Talk:Coral Castle/Archive 1

Weight

What does coral weigh? I thought it was really light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8r13n (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 February 2006

• That's like the old trick question, "Which weighs more, a ton of gold or a ton of feathers?" The answer is neither. It doesn't matter how light a feather is; a ton will always weigh a ton. --shadow box 14:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no it's not. A feather is light for its size compared to gold or bricks, and it shouldn't be any mystery that that is what is being asked when someone asks how much something weighs. Not how much a ton or any other weight weighs. 76.202.57.153 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Moot Chris4682 02/08 —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 --- They actually do weigh differently because gold is weighed in troy ounces, feathers in avoirdupois.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.35.192 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 

You are confusing "Weight" with "Mass" or "Mass density." A "Metric Ton" is always a metric ton by the same token however a "Ton" of feathers would be larger in 'size' because it has less mass than a "Ton" of gold or lead which would be much smaller. To put this in perspective a sugar cube sized block of neutronium (matter from a neutron star) is estimated to weigh 907,100 Metric Tonnes. As far as the intended point of the question the stone is not really "Coral" it is a type of limestone (Marble is a type of limestone, generally) that is rated between 110 lb to 160 lb per cubic foot http://www.natural-stone.com/limestone.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charon9 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Chronologies don't add up

Agnes was described as being interviewed when she was in her seventies, and Ed was described as dying a few years after that interview. Since Ed was 10 years older than Agnes, that would have put Ed in his eighties. ... an impossibility since he only lived to be 64. Vonkje 02:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of a reliable source for the dates of the pamphlets leedskalnin wrote and sold? Just a microfilm of the miami newspaper advertisement (for the pamphlet) would be a step in the right direction, supposing it exists.

Specifically magnetic current is of the most interest, and it seems to have been published / created for the first time in 1988 (after billy idol's sweet sixteen, and "in search of" episode had made coral castle a relatively well known tourist attraction). I have never seen a copy or scan of any original pamplet (or even secondhand copy thereof), except possibly a book in every home which is not intersesting. Nor have i seen any references to the magnetic current pamphlet that could help verify the creation date... Does anyone have these details?

It would seem we have to conclude fraud by the modern owners of the attraction (at least for selling the pamphlets as authentic, if not manufacturing them to begin with) unless the source can be verified and reasonable chronology established.

In reference to what Agnes said

the tour guide told us when the Latvian ladies went back to tell Agnes about what was built and how it was for her, she said she's seen the pictures sent to her - the ladies told her no its not the same - she remarked that what would be the point since he died already (something to that effect) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.183.70 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 5 February 2006

I edited the word Lativan to be Latvian.

Injecting a little skepticism

I saw an article over at livescience.com that talks about the Coral Castle, hence my interest. The links are all pretty one-sided (even the Wired article) and focus more on the mysteriousness than any sort of rationality. I'm linking the Skeptical Inquirer article from livescience.com as a balance.

As an aside, the Wired article mentions that the "telescope" always points towards the North Star and that on the winter solstice, light shines through it. This is an impossibility, as the sun never appears opposite the North Star. Even on that day, the sun will still be about 67 degrees out of alignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlegmofdiscontent (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 March 2006

I changed some of the language slightly to make sure the Egyptian "secrets" mentioned are not made out to look like anything more than ropes and pulleys, etc., which we know the Egyptians used. The Egyptians did not use sound waves, trained baboons, Oprah Winfrey or any other ludicrous method to build the pyramids. When you have an endless supply of slaves, you don't tend to look beyond sheer manpower as the most obvious course of action. --Dave420 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Egyptians did not use slaves to build the pyramids . --Opcnup (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One Man, Alone

I edited the article to reflect that the "one man assembled the castle all by his lonesome" has never actually been verified. He worked in the dark, right? Who's to say he worked alone? It's a small point, but it's part of the mythology of the Coral Castle.Ingres77 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I sure believe he did it all alone. The man was a genius. If anyone else would have helped him build it, they surely would have revealed everything how it was built and all it's secrets at some point. Nobody knows how he did it because nobody ever helped him and thus there was nobody to ever reveal anything. Common sense.Link's Awakening 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be done with the most simple machines:

Even without pulleys

Here is a video of a man lifting a 19,200 pound block by himself (at 2:15), without using pulleys or gear trains.

