Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:00:10 -0700
Matt Kriebel wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek (jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca) wrote:
> : All of them - and still some room left?
> : I am a European, but ALL the buildings in Europe PALE (pun intended)
> : in comparison to the Pyramid.
> In size yes, if those structures were to fall apart they would fall into a
> pile not unlike a small pyramids. In fact, a misshappen pyramid is such a
> simple structre that the only thing impressive about the great pyramids is
> their sheer size.
Note how you belittle the technical achievement behind the Pyramid.
> :That makes me racist, as the rest of
> : your post had suggested?
> Yes, becuase what you're saying is that your ancestors were capable of
> building things but Egptian ancestors couldn't. Sounds pretty damnn racist
> to me.
C'mon, you little Goebbels, when did I say that? I never said that
my ancestors were better, smarter, or more capable in architecture
than the Egyptians, or anything like that at all'. I didn't even speak
of my ancestors' building anything - they lived in a yog-urt.
You simply made this up - how low!
> : Listen, buddy, U brought these accusations up, so remember:
> : Just a predisposition to toying with the term signals a racist,
> : or a supressed racist.. I only know one super-race of Humans.
> : Typologies like black, white, yellow, brown, and red serve only
> : purposes of quick, peremptory identification in the course of some
> : description, where it may, or may not stand in the first place, in
> : the order of importance. For instance, if someone is 7-feet tall,
> : you will most likely start the description of such an individual with
> : this characteristic, and not with the fact that the oner is of this
> : or that color, or is bespectacled, and has a big nose.
> : Ergo:
> : YOU DARE TO CALL ME RACIST? - You unfortunate idiot..
> I never said you didn't love your fellow man or accuse you of burning
> crosses on someones lawn. I pointed out that your claims are weakening
> human, and personal history by removing ancient Egypts most lasting
> accomplishments.
And called me racist.. But, wasn't it you who said: > In fact, a
misshappen pyramid is such a > simple structre that the only thing
impressive about the great pyramids is > their sheer size.
Who's knocking the Pyramid? The Egyptians' achievements?
> : There, my coin covers your small change, for isn't racism just part
> : to Stupidity in general?
> Gee, I always love when a crank winds up to accuse his detractors of being
> NAzi's.
Sure, Nazis love hearing of his kin.
> : so by directing
> : my protest at you, I am definitely Not being racist.
> Ah, I see, so in other words you think that: "If I attack the guy with the
> Germanic-sounding name, I will prove I'm not a racist"
I am not a racist, Germans included.
> Well, just a little hint before you start spouting the old =
> Nazi! attack. 'Kriebel' is Silesian, as in Polish, got it?
I compare you to a Nazi because of your intellectual dishonesty. But if
you wish, I will compare you to Brezhnev, or Yeltsin. A crank can crank
it up for all it's worth.
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: Baalbek & 200tons, Final Perspective
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 00:57:11 -0700
Anti Christ wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> Many thanks for the details about Baalbek (copied below).
> Since i started the thread several months ago, wondering
> how the Ancients managed to shift such huge blocks, yours
> is the very first reply which somehow gave an impression
> of Credibility derived from the basic facts of the location.
> I can now actually visualise the Romans doing the job purely
> by manpower and ingenuity of Leverages, and at a stroke the
> (my) entire problems of Egyptian constructions are equally
> reduced to the mundane, even tho still amazing as
> demonstrations of their *NON* primitive stature as engineers.
Can you visualize the Pyramid construction then?
> Thanks also to people like Steve Whittet (also for the reply
> about Punt which i forgot to acknowledge :), for their
> calculations and assurances, tho somehow all previous replies
> lacked the graphic impact which this one from Germany captured.
> It only remains to wonder, what sort of psychological impediment
> is it exactly which creates the tendancy in humans towards
> disbelief in mundane solutions, and a readiness to jump towards
> "Alien /Atlantis" type proposals ?
Nice turn-around, Kaman. Now, you speak a new language, and
already you are into psychological impediments. I presume that
you are quizzical about yourself - as you once were.
Let's just bear this connection in mind: the psychological
impediment leading to readiness to jump towards Alien/Atlantis
type proposals..
I propose that we call this psy. impediment - imagination, and
condiment instead of impediment.
> This is no triviality of a question, since more than half the
> entire planetary population are *afflicted* by "religious" style
> beliefs (dont ever forget that "god" is little short of a
> Giant Alien as well, since most believers *seriously* think of
> "him" as an External Spirit somehow lurking both "out there"
> as well as "everywhere and internal").
