On Proving Ancient Megalith Construction
Jim
Solley
Elizabeth City, NC
Word count:
Acknowledgment:
CHRIST JESUS – HIS help was essential.
Declaration: This is a woefully incomplete draft of a consolidation and update of two previously written articles. I’ve posted it as it has some value, and I currently am experiencing health issues that are causing me to lose the use of my hands. It’s worrisome because they went from fine to terrible over a five day period. If I lose much more of the use of them, then I’ll be forced to stop writing altogether. What you don’t see is that I’m making about one mistake for every word I’m typing and having to correct it. The other two articles are posted on world-mysteries.com, but most links on them no longer are valid.
Part 1 of 6. That’s highly logical
The content of this exceptionally long article shows that mainstream archaeologists haven’t solved the mystery of stone megalith construction, because they’re not thinking; they’re just being logical.
“No, no, you’re not thinking; you’re just being logical.”
—Neils Bohr (1885–1962); Danish physicist
Most of us who have easy access to a television set know that Spock is the science officer aboard the Enterprise on Star Trek, and we know that he places heavy emphasis on being logical. It would be reasonable to conclude from associating science officer with being logical that being logical and doing science are the same thing. But they’re not.
Logic is concerned with valid form in reasoning whereas science is concerned with valid content in reasoning. For example: All elephants are insects. Jumbo is an elephant. Therefore, Jumbo is an insect. The logic is good, but the science is bad, because the content of the first premise is false, i.e. elephants aren’t insects. If the content of the first premise is false, then it doesn’t matter how good the logic is, because conclusions that rely upon a false premise will always be false. Garbage in equals garbage out.
If we wanted to do good science, then all we would need to do is add the word not to the first premise and change it to, All elephants are not insects. Then we would have, Jumbo is an elephant. Therefore, Jumbo is not an insect. The logic would be the same, but because the content of the first premise would’ve been changed from false to true, the conclusion also would be true. Not is a powerful word, because it has the capability to change something that’s false into something that’s true.
First premises in an investigation are known as prima facie evidence. Prima facie literally translates from the Latin as at first sight. The term is used to describe a fact that’s assumed to be true unless disproved by contrary evidence. The claim made in this article is that prima facie evidence is false in two cases of stone megalith construction; the Great Pyramid and Coral Castle. The intent is to prove it by providing contrary evidence.
Part 2 of 6. Two categories of theories
“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”
—Bertrand Russell (1872–1970); British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian
A fact that’s in accordance to our instincts is that the problem of construction of the ancient stone megaliths is one that belongs to the discipline of archaeology. It could, but it also is a physical problem that involves laws of physics and engineering. Thus, it also could belong to one or more disciplines within applied science. Applied science is the application of knowledge acquired from the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics to practical problems. Engineering disciplines are related to applied science, and obviously the pyramids were an engineering project.
“In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.”
—Walter Cronkite (1916–2009); American broadcast journalist
Huge numbers of articles have been written about stone megalith construction from the perspective of archaeology. This one is written from the perspective of applied science. It shows the vastly different results one gets by treating it as an applied science problem versus the results one gets by treating it as an archaeological problem.
“The right to search for the truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.
If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.”
—Albert Einstein (1879–1955); American/Austrian/German/Swiss physicist
This is a complete informal account of every part of what I’ve recognized to be true. It’s a patchwork quilt of ideas placed in some reasonable order. I start by claiming that part of what I’ve recognized to be true is that regardless of the large number, there are and can be only two categories of theories. Any theory that’s based upon the conventional model for construction of the pyramids that was developed by mainstream archaeologists falls into the category of stupid theories, and any theory that deviates from and is eccentric to their conventional model such as space aliens and anti-gravity falls into the category of crazy theories. Since a theory must either conform to the conventional model or deviate from it, the actual solution to the mystery must be something that is either stupid or crazy.
When treating it as an archaeological problem, mainstream archaeologists have a different opinion. They believe that their conventional model is sound, else they wouldn’t be using it. But they will agree that any theory that deviates from their model is crazy. Evidence to support the latter is that they’ve named everyone who owns an eccentric theory a pyramidiot or crackpot. I fully agree with that part of their opinion. Now all that remains to be done is to determine whether their conventional model is sound as they claim, or stupid as I claim.
Attempting to suppress dissent and attacking people’s character by calling them names is known as personalization of issues. It’s an indicator of the presence of pseudoscience. The first and third bulleted items below the part the web page that’s presented by clicking on the link are applicable to this mystery. Once a group shows disrespect to another group, then the former has shut out the latter. They aren’t listening to them, so there’s no opportunity to learn from them.
“I never learned from a man who agreed with me.”
—Robert A. Heinlein (1907–1988); American science-fiction author
As for me, nothing that’s stated herein is meant to be disrespectful to anyone. Each owner of each theory has one or more reasons that justifies owning it. We want to know what those reasons are. Once we know them, then perhaps we can decide who has the reasons that give the strongest justification.
This is a discussion about theories, models, and reasons for belief. It’s not about people per se, but the discussion must include people since it’s people who own theories and have reasons for owning them. Claiming that the conventional model of archaeology is a stupid engineering model isn’t meant to imply that mainstream archaeologists or those who agree with their conventional model are stupid. Claiming that theories that are eccentric to the conventional model are crazy isn’t meant to imply that owners of eccentric theories are crazy. At least, not by me it isn’t.
I agree with mainstream archaeologists that pyramidiots and crackpots are good names, because it provides a convenient means to separate owners of crazy theories from owners of stupid theories. The reason stupid theories is a good name is that there’s no rational reason for anyone to want to own a crazy theory unless they believe that the theories proposed by mainstream archaeologists are stupid. The names represent the way each group perceives the theories of the other group.
