Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I guess the civil engineers are in error because
> Anthony said so?
No, they're in error because they either had bad facts, bad logic, or bad intentions.
Since you have the report, you can search through it to find out which one (or ones) apply.
>
> Unless Ed somehow took a photograph of himself,
> someone else must have taken the picture. This, of
> course, would argue against the claim that "no one
> ever saw Ed at work on the castle."
Don't you just love the way facts get in the way of historical revisionism?
Too bad more people don't pay attention to the facts and thus modify their obviously flawed positions.
> No false premise, it just proves you have no idea
> of what you are talking about!
Really. That's kind of funny, actually, coming from the person whose sole source of information is the internet.
> A photo of the tower shows that its walls contain
> at least four layers of blocks, each block
> weighing 4 to 9 tons.
Well, then let's say you're right. They are ALL "4 to 9 tons".
Which of those numbers, or any number between them, is more than ten?
(Ten tons being the capacity of his biggest block and tackle).
Thank you.
> The roof of the tower
> consists of 30 blocks, each weighing about one
> ton.
How is a one ton block beyond the capacity of the equipment shown?
You are the one making the assertion here. Please demonstrate the validity of your comment, or retract it as the absurdity it obviously is.
> Now let's not even mention the Polaris
> telescope constructed of one 40 foot long 22 ton
> stone and a multiple of 6 ton stones!
No, it is one stone, standing on end. Any other stones are just positioned in proximity to it.
You've never been there, have you?
I have.
I posted illustrations of how Ed moved the stones into standing position, not just based on eye witness accounts, but hand drawn by the eye witness himself.
You have posted.... umm... nothing?
And you think this gives your argument validity?
> There are
> approximately 3,000,000 pounds of stone in Coral
> Castle. The picture in the opening header is of
> the tower showing the size of the blocks used in
> construction.
Yes. They're not very large.
Have you ever measured these stones for yourself? Do you know the density of the blocks, so once you have measured them, you know the weight?
Several of the claims made on the internet are exaggerated. If that's the data you used for your civil engineering report... well, GIGO.
>
> I drew no comparison between Coral Castle and G1,
No, but you used the same crappy methodology used by the Gizamid Mystery Mongers. That's your fault.
> but since you broached the subject I must ask
> where do you get the misinformation you quote?
> There are not 3.9 million blocks in the Great
> Pyramid.
You should consider staying up to date on the subject. Fall, 2002, KMT.
> Factually, Coral weighs approximately 125 pounds
> per cubic foot. Each section of the castle wall is
> 8 feet tall, 4 feet wide, 3 foot thick, and weighs
> approximately 13,000 pounds. It has been estimated
> that the Great Pyramid of Egypt at Giza was built
> from 2.5 million blocks of limestone, each
> averaging 2.5 tons (5,000 pounds). Now, if the
> average block at Coral Castle weighs 6 tons, it
> would be more than twice as heavy as an average
> block in the Great Pyramid.
So you DO know the weights. Bully for you!
But you don't know the dimensions. Those aren't on line in any reliable source.
> Anthony, if Ed is attempting to pick up (6 ton)
> 12,000 to 13,000 pound blocks and one block of (20
> tons) 40,000 pounds, or one of 30 tons 60,000
> pounds, do you not see a problem here?
>
No. No problem at all. Ed only "picked up" the stones he put in the second floor of his small tower (and it IS quite small, I assure you).
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.