> Are they all "mad" (ie mentally disfunctional) ?
Only when whipped into mass frenzy by some flaming fanatic.
> How come
> the "forces" which sometimes seem *so* tangible and active,
> as tho of a "black magic" nature, are *so* widespread ?
Like the ghoulish ways of carrion-eating?
> We are not dealing with half a dozen idiots on the planet,
> but with several BILLION "idiots" - all chanting daily to "gods"
> of various types.
Chanting hurts no-one. Belief in God hurts no-one per se, as well.
>*AND* - MILLIONS of those billions also have
> Degrees awarded via modern "education" systems dont forget.
> THOUSANDS of the of the greatest minds in history have babbled
> about "god" and Eden /atlantis in their lifetimes, - were they
> all "mad" as well ?
Crazy, yes - mad is too strong a word.
> It is far too glib for hard-line sceptic Archaeological
> "scientists" to dismiss this aspect of human tendancy, even tho
> scepticism does have great Virtues in supressing the "forces",
> it still does not explain them. Such people have only to look
> at the thoughts of their very own "bosses" at work (Deans,
> professors, Supervisors, whatever) to notice that half of THEM
> also believe in "god" and thus in Aliens, and thus (almost) in
> Eden /atlantis etc.
It's Atlantis, amigo.
> A fine line indeed betwixt madness and genius.
> I often use the pseudonym "Anti-Christ" myself in an effort to
> drive away Babbling drivel in my head proclaiming christ will
> solve everything, since ive seen that such thoughts tend to
> INTERFERE with intelligence and produce wimps and "miracle"
> seeking fools out of humans,- even tho, i (like the millions)
> still do not rule out "gods" and (some form of) Atlantis.
It all depends on who do you think your God is, and It wants you
to do. For instance, when I read the Bible, it seems to encourage
critical thought, and striving for knowledge of the scientific
kind. If the Bible makes such an impression on me, why couldn't
it impress others similarly?
Geez, give God a chance.. it could be a good investment.
> So it was with the Egyptians - and ever has been with humanity,
> and i still say that the Great Pyramid represents so much *MORE*
> than a mere pile of stones.
That's the term seen in scholarly books, which I despise cordially -
the Stone-Piles - because it is so remote to reality.
Pile implies lack of design and random actions.
To me every brick of it speaks of
> their Attempt to rationalise these very problems of "the Gods"
> in human Psyches, and a great deal has yet to be learnt from the
> Orionic Pyramid Fields as an overall site of incredible cleverness
> of Thought on a par even with Relativity in terms of its
> depth and scope. They did not have technology in our sense of
> bombs and electronics,
The upper echelons of initiated "priesthood" may have had in
their possession an inheritance from Atlantis, which might put
our electronics to shame. Can't you theorize of Forbidden Science,
such as had destroyed Atlantis, when made into a tool of war?
> but they certainly had an Awareness of
> "mind forces" which we (Psychologists in general) seem to have
> trivialised, yet with no real progress since those Ancient days.
And which an absolute majority of Egyptians had trivialized as well,
how could we not consider this aspect of it? It's what always
happens, when the masses consume knowledge.
> If "science" is ever to become the Supreme Mode of thought which it proclaims
> itself to be (and which i personally strive to pursue),
> then it must eventually INCLUDE rationalisation of all these
> "mind problems", and not supercilliously dismiss them as
> irrelevant /too difficult or unworthy of attention.
> The average human (and Archaeologist) will never get anywhere
> near a nuclear reactor, nor understand one, yet they *WILL*
Nuclear reactor? Like a rhino, it's powerful but not too spiritually
complex. Nuclear reactors are relatively easy to construct (but
hard to operate safely over their entire life-cycle).
> have to learn to control their own MIND, and that in its way
> is just as Daunting, indeed even MORE daunting,
> since science by admission hasnt worked it out yet.
> But maybe the Egyptians had more ideas than even we on that subject.
No, we have heard all the ideas, we just can't pick the right ones..
For mind control over itself, and the body - learn from the Buddhist
monks - they are the top scientists in this particular field.
> Frank_Doernenburg@do2.maus.ruhr.de
> (edited) says:
Strange, I thought I'm getting everything sent to sci.archy, but
I haven't seen this particular post. Does anyone know if he has
answered my last post in the Spiral Ramp-thread? If he has, I'd
like to see it.