Dividing theories into categories is a means to simplify the problem. It’s much easier to deal with two categories of theories than it is to deal individually with a huge number of theories. I’m confident that there are many theories of which I’m unaware. By dividing theories into two categories that cover all possibilities, it becomes unnecessary to be aware of all of them. Once the details of the categories are defined, everyone will know the category to which their theory belongs, if they don’t already know.
Archaeologists are specialized historians whose purpose is to recover our history. Historians began documented study of the Great Pyramid more than 2,400 years ago beginning with Herodotus, the first historian. He helped establish the conventional model of pyramid construction when he estimated that 100,000 men were needed to build the Great Pyramid. That’s stated in the third paragraph of the web page that’s presented by clicking on this link. Also stated in that paragraph is that many mainstream archaeologists find that number plausible today. Yet, today, mainstream archaeologists who are involved with this mystery are as stupefied about the means used to construct it as Herodotus was.
Modern scientists needed a scant 66 years from the day Orville Wright made the first powered flight until Neil Armstrong said, “One small step for man.” But after more than 2,400 years, archaeologists have made exactly zero progress in determining how ancient man lifted huge stones atop supporting structure.
Absence of progress is an indicator of the presence of pseudoscience as is shown in the title of the part of the web page that’s presented by clicking on the link. Both bulleted items within the titled group are applicable.
Myriad problems had to be solved before going to the moon. Lifting huge stones atop supporting structure without using machines is one problem. Why can’t mainstream archaeologists solve it?
Mainstream archaeologists claim that they can’t solve it, because they haven’t found sufficient evidence to prove one of their theories. They’re right, but they don’t consider the possibility that the reason they haven’t is that their conventional model is the wrong model. If lack of evidence was the problem, then I would agree that their conventional model is sound. The real problem is that they can’t conceive a demonstrable theory for ancient man to lift huge stones at some ancient megaliths such as the Temple of Jupiter that will be discussed later. Evidence isn’t needed to conceive a demonstrable theory, and the fact that they can’t conceive one for the Temple of Jupiter is strong evidence that they’re using a stupid engineering model.
Going to the moon was an engineering project that required modern scientists disciplined in applied sciences. Building the pyramids was an engineering project that required ancient scientists disciplined in applied sciences. Archaeologists aren’t disciplined in applied sciences. Archaeology is a branch of anthropology. It’s not an engineering discipline.
If mainstream archaeologists could find archaeological evidence which in this case would be ancient documents that describe how the pyramids were built, then they could read them and solve the mystery. If they can’t find such documents, then the mystery must be solved as an engineering problem without the use of ancient documents.
It’s unreasonable for us to expect someone who isn’t disciplined in applied science to solve a highly-technical engineering problem. Mainstream archaeologists have a track record of more than 2,400 years of failure not because they lack brainpower, but because they have the wrong training and experience for this problem. They’re unqualified to solve it, prove it, and judge it as an engineering problem, because they don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to engineering problems of this degree of sophistication. In short, they’re the wrong scientists to assign to this problem.
“If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t call it research, would we?”
—Albert Einstein
The only thing they need to do to extricate themselves from this situation is to announce that they’ve learned that this problem doesn’t fall within the realm of archaeology to solve and prove, i.e. it doesn’t match what they’re trained to do. Then they should reassign it accordingly. If they do that, then no one should hold them responsible for more than 2,400 years of failure to make any progress at all, especially since the vast majority of us followed our instincts and thought that they were the correct scientists to assign to the problem.
That’s one idea that may help them. They may have others. The intent here is to get to a truth that mainstream archaeologists can’t get to themselves. It’s not to damage archaeology.
“To free someone from error is to give, and not to take away.”
—Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860); German philosopher
Archaeologists are capable of solving and proving some engineering problems as some of them only require ordinary common sense. But stone megalith construction is different. It’s a problem Type that can’t be solved using ordinary common sense. In fact, mainstream archaeologists using ordinary common sense wouldn’t even recognize a good engineering model for pyramid construction if they saw one. Evidence to support that is that they’ve had one for more than seven decades, but every time someone proposes it, they reject it.
“When it is not in our power to follow what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”
—René Descartes (1596–1650); French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher
A brief history of the rejected theory follows. It will remain unidentified until prerequisites for doing an objective scientific evaluation of a proof from the perspective of applied science can be presented as well as substantial evidence to evaluate.
It was being discussed by archaeologists in the 1930s. There wasn’t enough evidence to prove it at that time. Thus, that rejection was righteous. But anyone who understood the now seven-century old principle of science known as the principle of parsimony would’ve known within a few seconds of evaluating it that it was far more probable than any other theory. Therefore, it should’ve been followed.
Ignoring the principle of parsimony is an indicator of the presence of pseudoscience as is shown in the part of the web page that’s presented by clicking on the link. The third bulleted item in the list that’s identified as Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims is applicable.
The mystery of construction of the Great Pyramid was solved by a scientist disciplined in applied science in the mid 1970s. He likely was unaware that the theory was being discussed in the 1930s as he wasn’t an archaeologist at that time. He was doing research in his own field of applied science when the idea occurred to him. Within the next few years he became an archaeologist. He formally proposed his theory as an unproved hypothesis in 1979 so that he could get permission to do experiments on the Great Pyramid. He reminded mainstream archaeologists of the principle of parsimony, but it didn’t matter to them. He was denied permission, the theory was rejected again, and obstacles were placed in his path by Egypt’s leading archaeologists to prevent him from doing experiments.
Lack of openness to testing by other experts is an indicator of the presence of pseudoscience as is shown in the title of the part of the web page that’s presented by clicking on the link.
He overcame the obstacles with assistance from another archaeologist and proved his theory by the mid 1980s. Again it was rejected.
