You should know that I had no idea you were AoM. Not that that matters, but just so you know in the absence of such an announcement you do invite associations with the occasional newbie who shows up, posts a lot of stuff, usually esoteric, and displays little subsequent grounding in anything practical.
Graham would acknowledge that I am very sympathetic with good alternative causes, btw. In fact, it was just a few days ago that I reached out to him in an email, for the first time in quite some time. where I made very clear that I think he has been one of the most unfairly treated thinkers that I know of.
So, as I told you in my second post, not only am I fair but I don't mind being corrected on things if my understanding of things is incorrect.
Now, yesterday, after we spoke I figured that I owed you the courtesy of trying to find what had 'flipped' me in favour of the 'prosaics' and to that end I sent you a webpage that included a video. However, prior to this I had looked to other places, including to livescience.com where I found this: "Mystery of the Coral Castle Explained
By Benjamin Radford."
In the same article I found this: "As tempting as it is to view the amazing park through a veil of mystery, in fact we know how the castle was built. Creating a structure like the Coral Castle today could probably be accomplished in a few months with a construction crew and modern machinery. But Leedskalnin worked alone using basic tools like picks, winches, ropes and pulleys. Leedskalnin himself said that that he did it using hard work and the principles of leverage. The tools he used to quarry the rock are on display at the Coral Castle, and several old photos depict the large tripods, pulleys, and winches he used to move the blocks. Though the quarried stone slabs are large, they are actually lighter than they appear because the rock is porous."
The first thing I thought after reading the article is, "Wow, this doesn't explain anything." What a misleading title. It was only then that I noted the name of the author, Benjamin Radford, who I encountered in the course of my own research into synchronicity. I have known, since then, that Radford has no problem telling lies because that's exactly what he did in saying that synchronicity has been explained.
This is not the place to go into all of that, but to this point you should know that I then learned that Radford was part of the online pseudo skeptical movement whose leaders have gone out of their way to destroy Graham's character among many others at any cost. They are basically a bunch of insecure liars in my opinion, and wannabes who think that selecting the proper font will mask all of their dime-store deceptions and anachronistic 19th century secular interpretations regarding what can and cannot occur.
So, when I saw the article writer's name, after noting that this article didn't provide what it promised to sell, I thought, "Maybe that RLPoole is on to something, because BR would surely have spelled out his thinking if he had something to stand on."
But then I found the Wally article, and as mentioned I said that I think it reflected the note that I left on a few years ago, when I was left with the impression that the Coral Castle case had been closed. Thinking of Radford again, I thought that "maybe he actually knows what he is talking about on this matter, even those his explanatory article was piss poor airheaded clickbait."
So, that's where I left off on RLPoole, and why I only bothered mentioning the Wally video at this point.
You will have to excuse me for not wanting to indulge your more esoteric points at this juncture. It's just that before I go there, or even thinking about going there, I need strong reasons to depart with prosaic thinking. So, let's move forward and do so carefully. Here's my understanding of your reply and my further questions...
1. Let's be honest, what Wally had done is brilliantly concise in a prosaic way. However, you say that there's a significant difference between concrete and the type of stone that 'Ed' used. Can you please elaborate on this, only with respect to how it will affect the raising of stone once the stone is 'on site'.
2. The more intriguing point you make, imo, is the matter of Wally's explanation not accounting for how the stone was brought to site. This is a glaring omission in the so-called Coral Castle rebuttal, and one that I completely missed in what I told you was my 'light' inquiry into this matter.
So, maybe you can elaborate on this point too. How does one cut large stones from quarrys? Easter Island and Egypt are two ready examples. How did those ancients get under the stones before they could lift them? Please explain how this can be done, and then why such a process would preclude a single individual doing the same with the proper (Wally like? ) approach. Regard, PB.