ad nauseum despite the matter was resolved on this forum 6yrs ago.
Post Edited (16-Jan-13 17:58)
[Language Edited/Dr. Troglodyte]