He does this by placing a seesaw under the block and then increases the height of the seesaw fulcrum point at each swing by adding a single wood beam.

At 2:15 he moves an entire barn with a wooden lever.

With a block and tackle, a gear train, and a lever

Overview

Problem: How could Edward Leedskalnin have single-handedly lifted stones as heavy as 27 metric tons, or 27,000 kg (59,400 pounds)?

Solution: He could have done so using an apparatus similar to the one described below, which reduces the force required to about 11.25 kg (24.75 pounds), ignoring friction.

Solution Layout:

What follows is an example of how Ed could have reduced the force required to lift the weight by a factor of 2,400. This would amount to the force required to lift 0.01125 short tons, or a mere 11.25 kg (24.75 pounds) of force. It is important to note that while the force required for lifting would be reduced by a factor of 2,400, the distance lifted would be reduced by the same factor. However, since it becomes easy to lift the stone very small distances, these small gains can be continued until the weight is lifted the full desired distance. The total work required to lift the stone a certain distance would not change, but the work would be done over greater distance with less force. Work = Force * Distance. [18]

Stages: reduce force requirement by 2,400

Stage 1) block and tackle: reduce 6-fold

Stage 2) gear train: reduce 20 fold

Stage 3) Lever on gear: reduce 20 fold

6 * 20 * 20 = 2,400 fold

Stage 1: block-and-tackle: reduce 6-fold

In the pictures, Ed has a block-and-tackle setup. It is unclear, to the author, how many chain doublings are involved. Assuming, though, that he used 6-way system (such as a threefold purchase), the weight reduces by a factor of 6, from 27 t to 4.5 t (ignoring additional weight of longer chain and friction). [19][20] The weight of the chain is addressed in stage 3. Keep in mind that he now has to pull 6 times more chain, but it is just easier to pull it each inch. 4.5 t is still too heavy obviously. But we can increase his mechanical advantage far more with gears. He needs to bring it down 20 * 20 fold still. Let's get it down 20 fold.

Stage 2: Gear train: reduce 20-fold

Ed can reduce the force needed to pull the chain by a particular distance using a gear train. The mechanical advantage would be that of the ratio of radii of the big gear (call it G1) to that of the small gear (Cal it G2). I.e., Radius of G1 / Radius of G2. [21][22] To get 1/20 reduction in force needed, Ed would need to lap the rope around a big follower gear with radius x, and turn that gear with a smaller driver gear of radius x/20. If we choose the big gears radius of x to be 4 meters, then the small gear's radius will have to be 0.2 meters (1/20 * 4 meters). This is 20 cm, or ~8 inches. Now he needs to spin G2 with the force of 4.5 t / 20, or 0.225 t. This is still 225 kg and is too heavy for Ed to lift, obviously.

Stage 3: Lever on Gear: reduce 20-fold

Now, instead of pulling on the chain wrapped around gear G2, he spins G2 with a lever. He uses a long lever bar perpendicular to the face of the gear. To get a 20 fold reduction, Ed needs to use a level with a length from the edge of the gear to his hand of 20 times the distance from the center (the fulcrum point) to the edge of the edge of the gear -- the radius. This is a wheelbarrow application of leverage as the weight (the edge of the gear) is situated between the folcrum (the center of the gear) and the force (Ed's hands at the edge of the level). [23] The radius is 20 cm. So length of the force arm of the lever should be 20 * 20 cm long, or 400 cm long (4 meters) from the edge of the gear. In total, the lever is 420 (400 + 20) cm long. Ed now has to apply only 11.25 kg of force to the edge of the lever to get the stone lifted by any small amount. The weight of the pulley chains (perhaps 100kg) becomes negligible in relation to the weight of the block after the pulleys (4,500 kg) as lifted through the gear train and lever. He has to spin the 4.2 meter lever all the way around the small driver gear just to raise the block 6.66 cm (40 cm diameter driver gear / 6 pulley chain-lengths = 6.66 cm lifted). Ie, he has to do a lot of work (the same as without the apparatus), to pull the stone up only 6.66 cm, but now he can do it very slowly.