> }The stones in Baalbek are not as heavy as claimed by many authors.
> }The three actually moved weigh just under 800 tons each, and
> }only the not-moved block in the quarry weighs about 1000 tons.
Actually, I think you make them a little lighter. I have read that
they (the Trilithons) weigh about 900 tons each..
> }The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length
Literature gives "almost a mile". Six-hundred meters is not even
a half of that. Thus it appears to me that you are doctoring your
knowledge, as it comes out.
> }and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and
> }the temple 145 meters.
Who are you kidding? Either I don't understand English, or there
is a big discrepancy here. Just the vertical difference between
the sites you give is 1,015 meters. It just doesn't dovetail
with your 600 meters figure. C'mon, Frank, which is it? How did
this garbage of yours impress Kaman, I don't know.
> So it was easy to keep the stones on an even
> }level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift
> }them about 7 meters as some authors claim.
What do you mean by this arcane conjecture? Did they built a level
ramp to the site, according to you? This act would have to be
subsequent to the construction of the lower levels of the wall,
in which we find these stones..
> As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside
> }of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home.
> }The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported
> }some 1000's of *kilometers*.
This I didn't know. However, because my experience with you has
demonstrated to me that you cannot be trusted as a source of
objective information, you bet that I shall pore over this Marcellinus
Comes, and other sources on architecture of Rome, as soon as I get a
chance.
> This transport was documented by the
> }roman author Marcellinus Comes. The romans even left detailed
> }paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the
> }bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul.
> }They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden"
Pardon me for interrupting, but such winches aren't permitted the
Egyptians, as you well know. The Science of History, just won't hear
such "heretical" ideas, since it won't hear of Egyptian screws, or
hydraulic machines, hi-performance winches, etc. So, if you propose
that the Egyptians had such relatively Hi-Tech machines, you have
one foot in my camp, and you don't even know it. Thus, you oppose
the mainstream scholars here. But, miraculously, they are not
pointing this transgession of yours out. Must be that your actions
suit their own aims for the moment.
> }which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed
> }only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day,
I wish, you told us where this is from - are you quoting a source,
or did you work it out yourself?
> because
> }they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters,
> }to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they
> }moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where
> }they passed the block from winch to winch.
30 meters a day is 900 meters a month, 10,800 meters a year, or
one-thousand kilometers a century. Double the distance traveled for
the lighter 510-ton obelisk (BTW, what is its name? It's got to have
a name - at that heft - shaped stones earn their own names like
Hadjar-el-Gouble) and still, something is not right.
And as far as I know, science doesn't ascribe sea-going ships of such
tonnage to the period. Are you blasphemying again? :)
> }But its irrelevant, because they needed only three weeks per block,
> }and that's OK.
I interrupt again to announce to you that it's not OK in the case of
taking such a stone to Rome. It takes one millenia to do the same,
as according to you, remember?
}Oh by the way, the Romans worked a few hundred years
> }on the temple, until the project was finally canceled. }Bye, }FD
Not so fast, you little devil :) - you don't escape me so easily.
I must pose the same question from the last time, which you
haven't answered!!! Isn't it logical that if Romans could quarry
and shape and move 900 and 1,200-ton (1,400?) stones at Baalbek -
then wouldn't they have performed the same stunning feats for the
benefit of Rome? Wouldn't they have decorated Rome with such stones?
I say that it makes sense that they would. Some things are just
that self-evident, or seem to be, till someone finds a good counter,
but I have yet to see one.
As for you Kaman, if you are bothering to check my word out at all,
don't I cause that gnawing doubt in your mind to come alive once more?
Must I remind you that FD hasn't even answered this question
satisfactorily yet, and he ignores a lot of other good questions.
Why don't you ask him about the predynastic granite vases, or has
that problem become trivial to you? How?
> ***very informative Frank - thanks :)
> So (visible) aliens didnt build the GP after all !
So, the Romans didn't move the Trilithons after all!
They never even as much as tried to. Obviously, judging from
the news that FD brings to us here ( I am willing to search this
info out, and if it is true, I shall never deny it), the Upper
Limit of the Roman technology (which I have never denied had
existed) was 510-tons!
You see, there were yet heavier obelisks in Egypt available
for pilfering, as Tompkins makes a mention of them, but doesn't
think it important to give a reference to its exact location.
Yet, I suppose that as always, Tompkins is well informed.