Beginning in 2001 and ending in late 2006, three other scientists disciplined in applied sciences performed state-of-the-art experiments and completed all of the remaining rigorous conditions set forth by the scientific method of applied science that are required for proof of a theory. Upon completion, mainstream archaeologists were handed a fully proved, independently verified and validated, independently peer reviewed and confirmed theory for construction of the top tiers of the Great Pyramid, and the evidence was published in a scientific journal. The four scientists who are directly involved with the proof have put their reputations on the line in writing, but mainstream archaeologists just keep rejecting it. Today, those who reject it continue to be as stupefied as ever.
Part 3 of 6. The cause of the rejection
A flashback to the time before I knew that archaeologists are the wrong scientists to assign to this problem.
From the time I learned of the rejection of 2006 until Fall of 2009, I was puzzled as to why mainstream archaeologists rejected a theory that met all conditions required of proof by the scientific method of applied science? I never expected them to be able to prove the solution themselves, because I knew that experiments must be performed that they aren’t trained to perform. But I did expect that they’d be able to correctly judge a proved theory when presented with one. If mainstream archaeologists have misjudged a proved theory, which is what I claim, then it’s important to know what made them misjudge it. At first, I thought that the following quote was the cause.
“There are none so blind as he who will not see.”
—Credited to multiple sources
If someone has a conventional model for construction that’s been believed for more than 2,400 years, it won’t be surrendered just because someone proves that another model is correct. It’s much easier to believe that a few scientists have made a mistake than that huge numbers of scientists have. Yet, it’s actually illogical to believe the former, because regardless how little or how much time it takes to discover and prove the correct solution to a mystery, someone is always first and everyone else isn’t.
“Truth always rests with the minority.”
—Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855); Danish philosopher, theologian, psychologist
I originally thought that the rejected theory eventually would be accepted, as that is what usually happens with truth, but something else bothered me. I didn’t understand why mainstream archaeologists who have a stake in this problem so blatantly and with complete disregard for scientific methodology are doing so many things that are characteristics of pseudoscience. They’re violating rules of science, rules of investigation, and rules of reasoning, and they were doing this long before the rejected theory was first proposed. This was worrisome, because it suggested that they don’t understand science, and I knew that that can’t be right.
“Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.”
—opening sentence in Wikipedia definition of Pseudoscience
There seemed to be only two possible reasons for their behavior that are represented by the following quote.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
Malice (conspiracy) didn’t make sense, because all archaeologists who have a stake in this problem would need to be involved in a conspiracy to prevent the truth of stone megalith construction from ever being known. The fact that there are rogue archaeologists who disagree with the mainstream about the conventional model and choose to own space-alien theories proves that there is no conspiracy, i.e. they may not have the right solution, but they’re unwilling to stand with the mainstream.
What I saw was a large number of mainstream archaeologists who own a stupid engineering model, because they’re breaking the rules of an appropriate scientific methodology for this problem, and they reject a fully proved theory that conforms to all the rules and that has met all the standards required for proof by that appropriate scientific methodology. Since there’s no conspiracy and since I know that archaeologists are intelligent people who do understand science, this made no sense. In Fall of 2009, I finally stumbled upon information that makes sense of it. End of the flashback in time.
The following quotation helps explain the cause of the rejection. It suggests that archaeologists may be playing science with a different set of rules than those being used by the scientists who own the rejected theory.
“People's image of science is unfortunately often based on physics and a few other fields with similar methodologies. Scientists in those fields tend to be ignorantly disdainful of fields to which those methodologies are inappropriate and which therefore must seek other methodologies—such as my own research areas of ecology and evolutionary biology. But recall that the word “science” means “knowledge” (from the Latin scire, “to know,” and from scientia, “knowledge”), to be obtained by whatever methods are most appropriate to the particular field. Hence, I have much empathy with students of human history for the difficulties they have.”
—Jared Diamond, Professor of Physiology at UCLA in California
The above quotation is an extract from the first full paragraph on page 421 in the 1999 printing of the paperback edition of the book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, The Fates of Human Societies. In the third full paragraph on that page, Professor Diamond states that the laboratory experiment of physics is often considered to be the essence of the scientific method, but that obviously it can play little or no role in many of the historical sciences. Please note the highlighted phrase, as this is where the problem lies, and soon it will be explained.
I had already found a web page that indicated that the scientific methodology of archaeology and of the applied sciences are identical. Since that was in accordance to my instincts, I didn’t do further checking and accepted it on the slightest evidence. It was a big mistake that cost me a lot of wasted time.
Professor Diamond’s account that the methodology archaeologists are using might be different from that of applied science disagreed with my view. Instead of thinking that I won’t accept his view, because he disagreed with me, I evaluated his view and decided that it potentially made sense of the problem. Subsequently, further investigation permitted me to quickly find several web pages that confirmed his view and showed that the methodologies of archaeology are different or that they can be different. Thus, I learned something valuable from a man who disagreed with me.
The following definition found subsequent to Professor Diamond’s account further explains the cause of the rejection.
“Definition: In archaeology, the scientific method generally means one of two things. Either you are using scientific logic and reasoning to make sense of your archaeological site and studies (including hypothesis testing), or you are using information and techniques from the natural (chemistry, physics, geology) or biological (biology, botany, zoology) science fields. Or, of course, both, which is best.”
—extract from this web page. The quote is credited to Douglas J. Kennett
Mainstream archaeologists aren’t using information and techniques from the natural science fields, else they would reach the same conclusions as those of the four scientists who own the rejected theory. By default, they are using what remains which is scientific logic and reasoning to make sense of their archaeological site, i.e. they’re just being logical.
