> loveritas wrote:
> > Hi Origyptian,
> > "I certainly would have been ready to engage in that
> > discussion."
> > LOL with loud guffaws.
> > You don't have a working hypothesis. Or evidence.
> > On anything!
> One important difference between me and you is that I'm not
> forcing any claim on anyone else here. While any of us are
> perfectly at liberty to hypothesize aliens, giants, or lost
> civilizations, others among you somehow feel perfectly ok with
> forcing a juvenile, unproven, baseless ideology on others with
> hostile aggression.
> If you disagree with anything you think I've claimed, feel free
> to ignore it. Kindly disregard any claim I've ever made. That
> doesn't make YOUR claims go away. Nor does it in any way lessen
> the clear fact that you haven't provided evidence to back your
> claim. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Rather, I'm
> simply here to ask questions and seek answers. Unlike you and a
> few others here, I respect others' right to make their own
> decisions as they see fit.
> Now, I am slowly going through what appears to be luminary
> sources that claim to understand the nature of those quarries
> et al.) and when I try to break away from historic
> hearsay and the "accepted view" but rather simply look at the
> physical evidence, what those authors describe is not
> indisputable evidence that those columns were quarried there by
> Romans circa 1st c. BC. Rather (and I've not read the entire
> monograph yet), every single piece of evidence they describe so
> far also can be interpreted to support the alternative
> possibility that the Romans found a pre-established
> infrastructure in those so-called "quarries" and repurposed the
> finished stone objects they found there for their own needs.
> As far as your own claim goes, I'm still waiting for you to
> produce specific evidence other than a photo bomb or long list
> of references. Otherwise, I do not recognize your claim as
> being indisputable and the only possibility.
> Again, totally, completely, and absolutely disregard any claim
> you believe I've made. Meanwhile, I look forward to whether
> anyone can provide definitive proof of the claim made by you,
> Thanos, etc. that there is indisputable proof that the Romans,
> themselves, in the 1st c. BC actually carved those objects from
> At this point in the discussion, no one has presented evidence
> to differentiate between the notion that the Romans made those
> objects from bedrock vs. finding them there ready made for the
> taking, e.g., just as it looks like they did at
Have you presented ANY evidence to disprove their claims?
(NO, as usual. Why don't you ever apply the SAME standards to yourself??)
Campbell's Chamber roof blocks are Tura Limestone until proven otherwise.
THE Cartouche in Campbell's Chamber IS Authentic, as are ALL other RC's Glyphs, until proven otherwise.
"This Forgery 'theory' has more holes than a sieve basket."