There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 1591 Replies
I think you are missing the point. You used Protzens opinion that the stones may have been polished. You are using my link, the same link you say is not good enough and that I need peer reviewed evidence for.
If my link is good enough for you to use to point out something wrong. Therefore I should be able to use my links to do the same and this should be accepted with the some logic as how you just used my own link to refute me.
Yet if I did the same as I have been doing I am demanded to provide further evidence such as peer review.
All I was looking at was Protzen was one of the experts referred to in my article who was credible as far as experts looking at ancient works. It doesn't matter what his particular findings were. Its that you use one of my own references as evidence. While at the same time dismissing my references as unreliable and lacking credibility.
What? I don't think Protzens writings about the supposed vitrified surfaces are the definitive answer. He performed very little tests, if any to evidence that. I am wondering why you reference him, when it seemingly goes against the position you try to argue.You are missing the point. I don't care about what is said and by whom. My point was that you suddenly found credibility in my own links by referencing Protzen. Yet when I reference anyone peer review is demanded. Its a double standard.
If you want to use someone within my references to defeat my point just by referring to them and not going through all the hoops of peer review or whatever it is demanded.
Then by the same logic when I cite others you should accept them without all the hoop jumping. But thats not what is happening. See how the rules are bent for one and not the others. Otherwise it does not matter what Protzen said or what it was about. If we apply the same hoop jumping then any point you are trying to make about Protzen perhaps saying the works may have been poliched is discredited under the same logic.
It does not matter. You are referring to him. If he did say the works were polished. Then you would use that as evidence that perhaps it was not vitrified. Is that correct.
Then you are using my reference and using evidence in the exact same way as I have been doing. So its double standards to then demand peer review as you never applied that to yourself. You were quite happy to use the possibility of Protzens contradiction to refute that the stones were vitrified.
Upvote
0