Therefore, if he makes a mention of a 1,000 ton obelisk, and
it's not in Rome, Paris, or New York - then it must be still
in Aegypt!
Therefore, the Romans couldn't steal it! They didn't have
the technology..
Who did? Baalbek was an old sacred site millenia before Romans.
There was an old shrine at the site! (Does this prove something
about the German excavations from the early twenties, which found
no signs of prior activities? Does it make them look highly
suspect?)
The Trilithons were part of the old site.. Just ask yourself:
Why were there only three Trilithon blocks in the entire Roman
Empire? And why not in Rome?
Baalbek's name is a proof that there was an old structure there.
Its name proves it - Baal used to be a God long ago..
We know, it was the Old ones (Pre-Roman ones), who had delighted
in applying Stella's Pyramid Laws. Thus, the Trilithons, and the
Hadjar-el-Gouble block, weighing definitely at least 1,000 tons
wouldn't be out of character for the Pre-Romans.
At any rate, Kaman, FD's novel info has nothing to do with the
Pyramid, or the Old Kingdom period. You're taking a giant leap
to conclusions.. But, do as you wish.
> but that does not stop the search for Atlantis, since in a way
> that word stands for *ANY* ancient civilisations not yet found.
I also said that it stands for the creators of the Science-Art,
and of the Seal of Atlantis.
Do you throw my discovery to the dogs, Kaman? If you are so
quizzical, and knowledge thirsty - why don't you pore through
these ancient mathematics while thinking intensely? You know
my claims, and you know that I claim to have made no mistakes in
my geometrical analysis. If I did, many skeptics would have aired
any such mistakes out, thus taking my moral right to speak here
the way I do now. Or, do you really think that I am so arrogant?
Ignorant? Racist? A great pretender? A megallomaniac? Atlantomaniac?
Pyramidiot? A little monkey dancing with the fireflies?
> If you havent already read them, i recommend the books
> "Keeper of Genesis" and "Orion Mystery" for some stimulation, kaman.
I have more important proof of Ancient Lost Science than all
of those books put together. Especially, if you consider, how
many more surprises must be in store in the rest of the Magdalenian
legacy from the site La Marche (near Chateaux aux Rennes - voila
mysteries, and sacred designs intersect), as out of its 1,500
exquisite engravings I have only seen about a dozen..
Don't look at me like that - these materials are extremely hard to get!
Read up on the intrigue involving the Musee de l'Homme in Paris, the
French cultural attache in Vancouver, and me, on my webpages under
Articles.
Jiri Mruzek
***************************************
Just say Baalbek, and watch the skeptocrits tumble like weeds..
(except for FD - who is just too much of a heavy :)
Never say die..
Hail Atlantis - the mother of Modern Science!
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:50:37 -0700
Ann McMeekin wrote:
> > Ths is a troll, correct?!?!?
> Actually, no, unless asking for information is a troll, in which case I am
> guilty as charged. Having only subscribed to this newsgroup in the last
> week, I found myself faced with what appeared to be the middle of a few
> threads and discussions, and was curious to find out what I had missed,
> the idea being that if I knew what had gone before, not only would the
> threads make sense, but I could join in the discussion if I so wished
> without either making an uninformed comment, leaving myself open to
> "flaming", or re-dressing statements previously covered.
> Profuse apologies if I have upset the delicate sensibilities of the
> contributors to this newsgroup by asking such a simple question.
> Ann McMeekin
> am@rtel.co.uk
> 100702.75@compuserve.com
> Section Leader for Mystic Places on Compuserve's Mysteries Forum
> GO MYSTERIES
Ann,
Compuserve, you say? Look over your shoulder to:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
If you've got the fuel to think for a long time..
Re: this thread, just relax, Ann. Everything is as it should.
Your very signature enrages some around here. Section leader is
alright, of course, but Mystic and Mysteries don't exist ITDHO !
Right there - you are a bad student, and "they" - one by one - are
just letting you know their pretended displeasure at having to set
your information aright, to remove the countless veils from your
eyes, to discuss your chances of mental recovery by the virtue of
reading what they recommend to you in long lists of sources, which
have nothing whatsoever to do with the gist of the matter - that
there are mysteries in our prehistory, and even modern times, such
as the strangely looking, and strangely formed Cydonia.
It makes me wish, I had reliable coordinates for everything there,
so that I could apply whatever expertise I have in such matters,
to Cydonia, as I am not a real mathematician, but rather a kind
of detective in matters of Magdalenian and Nascan Science-Art.
