You stated :
“I’m only asking for proof…”
You have been provided with proof – both in text, which has been researched and written by experts, and also in visual form. But, you refuse to accept it as one member saliently points out.
What would satisfy you – a hitherto undiscovered, hidden graffiti on a Pantheon column scratched on by a Mons Claudianus mason stating name, date and provenance? No, you invoke the “Origyptian standard of proof” which is known only to yourself.
The criminal standard of proof - “beyond a reasonable doubt” – is not required in such a mundane matter as this one. The civil standard – “on the balance of probabilities” – would suffice.
Therefore, barring any evidence to the contrary which would tip the balance in the favour of a counterclaim, I am reasonably satisfied (rightly or wrongly) that Mons Claudianus was, in the period under review, entirely a Roman quarry.
To suggest that the Pantheon, the Baths of Caracalla, the Basilica Ulpia, Hadrian’s Villa etc were lying in a state of decline at Mons Claudianus just awaiting repurposing by whoever found them, is in my mind, simply preposterous. What is more unbelievable is the notion that somehow, all this masonry was, fortunately, in Roman classical style.
Although those who agree with the current findings have provided sufficient evidence to, at least, satisfy the standard of the balance of probabilities, you, despite numerous requests to provide evidence for your counterclaim citing “compelling evidence “ to the contrary, have provided the board with nothing. Herein, lies your dishonesty. You are willing to disparage seasoned experts in this niche of Roman archaeology and geology merely to indulge in a flight of fancy.
By stating that you had “compelling evidence” would indicate that you must have some idea who actually quarried the blocks at Mons Claudianus before the Romans “repurposed” them. As you have given no such indication, it can only be surmised that you simply made things up. A fantasy, as I have previously suggested. Why? Can’t you see how transparent your charade is? Obviously, not.
This whole episode goes to the heart of your agenda which is, not to make a contribution to a furthering of knowledge, but is to use the forum as a vehicle to boost your already overinflated ego by appearing knowledgeable in areas in which you are sadly lacking.
You would be well advised to take some time out for some self-reflection.
PS. Please consider this post to be my final thoughts on this matter.