The following two quotations provide further details of the ways in which mainstream archaeologists are playing science that are different from those of applied science. They’re from a web page entitled Scientific Method and Archaeology authored by Robert Drake. Possibly it’s outdated and no longer represents a completely accurate explanation of the scientific method of archaeology, but it makes sense of the behavior of mainstream archaeologists with respect to the Great Pyramid and the rejected theory.
“Any idea purporting to be scientific must establish its claim by direct appeal to sense-experience. Failing in this regard, there is no scientific evidence by which one may affirm the truth of such an idea.”
—extract from Part I, Section 1, paragraph 1 of this web page
“In a word, all archaeological data are of tangible form, hence are unquestionably subject to sense experience.”
—extract from Part II, Section 1, paragraph 2 of this web page
It follows from these quotations that in the case of pyramid construction, mainstream archaeologists don’t consider intangible data to be evidence, because it has no direct appeal to sense-experience, and it’s not something that falls within their typical experience since all archaeological data are of tangible form. It also explains why they believe that space aliens and anti-gravity are crazy, as those and all other crazy theories such as energy grids, levitation, and secrets of Atlantis to name a few more so that the pattern can be seen, are based upon crucial data that currently are intangible.
If all archaeological data are of tangible form, there is no such thing as intangible evidence, and prima facie evidence is true, then within the boundaries of that context, mainstream archaeologists indeed are conforming to their scientific methodology and principles of science, and their conclusions are sound in both form and content. This explains why they believe that their conventional model is sound. Instead of seeing certain odd physical details of stones as clues that converge on an eccentric theory that involves intangible evidence, the mainstream archaeological view is that these converging details are just another unexplained part of the mystery, i.e. they don’t see the convergence.
“Every person takes the limits of their own field of vision for the limits of the world.”
—Arthur Schopenhauer
Please recall the highlighted phrase in the quote from Professor Diamond. The mistake that mainstream archaeologists are making is that they’re applying their methodology that’s appropriate for their field for evaluating tangible archaeological evidence in the form of ancient documents that describe how the pyramids were constructed to intangible evidence acquired from fields of applied science where that methodology is inappropriate. Therefore, when scientists disciplined in applied sciences present to mainstream archaeologists crucial intangible evidence acquired from the test results of their experiments along with significant amounts of tangible converging evidence, they reject all of it.
Mainstream archaeologists become annoyed with owners of eccentric theories who persistently disagree with them, because they’re convinced beyond the slightest doubt that their conventional model for construction is correct and that any who disagree with them are pyramidiots or crackpots.
“Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves.”
—Bertrand Russell
I no longer blame mainstream archaeologists for being annoyed with owners of eccentric theories, as I confess that I was annoyed with mainstream archaeologists prior to learning that they aren’t using the same methodology that I’m using. I thought that they were the none so blind as he who will not see. That implies that they have a choice. Now, I know that the methodology they’re using limits their vision and actually makes them blind in this particular case. They have no choice, really can’t see, and truly believe that their conventional model for stone megalith construction is sound. Therefore, they sincerely believe that they’re telling the truth about pyramid construction and that owners of the rejected theory are lying to them.
“The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.”
—Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961); Austrian physicist
If two sides hold opposing views, then regardless that both are sincere, one side must be mistaken. Unless things change, the proved solution to the stone megalith construction mystery might never be accepted by mainstream archaeologists, because future generations of archaeologists will inherit traditional baggage from their training that virtually guarantees that they too will fail to see the truth. It’s my opinion that this would be tragic, because I must believe that no archaeologist would want to waste any part of their career trying to solve a mystery when they’re unaware that they don’t have the correct training and experience for it.
Some of our children and grandchildren will become archaeologists. They should have the opportunity to evaluate the evidence before deciding whether they want to pursue the mystery or do other kinds of archaeology. And, since this is about our ancient relatives whose genes we all inherited, the evidence belongs to everyone, i.e. everyone has the right to see it and judge it for themselves. The nice thing is that while everyone has a right to see it, no one is required to believe it. Anyone who wants to ignore it is permitted to do so with no hard feelings if that is their choice.
To this point, the term scientific method of applied science has been used as a vague general term. To be more specific, what I’m talking about is an epistemological approach to investigation. Epistemology is the study of how we know things with any significant degree of certainty and limitations that may exist in our ability to think, perceive, and understand. To be exactly specific, what I mean by scientific method of applied science is the epistemological methodist approach to investigation as opposed to the epistemological particularist approach. These approaches are opposites of each other.
Particularism is a fancy name for ordinary common sense, and this is the approach that mainstream archaeologists are using for the stone megalith construction problem. It claims that we can know things before we know how we know them.
An example of the beginning of an investigation using the particularist approach is, “Of course we know that huge numbers of men were required to build the pyramids. Anyone can look at them and know that that’s true.” If we can look at them and know that that’s true, then we’ve drawn a logical conclusion based upon prima facie evidence that an enormous amount of work went into building the Great Pyramid. It’s just being logical based upon the unproved assumption that they didn’t have something like aliens or anti-gravity assisting them.
We first preconceive this idea that huge numbers of men were needed and once convinced that our preconception is correct, then second we look for hard evidence to support our belief. If we can find but little evidence, that’s good enough. We only need the slightest evidence, because our preconception is in accordance to our instincts. We never do critical thinking and question it, because to question it would mean that we’re skeptical of it, and particularism is fundamentally anti-skeptical. Anti-skeptical means trusting.
“First of all, as soon as we think that we correctly perceive something, we are spontaneously convinced that it is true. Now if this conviction is so firm that it is impossible for us ever to have any reason for doubting what we are convinced of, then there are no further questions for us to ask: we have everything that we could reasonably want. … For the supposition which we are making here is of a conviction so firm that it is quite incapable of being destroyed; and such a conviction is clearly the same as the most perfect certainty.”
