>Archae Solenhofen wrote:
>>"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.
What context...... "All the temples" is not in Hancock and Bauval (1996) either. How do you get "All the temples" from the actual quote "Sphinx and its neighbouring temples"?
>>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 insert into this discussion that 100s of 200 ton blocks are not in the Khafre's Valley temple after insinuating incorrectly that no one other than me claims 100s of 200 ton blocks..... it’s quite clear that it was claimed in Hancock and Bauval (1996) that the Sphinx's "neighbouring temples" were made of hundreds of 200 ton blocks, so if they were not in the Valley temple where were they located..... specifically? References for the claims of the 200 ton block are given in Hancock (1995) and Hancock and Bauval (1996) so one would think you actually looked them up and know perfectly well where the 100s of 200 ton block must be in the Sphinx's "neighbouring temples", since no source they cite for these 200 ton claims was used for anything other then to validate the 200 ton claims for the Valley temple.
>>You did, it's called context......
>I said both NK and OK so the context is either.
In a reply to such with no qualification of which of the 3 possibilities is being used, you decide to go with only the OK at Giza…… the context of my reply would only have been either “NK and OK” or “NK” blocks from what was stated since there is only a very small number of actual 200 ton blocks at Giza and NK examples more numerous.
>>>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
So much for your "but good to know you agree with Egyptologists that there are "lots" of blocks at Giza in the 150-400 ton range". Wow a few 200+ ton blocks, not hundreds and none where so may others claimed there were some!!!
>>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]
>I'm just using your logic Archae. Don't blame the messenger.
How much do you think that granite column originally weighted in the quarry when it was moved around? Because it was certainly more than 200 tons when it got stuck on its perch and as you know from a number of those sources you cited previously (and one you conveniently missed) that would be supposedly very difficult for modern cranes, if not impossible..... in another example of an imaginary sort of way.
>>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.
>If they retract this nonsense as
>Hancock has then, yes, I would be forgiving instead citing past
>mistakes over and over and over again.
If it's not cleanly demonstrable evidence that was made up/good faith error/whatever why would they need to retract it?
>>How about "advanced civilizations" inherently need advanced
>>engineering feats to enhance their validity..... be they real
>100 or 200 tons makes no difference to me.
One might think that made a big difference to those claiming modern cranes would find it difficult if not impossible to move 100s of 200+ ton blocks with the world biggest cranes claimed to be so few in number and only capable of 200 ton capacity. Modern boom cranes when those claims were made could lift thousands of tons......
> 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 thought Mr. Hancock believed the King’s Chamber was Old Kingdom….. that 4th dynasty, not this new/old Sphinx age of yours. I suggest you re-read that “correction” of Mr. Hancock’s because you seem to be at odds with it as well…. just like the Old Kingdom's granite ashlar on the Valley temple walls.
>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
The only diorite vases that are known were made out of hornblende diorite which is actually softer in 2 of its 3 varieties since they were quarried from a deposit that was hydrothermally altered (Aston 1994). These diorites have very little to no quartz so it really should be easier to work than granite considering that its primary minerals plagioclase feldspar and hornblende have hardness less than 6-6.5 on Mohs scale (less when altered with clay minerals). Maybe by "diorite" you meant diorite gneiss or anorthosite gneiss which are different rocks, but again the mineralogy does not contain any quartz and the minerals are all less than 6-6.5 on Mohs scale. BTW, the actual vases with long narrow necks are from the Middle Kingdom onward and were almost always made of limestone and metasiltstone (hardrocks that are not that difficult to carve).
Aston, B.G. (1994) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: materials and forms. Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg, 196 p.
>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.
As opposed to what... the 4th dynasty Egyptians were incompetent and were incapable of moving 100 ton block downhill from a quarry a few 10s of meters away? I have never implied it was easy..... fringers are often quite clearly stating it was too hard for them, often using imaginary evidence to support that conclusion.
>>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
The one I was referring to was cited in Hancock (1995) and Hancock and Bauval (1996) in the context of 200 ton blocks.
>, not "hundreds".
> There is a
>distinction. Before Serpent in the Sky, Traveller's Guide, and
One would think Serpent in the Sky and Traveller's Guide were both superceded by the above video involvement..... your inability to cite sources that are not following you narrative is becoming more and more noticeable.
>No, you are talking about Robert Temple which
>I doubt would have used Hancock as a reference regardless.
A Graham Hancock appears in the index with numerous pages in Temple (2009), that's the book about the Sphinx.
Considering that Dr. Temple's friend and business partner has been claiming over and over again for decades a 500 ton block in Khafre's Valley temple, his 100 ton claim was a surprising change from that crowd.
>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?
For the actual 200 ton blocks.... yes.
>>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.
Claims of 200 ton blocks in Khafe’s valley temple are still touted around….. this fringe claim is false and is used to promote the advanced civilization building the Sphinx and these temple. You think you would be concerned with this type of thing going on but instead of trying to stop it to benefit your own position, you choose to attack the person pointing it out.
>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"?
Why are you not asking the fringe authors claiming there were 200 ton blocks in places other than where they actually were…. That is other than it was almost impossible for me to get some of them to actually give the location of one…. And when I did it was more than quite clear that it was nowhere even remotely close to 200 tons.
As for a source for the actual 200 ton blocks I have already given you that one, Reisner (1931) (detailed survey plans and cross-sections of the masonry of Menkaure's Mortuary temple are presented there)…..
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)