Oroblanco said:
Gollum wrote
Roy,
Nice attempt to take up for the wife but, you are waaaaay off.
Maybe you should (and this is not meant as an insult) reread my post. I think I stated quite clearly that I do not dismiss the expert opinions. I only want to know WHY they arrived at those opinions. See, there is nothing specific in the article. How to tell the difference between an electric drill dimple and a hand drill dimple. How to tell the difference between machine sanding and manual sanding. That is all I want to know. If there is a good answer for those questions, I will be satisfied that they arrived at their opinions in good faith.
The biggest problem I have with the entire article is that it is quite obvious from reading it that they don't believe Tumlinson's Story. They make statements about how the stones SHOULD be weathered not taking into account that they were underground. A lot of inconsistencies in the article which cause me not to give it as much weight as I normally would.
Hmm Mike perhaps you ought to re-read my post; where did I say that "
you dismiss the expert opinions"?
I would like to know why, if one set of historians is found to be in error (our Jesuits) you seem to think that by default, we ought to view the expert opinions on the Peralta stones
must likewise be in error? This argument has been used by others who "believe in" the Peralta stones, and that logic is puzzling to me. Just because in one subject, we can show that a set of historians are in error (and in part likely due to the fact that they simply don't look for Jesuit mining activities as historians) doesn't mean that the experts who examined the Peralta stones must also be erroneous.
I would like to see an expert opinion opposing those of DAI. Jim had hinted that such opinion does exist, so I for one would like to see it.
Oroblanco
Roy,
Like I told Shortstack on another thread RIF (Reading Is Fundamental)!
You keep blathering the same argument without understanding a word of what I wrote.
Please show me ONE QUOTE of mine where I said DAI were in error? JUST ONE?!? You can't because there isn't! ALL I HAVE SAID IS THAT NOBODY SHOULD TAKE ANY EXPERT OPINION WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY HOW THE EXPERTS ARRIVED AT THAT OPINION! JEESUS.
I WILL SAY IT AGAIN FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME. MAYBE NOW IT WILL SINK IN (BUT SOMEHOW I DOUBT IT):
ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS HOW A HAND DRILL DIMPLE LOOKS DIFFERENT FROM AN ELECTRIC DRILL DIMPLE?
HOW DOES MACHINE SANDING LOOK DIFFERENT FROM MANUAL SANDING?
NEITHER YOU NOW BETH SEEM TO WANT TO KNOW OR CARE HOW DAI ARRIVED AT THEIR OPINIONS. YOU BOTH SEEM TO THINK THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPERTS, THAT NO FURTHER QUESTIONS ARE NECESSARY. MAYBE THEY ARE WRONG, AND MAYBE THEY AREN'T. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THEIR CONCLUSIONS.
I WILL PUT IT IN TERMS I HOPE YOU WILL FINALLY UNDERSTAND. IF YOU AND BETH HAD BEEN OF THE SAME MIND WHEN READING FATHER POLZER'S WORKS, THEN NEITHER OF YOU WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED WHAT HE SAID, AND THEN DID THE RESEARCH THAT PROVED HIM WRONG! YOU WOULD HAVE JUST BLINDLY ACCEPTED WHAT HE WROTE BECAUSE HE WAS AN EXPERT.
Let's look at the difference between the two situations:
1. Father Polzer wrote that the Jesuits never had any mines or treasures. You both question that. You both do research that proves what he said was wrong. The ONLY reason you both found that what he said was wrong was because you both QUESTIONED what he wrote.
2. DAI experts claimed that the Stone Maps were fakes because they found this, that, and the other. You don't question a thing. You both blindly believe them because they are fakes because the experts said so. Can either of you tell the difference between hand drill dimples and electric drill dimples? Can either of you tell the difference between machine sanding and manual sanding of a sandstone surface (somehow I doubt it)?
So, what is the difference between the two situations? Polzer wrote something that you didn't agree with, so you questioned it. DAI wrote something that you agreed with, so you didn't feel the need to researchthe matter any further.
Mike
