<HTML>Claire wrote:
>
> The point I was making was that you always say - not wait -
> you <i> always</i> say that GH bases his dates on Posnansky
> and in reality the Head of Bolivan Archaeology (at the time
> of GH writing Heaven's Mirror I think?) agrees as does
> another archeaologist, this Neil Steede guy.
And show me what <i>evidence</i> either of them possess in order to overthrow the dating - as identified by Garrett - that has been built up over the last 50 years ?
> Whether or not
> Tiwanaku is 12000 BPE old or not isn't the point I was
> making. I specifically stated that I didn't know anything
> about Tiwanaku to prevent you misunderstanding the point I
> was making. The point I was making ~lol~ John, is that an
> objective observer would mention these more recent sources in
> a sentence about outdated sources.~lol~
As I said I'm happy to mention them as often as you like - if Hancock seeks to use <i>either</i> of them as support it just smacks of desperation imho.
> Anyway, in what way does Rivera's position disqualify him
> from making a judgement? You call him an administrator, with
> no archaeological training.
My unerstanding is that he has no <i>formal</i> archaeological training. I'm open to correction - just get someone to identify the nature/date/issuing institution of his archaeological degree ? But even if he's a trained archaeologist where's his <i>evidence</i> for a significantly older Tiwanaku ?
> You say that, GH says he is a leading expert on Tiwanaku.
Remember, "Well he would, woundn't he !" - or are you too young to remember the Profumo affair ?
> Who am I to believe?
Believe the <i>evidence</i> !
> Are you dismissing opinions?
Hancock has an <i>opinion</i> that Tiwanaku is of a date that would make Edgar Cayce - yes, him again ! - a happy bunny. Those nasty, conspiratorial, orthodox archaeologists have half a century of modern excavation, scientific dating (internally consistent), stratigraphy, etc, etc on which they base their <i>opinion</i> that the earliest settlement at Tiwanaku is some 9000 years later than Hancock would like. There <i>is</i> a difference !
> Interesting. Are you distinguishing opinions from facts?
See above.
> I'll remember that - you don't find opinions relevant to a discussion :-)
An <i>opinion</i> that Tiwanaku dates from more than 12000 years ago is irrelevant as it is not supported by any <i>evidence</i> whatsoever - btw I just started a thread higer up called "Words of Wisdom - from 1896 !". An <i>opinion</i> that the earliest settlement at Tiwanaku dates from c. 1500BC - based on radiometric dating - is relevant.
> Do quickly correct me if I'm wrong btw ~lol~
I think I just did:-)
John</HTML>