I am not very impressed with Stocks either, though I commend him for the effort, but a lot of what he shows is so untenable to the greater picture he ends up proving himself wrong. It takes 14hrs to cut 1.2" on granite with a copper saw using abrasives and this means what? Isn't it logical that because this method is so pathetic that this was actually NOT how it was done? Stock's work reminds me of the Nova pyramid building experiment that was so woefully inadequate to the whole yet in spite itself still held up as proof of how it was done yet it actually only accomplished the exact opposite.
Given that it seems certain that Stocks has, rather ironically, only succeeded in disproving the theories of the Egyptologists, using strictly his own data and conclusions, it's absolutely unfathomable that he is being cited as "definitive" proof that the Egyptologists' theories are right and the alternative theories are wrong. Because not only would any honest, intelligent person have to remain open-minded to both theoretical possibilities, but they would actually have to lean in favor of the alternative theories. That is, of course, unless they had an agenda whose goal was *NOT* finding out the Truth of the matter...
Post Edited (23-Feb-13 22:20)