—René Descartes
Mainstream archaeologists have no solution to the stone megalith construction mystery, yet they have a conviction so strong about their conventional model that it is clearly the same as the most perfect certainty. If their conventional model actually is false, then regardless that it is, they have no means to render an objective judgment of any eccentric theory that doesn’t conform to their belief in the model, because they have no further questions to ask. If they have no further questions to ask, then they’ve determined the verdict in advance of the trial. This explains why the eccentric theory repeatedly is rejected no matter how much evidence is presented nor how strong the case that supports it.
That mainstream archaeologists reject outright any theory they deem to be crazy confirms that their methodology is different from engineering methodology and that they don’t understand how complex engineering works, which they shouldn’t since they’re not engineers. The way complex engineering works is that:
“Whenever you look at a piece of work and you think the fellow was crazy, then you want to pay some attention to that. One of you is likely to be, and you had better find out which one it is. It makes an awful lot of difference.”
—Charles F. Kettering (1876-1958); American engineer and inventor
Just as determining guilt or innocence of an accused person requires an impartial jury that sees and hears all of the evidence before rendering a verdict, science requires objective evaluation and judgment of the meaning of all of the evidence before rendering a verdict on a theory. That mainstream archaeologists have their verdict in advance of the trial prevents them from doing science and is the reason that they’re unqualified to judge the eccentric rejected theory.
“The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”
—Arthur Schopenhauer
An example of the beginning of an investigation using the methodist approach is, “Not so fast. If they had space aliens assisting them, then you’d be wrong, so how do you know that huge numbers of men were required if you don’t know what they used”? Methodism is skeptical. It claims that we must first know how we know things before we can have a high level of confidence that we know them, i.e. we first need substantial amounts of evidence before we’ll secondly decide what’s true, because it’s well known that:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
—Alexander Pope (1688–1744); British poet
The above quote means that drawing conclusions with minimal evidence is risky. If we’re using the methodist approach, then we may hypothesize things based upon minimal evidence just as particularists do. But unlike particularists, we won’t commit ourselves to them. We’ll remain cautious and skeptical until we find substantial evidence to support our hypothesis. If we don’t find substantial evidence, then we’ll consider the possibility that our hypothesis may be false and try to conceive a new one. We’ll quickly change our minds if we find new evidence that justifies changing to a different hypothesis. Finally, if and when we have substantial evidence to support a hypothesis, then we will announce it. Medical and crime dramas on television all use the methodist approach and are good examples of it in action.
Methodism claims that ordinary common sense is untrustworthy. Not always. But often enough that it’s never to be wholly trusted. It also acknowledges the existence of intangible evidence that can only be seen indirectly via the laboratory experiment.
Part 4 of 6. How to gain credibility for a crazy eccentric theory
There are many difficulties with solving and proving the solution to this mystery. Any one person or group of people that have similar skills will have difficulty convincing others that an extremely crazy solution is credible even with evidence, proof, and physical or logical demonstration. But people with a combination of skills working as a team can enhance its credibility by presenting converging evidence from different sources that puts it squarely in the cross hairs and zeros in on it.
Peter Sturrock, Professor of Space Science at Stanford University in California, authored an excellent list of things to do when conducting a scientific investigation that supplement the scientific method of applied science. I was fortunate enough to stumble upon it online. It’s printed below in its entirety, and different parts of it will be quoted again at appropriate places throughout.
“(1) In studying any phenomenon, face up to the strongest evidence you can find, even if it is in conflict with current orthodoxies.
(2) Go to the original sources for your data. Do not trust secondary sources.
(3) Deal with “degrees of belief”, which can be conveniently characterized by probabilities. It is important to avoid assigning probability P=0 (complete disbelief) or P=1 (complete certainty) to any proposition since, if you adopt either of these values, that value can never be changed no matter how much evidence you subsequently receive.
(4) Focus on evidence and testing.
(5) Subdivide the work into categories so different people take on different tasks.
(6) Where possible work in teams; first because a combination of expertise may be required, and secondly, because a team is more likely to be self-correcting than someone working alone.
(7) In theoretical analyses, list all assumptions. This seems a simple, innocuous request, yet it will not always be easy to put into effect.”
—Peter Sturrock, Professor of Space Science at Stanford University in California
Item #1 states that we should face up to the strongest evidence even if it conflicts with current orthodoxies which means that it’s eccentric to the conventional. But conventional people using the particularist approach can’t do that, since they already have their verdict and have no further questions to ask.
Item #6 states that a combination of skills may be required and that a team is more likely to be self-correcting than someone working alone, so we should work in teams where possible. It’s already been shown how Professor Diamond’s comments helped me to self-correct my mistaken belief that the methodology that archaeologists are using is identical to that of applied science.
Every person quoted in this article is a member of the team. They’re witnesses that have contributed one or more pieces of evidence that are unbiased with respect to this mystery and that assist in gaining credibility for the rejected theory. Many others who've supported the rejected theory for many years haven’t been named or quoted, but they also are members of the team. I would be remiss not to mention that they exist and to recognize them for their substantial efforts. A historian who has been a fervent supporter is among them as are several rogue archaeologist polymaths. They aren’t named or quoted, because, like me, they also are considered to be pyramidiot or crackpot owners of a crazy theory.
The attempt here is to stay away as much as possible from owners of the rejected theory, to quote people who don’t presently own it, and to establish unbiased standards that can be used to compare both the conventional and eccentric. Only if standards of comparison are seen to be fair to both the conventional and eccentric is there an opportunity to have confidence in an objective judgment of such a comparison.
The reason that the methodist approach is fair to the conventional is that it recognizes both tangible and intangible data as evidence, i.e if mainstream archaeologists had ancient documents that described pyramid construction, it would permit us to accept them as evidence.
