> India's pretty old.
What can you tell us about it?
> Not really sure how old it is.
The ghost of Origyptian rears its ugly head. How is your ignorance of the subject proof of doubt? Do you not understand how retarded this is? You look at stone work knowing nothing about who made it, how, or when with the assumption no one could possibly know, and therefore to you anyone could have made it, like an LC, at anytime. Do you think this was built by the Greeks or an antediluvian LC:
How do we know? And using the same criteria how do we know the same about the structures of India? This is fundamental common sense that every functioning adult human should have.
> I'd love to have your confidence in the age of this stuff,
Curious how many times Origyptian has said the same thing. Here's a tip-read something for a change instead of watching fringe YouTube videos all the time.
> but the quality of the
> work doesn't match up with the mainstream idea's
> of the 'ability' of those who are supposed to have
> made them.
How does it not with the structures of India? So the Greeks did not achieve what they did? The Romans? I show the pictures of 19th century (and today) stone working to show that even in modern times they used the same "primitive" tools and methods available to these ancient cultures, the least of which those of India. What is so hard for some of you to understand about this?
> Its not an unreasonable caution.
The problem is your "caution" has no knowledge or context to draw from therefore any stone working that is "old" must therefore be the work of an LC because you do not understand how people can do such things. When does any of this begin to sink in with some of you? This is the frustration and ire some of you draw, among other reasons, is not because of your beliefs, but because you refuse to learn and keep saying the same stupid shit over and over and over again. You are even a part of these conversations and yet you do not grow. This is not right and disrespectful to all, the least of which yourself.
> one main discrepancy forces me to more closely
> evaluate the quality of the conclusions that are
What is it you are "evaluating" exactly if you know nothing and refuse to educate yourself? Dude-you have made up your mind the LC did all of these things and do nothing more than look at pictures and fringe videos. This is not "evaluating" jack shit.
> On closer inspection, I struggle with this kind of
> stuff: (Inference from absence: the case of
What you do not understand, no matter how many times or ways it is explained, is that more often than not this "absence" is only the product of your own willful ignorance. You have no clue what is derived from inference and what is not not to mention the varying degrees of certainly that can be derived from inference. Yes, there are many things attributed to history that are based on inference, particualrly the farther back in time you go, some of it quite wrong, but this does not mean therefore it all is.
> Lots of stuff is in doubt whether you want to
> believe it or not.
WTF is this dumbass:
Mysteries: The Collected Works of Thanos5150
Or the thousands of posts I have made on these subjects. What a stupid thing to say. The problem is that you have no clue what it is you should doubt or not, for one, and two that you already know that no one could possibly know anything about these things therefore you see no reason to educate yourself otherwise and therefore doubt everything all the same. This is your fault. While stupidity may not be curable, ignorance is and at this point you have no excuse.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25-Feb-20 03:04 by Thanos5150.