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
Scott Creighton wrote:

>Hello Archae,


>AS: Make sure when you elude to "smoke and mirrors" that
>you make a little more of an effort to point out the 1 possibly
>200 ton block in the pavement of Khafre's Pyramid is right in
>the quarry from which it was extracted and is at ground level,
>and the 4 in Menkaure's Mortuary temple are right next to the
>quarry from which they were extracted and that they also are at
>ground level as well.

>SC: Well thank you, Archae, for admitting the FACT that THERE
>ARE a number of 200+ ton blocks in use within structures on the
>Giza plateau.

>AS: Ya, 4 or 5 all at ground level and either in the quarry or
>right next to it, I have pointed these out numerous times on
>this board so there is no mystery here. I'd like to see a
>fringe archeology author get away with going on and on,
>paragraph after paragraph, about that feat being beyond our
>modern technology and see how the editor lets it past without
>some kind of added pizzazz to make it sound remotely believable
>to the layperson. One might think that's why facts about the
>actual 200 ton blocks are never mentioned in such.....

>SC: OK, Archae. Let’s deconstruct what you have just said:

>You now - in this thread - admit that there are in fact 200+
>ton blocks that the AE of the 4th dynasty quarried, lifted,
>moved and set in place at Giza. Good.

Ya, 4 or 5 and all at ground level, not hundreds of imaginary ones piled up in 40 foot high walls. More than just a bit of a difference between fact and a gross exaggeration there, now isn't it.....

>GH and RB expressed the view that our modern crane technology
>(i.e. of some 12 or more years ago that is) would have been
>stretched - if I can put it like that - to lift and move such

Boom cranes from 12 years ago were able to lift quite a bit over 500 tons.... where is anything remotely close to such mentioned in their books? They don't, since they claim they simply cannot be lifted by such construction cranes at building sites.


The Lampson’s LTL-2600 Transi-Lift was around in 1996, two of them were used in a world record lift that year for something like 1400 tons to 60 meters

>(Note: they never said anywhere that such was
>impossible for these cranes. "Taxing" certainly but not

Remember, the 4th dynasty Ok Egyptians are able to move 200 ton blocks with copper age technology..... now that was surely "taxing" from them, considering they only moved 4-5 and didn't lift them much above ground level. "Taxing" for today's modern technology is a bit of an exaggeration now isn't it.... but I guess it fits in quite nicely with the imaginary hundreds of 200 ton blocks that went along with it, as well as the other exaggerations.

> Now - you have in this thread admitted that you
>have never set any crane in place, nor have you operated one.
>You have admitted that you don't actually know what
>difficulties a modern crane (of some 12 years ago) would have
>encountered in attempting to lift and move such heavy megaliths
>at Giza. I think RB - as a construction engineer - has a
>better idea of the complexities, logistics and general
>difficulties involved in such an operation than you ever will.
>Case closed.

Still got to explain how a construction engineer missed the 100s of 200 ton block claim and why in Hancock and Bauval (1996) used only the quote from a 200 ton max. capacity, crane operator instead of someone who actually lifts 200+ ton objects on a regular basis? As a construction engineer you think he would have been able to find one a little bit easier then just citing something the "Mystery of the Sphinx" video apparently came up with..... but then according to Hancock and Bauval (1996) there were only 2 boom type cranes capable of lifting 200 tons in the US when they wrote their book.... anyone got a source for that claim or do we just put it in the same growing pile as the imaginary 200 ton blocks?

>Facts of 200+ ton blocks are - as I have already said to you -
>it takes the same FORCE to move such a megalithic block 1 FOOT
>as it does to move it 1 MILE. That is the kind of fact the
>layperson ought to be told, don't you think?

There is absolutely nothing preventing the 4th dynasty ancient Egyptians from moving the known 4-5 200 ton blocks with 4th dynasty tools.... please provide a location in Hancock and Bauval (1996) where this fact is clearly stated? It's not....


>SC: You seem to be suggesting now that G2 and G3
>pyramids were built in a quarry?

>AS: Khafre's certainly was, after all it's built into the side
>of a hill in which the lower part of the pyramid is quarried
>bedrock.... he's got one maybe-200 ton block (its full
>dimensions are not known) in his pavement.... that's it.

>SC: Excuse me? All you can say is, “... he's got one
>maybe-200 ton block (its full dimensions are not known) in his
>pavement...that’s it. WoW!”

That's right, maybe one 200 ton block at ground level.... not 100s of imaginary ones piled in 40 foot high walls. Maybe you have missed it, but there is more than just quite a difference between reality and fiction.....

>I think you do the AE of the 4th dynasty who actually quarried,
>lifted, moved and positioned this 200+ ton block at G2 a quite
>monumental disservice with such glib, derisory and dismissive

That one block was not a recent discovery by Egyptology, made after they wrote their book. Why they choose to not mention it along with their insinuation about the difficulty of modern cranes moving it, but instead went with a ridiculous gross exaggeration is anyone's guess

>You demonstrate an arrogance here that is eclipsed
>only by your utterly despicable disrespect and complete
>disregard to what these amazing people actually achieved with
>primitive technology. My god - get over yourself.

