> >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
>SC: Imaginary advanced technology? What in the blazes are you
>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
>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?
But it insinuates that the ancient Egyptians could not have done it with their simple technology.... where does it clearly state in their book that simple technology that was known by the 4th dynasty ancient Egyptians is quite capable of building the Valley temple (ignoring the fact that the blocks are no where close to 200 tons and that the smallest are more than just considerably less than 50 tons in weight)?
>Furthermore, these books are static media and I know for a fact
>that Graham and Robert have changed some of their views since
I suspect Mr. Bauval has on this issue when he could not provide a specific example of a 200 ton block, or anything close to it, coming from Khafre's Valley temple a year ago, thus his admittance of a "gross exaggeration".... what Mr. Hancock thinks on this subject in still a bit in question.
>The same thing occurs with orthodoxy. I can
>pick up numerous orthodox books - some very recent - that still
>use the erroneous term "Queens Chamber".
I can't see how that is comparable to claims and insinuations that the 4th dynasty Egyptians did not build the Khafre Valley temple. You should find a better example of where a modern orthodox book makes a "gross exaggeration" which allows the authors to insinuate something as completely bogus as the issue that the ancient 4th dynasty Egyptians could not build something they clearly had the technological ability to do using the known tools attributed to them.
>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.
Not at all...
>Whether these blocks
>are 200 tons or half or a quarter of that weight is NOT THE
Yes it is.....they are not anywhere close to 200 tons. You seem to have missed the point completely... the large blocks that were actually moved and lifted can be done by simple technology too.... as so many other cultures through history have shown us with their not-so-impossible engineering feats.
>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.
I am sure that at 50 tons they would have had to scrape a little lower down the list of modern crane engineers before they found one who would not know how to lift them with a modern crane.
>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?
Which feat might that be.... the imaginary one involving hundreds of 200 tons blocks or the one where the block are all considerably less than 200 tons?
>How do you know the level of difficulty a modern
>crane would or would not have in attempting such a feat at
Because contrary to Graham and Robert insinuations, modern boom cranes are capable of lifting 1000s of tons.... lifting 400 ton turbine runners and placing into there hosing in hydroelectric plants.... etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc....
>Have you operated such a crane?
Nope.... has any fringe author making these types of claims actually asked a crane operator who lifted weight over 200 tons, or who actually got the blocks weight remotely correct in the frist place when they didn't?
>Are you a construction
Nope... has any fringe author making these types of claims actually asked a construction engineer who knew what they were doing?
>No, you’re not – you’re a chemist, right?
Nope.... try again and maybe win a prize!
>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
>SC: Once again, Archae, “…very taxing for our modern
>engineering…” does not actually say our modern engineering
>could not have achieved it, does it?
If one claims it was taxing for us with our most advance cranes what does that imply about the ancient Egyptians abilities since they did not have any modern engineering technology (what is greater than "taxing", remember the title of the section you read in their book was called "Impossible Engineering")? From reading that ection are you in anyway left with the impression that the ancient 4th dynasty Egyptians could have built the Valley temple with the simple technology they actually had....
>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.
You have still missed the point completely.... the blocks in Khafre's Valley temple do not weight anything close to 200 tons and the 4th dynasty Egyptians did not need modern cranes to construct it.
>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.
Why is that.... because they are factually correct? If you care to provide some other figures you imagine are more correct please do....
>You miss the
>point. The FACT is that these ancient peoples moved and
>elevated damn heavy weights without the benefit of modern
Yes, with simple technology, since it is quite capable of moving the blocks in Khafre's Valley temple..... you should ask them to explain why they grossly exaggerated the weight and number of such blocks in Khafre's Valley temple and then went on and on about how difficult, if not impossible, it would be for modern cranes to do the same job. I never said it was easy for the Old Kingdom Egyptians... that does not mean that the simple technology of the 4th dynasty was quite capable of doing this.... there is no need for cranes, lost advance technology, or different ways of thinking (except for the fringe authors who make these types of claims).
"ancient peoples" that soulds a little too much like the mysterious "certain builders in antiquity". You mean the 4th dynasty Egyptians right and not the lost tribe from Gobelki Tepe or someone else from 1000s of years before the OK..... is that your view as well? I guess then the OK Egyptians built the Sphinx... because that is were the 100 ton blocks came from that are found in the Sphinx and Valley temple... so much for the lost tribe of Gobelki Tepe or whoever visiting Giza and built the isolated and anomalous examples of "Impossible Engineering".
>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.
Name the ones that specifically state the 4th dynasty Egyptians built the Khafre Valley temple with the simple technology they had at the time? Or how about one that actually gets the block weights correct and not as a "gross exaggeration".....
>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
Ya, there it is at last and as usual the infamous innuendo of the "lost"..... Can you tell us what is preventing the ancient Egyptians of the 4th dynasty from building Khafre's Valley temple with the technology that they actually had? And I should remind you it's not because they were using hundreds of 200 ton blocks and as a result modern cranes cannot move them....
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)