<HTML>Hi Anthony,
I have to agree with Derek and DP here, and it is not often that Derek and I would agree on anything :-). Derek has presented similar technology to what is presented in the photos. Although, if I understand him correctly he is implicitly using Ockham's Razor as a rule to distinguish between your undisclosed theory and his one, as his claim is that the technology he has given us links to accounts for the Leedskalnin method - which would amount to a conventional method being used.
You have not yet presented anything in the way of evidence. You have presented certain allusions and people have to guess - last time I checked science doesn't work that way - although the 'tail in the donkey' method might be fun it can hardly be said to offer anything like evidence. Whilst I supported you on your original thread regarding your revelations on GHMB I cannot here. The burden of proof is on you as much as it is on Derek. Derek has provided something. You have as yet provided nothing. Now, as far as I am concerned, considering the circumstances you are in, that is fine. I see no reason why you should disclose details until your patent application is fully dealt with (although, if you are right about Ed Leedskalnin's method then I do have reservations at you patenting something you did not invent if it is purely for your own financial gain - I hear that an Australian Lawyer is attempting to patent the wheel - he could become a very rich man). But, in any case, you either have to challenge Derek's evidence or bite your tongue until disclosure time.
Now perhaps you do not need to release details of the machine itself. But you could challenge Derek by providing documentation and analysis of the visible technology in the Coral Castle photos. For example, what proof have you that the tripods, the chains et al could not have lifted a 30 ton block? Do you know for certain that the chains are cast iron and have you documentation that the chains could not tolerate 30 ton blocks? What are these fingerprints you refer to that categorically support your position and not Derek's position?
I don't see why Derek has to prove or retract his theory. As a theory on the Leedskalnin method it stands independently of your own and those of others. Derek might want to expand his evidence to include answers to some of the above questions but that is up to him.
Kat may attest to your machine working but that is insufficient for evidence. It is an endorsement of your position but cannot add anything at all to the actual science related to your theory. Watson and Crick would not have won the Nobel Prize had they said that 'their mate Kat agrees that they have the correct structure for DNA.' Now, you might have secretly replicated Leedskalnin's original work which would validate his theory BUT since he did not disclose his theory (keeping it in a box - shielding :-) then that leaves us with the necessity of seeing your work replicated by someone else to validate your theory. At the moment we have none of those things. It seems to me that, if you are correct, then your work should include refutations that exclude the possibility of conventional means being used for Coral Castle. For your theory to be chosen amongst all the others it must be the best candidate.
Jameske</HTML>