Edward Leedskalnin, the builder of Coral Castle, is a member of the team. Ed had a fourth grade education that he acquired in the late nineteenth century and the practical skills of a master stonemason. He may not have known it, but he was doing applied science, as Coral Castle is an extraordinary engineering feat. Building it, however, didn’t prove that the pyramids were built the same way. It appears that Coral Castle has no connection whatever to the pyramids. But it does. The value that it adds to credibility of the rejected theory lies in its connection to the following quote.
“The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.”
—Albert Einstein
An ideal theory for stone megalith construction is one that potentially could be used to build all of them and build them more economically and with fewer variables than any other theory irrespective of the different construction problems that each of them have. Such a theory would cover the greatest number of empirical facts with the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms. The means by which each stone megalith was constructed must be individually proved, so they can’t be proved all at once. But, if one theory can be proved to have been used to build two different stone megaliths by using different skills and techniques for proving each and if it can be shown that it’s an ideal theory, then that adds greatly to its credibility.
People who propose space aliens understand this, as that’s an eccentric theory that potentially could be used to build all stone megaliths irrespective of their different construction problems and with more economy and fewer variables than any other theory. It’s a strong theory in terms of its ideal quality. The only thing its owners are missing is enough evidence to prove it.
My skills are in applied science. I’ve used the scientific methodology of applied science in diverse investigations since the early 1970s, but like Ed, I have no scientific credentials. Does it matter? Is it an affront to and devaluation of education if I can make a contribution that might help get the solution to this mystery accepted? Not at all, because it’s not about education per se.
It makes no difference if one is the most brilliant archaeologist who ever lived if archaeological education is the wrong education to apply to this problem. Since I have no archaeological education, I’m not competing with archaeologists. I’m doing something entirely different from what they’re doing, so it doesn’t devalue their education. If I’d found a conventional solution to this mystery, then they would have good reason to be embarrassed that they didn’t find it first. Since, I didn’t, and since they don’t have the right education for this mystery, there’s no need for them or anyone else who didn’t solve it to be embarrassed.
“Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”
—Will Rogers (1879–1935); Cherokee-American cowboy, comedian, humorist, actor
Only one of the four scientists who own the rejected theory has any archaeological education, and he acquired it after he conceived his theory. Of the four scientists, three different disciplines of applied science are represented, and my field of applied science is different from all of theirs. Thus, none of us are competing with mainstream archaeologists or even with each other. We’re just solving and proving the solution to a problem that we know that mainstream archaeologists have no chance to solve and prove themselves. Some of those who support the rejected theory but that remain unnamed and unquoted have no archaeological education. What we’re doing that’s different from mainstream archaeologists is that we’re thinking extremely eccentric thoughts compared to theirs, not to annoy them although it does, but for reasons that will be explained when the conventional model is defined.
“Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.”
—Neils Bohr
Obviously, scientific credentials aren’t needed to solve the mystery if someone with a fourth grade education from a century ago solved it. And, credentials aren’t needed to prove how Coral Castle was built. My skills are sufficient to prove how Coral Castle was built, to prove that it was built using means similar to those described by the rejected theory, to prove that the rejected theory is an ideal theory, and to prove that it’s impossible for the conventional model of archaeology to have been used to build Coral Castle. If the conventional model can’t be used to build Coral Castle, then it can’t cover the greatest number of empirical facts which means that it’s less than ideal. But, my skills are limited as were Ed’s.
In the absence of archaeological evidence, the skills of scientists disciplined in the applied sciences are essential for proving how ancient stone megaliths were built, because the laboratory experiment is essential for acquiring the intangible data. As stated earlier, the four scientists have already dotted all the ayes and crossed all the tees required by the rigorous standards set forth by the scientific method of applied science for proof of a theory, but their proof continues to be rejected. There’s nothing more for them to do to prove anything, so what can they do with a misjudged rejected theory? Prove it again? Prove another stone megalith? Neither will help them. It doesn't matter what they do, because mainstream archaeologists aren’t playing by the same rules of science that they are. Lack of proof isn’t their problem. Lack of credibility of a crazy eccentric theory along with their own personal lack of credibility for owning a crazy eccentric theory is the problem, so those are the problems that must be addressed.
“The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.
The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it - once you can honestly say, “I don’t know,” then it becomes possible to get at the truth.”
—Robert A. Heinlein
Mainstream archaeologists can’t say, “I don’t know”, because they do know that their conventional model is correct even though it isn’t. Thus, the false idea that’s represented by the conventional model must be swept out of the niche, and this is what the four scientists who own the rejected theory haven’t done. They couldn’t sweep it out themselves, because their crucial evidence is intangible and their eccentric theory had already been deemed to have no credibility decades before they came to own it. They are seen as being biased for their own work regardless that they have evidence to back up every claim they make. The instant they became owners of the rejected theory, they lost their own credibility with mainstream archaeologists who most people including mainstream archaeologists themselves believe are the right scientists to solve this problem.
The four scientists have the physical evidence, physical demonstration, and the proof of construction of the top tiers of the Great Pyramid. I have physical evidence, logical demonstration, proof of Coral Castle construction, and a simple explanation of eccentricity. Once eccentricity is understood and the credibility of the conventional model swept out, then the credibility of the rejected theory and the credibility of the scientists who own it should be restored. It remains a question mark whether it will be restored with mainstream archaeologists, but even that’s a possibility. But their credibility definitely should be restored with that part of the scientific community that’s capable of objective judgment. That includes rogue archaeologists, as they’ve already made an objective judgment of the conventional model and have shown that they suspect it’s false.
