Origyptian wrote:

> loveritas wrote:
>
> > Hi Origyptian,
> >
> > "I certainly would have been ready to engage in that
> > discussion."
> >
> > LOL with loud guffaws.
> >
> > You don't have a working hypothesis. Or evidence.
> >
> > On anything!
>
>
> One important difference between me and you is that I'm not
> forcing any claim on anyone else here. While any of us are
> perfectly at liberty to hypothesize aliens, giants, or lost
> civilizations, others among you somehow feel perfectly ok with
> forcing a juvenile, unproven, baseless ideology on others with
> hostile aggression.
>
> If you disagree with anything you think I've claimed, feel free
> to ignore it. Kindly disregard any claim I've ever made. That
> doesn't make YOUR claims go away. Nor does it in any way lessen
> the clear fact that you haven't provided evidence to back your
> claim. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Rather, I'm
> simply here to ask questions and seek answers. Unlike you and a
> few others here, I respect others' right to make their own
> decisions as they see fit.
>
> Now, I am slowly going through what appears to be luminary
> sources that claim to understand the nature of those quarries
> (e.g.,
> Sidebotham,
> et al.) and when I try to break away from historic
> hearsay and the "accepted view" but rather simply look at the
> physical evidence, what those authors describe is not
> indisputable evidence that those columns were quarried there by
> Romans circa 1st c. BC. Rather (and I've not read the entire
> monograph yet), every single piece of evidence they describe so
> far also can be interpreted to support the alternative
> possibility that the Romans found a pre-established
> infrastructure in those so-called "quarries" and repurposed the
> finished stone objects they found there for their own needs.
>
> As far as your own claim goes, I'm still waiting for you to
> produce specific evidence other than a photo bomb or long list
> of references. Otherwise, I do not recognize your claim as
> being indisputable and the only possibility.
>
> Again, totally, completely, and absolutely disregard any claim
> you believe I've made. Meanwhile, I look forward to whether
> anyone can provide definitive proof of the claim made by you,
> Thanos, etc. that there is indisputable proof that the Romans,
> themselves, in the 1st c. BC actually carved those objects from
> bedrock.
>
> At this point in the discussion, no one has presented evidence
> to differentiate between the notion that the Romans made those
> objects from bedrock vs. finding them there ready made for the
> taking, e.g., just as it looks like they did at
> Baalbek.
>


Have you presented ANY evidence to disprove their claims?

(NO, as usual. Why don't you ever apply the SAME standards to yourself??)