> Origyptian Wrote:
> > DScribr Wrote:
> 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.
This is why I keep saying certain posters here simply are not worthy of the bandwidth and effort for a reply. It's a total waste of resource to try to get through to you once you are settled on something. You obviously cannot find any statement from Protzen to support your claim and so you are trying to exaggerate your own self-fabricated semantics into some kind of distorted pedantic deflection. Please stop embarrassing yourself and just move on.
> 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.
And what you fail to admit is that you cannot find any quote from Protzen to support your claim and so you contort "seems too small" into "probably was" which is not at all what Protzen said. Take the time and go to the direct quote I posted, in which he states multiple times that there is no rational explanation of how any of that construction was done using any metal tools available to them. Rather, he resorts to unfathomable contortions using stone tools similar to Denys Stocks' quite impilausible "cooper tube bow-drill" and other various imaginary methods.
Or else please post your own quotes from Protzen to the contrary. You might find something from him since it only took about 10 seconds for me to locate the quote I posted.
> Those readers who can read/comprehend English
> properly can easily understand his meaning(s).
Of that I have no doubt.
> This is about what Protzen ACTUALLY meant, it's NOT about what YOU THINK he meant.
And of course, you know what Protzen really "meant" and yet refuse to post any quote from him to verify your own interpretation?
> '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.
Well, it certainly does not mean that Protzen still believes they used metal tools despite his clear decree that no tools were found that he would credit as being responsible for that construction. He clearly states that there is a distinct lack of evidence of tools that could build those things. How you translate that into "they did use tools to build those things around 450 AD" is anyone's guess. In fact, it really doesn't matter what Protzen "really believes", because Protzen provides a clear argument that those things were not built by locals using primitive metal tools during that period.
> GET REAL, you misquoted Protzen intentionally, whether you admit to it, or not.
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. I posted his exact, direct quote. I did not "misquote" him in any way. You, on the other hand, refuse to quote him at all, and it's no wonder why that is.
What I'm curious about, though, is why you seem so heavily invested, to the point of hostility, in insisting that they did have the tools to do it during that particular time period when the evidence presented by Protzen points to the contrary.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06-Nov-15 00:02 by Origyptian.