I cannot ignore what Hoagland announces. His theories remind me
of my own, when it was in a state of infancy. Except, my theory
has grown up, ( just watching the process of how it grew by filling
in blank spaces between seemingly unrelated problems, which were
there from the very first - is the best proof of the reality of
my findings) and his is at a stifled stage, because of a dire
lack of data.
Specifically, at Cydonia, I would look for the Seal of Atlantis
(see my pages).
I would be surprised if there were true sacred geometry there,
but not a version of the Seal of Atlantis.
But is there anything out there at Cydonia? I for one don't know..
Jiri Mruzek - foreign legionnaire of English
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:25:35 -0700
Matt Kriebel wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek (jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca) wrote:
> : We have discussed the subject of various methods of building the Great
> : Pyramid, when you show up and claim that we have no open interest in
> : all manners of such possible construction by LO-Tech methods.
> : How dare you?
> : FYI, it is the present consensus of historians that the Ancients, and
> : namely Egyptians had only so much knowledge, and so much technology,
> : and nomore!
> And as has been pointed out time and time again in this thread, that 'only
> so much knowledge' is all that is needed make such objects. I notice that
> have failed to answer those who have given effective methods, only mocked
> them instead.
You are just making claims without backing them up. I am well aware
of all the apparently feasible approaches to building the Pyramid,
we have seen proposed here. All of these proposals had some flaws.
A good, believable How To Build the GPOG script has yet to be produced.
Ramps, either straight, or winding don't work, each for a different
reason: Straight ramp - too much volume - no material evidence.
Side-ramp - The casing blocks had to be put in place first,
and you cannot affix the side-ramps to the mirror smooth mantle.
Mechanical devices such as cranes and derricks do not come
into consideration either, because steel wasn't available.
These categories cover all proposals of Lo-Tech we have seen.
Issues of Accuracy and Workmanship.
The claims to the Pyramids incredible architectural accuracy are
never disputed. It beats the accuracy standards of the great Medieval
cathedrals.
Mathematics and Units of Measure
The Pyramid just happens to have a unique shape, which makes it
a classic, gives it the patented pyramid-power, and incorporates
both the Pi and Phi constants.
The Pyramid just happens to be so placed and oriented, and contains
such details of construction, that it appears to suit a system
indicating unsurpassed knowledge of geography and astronomy, which
by the way, is being summerily denied by skeptics.
> : Some of us point to the intellectual level inherent in the Great
> : Pyramid,
> : and other ancient wonders, in a constructive approach to history.
> 'Contructive appraoch' mean you are the mighty prophet whgo will unlock
> hidden secrets in odd rations and measurements,huh? I took a peek into
> your website and would have laughed had it not bee so tragic. I didn't get
> any further that your Nazca monkey nonsense, but it becomes pretty
> obvious you are a mathematical/archeaological crank who find messages in
> any ratio or shape you can find.
Where is your real (expert) criticism of the real-world mathematics
found on my web-pages? Huh? Your rant doesn't help your cause.
Good of you to mention the Nasca Monkey design - because it is EASY
to prove that this design is engineered with great mathematical
knowledge and stunning accuracy.
Doubters may want to check out:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
>Ergo the 'intellectual level' in the
> pyramid is, in your own writing, not the wonder of engineering it is, but
> rather a mass of numbers and measurements that *you* get to unlock and
> then consider yourself to be an equal to alien intellences, right?
> : > What it all boils down to is that one is insisting that someones ancestors
> : > didn't have the brains or skill to move big heavy rocks and make a pile
> : > out of them. You'll notice that few 'alien advocates' rarely suggest that
> : > technically magnificent european structures (Hia Sophia, for ionstance)
> : > were built by aliens.
snip
> Hurts your little racist crank theories doesn't it?
snip
> Awww, poor Jiri, does it hurt that your 'constructive appraoch' may really
> be little more more than an ego-satisfying glory-hunt that tells many
> races that their ancestors were too dumb to build things?
You are still full of it. That's what you tell them, not I..
namon
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 01:41:45 -0700
Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:03:57 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
> wrote:
> > Pushing a small car (on wheels with steel bearings, and weighing
> > a ton at most) is as hard, as rolling a 10-ton wheel!
> >This claim is an obvious lie. One thing about such 10-ton
> >wheels - they are not perfectly round, and therefore aren't
> >well balanced! This will create problems, when the heaviest half
> >will be at the low point of rotation.