Part 5 of 6. Trained and organized common sense
“Science is nothing but trained and organized common sense, differing from the latter only as a veteran may differ from a raw recruit: and its methods differ from those of common sense only as far as the guardsman’s cut and thrust differ from the manner in which a savage wields his club.”
—Thomas H. Huxley (1825–1895); British biologist
The tools that archaeologists commonly employ are picks, shovels, excavators, brushes, and other kinds of digging and cleaning tools. If classified according to tools employed, archaeology might be thought of as low-tech science. That is, archaeologists are interested in digging holes, finding material remains to study, and cleaning and preserving them. It should be obvious that ancient people also were low-tech in most cases, so low-tech is mostly appropriate for studying them. The term low-tech isn’t meant to be derogatory. It’s only meant to separate low-tech from high-tech according to the tools employed.
Low-tech is well equipped to solve and prove one Type of physical problem which is known as conventional, because ordinary common sense is sufficient to solve and prove that Type. But archaeological training doesn’t emphasize solving and proving all four Types of physical problems as does high-tech applied science. Problem Types will be discussed in detail later. The remaining three Types are known as eccentric, because they deviate from the conventional. Trained and organized common sense is required for solving the three eccentric Types. Because archaeology doesn’t emphasize solving and proving all four problem Types, it’s known as one of the fuzzy subjects. This is from a comment made by someone who possibly was ignorantly disdainful of fields to which methods of applied science aren’t applicable.
“Either a man sees it almost at once or he will never see it.”
—Robert A. Heinlein
Nine days and an hour elapsed from the beginning of my investigation till I conceived the most probable hypothesis for construction of the Stonehenge Sarcen Circle that later I would prove was used to construct Coral Castle. I started with a blank slate and no knowledge of archaeology. Therefore, I wasn’t committed to any of the ideas of archaeology. The nine days were spent studying the conventional model. I knew early on that it was improbable according to the principle of parsimony, but I wanted to learn if there was enough evidence to make it scientifically evaluable. By the end of the ninth day, I hadn’t found enough. I knew that mainstream archaeologists were drawing conclusions based upon minimal evidence, I knew how dangerous that can be, and I had the strong intuition that it was the wrong model, so I did like many others before me who’ve had that same intuition have done and rejected it. I made plans to look for an eccentric solution the following day, and then I fell asleep. The first hour upon awakening on the morning of the tenth day was used to conceive the most probable eccentric hypothesis.
The purpose of stating how quickly I solved the mystery is to dispel the widely-believed myth that the longer one studies a problem, the more knowledge one gains, the more expert one becomes, and the more likely it is that one’s opinion is correct. That’s only true if progress is being made. If progress isn’t being made and if we know that the problem is solvable, which we do because ancient man everywhere solved it, then the opposite is true. The longer one studies a solvable problem beyond a reasonable amount of time needed to solve it, the more likely it is that one has made a mistake somewhere, is going in the wrong direction, and is traveling away from the solution. That is, the longer one searches for conventional solutions without making progress, the more likely it is that the solution is eccentric. That’s why a man sees it almost at once or he will never see it.
Those who don’t consider the possibility that they might be going in the wrong direction never try another direction. They just continue on in the same direction forever, completely confident that they’re going in the right direction, and they never see it. The man with intuition who understands all three Types of eccentricity sees the confusion that’s indicated by the large number of theories, intuits that something is wrong, and becomes doubtful of the direction currently being traveled. He changes direction and has a chance to see it. Mainstream archaeologists can’t see it, because they can’t change directions. Their particularist methodology destroys their intuition and commits them to the conventional model.
“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”
—Bertrand Russell
Four things are needed to solve this mystery with dispatch. They are scientific methodology of applied science (knowing and adhering to the rules of the game of applied science), intuition, imagination, and reasoning/thinking. These four comprise trained and organized common sense.
“Those who haphazardly “direct their minds down untrodden paths” are sometimes “lucky enough in their wanderings to hit upon some truth,” but “it is far better,” writes Descartes, “never to contemplate investigating the truth about any matter than to do so without a method” (Rules 4, AT 10:371).”
—extract from the second paragraph of section 1.4, Descartes’s Epistemology, SEP
“You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.
The only real valuable thing is intuition.
There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.”
—Albert Einstein
“The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require scholarship.”
—Robert A. Heinlein
“Knowledge of the nature of reality derives from ideas of the intellect, not the senses.”
—extract from the first paragraph of section 1.5, Descartes’s Epistemology, SEP
Conventional people have no intuition, since it’s been destroyed, and they can’t raise new questions, since they have no further questions to ask. Since almost no one is using the rules of the game, just knowing and using them in the case of stone megalith construction is enough to automatically cause one to be playing on an equal footing with others who’ve solved the mystery.
Part 6 of 6. The plan for the body of the article
A simple explanation of how to solve this mystery is needed, because it’s hard to hide flaws in a simple explanation. If it contains flaws, then someone will spot them. If not, then they won’t find any. For these reasons, it’s much easier to judge something that’s simple and have confidence that one’s verdict is correct. The following explanation is as simple as I know how to make it.
Many examples are provided to promote clarity, and the mathematics presented is mostly elementary school arithmetic. But no one should be misled. The large volume of information includes many ideas that may be new and unfamiliar, and they must be juggled and kept in the air all at the same time. Thus, it may not seem simple.
Following prerequisites, a step-by-step proof of Coral Castle construction is presented. It doesn’t require scientists disciplined in applied sciences using test results from laboratory experiments to prove it, because it’s not the same problem Type as the ancient stone megaliths. It’s a much simpler Type to prove, because all evidence needed to prove it is tangible. That’s why it can be proved using only evidence found on the Internet. Archaeologists want tangible evidence. Coral Castle has it. They may not like what it proves, but that’s another story.