Summary

This illustrates how simple but large machinery can divide the load over and over and over again to make it easy to lift huge blocks in very small distances per push of the end level.

Even a small person would be able to push the lever over and over and over again (with only 11.25 kg, or 24.75 pounds, of force) until the block would rise to the desired height.

It can even be done without pulleys gears or metal parts as seen in 2:15 of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifechamp (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Youtube video shows how Coral Castle was built

There is a video that thoroughly explains and demonstrates how Coral Castle was built using well-known tools of the time. Some of which are discussed in the previous talk sections. The video also explains how the tools left at the site were used. Scientific and detailed video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOoCuDnmtyM

There is plenty of mysterious stuff to explore in this world. And there may be some currently mysterious anti-gravity science in those allegedly alien flying saucers out there. But it isn't at Coral Castle. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

visited

My family and I took a tour of the castle a couple of months ago. The tour guide said that Ed (what everyone called him) moved the stones by means of magnetic force due to ley lines. At various places around the castle I could feel magnetic forces. This is possible by someone trying to lower my raised arm and my resisting (If I moved away from the magnetic force I could not resit the movement when I had before). It is true that Ed would not let adults watch him work. If someone peeked over the wall Ed would stop, turn around and wave. But if a child were watching Ed would continue to work and as soon as he had placed his block he would wave to the children and welcome them in. Ed really was a brilliant man, he designed a pressure cooker and most of his tools were out of old car parts. Even the way he carved the rock is amazing. We sat in various chairs and 'loungers' around the castle and the Lombard support was perfect. Also, the Polaris Telescope does not point precisely at the North Star, because the North Star does move. But the North Star can be seen in the four quadrants of the telescope. Even if you don't believe the 'moving by magnetism' I seriously suggest a visit and the free tour. Ed's work is remarkable and quite a testimony to his love for his "sweet 16." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellie (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 April 2006

I think you mean lumbar support. I don't think he designed chairs specifically for Lombards or for Carole Lombard. Your reminiscences are appreciated, but unless you're made of metal it wasn't magnetism that kept your arm aloft. It's this kind of rubber science that allows people to build mythologies around rational events and market dubious products like "magnetic" bracelets and Calorad. 12.22.250.4 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just visited Coral Castle today! I couldn't feel any special magnetic forces, even when I was trying to. I know the whole place has a very mysterious feeling and there must definetely have been SOME secret hidden there to do with magnetic forces, but I just couldn't feel anything when I was there today. I think I'm going back next week too though. I'll test that arm thing.Link's Awakening 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?? and how exactly does one "try to feel special magnetic forces?" Seriously??

Its not that weird if you think about it. All matter consists of spinning electrons, and that spin reacts to magnetism. Maybe some people are more sensitive than others, after all, life is still a great mystery to us --Nabo0o (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While electrons spin and move individually, as a whole, the electrons in stone blocks do not move or spin any particular direction or current so they do not create a net magnetic field. Most stone blocks also do not have any net charge in any part of them, as they don't have the nearly free outer electrons that many metals have.

The main lesson to be learned here is that it is definitely possible for 1 man to lift even 27 ton stones using simple but large machines such as levers, gear trains, and pulleys.

Trying to explain the Coral Castle with extravagant theories is in violation of Occum's Razor and needlessly boats and complicates our ontology. Relying on anti-gravity or unexplainable use of magnatism is beyond epicycles.

