Re: Fuente Magna
- From: Doug Weller <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:43:27 +0100
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:22:45 -0700, in sci.archaeology,
benlizro@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:54 pm, "Inger E" <inger no spam_e.johans...@xxxxxxxxx>She is being ridiculous. She won't find a Sumerian scholar backing
wrote:
<benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandetnews:1185854342.293285.61470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Jul 31, 4:44 am, "Inger E" <inger no spam_e.johans...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Doug Weller" <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i
meddelandetnews:l4nma3l7qkgrtu1mi3589iqbie3u2pkj2g@xxxxxxxxxx
noOn Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:17:10 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E" <inger
spam_e.johans...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:ijvla31fr4e33t553t4c0mr649h1d512q1@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=52&;
sources?I know this is a fake, a forgery, has no provenance and was not
discovered in the course of a properly discovered dig, but what is
actually known of this from reputable scholarly or scientific
Eric Stevens
pendelWell it's disputed today if it is a forgery as an artifact or not,
still falls on the forgery side.
Some partly obscure url:
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/archeol/fuentema.htm
That one leans heavily on Winters, who is as bad as Edo Nyland.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_8.htm
As does this one.
http://www.altarcheologie.nl/connections/characters_01.htm
lookEven worse. It's never been 'found to be authentic'. I took a quick
researcharound, he doesn't seem to have the slightest idea of what modern
says about the Piri Re'is map for instance. Absolutely useless.
toThe point about Winters is that anyone who takes him seriously is not
be trusted to comment on anything linguistic. Or anything else within
Winters' sphere of interest.
Doug
Doug,
what you do above is to try to PUT your interpretation of Winters as a
consensus.
No, he is pointing out that there is a consensus.
Sorry, one big fraction of traditionally so called wall-scholars believe it
to be a consensus. Definitely not everyone else.
Who are "so called wall-scholars"??
When was the last time you looked at Professor Legner's faculty homepage?http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/biados/index.html
While he is a Prof emeritus of Biology his vita gives him more credibility
than most writing herehttp://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/vitaefl.htm
and he has been working with Bolivian archaeology more than you have. Don't
you agree?
Exactly what is the relevance of this Emeritus Professor of Biological
Pest Control to the assessment of Winters?
He is one of many scholars who changed views after the large investigation a
few years back. I suggest you take a look at the Fuente Magna pictures and
text on his homepage.
Yes, I looked. Again I ask: what is the relevance?
There are no consensus regarding Winters neither in this case nor
in any other.
Of course there is. Winters is a loon. The only people who take him
seriously are either hopelessly naive or have their own loon agenda
which happens to coincide with his. Or both.
NO only people, scholars or not, who decided in advance that he is a loon
believe it to be a consensus.
Well, no, I am a scholar who decided he was a loon, not in advance,
but after looking at some of his work and his ideas. Years ago. If
he's learned something since then, show me some evidence.
While he might be 100% wrong in his sumerian
theories, which can be disputed after
<https://listhost.uchicago.edu/_pipermail/ane/2005-December/021330.html>
His profile inhttp://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile;u=00...
doesn't show your view of consensus.
What is there in this profile that is incompatible with his being a
loon?
Neither doeshttp://webs.csu.edu/~amakedon/mpes/programs/programs2004.html
seem to share your view on Professor Winters.
Winters took part in a conference on educational philosophy. In what
way does this prove he is not a loon?
Thus your present view of Winters being a loan show more prejuges from your
side than consensus re you view!
Disputed yes and there are reasons for him being disputed.
Namely that he is a loon.
Your and Doug's opinion. Not EVERYONE else's
No, the vast majority of EVERYONE has never heard of Winters.
Of those who have, I guarantee you that the consensus of those who
know something about archaeology or linguistics would be that he is a
loon.
However that has nothing what so ever to do with the Fuente Magna case
Obviously it does, when people proposing to interpret the FM cite
Winters as if he were a credible authority.
If Sumerian scholars believe him to be, who in the world are you to say that
he can't be?
Sumerian scholars??? Is this a web page I missed?
Ross Clark
Winters unless she counts that idiot Sitchin.
She thinks there can be no consensus unless she agrees.
She also seems to think that if he can get approval at an educational
philosophy conference his archaeology and linguistics skills are somehow
approved.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
.
- References:
- Fuente Magna
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Fuente Magna
- From: Inger E
- Re: Fuente Magna
- From: Doug Weller
- Re: Fuente Magna
- From: Inger E
- Re: Fuente Magna
- From: benlizro
- Re: Fuente Magna
- From: Inger E
- Re: Fuente Magna
- From: benlizro
- Fuente Magna
- Prev by Date: Re: Fuente Magna
- Previous by thread: Re: Fuente Magna
- Next by thread: Re: Fuente Magna
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
