Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
good luck with that: but it seem luck has nothing to do with belief in faith:
Faith: is the knowledge of believing in something that is possible but not really known for sure: guesswork; moves to Faith: clueless still; but knowing for sure it is possible because you believe it must be so. ( does anyone really read these things? ) I have no clue: but faith they do: so it turns out I like you -- Kerbal - why _ it is impossible to say: I guess? I leave it up to Faith: and my trusty flash light
I may be on a different frame of mind than you guys, but I sincerely believe Ed used some kind of field manipulation technique to move and cut these stones. I believe the builders of the Giza pyramids had a similar technique, and same goes for the builders of the walls of Sacsayhuaman and Ollantetambo in South America. If you disagree, tell me why. If you agree, tell me why. If you're skeptical, tell me why. Don't get caught up in your own preconceptions on how it was done, but simply analyze what I proposed. It is exhausting trying to read some of these comments - they're so all over the place and to incoherent for me to make heads or tails of. Please, what I meant by 'getting back on track' was NOT SPIRALING INTO DELUSION and looking at the Coral Castle as an engineer would.
The process to build the pyramids was called (Sidely) That is forgotten knowledge. Ed, used 20th. century tooling and methods of lifting using normal lifting methods nothing more.
There are movies of him moving and lifting very heavy stone using host and come a long chain winches normal engineering of his time: getting back on track: for you may mean let's all talk about how magic was used to build the Coral Castle
but What is the difference between one type of Bull shit and the other type of bull shit Story. ( If you want Scientist and Engineers to take anything said serous - than talk the talk Engineers and Scientist Talk - No magic repulsion fields or magic anti gravity bull shit - getting back on track to me means - What is Real - not bull shit
I have moved very heavy stuff in my life - NO magic involved - Engineering and Science was all that was needed ( no shit ) bull or otherwise -
Producing a thread were the main idea begins with unreal ideas of how something was done outside the realm of real - Can only produce people wanting to talk about only what is totally unreal in their own universe ( magnetic or otherwise )
Again being confused for you people on these forums is the norm. you all want people to think you are so smart by talking about bull shit. but really how smart is one that can convince another on a subject where neither has a clue of what is real in the first place. You want to get back on track - go back to school learn how things really work, once you do than you no longer need to convince others for their approval, That is what these forums are all about trying to convince fools you are smarter than the fool you are trying to convince that you are right about the bull shit story you are telling. ( Oh My God - you people are stupid )
End of story:
"You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."
There is indeed footage of Ed moving stones, but no one saw or recorded Ed moving any of the big stones - the one's he moved at night. I seriously doubt you or any other engineer today have the engineering or scientific knowhow to move a 30 ton stone single handedly without modern equipment like Ed did, but that don't mean you're stupid. And to this day modern science says Ed's PMH shouldn't work, but it does and it ain't magic. That means there's something missing in the foundation of modern scientific understanding, which is where you would have received your 'engineering' education.
"I seriously doubt you or any other engineer today have the engineering or scientific knowhow to move a 30 ton stone single handedly without modern equipment like Ed did, but that don't mean you're stupid."
This is exactly right. It took a team of men with heavy machinery to fix the revolving door at Rock Gate - and when they were done, it was never as good as it was originally. Saying this is all possible through mechanical advantage is technically correct, but missing the bigger picture - that a single man with no machinery cut and moved these megaliths, and the only evidence of the tools he used is what is left, and the photos and videos that were taken. Based on the tools we have evidence of, he wouldn't really have been able to construct this site.
Here, Mr. Engineer, tell me if this makes sense.
1. Load Distribution and Geometry
We start by breaking down how a tripod handles weight. When you suspend a load from the center, the weight is distributed equally between the three legs. However, because the legs are angled outward, each leg supports not just a share of the vertical load but also some horizontal force. Trigonometry (specifically cosine of the leg’s angle from vertical) lets us resolve that force into the true compressive load on each leg.
F_leg = W / (3 * cos(θ))
Where:
W is the total vertical load,
θ is the angle from vertical (estimated ~18° based on photos),
cos(θ) resolves the vertical load into axial force along the leg.
2. Compressive Strength of the Material
Next, we look at how much load the wood itself can handle without crushing. This uses basic material science: multiply the cross-sectional area of the leg by the allowable compressive stress for wood like oak. This gives a theoretical limit—how much load the wood could support if it were short, perfectly straight, and loaded slowly and evenly.
Assuming the legs are solid oak, about 10 inches (0.254 m) in diameter, we calculate the compressive strength:
A = (π * d^2) / 4
F_max = σ_allow * A
Where:
d = diameter of leg,
σ_allow = allowable compressive stress (≈ 30 MPa for oak),
A = cross-sectional area,
F_max = maximum compressive load per leg.
This gives a theoretical maximum of over 400,000 N per leg, or over 40 tons total—assuming no buckling, which is unrealistic.
3. Euler’s Buckling Formula
The real limitation comes from buckling, not crushing. Tall, slender wooden poles are far more likely to buckle (bend and fail suddenly) before they compress. Euler’s formula tells us the maximum axial force a column can withstand before buckling. It factors in the length, material stiffness, shape, and how the ends of the pole are fixed (pinned, fixed, etc.). This is often the most critical limit for structures like tripods.
Euler’s buckling formula:
P_cr = (π^2 * E * I) / (K * L)^2
Where:
E = modulus of elasticity for oak (≈ 12 GPa),
I = moment of inertia of the leg cross-section = (π * d^4) / 64,
L = unsupported length of the leg (≈ 4.8 m),
K = column effective length factor (≈ 1 for pinned ends).
This results in a critical axial load per leg of approximately 100,000 N. The total load is then -
W_max = 3 * P_cr * cos(θ)
Roughly 29,000 kg (≈ 29 tons). But this is a failure threshold, not a safe working limit.
Using a safety factor of 3 (typical for structural wood applications), the practical working load is 9 to 10 tons maximum. But, given material variability, joint integrity, and lack of visible reinforcement, the realistic load that this tripod could handle safely and repeatedly is likely closer to 4-6 tons.
What's more - this is not even fully taking into account the point at the apex of the tripod, where the block and tackle was mounted. If it were to repeatedly support a 15 ton load on wooden legs, the apex mount must be especially robust. The way the block and tackle (hoisting system) is fixed to the apex of the tripod dramatically affects:
-How forces are transmitted through the legs
-The stability of the entire tripod under load
-The risk of failure at the top connection, which becomes the single point of concentration for all tensile forces
The closest we get to seeing how this was all mounted is that black box in historical photographs, but it:
-Appears compact—too small to contain significant metal bracing, multi-point load spreading, or large bearings.
-Does not appear to be a robust steel weldment, which would normally be required to redirect or distribute 30,000+ lbs of tension safely.
-Shows no visible reinforcement to prevent the box from being torn apart or from tearing through the tops of the wooden poles.
Given the estimated forces, even a mild steel mounting plate inside the box would need to be at least:
-Several inches thick (depending on weld and shear assumptions),
-Firmly bolted through or cradled into each leg,
-Connected to a system capable of resisting bending and twisting from the block and tackle.
Based on all of this, I would say there is reasonable doubt that he used a tripod by itself to move any block weighing over 5 tons. Since a majority of the stones at the site are more than 5 tons, this creates an interesting problem: if the tripod wasn't entirely responsible, what was?
If I missed any variables, let me know. If you disagree, tell me why. If you have an alternative, suggest it.