<HTML>FD problem 1, objectivity
FD problem 2, comprehension
FD problem 2, qualifications
FD problem 4, professionalism
Objectivity - the observation of a problem without preconceived ideas. FD you start with the preconceived belief there wasn’t rockmaking. You insist its so but they cite references for fabricated sandstone and basalt - you have an objectivity problem. The sandstone and basalt qualifies the limestone question that’s also supported by micrographic and chemical analyses and bound water—the inquiry’s logical but you loudly voice denunciations. Again your refusal to be objective. You reduce independent data to friendship ties. An outrageous example of non-objectivity and preconceived belief. You don’t qualify as an objective debater.
Your say,
“I think we are all tired again to hear that some geologist-friend of Davidivits found bound water which he only can explain so and so unless such questions ans much more, like from Archaea, are answered.”
You’re bias if you’re impling Zeller interpreted data in their favor for sake of friendship.
Comprehension - your recent postings have questions showing you didn’t comprehend the summary of data—you ask why they didn’t ask Klemm for samples when they say they did but were refused. You go round and round with examples that could be later rock splitting after rockmaking eclipsed. It’s like you can’t get the theory in full. On this one I can’t tell if there’s lack of objectivity or a comprehension problem.
Qualifications – the theory is problematic as it requires multi-disciplinary experts; there’s history, materials science, and specializations in branches of geological sciences. The problematic part is specialists don’t appreciate each other’s knowledge; historians untrained in geology can’t evaluate the data of geological sciences without consultations. The evidence of quarrying you find is accounted for in theory as post-pyramid, so the archaeological picture is not cut/dried - black/white. This means other sciences must kick in. You can’t be expected to be qualified to evaluate geophysical data or thin sections or chemical charts. These definitive elements are more important than your features because yours could be later work.
For geologists your word “stupidity” spells troubling logic. Reports and patents demonstrate something new about rapid mineral formation with no heat. Geologists can’t be expected to know the ins and outs without training and experience in the new field. Incorrect conclusions don’t equate to stupidity, but inexperience in the new mineralogical field. Here the evidence was shown to foes as per objective research practices—a credit to Davidovits and his group. They didn’t restrict to working with friendly trained geologists. Even so, the data has strongly fallen in their favor so long as the summary of data reflects published reports.
Professionalism – you are frothmouthed FD and lack objectivity; this taints your objections and places their caliber at a lower level than the Bauval/Hanock/von Daniken types - as you should know better. You pooh pooh geophysical, chemical and petrographic evidence you don’t understand without showing error. They’re more important than your evidence because of the long archeological history of producing thousands of quarrying spots and carved pieces. You amateurishly assume friendship tainted the Zeller evaluation of data when you can’t fault their evidence. You display contempt and disrespect where there should be none even if they are wrong.
It’s right to question/probe and request reasonable answers as you’re doing. It’s how you do it that reflects badly on you. Rank amateurs are disrespectful and trite. You’re not dealing with VonDanikens; you’re dealing with specialists in their fields who answer each point raised by a wide variety of critics with data and references. Objectivity, comprehension of theory, qualifications in the sciences, professionalism—-you’re woefully lacking in all of these areas FD.
Sandy</HTML>
