I do. For the same reason I dismiss the accounts of Winnie the Pooh, and the existence of Allen Grant of Jurassic Park, and Michael Weston. They're fiction.
Unless you have some physical evidence..........? ...
That's a pretty stupid analogy. I have shaken hands with Winnie the Pooh & Mickey Mouse. Both are as 'real' as you are, even if they were just characters being played by someone else.
Physical evidence of them...? To my knowledge no such thing exists.
So you only have the luxury of complete ignorance in terms of what we know about how things were built back then--ie, the luxury of refusing to read anything that may potentially disagree with you. Sorry, but that makes you a fringie.
'You' don't KNOW anything. You 'believe' what someone else has told you about what they think happened. Physical evidence is NOT something you have sought in this regard.
You insisted that these stones couldn't be carved via human tools of the time. When it was demonstrated that you could you rejected it as "found techniques", whatever that means. Then you insisted that saws couldn't be used to carve one stone. This is a serious movement of the goalpost, because you went from "period tools" to one specific tool. It's also a starwman, as none of us said that it necessarily had to be a saw that did it (given that all we have is a photograph I'm not entirely convinced that it's from the proper time period; it probably is, but the possibility of this stone being altered later on is real, and without any evidence other than a picture I can't say one way or another).
I am getting rather sick and tired of you misconstruing my statements and misrepresenting my stance. ONCE more and you will join GeeMack.
A "found technique" is one that employs NO advanced technology, but 'works' as it was intended. "Found" meaning that someone discovered it.
I said the line was NOT chiseled. I said REPEATEDLY that it looks sawed to me. The problem is no such saws have been found in the Americas. Whatever made that line is "lost", right now.
If you have an alternative dating method for the stones at PP please present it.
You also waxed somewhat poetic about the possibility of the researcher being dead, which frankly disturbs me.
"Old bird" is a term of endearment, and you just used the same word to describe his present condition that I did..."dead". I went further to say that I would have loved to ask him some further questions about other stones at PP.
That you would even bring this up, just shows the level at which you'll stoop to try to attack me.
If you do this once more, you'll go on my ignore list, without hesitation.