The Occum Razor is not violated. Just see how an UFO flies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Tone

I've added the {tone} template. The article confuses real (it was built in such and such a year) and unreal (antigravity, time travel!) Should refer to "supposed time travel devices" etc. Stevage 10:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• After having read the article twice, I disagree. This article is about an unusual and unexplained structure, and as such, a perennial subject to wild speculation, as mentioned. For example, antigravity and time travel are mentioned as suggestions for and not as the definitive building method. That paragraph even concludes with, "However, it is more likely..." I've removed the tag. --shadow box 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Leedskalnin's Motivations

I removed the part about Coral Castle being a temple to the ancient Egyptian deities, because it's not true. The claim came from Wired Magazine in its article about Coral Castle, but the author of the piece was discredited for reporting unsubstantiated sources in her stories, and the claim seems to be found nowhere else. To confirm, I called Coral Castle's visitor center, and they said that Coral Castle was absolutely not a temple to anything pagan, and that Leedskalnin's interest in ancient Egypt was not occultish, but only concerned building methods (of the pyramids) and astronomy as a science.

"Seacrete"

I removed the paragraph regarding electrochemically-deposited "seacrete" as a possible building material. A close-up look at the stone shows that it is obviously naturally-occuring coral (including fossilized shells and such), and there are open pits next to the Castle from which the rock was quarried. Seems cut and dried to me. Will add more to the article later. --Mdresser 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed "needs photo" message; they have obviously been added :) --Mdresser 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

REWRITE

I am planning a rewrite of this article and the castle's creator, Edward Leedskalnin. I have access to some print materials from the attraction, as well as Leedskalnin's writings, so I should be able to give some good citations. If anyone else is planning revisions, please speak up! --Mdresser 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Forest for the trees

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The structure exists! What would it profit a five-foot-something Latvian refugee to fabricate lies about how he created it? The fact is, it is made of numerous several-ton stones, many of which are balanced precisely enough to make even the best rock-balance artists blush. Look, he told the world how he did it. Why don't people just believe him? Is it that reality is stranger than fiction? Sometimes this is exactly the case and we just need to stretch our minds enough to allow in something new. (see quantum physics) Imagine being the first person to declare the earth was actually spherical. Though we now know it to be true it was contradictory to all lay-science and common sense at the time. There is a point at which healthy scientific rigor must let its ego die and relent to other possibilities.

Besides, we all know it was built by an alien alliance, led by Michael Jackson, E.T., and Elvis, materializing via the 49th vibration.  ;)

I agree that the paranormal explanations for the Coral Castle can get a bit overblown. The tour guide published by the current management of the castle doesn't go into alternative explanations about Leedskalnin's methods (however, they have no problem hosting ghost tours, either!) I am planning a re-write to this article similar to the one I did on Leedskalnin himself. I plan on addressing the alternate theories within a section ("Controversies" or "Paranormal explanations" or such), but I don't intend on making that the primary focus of the article. --Mdresser 14:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As a paranormal investigator (or debunker, as of late) I really do appreciate your enthusiasm, but the perfectly mundane plain and simple analysis is that he was perfectly happy accomplishing great feats and leading people to think wondrous things about how he did it. It's very convenient that he didn't share what he had supposedly learned, considering he had such a big heart. Wikipedia should be avoiding attesting to what has never been witnessed and be providing what has been determined by observations: people lie to make themselves look better, and Edward Leedskalnin used a block and tackle. Kipperoo 09:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Geopolymer

Today is December 16, 2006. The main page of the article suggests that Ed probably used simple methods based on block and tackle. Simple methods - Yes. Block and Tackle - No. Mdresser got it right. Searcrete is a close-enough description. Ed said that he knew the secrets of the pyramids. This month a paper has been published in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society. It states that a theory known as geopolymers (ancient concrete) that was first proposed by a scientist in 1979 has now been proved for the top tier of the pyramids. There are millions of stones, so they haven't gotten around to all of them yet.

As far as Ed's motivation for lying, I'm not sure he did. I know he mislead us, but I don't think he ever outright lied. We simply filled in the blanks the way we wanted which was wrong. He said that he understood the laws of weights and measures very well. That gives us the impression that he knows something that we don't. Actually what he knew is that if he tried to lift 30 tons of coral all at once, then he'd get a serious hernia. As far as no one being able to prove seacrete was used, the proof has been on the Internet for just over two years. It's on the world-mysteries.com website under the heading Mystic Places. The menu item to select is Megalith Construction.

this entire article is uncited bunkum

going to flag it as such until someone makes a serious effort to clean it up - PocklingtonDan 09:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While uncited, the article IS factually accurate with regards to the creator's life. I recently re-wrote the article on him (Edward Leedskalnin), using print information from the exhibit itself. With regard to the speculation about his building methods, I agree that the tone could be changed a bit. Again, look at the article on Ed--something along those lines would be appropriate here. --Mdresser 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Using a source that stands to gain from purposely misleading the public isn't quite the right way to do it, I think. It's kind of like letting McDonalds write their own wiki, are they going to be as objective about the healthiness food as say. . .anyone else?