Gee, I really do feel sorry for the next fringe book author who tries to insinuate ancient advanced technology at Giza.... only 4-5 200 ton blocks and all at ground level. Good luck, LOL! Oh well, they'll have to find something a little bit less tangible to make up for it.... Gee, I wonder what that will be. Any ideas, Scott.....

>And let us not forget here the several 200+ton blocks used in
>the base of Menkaure’s pyramid. I guess you think the 4th
>Dynasty AEs placed them there by magic, huh?

I have absolutely no idea how you managed to come up with that false notion.....


>SC: These 200+ blocks had to be QUARRIED, MOVED and
>POSITIONED - not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination
>using bronze age technology since I am sure you will also aware
>that the FORCE required to move such a megalithic block ONE
>FOOT or ONE MILE is the same – it is the energy expended that
>is different. As I said – smoke and mirrors.

>AS: Never said it was easy, just possible.... since other
>civilization have moved similar weights with levers, sledges,
>ropes, and human power.

>SC: Perhaps, Archae – but you certainly had no intention of
>bringing forth to this discussion any mention of the 200+ ton
>blocks that DO EXIST in at G2 and G3, that we know the AE of
>the 4th Dynasty MUST have quarried, lifted, moved and
>positioned. You really are quite selective in the data you
>wish to present, aren’t you! Anything that makes GH and RB
>look bad whilst all the time you know full well that such 200+
>ton blocks were indeed quarried, lifted, moved and positioned
>by the 4th Dynasty AEs.

Those blocks were known by Egyptology 12 years ago... it's not my fault that they didn't bother to use them as clearly explained examples instead of their "gross exaggeration"... if they had, we probably would not be having these discussions now.

> That is known as being economical with
>the facts, Archae. In this thread by attempting to focus the
>discussion solely on the blocks in Khafre’s Valley Temple, you
>were in fact trying to convey the impression that blocks
>weighing 200 ton+ did not exist anywhere in any structure at
>Giza and we both know that is patently not the case. I know
>very well you have acknowledged the existence of these 200+ ton
>blocks here on GHMB and on other boards but, curiously, you
>declined the opportunity to give mention to them in this
>particular thread. One has to ask why?

You already have stated the answer...... the focus of the discussion was solely on the blocks in Khafre’s Valley Temple as mentioned in Hancock and Bauval (1996). I have already asked you to show us where Hancock & Bauval (1996) clearly mentioned the 4 to 5 actual 200 ton blocks at Giza instead of the hundreds of imaginary ones... we should all by now understand that the answer is, They don't! Yet you criticize me for not mentioning them, when it should have been quite clear to you that my position was that the 4th dynasty Egyptians were quite capable of moving them with their known technology.

>This is known as being
>economical with the truth,

For someone who accuses me of a red herring you sure seem to like smelly fish.

>Archae. It is known as lying by
>omission whereby you deny the neutral observer the opportunity
>to make an informed decision on facts you well know but which
>you keep to yourself.

4-5 at ground level rather than 100 of imaginary ones in 40 foot high walls. Just curious, can you tell us where Mr. Hancock & Mr. Bauval got the claims that there were hundreds of 200 ton block in Khafre's Valley temple and that the smallest blocks are all greater that 50 tons? Because Mr. Bauval could not remember the last time I asked him.....

>You might think you can fool Joe Average
>by withholding such information or with your silky sleight of
>tongue, but please do not think for a moment, Archae, that
>everyone on this board can be so easily fooled with your
>tongue-twisting, mud-raking, fact-withholding double-talk.

Oh, brother.... you are groping at straws. But I correct myself, its not quicksand and you don't seem to be making any attempt to grab anything as you jump in. You might understand what I talking about if you have seen the movie Slumdog Millionaire.


>SC: The FACT remains - the AE of the 4th dynasty
>quarried, moved and positioned a number of 200+ ton blocks.

>AS: No one claimed that they didn't, since there is absolutely
>nothing preventing them from doing so. [/quote]

>SC: But neither did you alert the casual reader of this thread
>to the absolute FACT (we both agree on) that the AEs of the 4th
>dynasty DID INDEED quarry, lift, move and set in place 200+
>blocks at Giza. I had to prompt you to do so, didn’t I! Play
>fair, Archae.

Gee, if only you were around when they were writing their book.....


>SC: And GH and RB accept their original assessment was
>in error.

>AS: If you say so....

>SC: No, actually RB and GH have themselves admitted as much.
>Indeed, even YOU in this thread have quoted RB’s very own
>admission of a “...gross exaggeration...” [of the VT blocks]
>how many times now? Like I said to you before, Archae – you
>get two brownie points. Take “yes” for an answer and get off
>that little 200 ton island of yours.

Please provide the quote from Mr. Hancock because I have never seen one?


>AS: As for the 4th dynasty, Old Kingdom construction
>date for the Giza pyramids, does that also include the Sphinx,
>Sphinx temple, and Khafre Valley temple or are they from well
>before the 4th dynasty?

