>AS: You should ask them where the ancient Egyptians got that imaginary advanced technology that lifted those hundreds of imaginary blocks regularly exceeding 200 tons in Khafre's Valley temple (such as those described in Hancock and Bauval (1996)).
SC: Imaginary advanced technology? What in the blazes are you havering about?
AS: If you read their book it should be quite clear to you.... they went on and on about modern cranes not being able to build the Valley temple without great difficulty, if at all. If you haven't actually read it it's in a section called "Impossible Engineering", if that does not make it a little clearer.
SC: I’ve read most of Hancock and Bauval’s books, including the passage you cite above. You see, “…modern cranes not being able to build the Valley Temple without great difficulty…” does not actually imply it could not have been done with modern cranes, now does it?
Furthermore, these books are static media and I know for a fact that Graham and Robert have changed some of their views since writing them. The same thing occurs with orthodoxy. I can pick up numerous orthodox books - some very recent - that still use the erroneous term "Queens Chamber".
SC: The weight of these blocks is a complete red herring to this point as you well know.
Ya..... and making grossly exaggerated claims about the ancient Egyptian's architecture is an example of what?
SC: Back to your red herrings, I see. Whether these blocks are 200 tons or half or a quarter of that weight is NOT THE POINT. A 50 ton block presents a considerable obstacle to move and maneuver and the fact is that the ancients managed to do so without the use of modern cranes. That much is self-evident. Would it make much of a fifference to you if you had to go 12 rounds in a boxing ring with the world super-heavyweight champion or the world heavyweight champion? I'm sure either would present just as big an obstacle to you.
SC: The blocks you refer to are damn heavy and would have required considerable capability to move them whether they were "a mere" 25 ton, 50, 100 or 200 ton.
AS: Lot easier to get away with fooling the reader of a fringe archeology book with the insinuation of "Impossible Engineering" if one claims that modern cranes are not able to move hundreds of 200 ton blocks without great difficulty as opposed to 25 ton, 50, 100 tons.
SC: Once again, Archae – “…without great difficulty…” does not imply modern cranes could not have achieved the feat, now does it? How do you know the level of difficulty a modern crane would or would not have in attempting such a feat at Giza? Have you operated such a crane? Are you a construction engineer? No, you’re not – you’re a chemist, right?
SC: The POINT is that Graham, Robert and other antidox opinion fully accept that the AE of the OK were entirely capable in their own right of managing such heavy blocks and of using such to construct these monuments and, indeed, did so.
AS: Yes, a long as the ancient Egyptians or I guess other "certain builders in antiquity" (whoever they are, apparently the lost tribe who built the first Sphinx that the fringe is so fond of mentioning) had the wherewithal to do something that is claimed by such authors to be very taxing for our modern engineering specialists....
SC: Once again, Archae, “…very taxing for our modern engineering…” does not actually say our modern engineering could not have achieved it, does it? And when I say “we” I mean our civilization from the latter part of the 20th century. I imagine if Queen Victoria had decided early in her reign to construct an exact replica of Khufu’s pyramid in London, the project would have fallen flat on its face. There would have been neither the political will to devote the enormous human and material resources to such a project nor the technological wherewithal (i.e. modern cranes) to negate the need for such vast human resources.
AS:… but then contrary to Graham and Robert, modern boom cranes are capable of lifting 1000s of tons, not about 200 tons, the largest blocks in Khafre's Valley temple are not even close to 200 tons, and the smallest ones are considerably less than 50 tons.
SC: I feel sure that neither Graham or Robert would give a flying fig to the figures you are spouting here. You miss the point. The FACT is that these ancient peoples moved and elevated damn heavy weights without the benefit of modern cranes. That cannot be disputed. I’d dearly love to witness you and a number of your mates attempting the same feat without the use of modern cranes.
SC: So - what's your point, caller?
AS: The 4th dynasty ancient Egyptians are quite capable of moving and lifting the 25 ton, 50, 100 or 200 ton blocks in their Giza architecture with the simple tools Egyptologists have attributed to them.....
SC: That much is self-evident. Most serious alternative writers accept this fact. However, the precise techniques the ancient peoples deployed to achieve such remarkable feats of engineering remains the unanswered question. We can hazard guesses certainly but exactly how the ancients achieved what they clearly achieved is presently lost to us.