<HTML>Anthony wrote:
>
> The basic tennet behind Occam's razor is that if there
> are two COMPETING theories that account for the evidence,
> then the simplest one should win.
>
> This requires that BOTH theories work.
>
> In this case, (since you have no proof of my theory because I
> have not released it yet) NEITHER theory works.
Now Anthony? If there are two competing theories and one is not known then the other should win. In fact if one of the theories is unprovable because it is not known what it consists of then we should go by the available evidence which is the tripods and lifting devices. If you cannot show differently then what's the point? But I think I know what you mean. There is really only one theory that makes sense because the other theory has no evidence or proof for it at all.
> The chain hoists have been shown time and time and time again
> to be inadequate for the job.
Please show where that is so.
> My analogy with the diesel crane is still very accurate. You
> are using technology that DID NOT EXIST at the Coral Castle
> to explain how it was built. There are NO photos of
> equipment that COULD handle the work.
If the equipment could be used to hold all the blocks in place it is up to you to show how they could not lift as well.
> Ergo, since the equipment shown can NOT provide a viable
> solution, Occam's razor is inapplicable in this case.
>
> If anyone understands this differently, I'm open to
> discussion. However, the capabilities of the equipment is
> really not in question.
>
> Anthony
Also please see way above for my post " Re:NOT in the BOX? " I am intersted in what you have to say.
Thanks,
Greg</HTML>