>Archae Solenhofen wrote:
>>>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
>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
"all the temples and Sphinx".... where did you imagine that from, it's not anywhere in Hancock and Bauval (1996)? Here is the actual quote from page 20:
"If Schoch is right, therefore, then it follows that the Sphinx and its neighbouring temples (which are built out of hundreds of 200-ton limestone blocks) must be the work of an as yet unidentified advanced civilization of antiquity."
I should not have to remind you that you managed to miss this qoute in your extensive list in the previous post and missqouted it when it was pointed out to you. I will ask you again..... where were the 100s of 200 ton blocks suppose be in the Sphinx's neighboring temples?
>>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.
You did, it's called context......
>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!!
It's absolutely clear there are no 200 blocks in Khafre's Valley and Sphinx temple and according to Mr. West's own dimensions for such they are not anywhere close to 200 tons ..... care to tell us where one is because Mr. Bauval when he checked was unable to? As for the others it's pretty clear as well.... they are described in Reisner (1931). They're in Menkaure's mortuary temple, and they are on the bottom course, there are four of them weighting between 100-220 tons and they are right next to the quarry. The other is that Khafre block of yours in the hole below.
Reisner, G.A. (1931) Mycerinus the temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza. Harvard University, Chicago.
>>If they placed it in a hole I guess it could be any weight you
>Kind of like the Thunderstone, huh?
How much did it weight in the quarry when they moved it..... do you imagine it was bigger or smaller than what they documented for this one?
image source: [www.ruskerealie.zcu.cz]
>>As opposite to what your ability to "grasp" the actual context
Ya.... that's right.
>>>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.
>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, (_snip>) 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?
Somehow if orthodoxy pulled a "gross exaggeration" like that one above one might think you would be far less forgiving.
>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.
How about "advanced civilizations" inherently need advanced engineering feats to enhance their validity..... be they real or otherwise?
>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.
Including "links" from one who later (in a well known source you for some unknown reason missed again) implied 200 ton blocks in Khafre's Valley and Sphinx temples. Then there are the ones who wrote it after the "correction", and in one case I actually told that author that there were no 200 ton blocks in Khafre's Valley temple (or for that matter, 500 ton ones) before that cited book was published.
> 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.
How many webpages cite one of Mr. Hancock's books for 200 ton block in Khafre's Valley temple?
>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"?
Because it's the only major thing that links the Sphinx/Valley and Sphinx temples to an "advanced civilization"...... it's not the same degree of extreme weathering because the Valley temple is less weathered (it should be younger). Remember, it was also being claimed to one degree or another that modern cranes would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to move the imaginary 200 ton blocks.
>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.
Until the false claim is completely forgotten it's not going away, so I suggest if you don't care at all about false claims continuing to contaminate the fringe you just ignore it like what was done above with that qoute.
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)