Author of the Month :  The Official forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister

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?

AS: 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)?

SC: You are living in the past, Archae. The debate has moved on. I’m sure you well know that Hancock now accepts the Khufu inscriptions in the relieving chambers of the GP as genuine 4th dynasty inscriptions. By extension then, GH must also accept that the AE of the 4th Dynasty did in fact build these structures with the bronze age technology they had at their disposal. Why do you insist in dragging this debate back in time when positions have clearly changed? This is tantamount to nothing more than mud-raking on your part. Move on.


SC: The same thing occurs with orthodoxy. I can pick up numerous orthodox books - some very recent - that still use the erroneous term "Queens Chamber".

AS: I can't see how that is comparable to claims and insinuations that the 4th dynasty Egyptians did not build the Khafre Valley temple.

SC: It’s not comparable in the sense you have taken it. I was demosntrating to you how books are static media and what is written in them – especially opinions expressed by the author(s) – can change although the original book remains unchanged. If you read later posts by GH and RB you will find clear evidence of these changes from what they originally believed and wrote. And the same goes on in Orthodoxy. What becomes the accepted orthodoxy this decade will be swept aside with new facts and evidence from a new orthodoxy. Does that mean we should castigate the adherents of the former orthodoxy for all the wrong ideas that they propagated? Of course it doesn’t. So why do you continue this when you must know that Bauval and Hancock’s positions have changed significantly since the publication of the books you so
despise? Get over it, Archae and move on.


SC: Whether these blocks are 200 tons or half or a quarter of that weight is NOT THE POINT.

AS: 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

SC: Is Hancock or Bauval continuing to deny this? No. As stated above – Hancock has gone on record in stating that he now fully accepts the Khufu inscriptions in G1 as genuine 4th dynasty. Ergo he accepts the chrnology of the Gizamids, ergo he accepts the AE of the 4th Dynasty bult these structures. How much clearer does this have to be for you?


SC: Once again, Archae – “…without great difficulty…” does not imply modern cranes could not have achieved the feat, now does it?

AS: 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?

SC: No, Archae. The actual feat of the AE constructing the VT with the tools and technology at their disposal which Bauval and Hancock – in accepting the G1 Khufu inscriptions – must now also accept.


Have you operated such a crane?

AS: Nope.... has any fringe author making these types of claims actually asked a crane operator ...

SC: I can’t speak for these authors but I do know Bauval is a construction engineer and would most likely have crossed paths with such individuals. If you’re so concerned by this issue why don’t you ask Bauval himself?


SC: Are you a construction engineer?

AS: Nope... has any fringe author making these types of claims actually asked a construction engineer who knew what they were doing?

SC: See above.


SC: No, you’re not – you’re a chemist, right?

AS: Nope.... try again and maybe win a prize!

SC: Sorry but I find guessing games boring.


SC: Once again, Archae, “…very taxing for our modern engineering…” does not actually say our modern engineering could not have achieved it, does it?

AS: 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 ...

SC: It implies to me that the AE of the 4th dynasty employed a level of ingenuity and savvy that has defeated the best minds we have today bearing down on this issue. It does not mean or imply some lost super technology. It means using what materials they had in simple but clever ways that we have yet to imagine e.g. an internal ramp system as proposed by Houdin. A simple, ingenius solution to the construction of these monuments that the AE of the 4th dynasty could quite conceivably have envisioned but which took us until the 20th/21st century to conceive of.


AS: (what is greater than "taxing", remember the title of the section you read in their book was called "Impossible Engineering")? From reading that section 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....

SC: These monuments were not easy to construct – not by any stretch of the imagination. Any clever/smart techniques that could be brought to bear on the construction problem that might assist in making it a slightly less daunting undertaking would undoubtedly have been deployed. I simply do not think we have fully uncovered all of the smart, ingenius techniques the AE might have deployed. We have still to imagine them; to rediscover them. Or is it your view – in terms of the construction of these monuments – that we have in fact already uncovered every ingenius technique the builders could have conceived of and deployed? BTW – you can score levitation right of your list.


SC: 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: You have still missed the point completely.... the blocks in Khafre's Valley temple do not weight anything close to 200 tons ...

SC: So what!! Who cares??


AS ...and the 4th dynasty Egyptians did not need modern cranes to construct it.

SC: Well we know that already.


SC: I feel sure that neither Graham or Robert would give a flying fig to the figures you are spouting here.

AS: Why is that.... because they are factually correct? If you care to provide some other figures you imagine are more correct please do....

SC: No, because the debate has moved on and you have clearly been left behind on a little 200 ton island all on your very owny-ownsome.


SC: You miss the point. The FACT is that these ancient peoples moved and elevated damn heavy weights without the benefit of modern cranes.

AS Yes, with simple technology, since it is quite capable of moving the blocks in Khafre's Valley temple.....

SC: No – INGENIUS USE AND APPLICATION of simple technology internal ramping system such as that proposed by Houdin.