"As is noted in Joe Bullard's work, Waiting for Agnes, Leedskalnin was jilted by his 16-year-old fiancée Agnes Scuffs in Latvia, just one day before the wedding. Leaving for America, he came down with terminal tuberculosis but spontaneously healed, stating that magnets had some effect on his disease."

First of all, the statement about magnets healing his disease has nothing to do with the Coral Castle and no purpose other than to put into the readers mind the notion that magnets have eerie powers we cannot comprehend.

Secondly, a quick Google search shows that this Joe Bullard character is not quite the scholarly academic and trustworthy source the article proposes. The only other sites he appears on are forums and internet radio sites. He makes a point to include the disclaimer on the books website, on which out of only a handful of links none actually work, stating the book is "Inspired by the True Story of Coral Castle". His "work" is a novel. The books synopsis reads like a fantasy novel. On the site referenced in the footnotes misleadingly as "Bullard's book on the building of Coral Castle" (making the book sound as if it's a detailed work of non-fiction about, you know, how the Coral Castle was actually built. Which it could not be further from) is a page not accessible by any link but turned up with Google.

http://www.waitingforagnes.com/book.htm

scroll down for his completely unnecessarily complicated speculation of the picture of Ed hoisting stone using a tripod. he suggests that rather than merely using the "the laws of weight and leverage well", the perfectly simple explanation he gave which he could have learned about at any time in his life (or if the wiki article on him can actually be believed, from his five years spent as a lumberjack) before moving to Florida, that perhaps the little "black box" atop the tripod houses some "magnetic properties" that allows him to levitate the stone. He even goes as far to reference the STEEL CABLE attached to the stone as proof of this "lost science". He makes sure to mention that Ed only had a 4th grade education, because how could a person without at least a 5th grade education ever figure out how to work a pulley?! I don't know the numbers on how many kids made it past the 4th grade back in 1895 but learning does not stop at school.

He worked on his project for 30+ years. If he could simply float the corals like balloons why did it take him so long?

"Synopsis of "Waiting For Agnes:" One month before Ed's birth in Latvia, a psychic tells his mother that her child is a "returning spirit from Atlantis...he will astound the world, bringing back the ancient, lost science once used in building the Great Pyramid. The past is revealed to him in dreams and visions."

Apparently, according to this Bio from none other than Coast to Coast AM which he has appeared on three times, "Joe spent 10 years of research at Coral Castle and started writing “Waiting for Agnes” in February of 1995." One look at the descriptions of each radio show he's been on confirms that after supposedly 10 years of research at Coral Castle Bullard's claims are pure speculation. He even claims that his love for Agnes may have been a clever ruse to hide his newfound ancient powers I guess from anyone else wanting to make their own Coral Castle. What reason he gives for Ed doing this and many other random ideas that go out of their way to avoid the easiest possible answer, it doesn't say.

"A few teenagers, who secretly witnessed his work, reported that he had caused the blocks of coral to move like hydrogen balloons."

This claim is apparently made by Bullard himself. Where he got this information from once again he never says. Pretending this happened even in the last year of Edwards life these teens would have been in their 60's by the time Bullard ever even heard of the Coral Castle. Did he track down these seniors, not getting their names, but coming away with information that by all other indications never even happened?

I believe I have proven Bullard is not a credible source and should not be referenced in the article as fact. Bullard is given as the main source for many statements that happened decades before his time. So who told him? Unless these claims can be backed up by a third party, someone Bullard would have had gotten his information from perhaps, all references to his book should either be in the Trivia section, or perhaps a new section for a description of the book as fiction based on the popular conspiracy surrounding Coral Castle should be made.

