Jon Ellison wrote:
> Hi Corp..
> They don't look like rough blanks to me ..
> In fact they look highly and precisely finished.
> They all look to be at the same stage of completion . No work
> in progress.
> They look nothing like any Dynastic, Roman or Greek column that
> I have ever seen.
So if.. IF... they were "blanks" and needed more work.... they would look
nothing like either of us has seen?! (Roman Greek or Samoan or anything else)
And if... IF... their expectation of finished was different to ours... you say completed to
the extent never seen before...then they might have considered your precisely finshed
standard.. just a BLANK!?
> The Romans were pretty adept at stealing finished egyptian
> masonry and carting it off to Rome.
> As were just about every other Empire and country that has
> existed since then.
Yep. Documented fact!
> Carved granite on an industrial scale was not possible up until
> the 19th century.
> It's well documented. (Aberdeen Scotland)
> (Remember Ronald Rae)
I don't understand what has industrial scale got to do with it?
> The issue here is not whether granite/masonry was moved to
> Rome, it clearly was...
> It is whether or not these columns were carved by Romans in
> The columns have been identified as Roman because they are
> clearly not dynastic Egyptian. Orthodoxy seeing no other
> possibility other than Rome.
> On inspection they do not appear to be Roman either.
> I've never seen anything like them. I would be genuinely
> interested if any other examples could be found elsewhere.
Interestingly I am also discussing it with Ori. What sort of reason or "evidence"
would be required to enable any decision on that?
> Post Edited (16-Jun-15 02:02)