> You just posted:
> "B.-J.'s monographs are magnificent
> in description and photography. But please
> tell us on what basis B.-J. made his claims
> quarrying at mons C. despite the complete lack of
> any evidence
> of tools and methods at those sites and the
> contradictory evidence found
> at the fort and in the ostraca."
> Ori, one of the consistent things
> you post goes something along the lines of this.
> If the ancients built/quarried
> these structures, why is there zero
> evidence of the tools they used in the
> Then, on another thread, you posted:
> "And why would you think aliens
> would leave their tools behind, especially
> if they brought such tools with them?"
> You know yourself that you have
> been nothing short of disingenuous in
> your debating tactics, demanding evidence from
> others, that you seem to find no need for in
> of your own wild speculations.
> But I do enjoy reading your posts here,
> and I want you to know this site would not be the
> same without you.
> Your #1 fan,
> Brian #3
Brian, my logic is in fact very consistent.
What you seem to lose track of is that there is a vast difference between a civilization being so old that only its stonework remains, vs. a newer civilization where a huge historic volume exists in physical evidence and preserved documentation about virtually every aspect of its culture and daily life with the conspicuous absence of tools and methods required to achieve the work that has been attributed to it.
As I've said many times before, if a civilization leaves a slew of evidence of every "color" except for "blue", then that can be logically construed as evidence they didn't know about "blue". Even B.-J. subscribes to that notion with regard to mons C. not employing slaves.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?