<HTML>Hi all,
I'm concerned here over the apparent importance that some have hooked onto "Validity now, Anthony, or we shall invoke "Occam's Razor" and embrace the block and tackle theory!" From the very beginning "Announcement", it has been known that Anthony was unable to provide the necessary levels of proof until a later date. It should have been known (from his responses to questions) that he was trying to give as much information as possible without risking a violation of agreements, while at the same time wanting to discuss the impact of this new discovery in relation to the pyramids' constructions. Just wondering why the "scientists" here seem to be unable (unwilling?) to view this situation as either a simple hypothetical discussion or just ignore it until a later time when the "alleged proof" is presented? I also find it interesting that it becomes immediately necessary by some to close this book even though they could have closed it long before now if they were willing to use the picture evidence as their defining evidence... in other words, now that we have a picture of Ed pulling (holding?) onto a chain in the picture, now we can say the block and tackle would work (why couldn't this "determination" have been made as easily with the previous pictures showing tripods, etc.)?
Please note that I'm not trying to argue here... just trying to understand why anyone wouldn't be willing (if they hadn't already studied it before Anthony's announcement) to delay a "final" analysis until Anthony has had time to present the evidence. Especially with how little the block and tackle conclusion helps explain the pyramids' construction versus what the impact on it would be if Anthony is accurate. Is this really your version of the scientific method in action?
Litz</HTML>
