Corpuscles wrote:

> Phil , my purpose is not to embarrass you (or Jon) but is to
> offer some "evidence"
> or FACT that might help you drop a totally incorrect /mistaken
> premise or oft repeated and bleated mantra.
>
> If anyone is over reaching it is you. With comments see your
> post underlined above.
> "is there any dispute that " , "the accepted notion
> that Renaissance Italy did not" , "compelling evidence that"
>
> Now Loveritas rather blunt, somewhat harsh 2nd reply (directed
> at you) in this thread was I think a comment
> of enough is enough with the demand for hard evidence
> (what is) and your denial of contra claims by (what isn't) and
> then
> your reference to your speculative ,most likely thoughts, as
> constituting "compelling evidence"
>
> Now as you your claim of granite working in Europe. You simply
> must have not done the research! It is ignorance.
>
> Firstly it would help if you gained some knowledge of the
> happenings in Europe in that period.
>
> It would be better if you did the research first hand then you
> will only be arguing with yourself or could come and ask for
> other opinions.
>
> To get you started :
>
> Here is a list from wiki of the castles built by Europeans
> during the crusades.
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]
>
> or simply google "Granite building during the crusades."
>
> You will find lots of castles with massive granite outer walls
> Most notable are :
> Krak des Chevaliers was built during the 12th and 13th
> centuries by the Knights Hospitaller .
> The remains of Belvoir Castle
> Syria and Israel
>
> or simply google "Granite building during the crusades."
>
> This will ultimately return results that show the very
> considerable use of granite
> in places like Finland and Sweden and what we call the Baltic
> states.
>
> But if what you mean is staggeringly, breath takingly
> beautiful finished granite
> then may I refer you to the region of Europe once known as
> Yugoslavia!
>
> In particular Dubrovnik, Croatia Europe.
>
> Here is a book for $20 which will surely answer your question
> as to" is there any dispute that Europe was incapable"
> rather absolutely "over reaching" to even contemplate that!
>
> The book is called "Dubrovnik Guided Walks" described as "
> Breathtaking city built of marble and granite"
>
> [www.tripadvisor.com.au]
>
> You wont have to buy or read the books that website has several
> pictures I have not posted lest I be accused
> of photobombing!
>
>
> As for your comments re Pantheon....
>
> I also can only suggest you get stuck into some research about
> the Roman era
>
> One of the reasons Loveritas put in all that extensive
> bibliography to his post to me
> about the mons claudianus granite was to point to all the
> extensive analysis conducted on the
> provenance of the stone including geologic testing ! Note
> Potts (Electron microscope studies and X-ray analysis)
>
> [traumwerk.stanford.edu]
>
> Did this unknown civilization who built a major temple on the
> site of mons claudianus
>
> Acquire those yellow marble columns from Carthage
> They happened to have the Imperial Porphyry columns already
> made?
> What about the grey marble blocks.... were they all there too?
>
>
>

Quote

The specific marbles here suggested as related to the
> idea of imperium include purple Imperial Porphyry from Egypt
> (Mons Porphyrites), Docimian pavonazzetto from Asia Minor
> (Marmor docimenium) and
> yellow Giallo Numidiana marble from Carthage (Marmor numidicum)
> and - perhaps to complete a Mediterranean "square" - an as-yet
> unprovenanced gray Granito Grigio
> probably from the northwest (Pyrenees, Gaul or the
> Alps?).

>
> [traumwerk.stanford.edu]
> Taken from an essay based on lecture series on the Pantheon
> stone work by Stanford University.
>
> Note the "Granito Grigio" is different granite than the Mons
> Claudianus granodiorite (granito del foro)!
>
> Of course the Romans quarried and made columns of other granite
> as well!
> Like the red granite in S. Maria degli Angeli.
>
> Happy hunting!
>
> The point to all this is to try as friendly as I can to
> indicate it might be a good idea that
> before diss'n on any opinion and demanding "hard evidence" that
> you first thoroughly research it yourself
> first. Also call any wild speculation or conjecture or your
> "logical" premise. Your belief... not the "compelling
> evidence"
>
> Kindest regards
>

>
> Post Edited (20-Jun-15 06:41)

Was there ANYTHING in your reply that speaks directly to my simple question about whether granite columns were quarried from Mons Claudianus during the 1st century AD by the Roman Empire?

I simply asked for physical evidence that validates the claim that the Roman Empire quarried granite columns from Mons Claudianus in the 1st century AD. I did not doubt that the columns of the Pantheon came from Mons Claudianus. Nor did I ask about the Crusades, castles of Europe, 12th and 13th century Knights, marble columns at Carthage, Asia Minor, or any of the other sidebar references. You and others keep saying "of course the Romans quarried from Mons Claudianus", and yet after my repeated requests not a single piece of evidence has yet been presented to validate that very simple claim.

Is it no longer allowed to ask questions of others here? Since when must we all be fully equipped to know everything about a subject before discussing it? Why conduct a discussion at all if we're expected to already know everything there is to know about a subject? Has no one asked about the dimensions of this or that passage or chamber? Has no one here asked about where Pi has occurred in G1? Has no one challenged so-called "proven" tenets like the tomb or ramp hypotheses? Why the sudden arrogance to insist that we may not inquire without doing all the research ourselves on a subject?

If you don't know for sure that there is evidence proving the Romans quarried those columns in the 1st century AD, then simply say so. But it's senseless and often misguided to perpetuate hearsay without being armed and prepared to discuss the physical evidence that validates the claim. As far as I'm concerned, to get indignant and insulting about it just reveals the weakness of the claim.

I've started a very specific discussion on Mons Claudianus. I hope no one invokes any other scope than what's specifically asked. I am simply and honestly trying to understand why almost everyone else believes what orthodoxy claims happened there. I am not saying I don't believe it, I'm just trying to understand why most other people do believe it because I believe what we see there might be telling us a different story.

And the reason I feel so compeled to ask this simple question is that way too many things have been assumed to be true for centuries are turning out to be false. Apparently, unlike most people at GHMB, I believe the time has come to question every single traditional tenet because it has become all too painfully clear that our standards of proof in the 21st century has drastically changed compared to previous centuries and that much of what orthodoxy has presumed to be true is simply "no longer" true.

This has been shown about ramps and tombs. Zero physical evidence to support them. Orthodoxy once held fast to Bishop Ussher's 6000 year timeline. But now we have evidence at Gobekli of civilizations that extend back at least 10,000 BC. We once thought humans first arrived on Earth a mere 50,000 years ago and now there is evidence of humans as far back as 200,000 years. It was once thought to be impossible for humans to have survived an ice age, and now there is evidence that humans not only have survived one ice age, but rather many ice ages and that they may have gotten pretty far into developing infrastructure technology during each of those cycles.

Likewise, recent excavations are revealing that Baalbek may not have been a quarry at all, contrary to orthodox presumption, but rather was once an established infrastructure which met with a catastrophe, was subsequently abandoned, and was later scavanged by the Romans who repurposed the stonework that was ancient even in their time.

I realize many of you don't subcribe to this perspective. I respect that and respectfully request very simply that if you don't want to present the evidence I'm requesting or simply strongly disagree with my perspective, then by all means feel free to steer clear and ignore my posts.

But there is absolutely no call for you to be so confrontrational, insulting, and exposing your own lack of humility and civility by criticizing me simply for challenging a contention that no one seems to be able to support with compelling physical evidence.



Post Edited (21-Jun-15 13:50)