> "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."
"All the temples" in context Archae. Come on now.
> 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've already answered this question a dozen times and stated quite clearly the matter was addressed by Hancock and responded to by you in 2009, but you keep asking the question as if it were meaningless. The horse is dead. Stop beating it. .
> You did, it's called context......
I said both NK and OK so the context is either.
> >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.
So, there are no 200 ton blocks made of candy in the Valley Temple? Bummer.
> 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
> >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]
I'm just using your logic Archae. Don't blame the messenger.
> Ya.... that's right.
Yeah, that is right. Thanks.
> Somehow if orthodoxy pulled a "gross exaggeration" like that
> one above one might think you would be far less forgiving.
"Somehow"? Which one? Like RCD is meaningless when it doesn't fit and "old wood" is to blame? Or pyramids were built as "tombs and tombs only"? If they retract this nonsense as Hancock has then, yes, I would be forgiving instead of citing past mistakes over and over and over again.
> How about "advanced civilizations" inherently need advanced
> engineering feats to enhance their validity..... be they real
> or otherwise?
100 or 200 tons makes no difference to me. The advanced engineering is in the precision, placement, and cutting of the stones irrelevant of their size, though whether 100 or 200 tons, or even 60-80 like what is found in the Kings chamber, is certainly nothing to sneeze at. I have seen 5,000yr old fluted bulbous diorite vases in museums that look like they came of the manufacturing line yesterday that are infinitely more interesting from a technological standpoint than just "big blocks". And also Archae, the greater point to the rest of us, Hancock and Bauval notwithstanding, is the casual use of large blocks regardless of whether they be 50 or 150 tons. You make it seem like this is easy and meaningless with little more effort than stacking mudbricks not to mention the context of the OK where at Giza are found the overwhelming preponderance of such large blocks in this era.
> 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.
I didn't miss it, but West makes note of "200 ton" blocks on a relatively recent article here, not "hundreds". There is a distinction. Before Serpent in the Sky, Traveller's Guide, and Childress's book? No, you are talking about Robert Temple which I doubt would have used Hancock as a reference regardless.
Do you have a link or source for the block sizes and material distinguishing which blocks are which and those that are solid blocks and those that are sheathed?
> 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.
But you are the only one that won't let it be forgotten.
So, just to be sure its not overlooked:
"Do you have a link or source for the block sizes and material (granite/limestone) distinguishing which blocks are which and from those that are solid blocks and those that are sheathed"?
Post Edited (16-Jan-13 21:25)