> >My expert opinion: You got the idea from the "Flintstones" show!
> >At any rate, this show abounds in similar cartoon-suitable "ideas".
> First, the wheels aren't 10 tons, what they're carrying was.
There, you found a technicality. Congrats! I thought that we had
to think about turning the whole thing..
> Second, cars have rubber wheels which have a lot more rolling friction than
> hard wheels.
Ten times as much weight remains the decisive consideration.
Modern tires roll easily, and their rubber is quite hard.
> Third, it's no harder to make a large wheel round than a small one.
Then make me a wheel mile-high!
> Fourth, balance doesn't matter, because the wheels turn at very low speed.
Spin a top. It only falls after losing the speed of rotation.
At lower speeds, balance is the most important factor.
> Fifth is the difference in leverage between you brute force pushing on a car
> and pulling on properly placed ropes. You have a problem understanding
> simple machines?
No. But i have a problem with what the diff is between brute force in
either pushing or pulling. Some cars seem to have been made for
pushing..
> First of all, do you think only scientists work for NASA? You think they
> don't have firefighters, trash collectors, drivers, and every other
> blue-collar trade imaginable?
And they are all given a free account with nasa.gov.? I don't think so.
> Second of all, yes, NOW I make a living as a scientist, but that doesn't
> mean it's the only thing I can do or have done. Maybe when you make it to
> twelve (either mentally or physically)
Insult noted.. Mr. Scientist
> you'll understand that a person
> doesn't ever have to be just one thing in their life. On the other hand,
> maybe you wont.
Since I was a baby all my life in your opinion - why not?
> >Very realistic - we all have access to quarries in our backyards
> >just like you!
> Perhaps not, but you could use a large stone to get the idea.
A large irregularly shaped stone? Really?
> > But, I have worked in a couple of quarries, and
> >nowhere did I see 10-ton rocks, there.
> And what kind of quarry did you work in?
Both quarries produced gravey.
> >What quarry produces 10-ton blocks, which it moves by your method?
> None of the commercial ones do; they'd be stupid to, since it's much more
> efficient to use modern machinery. Now that I've said that, I know of
> private quarries that do use this technique, because a simple winch attached
> to the front of their truck is more than sufficient to move stones that size
> and larger up out of the quarry. In fact, if you dig up OMNI from some of
> the early years, they have a picture and a story about somebody (back east
> I believe) who uses this technique.
Should I search through the first decade of OMNI? Thanks.
> >Where is this block you spoke about? Perhaps, we can get an
> >investigator on the site..
>
> It's in Israel, on a kibbutz in the Golan area, acting as a capstone for an
> air-raid shelter. Of course, you'll have to go down through 5 or 6 meters
> of dirt, first.
Why, I'm not a bomb..
> >What gave you the idea?
> Some of the wooden objects I've seen in displays of items taken from the
> tombs, that look rather like parts of cradles except they're not shaped
> quite right for it.
It's rather tough to look like something, when not being shaped quite
right for it. You must have a lot of fantasy.
> >Where are the witnesses, etc?
> On the Kibbutz
> >Conclusion: In absence of any evidence whatsoever, we have to
> >suspect that you Kevin Quitt are an unscrupulous prevaricator.
> If you had any brains at all, you'd realize that the method will work as
> stated whether or not I've done what I've said, and *that's* the critical
> piece of information. It doesn't matter whether I've done it (altough I
> have), but rather that it can be done.
I still doubt your word very much.
For one, you have hidden the wheel under six feet of dirt,
for two, you claim to have had no help. ON a kibbutz, it is unlikely.
I just don't envision you doing this.
You saw the idea in OMNI, or saw it applied by a truck with a winch,
as you mention. Don't they have those on kibbutzes? Sure?
> >When I want to tell people about something extraordinary like
> >prehistorical mathematics, I back my words up with a Web-site,
> >where my proofs are available to everyone to check out.
> So I've seen. Humorous, if simple-minded.
Insult noted. That's for sure.
> >The fact
> >that there are no skeptical critics (skepto-crits) using my
> >materials proves to you that I have something real there..
> No, it merely demonstrates that nobody in their right mind can be bothered
> to pay any attention to it.
Insult noted. Your attitude is evidently a mere excuse for being
unable to muster any sensible criticism whatsoever. You're
mired in typical Denial. Pleasant wallowing..
namon