>SC: Sorry – not my field.

Seems to be you have at least though about it:


"..... the AE started building pyramids towards the ultimate goal of implementing a long-term “sacred plan” on the ground at Giza (where the Sphinx had probably already been in place for thousands of years)."

>You can take that particular debate up with JAW.
>Mind you, if I recall, he whipped your ass good
>style last time round so probably best you don’t go there
>again, I would think.

Please, don't leave us all in suspense.... feel free to provide some clear examples to back up this "whipped your ass good" delusion of yours. BTW, didn't Mr. West go on and on in a video about 200 ton blocks in the Valley temple in a Sphinx documentary? If that's the case, I really don't think your suggestion was all that well thought through.....


>SC: Says who? Are you now saying to us that the AE of
>the 4th Dynasty couldn't move these blocks when evidently they
>did? Or are you just being sarcastic? The AE of the 4th dynasty
>quarried these 200+ ton blocks, moved these 200+ ton blocks and
>set them in place using only their bronze age technology and a
>little bit of savvy and ingenuity. There - does that make it
>any more unequivocal for you?

>AS: Yes, that admission is just what I am looking for....

>SC: Archae – that was not an admission by me. That is what I
>have ALWAYS believed to be the case. There's a difference.

Who moved the 100 ton blocks in the Sphinx and Khafre Valley temples... the AE of the 4th dynasty with their "bronze age" technology, savvy and ingenuity or the imaginary lost tribe from "thousands of years" before? I mean 'imaginary' in a way like the hundreds of 200 ton blocks in Khafre's Valley temple are 'imaginary'......

Archae Solenhofen (

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Pyramid building 367 Frank D 22-Jan-09 20:22
Re: Pyramid building 259 Frank D 22-Jan-09 20:25
Re: Pyramid building 245 Scott Creighton 22-Jan-09 22:23
Re: Pyramid building 301 Frank D 22-Jan-09 22:59
Re: Pyramid building 220 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 00:21
Re: Pyramid building 289 Frank D 23-Jan-09 10:35
Re: Pyramid building 224 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 13:30
Re: Pyramid building 237 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jan-09 23:13
Re: Pyramid building 194 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 00:14
Re: Pyramid building 263 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jan-09 03:59
Re: Pyramid building 207 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 11:42
Re: Pyramid building 254 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jan-09 19:52
Re: Pyramid building 212 Scott Creighton 23-Jan-09 23:16
Re: Pyramid building 212 Susan Doris 24-Jan-09 19:38
Re: Pyramid building 205 KABOOM 26-Jan-09 15:43
Re: Pyramid building 206 Scott Creighton 26-Jan-09 16:27
Re: Pyramid building 244 Scott Creighton 26-Jan-09 17:23
Re: Pyramid building 243 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jan-09 17:53
Re: Pyramid building 227 Scott Creighton 26-Jan-09 18:30
Re: Pyramid building 217 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jan-09 20:38
Re: Pyramid building 187 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 00:58
Re: Pyramid building 201 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jan-09 21:22
Re: Pyramid building 237 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 21:57
Re: Pyramid building 213 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 21:58
Re: Pyramid building 240 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jan-09 22:22
Re: Pyramid building 222 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 23:06
Re: Pyramid building 237 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jan-09 17:32
Re: Pyramid building 253 Scott Creighton 26-Jan-09 18:54
Re: Pyramid building 253 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jan-09 19:43
Re: Pyramid building 203 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 01:08
Re: Pyramid building 207 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jan-09 21:25
Re: Pyramid building 224 Scott Creighton 27-Jan-09 23:54
Re: Pyramid building 244 Merrell 05-Oct-11 20:40
Re: Pyramid building 219 Ahatmose 06-Oct-11 12:39
Re: Pyramid building 234 Merrell 06-Oct-11 15:45
Re: Pyramid building 258 Ahatmose 06-Oct-11 17:59
Re: Pyramid building 225 Merrell 06-Oct-11 23:49
A Simple Question for Archae 205 Scott Creighton 28-Jan-09 10:54
Re: A Simple Question for Archae 322 Archae Solenhofen 28-Jan-09 15:26
A Simple Answer For the Record 658 Graham Hancock 28-Jan-09 17:22
Re: A Simple Answer For the Record 214 Archae Solenhofen 28-Jan-09 18:01
Re: Pyramid building 239 Frank D 01-Feb-09 13:31
Re: Pyramid building 248 Scott Creighton 01-Feb-09 16:56
Re: Pyramid building 213 papalou 01-Feb-09 21:20
Re: Pyramid building 218 Scott Creighton 01-Feb-09 23:34
Re: Pyramid building 201 Ahatmose 06-Oct-11 03:02
Re: Pyramid building 231 Leon Jenner 06-Oct-11 20:18
Re: Pyramid building 236 michael seabrook 06-Oct-11 22:35
Re: Pyramid building 251 Leon Jenner 07-Oct-11 19:55
Re: Pyramid building 253 shrimperdude 07-Oct-11 17:30

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.