> DScribr Wrote:
> > To repeat: Protzen DID NOT say this, " There was
> no metal technology available for the ancients to
> > shape those stones..." YOU did....I suggest you
> reread Protzen's statements, and stop trying to
> > re-interpret them.
> > He didn't sat this either, "he agrees that
> andesite is too hard for bronze or copper
> > tools...." YOU did. I suggest you reread
> Protzen's statements, and stop trying to
> re-interpret them.
> I read and reread Protzen. And I
> 30144,1030771#msg-1030771]quoted Protzen
> directly[/url] in my previous post so that the
> readers can see for themselves what he said. What
> quotes can [u]you[/u] provide that say otherwise?
> > There have been more than a few tools found in
> the REGION.
> Once again, Protzen specifically states[quote]"To
> our knowledge, no tools have ever been excavated
> or identified that are positively associated with
> construction at Tiahuanaco."
> "The few Tiahuanaco copper or bronze chisels in
> the American Museum of Natural History in New York
> and in the Museum Tiahuanaco in La Paz seem too
> small for construction work."[/quote]That seems
> pretty clear to me.
> > ORI, "What conclusions are you suggesting can be
> drawn from radiocarbon data": THE TIME PP's
> > CONSTRUCTION BEGAN. I also suggest you actually
> READ the Radio Carbon test results.
> How can C14 data possibly indicate when "PP's
> CONSTRUCTION BEGAN"?
> I've read that C14 paper; it's full of
> uncertainties and caveats, hardly "valid proof" of
> anything except your misunderstanding of that
> site. Even
> commented on the uncertainties in that paper. Why
> don't you have it out with [i]her?[/i]
> Please stop your incessant yammering and let's see
> your quotes from Protzen.
Quoting Ori, "And I quoted Protzen directly in my previous post so that the readers can see for themselves what he said."
This IS an OUTRIGHT LIE, and ALL readers can clearly see that you did NOT quote him accurately in your first posted quote. <[url]http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1030144,1030771#msg-1030771>[/url];
What you fail to admit is that you are adding your own words to Protzen's statements that YOU had quoted-words that he DID NOT say-in your lame attempt to twist his meaning(s) to your liking.
Those readers who can read/comprehend English properly can easily understand his meaning(s). This is about what Protzen ACTUALLY meant, it's NOT about what YOU THINK he meant.
'Seems too small..." does NOT mean the tools were inadequate. No tools found on the site does NOT mean they didn't use tools. OBVIOUSLY, bare hands will not do the job. Tests on modern bronze tools are irrelevant.
GET REAL, you misquoted Protzen intentionally, whether you admit to it, or not.
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."