>Archae Solenhofen wrote:
>>Mr. West has told me what the size of the largest blocks are
>>and that is slightly smaller than about 9m*2.5m *2m.
>So, there is no source and we really have no idea what the size
>of the blocks are other than what West says. Looking at the
>video it is obvious they are measuring them. Assuming a height
>of 6ft for West, eye balling it, it looks as though 18' x 12'
>10' is the block they are measuring. According to the MWC this
>is 171 tons. There is another frame of Schoch standing next to
>a block in the interior of the Sphinx Temple that giving it the
>eye ball test looks about the same size.
But that is not what Mr. West says when asked..... why is your “eyeballing” from a video suddenly being taken over Mr. West's claims of actual measurement in-situ. You understand that he was a major player in the more ancient Sphinx claims (his name appears as a co-author with Dr. Schoch's in a number of their publications), right......
>>They are made of limestone......
"And just so there is no confusion, I would add the MWC
>says limestone would be 171 and 285 tons
>>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
>The materials calculator says 2.54.
Attewell and Farmer (1976) say it is 2.2-2.6 Mg/m^3 for typical limestone. How do you get 2.54 for Sphinx enclosure limestone, that's not a granite? What do you imagine its porosity is?
>>That would be about 150 and 250 metric tons
>If using metric tons you need to say "tonnes", not "tons".
Metric ton is in common used today….. look it up in either the Oxford or Random House Unabridged dictionaries if you imagine otherwise.
>But it is interesting you choose to use "metric tons"
I used metric tons because Attewell and Farmer (1976) gives densities as Mg/cubic meter.
>and 258 metric tons equates to 171 and 285 U.S. (short) tons.
Is Mr. Hancock an American….. how about use long ton instead…. Oh, that’s right don’t want to give a different impression. Somehow since it would give a value between short and long, metric ton seems the best choice here. So now we all know exactly why short ton is being used…… to deliberately give a “different impression”! BTW, in Hancock (1995 p92 ) a block at Pumapunku is estimated to be 440 tons from the source that claims it is 440,000 kg…… want to guess which version of “ton” that is, san any “metric” or "tonnes" omissions?
>This gives quite a different impression.
Considering the rest of the world uses metric (and pretty much all the scientific community)…. It’s only “different impression” to a rather selective uptight minority.
>>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.
>Given the they talk about the Mortuary, Sphinx and Valley
>temples often as one in general terms, I have to wonder if the
>30' x 12' x 10' block is actually from the Mortuary Temple.
>This may be the actual block
>You have taken Hancock to task for the whole "hundreds of 200
>ton block" found at the Sphinx and associated temples, and
>rightly so. No one is arguing with you on this point yet you
>still keep bringing it up. But his source doesn't say there are
>"hundreds" of 200 ton blocks and no notable author in the
Ya, I take that to mean that in your search for "hundreds of 200 ton" in books you actually found some and just didn't bother to point it out. How did you classify these "unnotable authors" and rejected them?
Oh BTW...... Book link. You somehow managed to miss that too...... that page 30 of Hancock and Bauval (1996). That is twice now, I'll assume from now on that you are just doing it deliberately.
>has ever grasped on to this either so
>other than to bash Hancock until the day you die for this
>mistake I'm still not sure why you continue to bring it up
>every opportunity you get.
The 200+ ton block claim in Khafre’s valley and Sphinx temples is still being used to support the notion of an advanced civilization within the fringe community.
>The simple fact of the matter,
>agreed on by all, is that there are "many" blocks comprising
>these 3 temples contemporary with the Sphinx that weigh between
>50 and 100+ tons with the largest of them being at least 200
>tons. Tooling around on the 360 site I can see many blocks in
>these temples that would fall into the 100 ton range. There are
only 1 block...... not blocks
>at Giza that according to Hawass may be as much as
>400 tons. No one, including you, knows the exact measurements
>of the Valley Temple blocks or just about any of the other
>temple blocks for that matter. Hancock makes a big deal about
>cranes and "200 tons", but whether 50, 100, or 200 tons makes
>no difference as to its age.
It did..... read the quote here:
and if you have not already pages 29-31 of Hancock and Bauval (1996).
"more sophisticated than we are today" a few 200 ton blocks all are ground level and either in the quarry or just a few 10s of meters way. You have to be absolutely kidding me. Now I know why suddenly you don't seem to care what Mr. West says any more.
>And also whether 50/100/200, does
>not diminish the complexity of the task and lest we forget the
>casing stones and King's Chamber blocks are a whole other can
>of worms regardless of size.
Not for Mr. Hancock, unlike you he seems to understand the GP is 4th dynasty..... but of course that mean the ancient Egyptian now have the ability to construct all the temples at Giza..... better find some way to imagine those 100s of 200 ton blocks back again.
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)