> Maybe next time you will provide the relevant quote just a few
> more paragraphs down the line...... instead of just providing
> the ones that fits your narrative and ignoring the rest.
My narrative has been quite clear and consistent. You are arguing with Hancock by way of me about the "hundreds" of 200 ton blocks" yet in principle I have agreed with you from well before this conversation. In the end you are only arguing with yourself and are trying to bait me with semantics. Just so there is no doubt in your mind in the future what my narrative is, here it is again:
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 other 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. 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.
Post Edited (18-Jan-13 06:41)