This also explains the chronologies not adding up. And as to why Bullard could not get his book published for 4 years after writing it and now sells it only on his site. He doesn't even say the name of his publisher. Joe Bullard seems like no more than a conspiracy theorist trying to make some money, to me. If he truly spent 10 years researching this and actually believes what he says I feel sorry for him.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.245.77 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

I believe your entire post is correct and very thoughtful. Sadly, some people use Wikipedia to advertise and try to sell DVD, books, software,etc. One of the other external links is owned by a man who claims that he also developed a method to move big weights, but you'll only have a chance to see that after you buy his DVD. Not wanting to be accused of vandalism I didn't remove those links, but I put beside each the note: SELLING SITES. This is what they actually are, no less. The Egypt pyramids entry also has some of these links. Someone claiming to have rationally solved how the pyramids were built, but not showing the solution until after you buy some media from them. They create "tease websites" and fool people searching for information.

I strongly disagree with Wikipedia serving to commercial purposes. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.136.178 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually Bullard didn't invent the claims that teenagers had spotted the levitation. Watch "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy the episode is called "Castle of Secrets" and they actually have an interview with one of the supposed witnesses. I cannot speak the honesty of this man but he was still making the claim several decades later. I am trying to find an online link to the episode or a transcript of it, if anyone can find it please post.

El

Myth buster

I passed Rock Gate Park at least 2,000 times in the 40s and 50s, and Coral Castle that many more later on. My dad was a farmer in Homestead in the 30s through the 60s. The article is full of wrong stuff.

The rocks are not coral rock; they are oolitic limestone. It acts like chalk when wet. It's no big deal to cut out blocks. Moving, them, of course, presents difficulties.

His "secret of the pyramids" was patience and big, heavy, simple pullies and levers. There is no occult magic.

Ed did not purposefully work at night or alone. He was "alone" because no one paid him any attention; he was weird and the locals were busy trying to make a living. And, there weren't many people down there back then. If he worked at night, it would be because it was cooler.

The castle was not always in Modello. It was originally south of Homestead and very isolated. People thought Ed had money and local thugs robbed him and beat him up. He got some people with trucks to move things up to the current site where there was a little more traffic. There are insufficient excavations at the Modello site to provide all the stone in place. So, it came from someplace else and he had help.

The stone work suggests a mind dominated by patience and obsession. Ed's telescope and sundial, however, suggest a level of intellect and mental flexibility that really is astonishing. It was really a marvel to see the castle popping out of the piney woods of South Dade.Longeareddog 03:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)longeareddog

Some of the statements in the article are a little off, esp. the 30 tons being heavier than anything in the pyramid,etc...Actually there are blocks of stone in the Great Pyramid that are at least 70 tons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.109.12 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

moved my comments of "17:51, 24 January 2009" to new subject line (below) Charon9 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is...pure hokum. This site clearly shows pictures of the equipment he used. http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/CoralCastle/CoralCastle.htm. As an Engineer, I find nothing remarkable at all about what he did or how he did it nor that he attempted to present it as paranormal. Exquisite craftsmanship? Yes. Remarkable intellect and ingenuity? Most definitely. But if you think what he did was paranormal then you skipped too many classes in High School. Contributions/131.247.83.135 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Land

The Land that Ed first built Coral Castle on wasn't "purchased," really, it was actually given to him because the land was so useless to the owner. I heard this when a guest talked on Coast to Coast AM, which is a show listened to by millions of people and I would say a very reliable source. The guest had interviewed people that lived in the area. Joe Bullard was his name. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/03/26.html is where you can download the show he talks about Coral Castle.B--65.18.12.61 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Hmmm, as any "reliable" journalist knows — original sources, please. Pull the records, titles or deeds, from the appropriate records repository.
  • Especially considering that Coast to Coast AM weekday host, George Noory, devotes its programming to pseudosciences, or "the unusual mysteries of the world and the universe."

(Anastas, Benjamin. "Final Days". NY Times.)

