creigs1707 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald: You really should stop giving false
> information. I read the whole article you referred
> to, Lehner didn't write one single word about
> 'cast blocks'
>
> SC: I didn't say Lehner suggested the galleries
> were for casting blocks. This is my own idea.


Idea's is all that you have, theory after theory, even your 'theories' are very badly 'constructed'. You have no evidence for whatever theory of yours. But the really bad thing in all this is that you obviously are convinced that you even don't have to provide any evidence, which is very arrogant. On the contrary, a few comments ago, you asked ME to prove that Giza was NOT built with refer to Orion .....


The cast blocks are your 'idea'. Well, again, prove to us that blocks were 'cast' in these galleries, don't just say it, that's too easy. Don't expect, even being an alternative 'historian' (actually, we can safely omit 'historian'), that you are being taken seriously by never substantiating anything. You provided a link to a newsletter, wherein one of world's renownest egyptologists, Mark Lehner, explains his archaeological field-work in the galleries. He didn't find a single, little, tiny trace of your 'cast blocks'. Still, despite this, you simply say ; 'The Galleries - where they casted the blocks'.


I
> was merely pointing out that Lehner disagreed with
> Petrie, saying that he did not consider them as
> barracks.
>
> Ronald: It is yet another delusion launched by
> you.
>
> SC: No, Ronald - it's called 'alternative
> history', soemthing I believed this site was all
> about considering.



'Alternative history' and 'delusion' are synonyms.



And Lehner also states (which
> you ommitted from your post):
>
> "...Our conclusions are highly tentative... We
> are not sure what their function was..."


I did not omit anything. I mentionned that Lehner concluded that the galleries may have been
symbolic provisionary facilities for the pharaoh's afterlife. 'May have been'. It is far more plausible, in the context of AE culture/religion, that the galleries indeed had a double function of fysical storage + craft work and symbolical storage, than claiming that they were used to make 'cast blocks'.


>
> We are apparently compelled to look for thousands
> of casts of different sizes. I see no reason why
> this idea should not be given some serious
> consideration instead of being subjected to the
> usual knee-jerk rejection that is so prevalent
> from orthodoxy towards anyone with an
> 'alternative' theory.


'Serious consideration'. Several people in previous comments pointed out that casting blocks is much more time-consuming than quarrying them. It takes several additional steps to make them. The first step is to make, not thousands as you said, but hundreds of thousands of casts of different sizes. This is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think you even realize how much blocks have been used to built e.g. Khufu's pyramid. If you accept the idea of legion blocks, you are not able to reason logically.


If they did cast the blocks
> as this latest article seems to suggest, then I
> see no reason why these highly unusual structures
> (the Galleries) cannot be considered as the casts
> for such.


'You see no reason' ? There is no connection whatsoever between the cast blocks-theories and the galleries. Galleries are roofed. Casts are not. Some gallery-walls have a height up to 3 - 3.6 metres. 'Casts blocks' with a height of three metres ? This says enough.



Ronald.