> DScribr wrote:
> > Sounds like Thanos is absolutely correct to me, and I agree
> > him here 100%. You've made a bad habit of disrespecting many
> > here by constantly and consistently refusing to accept the
> > valid evidence they've provided. Extremely poor forum
> > on your part....not to mention us wasting our time searching
> > for, and posting this evidence at YOUR request.
Ori, "Are you suggesting that it's disrespectful to disagree with
> Respectfully, I disagree with that. No one has posted the
> evidence I've requested in the OP. Rather, the photo bombs and
> ostraca discussed here so far do not validate the "quarry"
> claim as being "indisputable", which was the crux of my
NO, I suggest you reread.
Ori, "> I never expect anyone to accept the evidence I submit to the
> discussion and I don't automatically interpret their
> disagreement with me as a sign of disrespect. I post my own
> observations in the spirit of discussion, not in the spirit of
> trying to convince anyone to be like-minded to my own opinions.
> I've never argued with anyone just because they disagree with
> me. "
We expect you to accept the valid facts we submit, NOT imm. dimiss our valid evidence out of hand w/ no good reason, and without any evidence for your reasons for this dismissal, just because you don't agree.
Ori, " I have no problem that you agree with Thanos. Go ahead and
> disagree with the observations I've made which I believe throws
> doubt on the "accepted view" about Mons. C. being a true
> quarry. I'm not going to insult you for disagreeing with me,
> nor will I lose respect for you simply for disagreeing with me.
This isn't about Mons. C....for me, anyway. I didn't get involved, or make a claim, etc. regarding this subject...but I see it's the same old same old.
Ori, "> I don't know what evidence you are referring to as "valid". I'm
> only looking for evidence that eliminates all but one
> hypothesis in order to render it "indisputable". As of this
> moment, no such evidence has been presented. "
My meaning is: ALL the valid evidence that has been presented to you here that you imm. dismiss out of hand for no good reason. (You KNOW dam well, but are unwilling to admit you know.)
Ori, "> Meanwhile, please don't claim that agreeing with someone is any
> indication of "respect". I can equally respect those who agree
> and those who disagree with me. Whether I disagree with someone
> has nothing at all to do with whether I respect them. "
Never did, I suggest you reread, and quit dodging the real issue.
> > "I've only asked a very simple question..."
> > Simply not true. You dismiss/disregard any and all facts
> > you don't agree w/, but offer nothing to counter these
> > (You still don't play 'Little Miss Innocent' very
> > well....poorly, in fact.) You make claims, never provide
> > evidence for these claims, and then deny making them....ALL
> > while requesting evidence from all others."
Ori, "I honestly don't know what you're complaining about.
We are all free to assess the evidence presented in these discussions
> however we see fit according to our own standards of proof or
> wishful thinking. We are under no obligation to "counter these
> facts" just because we don't agree they're facts. But that's
> not at all the problem here. The problem is all the
> insults you guys throw apparently because someone simply
> happens to disagree with your strongly held claims. I am not
> criticizing anyone for the evidence they are presenting. I'm
> only being critical about the claim that this or that
> observation renders a hypothesis "indisputable" when it clearly
> does not. In my world, calling something "indisputable"
> requires a FAR higher standard of proof than what I see some
> poeple applying here. I have no idea why that should insult
> anyone other than the fact that their ego might be hurt when
> someone disagrees with their conclusions."
You know exactly what I'm talking about...still playing 'Little Miss Innocent' I see. (TWO LIES in ONE sentence, you are far from being honest.)
BUT, you insist that we all submit valid evidence for all the claims we make.
You refuse to admit to, or address the problems we are now discussing.
Ori, " Meanwhile, OK, I get it, you disagree with how I evaluate
> evidence. So what? Am I not allowed to have a standard of proof
> different than yours? I'm not going to call you names or insult
> you because I see the evidence differently than you do.
> It is wrong to try to tie "respect" to whether someone is in
> "agreement". To the objective mind, they have nothing to do
> with each other. "
You've missed the point, and/or are in denial.
DS, "> > The 3 of us haven't 'pulled out all the stops'; we simply
> > our opinions of your conduct. BUT, you continue unfazed, and
> > unchanging....obfuscation, diversion, outright denial, and
> > making false statements is a way of life for you here. You
> > spend most of your time ignoring and avoiding the truth. The
> > record is very clear on this, anyway."
> Again, I missed your point. Are you saying that because the 3
> of you are ganging up against me I must for some reason agree
> with you or else I'm the bad guy? Is that your idea of
> scientific thought?
> What "false statements" have I made?
> What "truth" have I ignored/avoided?
> Please cite where the "record is very clear on this".
DS, "> > You asked for examples on the now closed thread, and I could
> > spend ALL day posting them, but this ONE will suffice:
> > SC's 'Plaster Thread'??? In that one you absolutely refused
> to accept the FACT that the Roof blocks in C's Chamber ARE Tura
> > Limestone....despite the posting of 3 eye-witness accounts
> > which all stated that they are indeed Tura Limestone. (GR
> even put forth extra effort as he had emailed Mr. Houdin for
> > confirmation.)"
Ori, " "Eyewitness accounts" of an ancient stone, covered in patina
> and soot, in pitch darkness, viewed with flashlights, without
> being able to take any samples hardly proves anything as
> "fact". The stones do not seem to be from the same quarries.
> It's not even clear whether which paint markings were done at
> the quarry vs. at the construction site vs. in situ. Why do you
> think it would it matter to me whether those slabs are Tura or
> not that I would be so fixated on denying that claim?
> What does Houdin know about geology? Based on the analysis I've
> read from him regarding the Grand Gallery, it's not even clear
> to me how much he understands about architecture. However, I do
> respect him tremendously even though I disagree with his
> conclusions. I respect him mainly because of how he's captured
> the attention of orthodoxy to stretch their tenet to include
> other possibilities. "
Regardless of you misguided opinions and speculations the roof blocks ARE Tura Limestone. (Your willful ignorance is showing.)
I don't know why, but you sure were fixated on denying that the roof blocks are indeed Tura Limestone in that thread...more LIES Ori, (there and here) you just don't know when to quit.
Same BS, different day, different thread....I rest my case.
By all means, let the reader decide.
> Post Edited (26-Jun-15 19:16)
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."