If you didn’t think it was reliable, why did you provide it as substantiation of your claim? Or are you just wasting our time?
What reliable source do you have that says the site is as old as you claim?
You demanded a link to the site and I provided it to you after months of your whining about it.
You had already been given the name and location of the site multiple times but wouldn’t bother looking it up for yourself.
You challenged the age, challenged the alignments and have provided absolutely nothing to show that either are untrue.
You have now dozens of posts ranting and making fraudulent claims of what I’ve said and done with respect to this but can’t come up with one thing to support your own claims.
Instead of admitting you have absolutely nothing you just continue on.
Now once and for all.
Can you show the age cited to be false? If so produce something from a better source.
If you can’t just admit it and move on.
The site has only been known for less than 20 years in the modern age and there seems to be very little actual work that has been done on it so all we have to go on is what we have.
If you have anything let’s see it, otherwise I’m done with you other than laughing.
I asked substantiation to your claim. You give me a link to a blog that now it seems you want to back off in its reliability.
As far as I can tell, the only person claiming the site is that old is Michael Tellinger, as your link shows he’s considered the expert on the matter.
Did you provide me what I asked for? Not really. I didn’t ask for a link to a junk science blog that quote Tellinger and other nutters.
There’s been exactly zero evidence that any actual dating has ever been done on the site. The only sources you’ve managed to provide all rely on Tellinger. The sources you are now backing off of as being reliable.
I agree there’s been very little work done by any actual academic. That doesn’t mean you go with the statements from a nutter.
I’ll ask one more time because you seem to ignore this question every time. What method was used to date the rocks and who did it? What is your reliable source on the matter?
You demanded a link to the site, you got it.
All the rest is drivel.
You can’t show anything stated to be false and we both know it so again, we’re done.
I didn’t demand a link to that site and you know it. I just wanted to know where your claim that the site is 75,000 years old.
And you provided an answer.
The claim came from a man who believes the pineal gland gives us telepathy.
Now you expect me to refute that as if anything more needs to be said.
Why do you keep insisting I disprove the unsupported assertion of a nutter?
We’re done.
Did you just now realize that your entire case rested on a man who believes sound causes electromagnetism?
I bet you didn’t realize that when you made the claim initially.
1 Like
Last chance period.
Can you produce anything from any more reliable source showing the proposed age to be false?
Yes or No?
Simple as that.
That specific site? No. Other than Michael Telliger and his (similarly goofball buddy who showed him the site), no one cares about that site. It appears to be mostly a boulder strewn field and not really even sure it was man made.
As for the rest of the stone circles in the area, they’re about 700 years old.
I answered your question, now answer mine.
If it wasn’t Michael Tellinger, who did the dating for the site and what method did they use?
There’s exactly one word in the above that matters.
“No”.
Thanks for the laughs.
So you can’t answer my question? Who are you relying on to claim the site is 75,000 years old if it’s not this Tellinger guy?
Can you tell me that or not?
You’re the one citing the work of a guy who believes alien’s gave birth to mankind at Adam’s Calendar.
You really think you should be the one laughing at me?
Of course I am. You can’t even produce a single fact to dispute the findings of a man you think is insane over a date you’ve been obsessively ranting about now for two months.
It’s hilarious, hell it’s hysterical.
His “findings” which are actually just assertions are completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous.
Why do I have to dispute something that is completely unsubstantiated?
And yet you can’t produce a single fact to the contrary.
Please, keep going, I may hurt myself but damn I needed a good laugh.
What facts have been provided that support the site is 75,000 years old?
Name one. Or am I the only one expected to do so?
Here you go.
Your source for your claim, Michael Tellinger, is a flat earther.
And I’m supposed to dispute his “findings”.
There’s not an actual fact there disputing anything with respect to either the age of the site or what it is.
Thank you for your contribution.
You have yet to post a single fact supporting your assertion that it’s 75,000 years old.
Zero.