—WurmWoode^T 05:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia forbids the use of "original" sources, more commonly called "primary sources". Only publications

about them may be used. It sounds silly, but there it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR original or primary sources are ok for Wikipedia but should be used with care and it's not a blanket "primary is forbidden and only secondary is allowed." Any any case, I suspect whether the original land was a gift or purchase has little relevance for the Coral Castle article. 76.212.14.212 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement type comments - removal of inaccurate statements 1-25-09 updated 3-27-09

I responded to the person above concerning inaccurate statements in the page, Quote:

Changes: Removed "Advertising" type hype from the page, specifically:

• • Removed (some) references to the Great Pyramid of Giza - the Giza pyramid has stones that are estimated between 50 to 70 tons in the gable roof NOTE: Nova published 9 tons each, but that is for the internal dressing stones of the chamber - the link reference posted by the ninja editor admits to the Gable Stones weighing 50 - 70 tons and makes the "claim" inaccurate.
  • Reworded the references to Giza similarities in the "Kings Chamber" roof design. No real reference about this on the web, although I will admit to seeing it in advertisements for Coral Castle, so left it rather than argue over something like that.
  • Removed comparison to average stone weight against Giza Pyramid stones, outer casement stones at Giza are 2.5 tons but interior stones are 15 tons + and make up the largest part of the construction.
  • Removed comparison to Stonehenge, the 'monolithic' stones are taller (above ground - in reality they are 5 feet shorter) but do not weigh as much and they are not referenced (in any information that I can find) to mimic the Stonehenge monoliths so the statement is opinionated and unverifiable. -- References to the Stonehenge site are against Wiki policy WP:NOR as they are 'first source' references that cannot be confirmed through any second source.

Most of the changes were to advertisement type hype for the site (and I'm not belittling the mans achievement, it is a great achievement) the statements were inaccurate as a whole and really pushed the line on advertisements. As justification (if you will) using non-modern equipment the heaviest single piece stone (with a quick search) is a 300 ton stone roof (Mausoleum of Theodoric and the tallest single stone statue is Gomateshwara at 55 feet tall. Charon9 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no note was given as to why the inaccurate statements were put back, I'm going to remove them again. Please note that ALL information changed is verifiable, and can be found here (if the Wiki site is not to be the only source of the info: http://coestudents.valdosta.edu/jkshiple/Giza.htm http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza http://guardians.net/egypt/pyramids/GreatPyramid.htm Charon9 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Added Promotional Materials area

The same ninja editor keeps replacing the misleading information on the page (NOVA ref), this time they referenced the NOVA info again and posted a lot of dead links as well. So I created a space just for that misleading information; it contains the info that the ninja posted (minus the dead links) and 10 (out of thousands) of sites that prove the first information wrong. FYI: I emailed NOVA/PBS about that webpage, and the unofficial response was that the weight was correct for the casing or finishing stones in the chamber, BUT they would double check that and get back to me (if that carries any weight at all). There is no way (that I can think of) to retain the page without those misleading statements, and still ref things to prove them as misleading; so it seems easier to add a section just for that material and let the reader judge for themselves the accuracy of the information. --sorry about the extra edits, typo's and it is getting late here. Charon9 (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer

The latest edition of Skeptical Inquirer has an article, seemingly well-researched, "Coral Castle / Fact and Folklore" by Karen Stollznow. There apparently is considerably doubt regarding the existence of Agnes Scuffs, or if she did exist, whether that was her name (certainly doesn't sound Latvian). Leedskalnin did assert that he built the castle "for my sweet sixteen" but in his own publication A Book in Every Home he implies his "sweet sixteen" was "more and ideal than a reality". Gr8white (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is book about Edd in Latvian

Please, loook at this: http://www.code144.com/news/korallu-pils-coral-castle-book-by-andris-stavro/

Edd was born not in Riga, But in Stameriena (August 10, 1887) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.92.244 (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's the book mentioned in the Skeptical Inquirer article I referenced. The Ed Leedskalnin article does say WWI draft records give his birthplace as Riga but there is no citation. Gr8white (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)