Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
RLPoole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi PB,
>
> 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.

Thanks for understanding. Your initial reaction to my initial post was also very understandable.
>
> 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.

That can only be because you have learned how to look.

"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.

You need to own that reaction and recognize it as healthy. Thank your nose whenever you smell bullshit.
>
> 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.

Nonetheless, and regardless of how beside the point his work may be, I still say good on Wally. Outstanding demonstration.

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.

Now that I understand your position I am in agreement. The best way to hand a psuedo skeptic's ass, always, is to reverse the onus.
>
> 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.

EG1 - Psuedo skeptics. Please explain why concrete provides a fair comparison to the stone materials that Ed used. Here is why you are wrong, again: see paragraph above

>
> 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

EG2 - Dear pseudo skeptics: Please explain how the wally video "solves" the Coral Castle mystery when Wally constructed his blocks on site. see paragraph above, and hand'em their ass as second time RL



> 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.

I'll take your word for it. But aren't the Easter Island statues a better comparison, now that I think about it? Those stones are not the same - I know at least that much! How were they cut and moved? Can that technique be scaled down?!
>
> 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.

One last time, the best way to answer the pseudo skeptics is to reverse the onus. Watch'em evaporate. Those who try to answer will be exposed. Dismissive types are not quite the same as pseudo skeptics. But the best way to crush the latter is by exposing their pretense and reliance on facades.

> 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.

NO YOU DON'T and here is why. The Coral Castle is a finished product. To your considered mind the skeptics have NOT proved that they know how CC was built. Throw that back in their face.


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.


You have been heard, my fried. PB

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Coral Castle - Astronomy 936 RLPoole 03-Mar-20 22:43
Re: Coral Castle - Physics 194 RLPoole 03-Mar-20 22:46
OLD NEWS Coral Castle 194 PB Bytes 04-Mar-20 23:27
Re: OLD NEWS Coral Castle 191 RLPoole 05-Mar-20 00:31
Re: OLD NEWS Coral Castle 183 PB Bytes 05-Mar-20 02:22
Coral Castle - WALLY'S WORLD 182 PB Bytes 05-Mar-20 04:12
Re: Coral Castle - WALLY'S WORLD 176 RLPoole 05-Mar-20 06:01
Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 180 PB Bytes 05-Mar-20 17:19
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 181 RLPoole 06-Mar-20 07:44
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 160 PB Bytes 06-Mar-20 17:33
I have read your book 173 greengirl5 06-Mar-20 23:18
Re: I have read your book 160 greengirl5 07-Mar-20 14:15
Re: I have read your book 164 RLPoole 07-Mar-20 15:51
Re: I have read your book 165 PB Bytes 07-Mar-20 16:32
Re: I have read your book 157 greengirl5 07-Mar-20 22:33
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 170 RLPoole 07-Mar-20 00:41
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 164 PB Bytes 07-Mar-20 16:24
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 160 RLPoole 08-Mar-20 00:59
So, R.L. Poole, what is your foremost theory how CC was built? 161 greengirl5 08-Mar-20 01:58
Re: So, R.L. Poole, what is your foremost theory how CC was built? 157 RLPoole 09-Mar-20 01:40
Second book! 154 greengirl5 09-Mar-20 03:50
Re: Second book! 160 RLPoole 09-Mar-20 17:01
Re: Second book! 156 PB Bytes 10-Mar-20 16:46
Re: Second book! 146 greengirl5 10-Mar-20 21:15
Re: Second book! 156 RLPoole 11-Mar-20 02:07
Re: Second book! 146 PB Bytes 11-Mar-20 04:20
Re: Second book! 154 RLPoole 11-Mar-20 07:56
Re: Second book! 155 PB Bytes 11-Mar-20 17:18
Re: Second book! 245 RLPoole 26-Mar-20 02:15
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 166 Glass Jigsaw 09-Mar-20 22:08
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 151 greengirl5 10-Mar-20 21:25
Stone Hedge: Good name 155 PB Bytes 10-Mar-20 21:32
Re: Stone Hedge: Good name 150 greengirl5 10-Mar-20 21:41
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 151 PB Bytes 11-Mar-20 04:27
Re: Good answer - WALLY'S WORLD 161 RLPoole 13-Mar-20 09:55


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.