No worries about the misunderstanding. Although I did post them in the Author of the Month section, I can easily see how you may have very well thought that I was a lesser informed person on the subject than is actually true. I enjoyed reading your last post.
I take the LiveScience/Radford article you mentioned in your post to absolute task in the article, and i sincerely view this article as an example of attempted intellectual fraud on the part of the writer. It's good that you saw through the poorly researched, and written smokescreen. I see it all the time. "We know how he did it"...smh. I have to tell you, I honestly dont know why I do this, at times. I guess its because its the only thing I am actually good at, and I cant stop myself. But, it does get eyerolling-ly exasperating at times when people wish to challenge me to a debate on the topic, or write uninformed articles without first doing their homework, and the level of due diligence on the topics required in order to produce an informed and persuasive argument.
Wally Wallington, as far as I know, is the only person to have ever demonstrated the particular pebble technique he shows in his videos. The origin of this technique seems to lie with Mr. Wallington, which has no bearing on Ed Leedskalnin, since he died in 1951. And to extrapolate that because Mr. Wallington thought of/uses this technique to move heavy blocks, that Ed .....what? Figured it out, before Mr. Wallington, and that's how he moved them? There are too many assumptions, and leaps of logic in that argument, and no evidence to corroborate them. I have the two leap rule: If any line of thinking takes more than one deductive leap, my reach has exceeded my grasp. I require more information. The same goes for this line of thinking. Its imaginarily assigned variables are not corroborated by evidence to have a value assigned to them. Therefore, it is valueless.
1. The most significant differences as it applies to the question between the Oolitic limestone that Ed quarried, and the cement that was used by Mr. Wallington, involve the size, shape, and instability of weight distribution in the limestone. A cement block will be very consistent, throughout, while the fossilized limestone used by Ed is notoriously unstable in its consistency. This makes it exponentially more difficult to balance with a chain,and going around only one axis, at that, as Ed shows himself doing in his photos. This, under normal circumstances would make it not only difficult, but extraordinarily and unneccessarily dangerous to attempt. The margin for error rests on the width of a chain.
Ed also used blocks that weighed 28 tons, 20 tons, 30 tons. Some are 28 feet tall, 40 feet tall, and they are not small, uniformly poured, geometric, and friendly symmetrical shapes. The technique shown by Mr. Wallington simply isn't viable in the movement of these sizes, shapes, and immense weights of these stones. Its good for moving cement blocks of a predesignated size, in proportion to the weight, strength, and leverage of the person using the technique. With Ed at 100 lbs., and the stone at 60,000 lbs. please help me understand how he was able to use this technique, that he most likely didn't even know about, on a stone much too heavy to perform it on, across the rough ground of his Florida property (Not on a specially prepared platform) with a pebble, a lever, and grunting effort from a 100 lb. man?
Again, this is folly.
As to why Ed couldn't have quarried the stone the same way as the Egyptians is actually a softball tossed, underhand. Easy. We know the methods used by the Egyptians, and Ed didn't use their techniques. Anyone who knows about both methods cannot dispute this fact. The Egyptians drilled holes, drove in wooden pegs, saturated the pegs with water, and when they swelled they would create pressure along a line, allowing the stone to break. Ed drove soft steel wedges by hand directly into the coral bedrock on his property around the block, to a depth of 18 inches, and spaced inches apart down the entire line. Also, impossible. I would personally make two of Ed, and some change. I cannot drive a 3-4 in. wide, 1/2 in. thick, and 3 foot long soft steel wedge into the solid coral bedrock below my feet. Anyone who wishes to challenge this may certainly try it on their own, and please post a video of their results if they do.
By the way, it has not escaped my attention that you did not address the very prosaic fact that every person who says that they believe Ed did this through prosaic means, can demonstrate their assertions at any level worthy of even minor consideration. Forget the enormous amount of empirical data on the subject which i have collected, one piece at a time, painstakingly over the course of many years. The people who keep off-handedly claiming I am wrong in my assertions, make the statement that it is just hard work, leverage, pebbles, etc. but not a single proponent of what should be the EASIEST argument to win in history, has yet to raise even the first stone. While you may inquire, and challenge me to cite evidence for my assertions, i would also like to challenge the prosaic theorists back and say, where is the evidence that your easily proven theory is provable? I have to prove every single sentence that comes out of my person, and even though I am right, i am still viciously attacked. I am attacked by armchair experts with a B.A. degree (Basic Assumptionism)from their attendance of Youtube university. Lets see one of the PP's (Proponents of the Preposterous) get up off of their sofa, set down their can of RedBull, and go get some practical experience in the subtle art of Reality. They will come back with much different answers. And, if they are not willing to do so, then maybe better to sit back down on the sofa, and patiently listen with the gratitude that is deserved when someone who actually has put in the work, simply shares what they have learned for their gratification, and growth of knowledge.
In Science, no one gets to sit on the bench, AND still call the plays. We have to pick one, in this world.
So, since none, exactly ZERO of the proponents of the prosaic theory regarding megalithic structures are going to present ANY evidence of their theories (because they cant) then lets stop beating on that dead, tired old drum. My side of the argument isn't the only one which needs to be proven, so does yours. And, spit-balling is not debating. "Well, why couldn't Ed have done it like the Egyptians?" Good question, but one that a person who is debating someone else who is an expert on the subject should research for themselves. If you had, then you would already know.