Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).

Thanos5150 wrote:

>Archae Solenhofen wrote:

>

>>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?

Mr. West has told me what the size of the largest blocks are and that is slightly smaller than about 9m*2.5m *2m.

>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.

They are made of limestone......

So that would be:

5.49m * 3.66m * 3.05m = 61.29 m^3

9.14m * 3.66m * 3.05m = 102.03 m^3

From Attewell and Farmer (1976) typical natural limestones at bulk densities at 2.2-2.6 Mg/cubic meter (Table 4.2 page 187). Since we are dealing with hard porous limestone so say about 2.4-2.5 Mg/cubic meter

That would be about 150 and 250 metric tons

Mr. Bauval went to the Valley temple and could not find them... The bigger of those numbers is from that Video and they claim it's just 200 tons..... Mr. West, who is in the video in the context of 200 ton blocks, was asked by me to explain this and the size of the blocks he gave were not the same as those in the video. He sated he measured one of a few big blocks at about 9m * 2.5m *2m in the Sphinx temple and the big ones in the Valley temple were slightly smaller which would make them about a 100 metric tons somewhat consistent with what he actually stated about the size of these blocks in his two books.

Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, I..W. (1976) Principles of engineering geology. Chapman and Hall, London, 1045 p.

Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)

>Archae Solenhofen wrote:

>

>>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?

Mr. West has told me what the size of the largest blocks are and that is slightly smaller than about 9m*2.5m *2m.

>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.

They are made of limestone......

So that would be:

5.49m * 3.66m * 3.05m = 61.29 m^3

9.14m * 3.66m * 3.05m = 102.03 m^3

From Attewell and Farmer (1976) typical natural limestones at bulk densities at 2.2-2.6 Mg/cubic meter (Table 4.2 page 187). Since we are dealing with hard porous limestone so say about 2.4-2.5 Mg/cubic meter

That would be about 150 and 250 metric tons

Mr. Bauval went to the Valley temple and could not find them... The bigger of those numbers is from that Video and they claim it's just 200 tons..... Mr. West, who is in the video in the context of 200 ton blocks, was asked by me to explain this and the size of the blocks he gave were not the same as those in the video. He sated he measured one of a few big blocks at about 9m * 2.5m *2m in the Sphinx temple and the big ones in the Valley temple were slightly smaller which would make them about a 100 metric tons somewhat consistent with what he actually stated about the size of these blocks in his two books.

Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, I..W. (1976) Principles of engineering geology. Chapman and Hall, London, 1045 p.

Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.