Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Thanos5150 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Among most other things, I doubt
> > > you even knew what Baalbek was before you got
> > > here. The idea the foundations of Baalbek predate
> > > the Romans has been around for over a century
> > > doctor, so please do not even further delude
> > > yourself by attempting to claim some kind of
> > > authority or original thought here.
> >
> > So let's see,
> >
> > - you are now a mind-reader who asserts that
> > I knew nothing about Baalbek before I visited GHMB
> > a couple of years ago.
>
> Doctor Femano,
>
> If you’re going to complain that you’ve been
> misrepresented, it does not do to start your
> plaint with a misrepresentation.
>
> He expressed a doubt. There it is, read it. You
> express lots of doubts and insist on the
> difference between doing so and making assertions,
> so don’t go pretending that you don’t know the difference.
>
> M.

I see. So Thanos has enough of a mind reading capability to "assert his doubt" that I knew anything about Baalbek, but not enough of a mindreading capability to "assert with certainty" that I didn't know about Baalbek? His crystal ball is functional, but foggy?

And you had to intervene to explain that for him on his behalf?

My point was his mind reading claim at all, not whether it was set at 9 vs 10. But you again, predictably resort to pedantic deflection instead of focusong on the issue at hand.

Meanwhile, as foggy as Thanos'' mind reading skills apparently are (that you believe constrain him to merely "doubt" rather than "assert") those mind reading skills nevertheless apparently are still clear enough to clearly "assert" that I am "attempting to claim some kind of authority or original thought here" when I've done no such thing in my previous comment about Baalbek. Is that the same foggy crystal ball that traditionalists have used over centuries to divine all those other flawed assumptions that are being revealed in the orthodox narrative?

Of course, I've known about Pregnant Woman since I was a child. And (presumably) like many others here, I accepted the traditional narrative that it was created during the Roman Empire. But only when the new excavations revealed what lies under the surface did it become all too apparent to many of us that the Romans didn't do that work. And that opened up the distinct possibility that it might have been done in an earlier time by a civiliziation that had the technology to do so, and that they did it long enough ago to allow sufficient time for their subsequent demise and for technological amnesia to ensue, leaving no historic record of the details of such stonework. The fact is, we don't now who made those blocks, when they were made, how they were made, why they were made, or how they ended up in their current condition and position.

Meanwhile, contrary to what you guys keep asserting, I never claimed to be the first to notice the unliklihood that the Roman created those blocks, and I have not attempted to assert any "authority" in my comments. I am simply rendering my opinion based on how I interpret the evidence. Why you insist on giving me more credit that that, I have no idea.