Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by Byrd
To say there is no fact checking in the series is quite a statement to say the least. Though I appreciate your input (and this is much bigger than
translating a tablet), we're viewing this concept from two different angles. I wonder what it would take, given what one"knows", to accept a
fundamental change in the way we perceive our world in terms of science and laws. Time? The right person delivering the message?
Actually, you may not be aware of how I think about the world.
I'll leave with circular reasoning
Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular
The scientific method is not the ONLY method by which science is done, nor is it the only way that the scientific method is evaluated.
Whatever you are familiar with regarding Egyptian and Ed's building methods, they are only theories.
Actually, I am familiar with the writing and pictures and photographs. There's photographs of Ed and his construction and gear, and I can safely say
the Egyptians didn't use those (there's drawings and notes of some of their techniques that was done by the ancient Egyptians themselves.)
Its funny that you say 'its like taking pictures off of facebook and making your own story and ignoring the tags and messages' and then you
say there are pictures of Ed and his tripod and wench and leap to that is all he had to build Coral Castle.
There are a number of photos of him (including the one posted in this thread which shows a transmission gear being used) and his tools (including
crowbars and hammers. Coral Castle itself has some of his construction gear there. The Egyptians didn't use iron tools, or truck winches. They
didn't use pulleys, though they did use levers and ropes.
It seems as though you have only watched part 5, and not the whole series... even though I'm sure nothing will matter.
Actually, just watch part 3. I would like to know your thoughts.
My views on part 3 (actually on the whole series) are not kind. There's nothing new there, nothing revolutionary, it's just put together in a
Youtube video and wrapped up with a bit of marketing. This material has been out there for years, and as with the stela, it's a mix of misunderstood
science and lazy research (because it would have taken time to look up what was on the stela in the British Museum and confirm the translation. It's
not impossible, but it would have taken half a day to do some basic checking.)
However, lest you think I'm cranky, I do invite you to check up on the material. Look for the ORIGINAL sources (museums, document archives, etc) and
look at the full objects. For the physics part, go look up the papers (and not the pictures) and look at the conditions and limitations -- ORIGINAL
material (not news stories or third or fifth hand websites.)
When I see a strange picture, I find out "where's the original" and "who says what about it" and "what does the whole object look like" and
"where is it from" and "how old is it" and "what else do we know."
I learn a lot that way. For instance, I hadn't seen the cuneiform tablet we were discussing before this week, but it's a really nice one and
beautifully preserved, so I took the time to look it up and read about it instead of (as the author did) looking at it and making whatever
associations I could make from modern things that interested me.
So I invite you and others to look up the ORIGINAL material for yourself. Including the physics and math (or especially that) because there's a lot
of people who look at pictures and think they know what's going on with the physics and math (and if they READ the research, they'd find out how
wrong their intuition was.)