> 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.
You are saying they are wrong so you must have the correct information so I'd rather have that. Regardless, I'm asking you Archae; do you have a source for the sizes of blocks at the Valley Temple we can all refer to so that we are all on the same page? I'm not talking about 200 ton blocks, just blocks. If we know their size we can calculate the weight ourselves right? Hancock cites blocks in the Valley Temple "18 feet long x 12 feet wide x 10 feet high and some were as long as 30 feet x 12 feet wide x 10 feet high" but you dispute this, maybe rightly so, but you must have a source you refer to. What is it?
As I said in my other post:
"The majority of these measured about 18 feet long x 12 feet wide x 10 feet high and some were as long as 30 feet x 12 feet wide x 10 feet high".
You seem to disagree with these measurements, which you may be right, but taking these at face value and using a Material weight calculator we get weights of 188 and 309 tons respectively for granite.
If I not using the calculator correctly please explain how to use it?
And just so there is no confusion, I would add the MWC says limestone would be 171 and 285 tons respectively.
Post Edited (17-Jan-13 06:28)