AS: 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.

SC: I don’t need to ask them. If you do then I suggest you do so yourself.


AS: I never said it was easy for the Old Kingdom Egyptians...

SC: I don’t doubt you.


SC: "ancient peoples" that soulds a little too much like the mysterious "certain builders in antiquity". You mean the 4th dynasty Egyptians right ...

SC: Right.


SC: That much is self-evident. Most serious alternative writers accept this fact.

AS: 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".....

SC: Scott Creighton and I do believe also Gary Osborn (though it might actually be best to check with Gary directly since I cannot vouch for his position on this precise question). And I think it is self-evident by now that Hancock and Bauval have also changed their positions considerably with regards to this issue but if you require a direct answer to this specific question then I advise you to pose it to them yourself. You seem to be the only one still harping on about two hundred ton blocks.


SC: 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.
AS: Ya, there it is at last and as usual the infamous innuendo of the "lost".....

SC: What are you bumping your gums about now? FYI it is YOU who mentions the word “lost”, not I. It is YOU that raises the spectre and innuendo of “lost civilisations” here, not I.

AS: 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?

SC: Nothing. But can you tell me EXACTLY HOW, for example, the Great Pyramid was truly built? Exactly please – every last detail? The precise techniques deployed - all of them? External ramps or internal ramps or both? Were oxen or elephants used? What other smart, ingenius techniques – if any – might the builders have deployed to make their task easier, to enable them to work smarter? Exactly please? Or can you only offer us your best guess? Have we still to rediscover these finer details, ingenius techniques e.g. internal ramps?

Yes – I thought so.


Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Pyramid building 222 Frank D 22-Jan-09 20:22
Re: Pyramid building 159 Frank D 22-Jan-09 20:25
Re: Pyramid building 155 Scott Creighton 22-Jan-09 22:23
Re: Pyramid building 189 Frank D 22-Jan-09 22:59
Re: Pyramid building 138 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 00:21
Re: Pyramid building 191 Frank D 23-Jan-09 10:35
Re: Pyramid building 137 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 13:30
Re: Pyramid building 155 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jan-09 23:13
Re: Pyramid building 116 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 00:14
Re: Pyramid building 165 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jan-09 03:59
Re: Pyramid building 117 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 11:42
Re: Pyramid building 172 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jan-09 19:52
Re: Pyramid building 128 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 23:16
Re: Pyramid building 128 Susan Doris 24-Jan-09 19:38
Re: Pyramid building 122 KABOOM 26-Jan-09 15:43
Re: Pyramid building 133 Scott Creighton 26-Jan-09 16:27
Re: Pyramid building 154 Scott Creighton 26-Jan-09 17:23
Re: Pyramid building 161 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jan-09 17:53
Re: Pyramid building 141 Scott Creighton 26-Jan-09 18:30
Re: Pyramid building 137 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jan-09 20:38
Re: Pyramid building 103 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 00:58
Re: Pyramid building 117 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jan-09 21:22
Re: Pyramid building 153 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 21:57
Re: Pyramid building 118 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 21:58
Re: Pyramid building 143 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jan-09 22:22
Re: Pyramid building 133 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 23:06
Re: Pyramid building 152 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jan-09 17:32
Re: Pyramid building 174 Scott Creighton 26-Jan-09 18:54
Re: Pyramid building 166 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jan-09 19:43
Re: Pyramid building 118 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 01:08
Re: Pyramid building 127 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jan-09 21:25
Re: Pyramid building 138 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 23:54
Re: Pyramid building 150 Merrell 05-Oct-11 20:40
Re: Pyramid building 135 Ahatmose 06-Oct-11 12:39
Re: Pyramid building 152 Merrell 06-Oct-11 15:45
Re: Pyramid building 175 Ahatmose 06-Oct-11 17:59
Re: Pyramid building 144 Merrell 06-Oct-11 23:49
A Simple Question for Archae 122 Scott Creighton 28-Jan-09 10:54
Re: A Simple Question for Archae 211 Archae Solenhofen 28-Jan-09 15:26
A Simple Answer For the Record 433 Graham Hancock 28-Jan-09 17:22
Re: A Simple Answer For the Record 132 Archae Solenhofen 28-Jan-09 18:01
Re: Pyramid building 148 Frank D 01-Feb-09 13:31
Re: Pyramid building 163 Scott Creighton 01-Feb-09 16:56
Re: Pyramid building 135 papalou 01-Feb-09 21:20
Re: Pyramid building 133 Scott Creighton 01-Feb-09 23:34
Re: Pyramid building 114 Ahatmose 06-Oct-11 03:02
Re: Pyramid building 152 Leon Jenner 06-Oct-11 20:18
Re: Pyramid building 155 michael seabrook 06-Oct-11 22:35
Re: Pyramid building 164 Leon Jenner 07-Oct-11 19:55
Re: Pyramid building 163 shrimperdude 07-Oct-11 17:30

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.