Prior to presenting the proof, four prerequisites must be explained that are essential for doing an objective scientific evaluation of the proof. Two of them, parsimony and the concept of proof, are rules of the game of applied science. They represent standards that will be used to solve and prove Coral Castle construction. Later, they’ll be applied equally to the rejected theory and to the conventional model to compare and show how well each complies with them.
The first prerequisite is to understand the conventional model of archaeology for Egyptian pyramid construction, so that we’ll know which theories conform to it, which theories are eccentric to it, and specifically what determines conformance or eccentricity.
The second prerequisite is to understand the six Latin words that comprise the scientific principle known as the principle of parsimony as proper use of it can lead to the best hypothesis to investigate which is the one that’s most probable.
The third prerequisite is to understand what it means to prove something. Most people think of proof as something that passes the elephant test, i.e. they can’t describe it in words, but they know it when they see it. That’s unacceptable for a scientific comparison. We need a standard that can be applied equally to the conventional and eccentric. Fortunately, there are rules and concepts that help us decide what’s been proved and what hasn’t been. They comprise a standard against which the quality of a proof can be measured. A standard is provided and explained.
The fourth prerequisite is to understand the problem analysis. The subsection on problem analysis gives specific details of how parsimony can be used to conceive the most mathematically probable hypothesis, explains the four problem Types, and gives examples and techniques for solving each.
Following the prerequisites and proof of Coral Castle, the heaviest known stones lifted by ancient man are discussed to show that the rejected theory can handle them with relative ease when compared to the conventional model. The last section contains the comparison of the conventional model and the rejected theory using the standards. In addition to parsimony and the standard for proof, Descartes’s Rules for the Direction of the Mind is used to compare them. A few other stone megaliths are briefly examined in the last part of the last section. This ends the discussion of the rejected theory. A frequently asked question follows and ends the article.
A number of links to other web sites have been provided. There can be no guarantee that they won’t disappear, but even if all of them disappeared except the link that hosts this article, it wouldn’t have much effect upon readability.
The main reason for providing links is to show that claims made herein haven’t been fabricated out of thin air. With a few exceptions, for the purpose of minimizing the effect of potentially disappearing links, the relevant information has been extracted from the linked web pages and included in the text of this article, or that information has been paraphrased and included. Thus, it’s optional to visit links. If one or more linked web pages that you would like to visit should disappear, alternates that present similar information can be found without great difficulty by using your favorite search engine.
1.1 The conventional model
“To know what people really think, pay regard to what they do, rather than what they say.”
—René Descartes
Those who’ve worked on the mystery of construction of stone megaliths prior to us have provided valuable information that permits us to determine what they are/were thinking, hence what they believe. With respect only to stone megaliths that contain huge stones that have been lifted atop supporting structure, a number of theories owned by mainstream archaeologists were examined to determine their common requirements. Requirements are essential tasks that someone perceives must be performed to complete a project and any special conditions they perceive that must be met.
The specific details of each theory represent the conclusion(s) of the person(s) who own the theory, i.e. they represent what the owners are saying. We don’t want what they’re saying. We only want to pay regard to the general tasks their theories are doing and any special conditions that are prescribed as these are the conventional requirements.
The requirements that were common to the theories that were examined were placed in a sequence of construction as best as could be determined. This sequence represents the conventional model upon which theories of mainstream archaeologists are based. The model describes what their theories are doing, hence what their owners are really thinking.
The next two paragraphs show the result of doing this. It’s strictly for the construction phase of stone megaliths and has nothing to do with architectural design, surveying and layout, or celestial alignments.
The conventional model for stone megalith construction has five major requirements. It’s a guess as to where precision construction fits into the sequence, but it’s a requirement nonetheless. The first four requirements placed in a reasonable sequence are that ancient man must first use some means to quarry huge stones. Second, he must use some means to transport them from the quarry to the construction site. Third, he must use some means to lift them. Fourth, he must use some means to perform precision construction.
The fifth requirement which is a special condition is that ancient man must perform the work alone without assistance from science fiction or mythical intelligent beings such as space aliens or Merlin the Magician, without assistance from unintelligent science-fiction devices or forces such as anti-gravity machines or energy grids, and without assistance from manipulating forces known to us such as magnetism in some way that’s unknown to us.
Every theory that strictly adheres to these five requirements is a conventional theory. If a theory fails to adhere to any of the five requirements, then it’s an eccentric theory that deviates from the conventional model. Obviously, space aliens, Merlin, anti-gravity machines, energy grids, and magnetism all fail to adhere to the fifth requirement. Owners of those theories believe that ancient man could not have built pyramids unless he had some kind of assistance.
If an eccentric theory failed to adhere to two of the five requirements, then it would be more eccentric and crazier than eccentric theories that only fail to adhere to the fifth requirement, because it would deviate farther from the conventional model than they do. If it failed to adhere to three of the five requirements, then it would be more eccentric and crazier yet, and so on.
The rejected theory under discussion is the most eccentric and craziest of the crazy theories, because it fails to adhere to four of the five requirements. That’s why even those who own eccentric theories themselves think it’s crazy. It seems to be too crazy.
All owners of eccentric theories that adhere to four of the five requirements of the conventional model deserve to be congratulated. Your failure to adhere to all five requirements shows that your intuition that something is wrong with the conventional model is good, your imagination is good, your adherence to the principle of parsimony is better than any theory that’s based upon the conventional model, and some of you own ideal theories, but alas:
“Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.”
—Neils Bohr
Consider the following. If the conventional model is false, then that which deviates farthest from and is most eccentric to it is true, because false and true are opposite extremes that deviate far from each other, and there are maybes that fall in between. The theories that adhere to all but the fifth requirement of the conventional model are maybes that fall in between the extremes of false and true.