Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A Book In Every Home



  • To me, the following video displays a high degree of possibility when a) lateral movement is achieved by pivot and rotation, and b) vertical movement is achieved by placing "holders" within the void space beneath an object to be lifted when that object is counterbalanced at one end weighing it down at an angle. See enclosed video. All comments appreciated:

  • Wally Wallington, the old fallback for those who think ed used jacks and levers...
    He does give a good demonstration of some of ed's techniques, and theres no doubt ed used jacks pullys levers, etc to move the castle, the evidence is left all over ed's tool room. Orval Irwin gives a good description of the same methods in his book 'Mr. Can't is Dead'
    But, and you know I have a but here...
    My first criticism, is that wallington said "19 200 lbs, 128 cu/ft of concrete", first of all a 19200 lb concrete block would crack down the middle and fall to two pieces on a fulcrum like that, thats 9600 lbs hanging out in the air like that, on both ends, it would snap a 2 1/2 -3 foot slab like he's lifting, SO, he must be using reinforced concrete... I bet it's FULL OF TENSILE REBAR, and ed used UNFORMED LIMESTONE, in fact, Orval Irwin said ed broke the first obelisk he tried to free from the ground, but the second he successfully moved and quarried. Limestone is more brittle than concrete, so a comparison to ed yields very "modern" technology, compared to ed's method of quarrying. Until Wally Wallington can tell me he's not using rebar in his concrete, I think he's using 'modern' methods in that respect, and no one considers that.
    Wally Wallington did not quarry these stones, I can pour a 19000 lb slab of concrete, but it takes ed to quarry it out of the ground.
    When talking about ed's quarry, you have to look at 2 things, one, oolitic limestone is brittle, and when its 'chipped' it leaves a sharp jagged edge. Two, look at ed's walls of the castle, they're not jagged, they're smooth, in fact ed's reading chairs, his tables, and well, everything is smooth. EXCEPT for one of the 4 sides on ed's walls, thats the side ed drove wedges under to fracture the stone from the bedrock, that side of the rock is jagged, but why not the rest. If youre ever at coral castle, compare the smooth sides of the stones to the rough sides, you'll see what I mean. Then, ask the tour guide where ed's castle was damaged during hurricane Andrew, it's around the grotto where a tree fell, and some of the stones there have some chipped edges, unlike the rest of the stones. You can see the difference there. So how did ed quarry the stones? If he was using 'primitive' chisels, like the ones they claim ed used made from truck leaf springs, than the stones in the walls would be jagged and sharp. Did ed smooth off 5 out of 6 sides after he released the stone from the bedrock? and if so, why would he get lazy and not do the sixth side that he broke free? Answer is, he didnt chisle them out of the ground, he chiseled a channel, poured in some acid (Likely a Thial Helium hydride ion) let gravity do its job, and then got under it and broke it free, probably because he couldn't figure out how to get the acid to run horizontally.
    Anyway, wally wallington is good, but ed was better, far better. This video solves nothing, Orval Irwin already figured this out, and wrote it in his book.
    Wally Wallington couldnt build coral castle, not in a hundred years, and anyone who thinks he figured out the secret, hasn't took the time to quarry a limestone block from the ground.
    All wally has done here is shown how to build a one man parking garage. I can move a 2 ton log a mile with a peevee, I know I move 2-3 ton hardwood logs by hand all the time, no big deal, same principal, can be done with a fulcrum, and not rolled like you think a log would be moved, but by teetering it around, by the same principal I can lift a log three feet off the ground onto a lumbermill for cutting, no problem. It takes time, but can be done by anyone. And I'm not debating that ed used jacks and levers, on the contrary, ed spent years working in the lumber industry logging trees, and by rights I can apply the same principals he learned there to the logs I move, or even large stones. Turn of the century loggers used clydsdales, spud poles, fulcrums and sleds to move multi ton logs, and ed used a lot of the same principals, except he replaced the horses with comealongs etc.
    And while I'm thinking about it, how did ed balance the 9 ton gate so perfectly? Could he have done it wally's way? probably not... Ed would have had to cut that stone the right size, than stood it up on a small point, like a 10 penny nail or something, found the exact balance point, transfered that 'nail point' plumb to the top of the stone, then, drill it out, by hand, perfectly straight... right...
    But lets consider how easy this would be with a little weight reduction and acid...
    Reduce the weight of the stone, now you can easily balance it on a nail for a PRECISE center, now just plumb up the point, chisel out a hole the size of your axel and pour in your acid... gravity does the rest to cut out a perfectly straight, plumb hole.
    But anyway, these are my theories... I still think wally cant build CC, not the way ed did.
  • edited April 2014
    Im not so sure what we are really looking for, but i did notice that the very first word on the firts page of the book it says: to those, if we look carefully it says toth, toth is an egyptian god. And browesing at his pictures i found several things that closely resemble to some masonic symbols and to some of the symbols from ed's castle. For example ed has a moon shaped rock, so it does too Toth on his head, if you look closer i think you will start finding more related symbols, once again, im not sure what we are looking for, but i hope that clue helps, and as he said, he knew the secret of the egyptians!

  • Hi Zoro,
    good catch!

    Thoth is the "guy" with bird's head. ;)

    Thoth's roles in Egyptian mythology were many. He served as a mediating power, especially between good and evil, making sure neither had a decisive victory over the other.[25] He also served as scribe of the gods,[26] credited with the invention of writing and alphabets (i.e. hieroglyphs) themselves.[27] In the underworld, Duat, he appeared as an ape, A'an, the god of equilibrium, who reported when the scales weighing the deceased's heart against the feather, representing the principle of Ma'at, was exactly even.[28]

    The ancient Egyptians regarded Thoth as One, self-begotten, and self-produced.[19] He was the master of both physical and moral (i.e. Divine) law,[19] making proper use of Ma'at.[29] He is credited with making the calculations for the establishment of the heavens, stars, Earth,[30] and everything in them.[29] Compare this to how his feminine counterpart, Ma'at was the force which maintained the Universe.[31] He is said to direct the motions of the heavenly bodies. Without his words, the Egyptians believed, the gods would not exist.[26] His power was unlimited in the Underworld and rivaled that of Ra and Osiris
  • Seems to me you are all forgetting a simple yet critical fact about Ed. If he was coding things in his books he probably used his mother tongue...Latvian. Anyone speak Latvian?
  • @dave you make a good point. His eyes are inline with Latvia and looks to be pointing at it.
  • I just bought an old abieh. I believe this is from the time when ed was still alive. Some of the pictures in the book are different and there are more of copy and the old one are about the same size.
  • More than 19 pages?
  • 26 pages. I've never seen abieh with 19 pages. Newer abieh, it is definitely a copy of the original, because they have the same errors. In the original, the errors are more visible.
  • edited October 2014
  • Right 26 pages. So the print is prominent.
  • Very cool Julli. I did not know there was another version of ABIEH. First time I've seen this. I wonder at what point the newer version was begun to be used?

    In the bottom picture, it looks like the number 25 on the bottom left on the ground. Anyone else see this?
  • Back cover.
    Hi Julli,
    that's very interesting, indeed.
    Would there be a way, to scan the whole old ABIEH, please?

  • Books are different sizes, the original book dimensions: 17.1 cm x 12.1 cm (6.7323 inches x 4.7638 inch), a new version of the book is 16.5 cm x 11.5 cm (6.4961 x 4.5276 ).
    Text with errors is exactly the same in both books, only the pictures are different. In the cover, there is a gray line, do you see it? The line is in both books.
Sign In or Register to comment.