Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Destruction of Pompei is 1631 year.
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 89 of 132 (377656)
01-17-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by AdminNosy
01-17-2007 7:49 PM


Re: It is beginning to look like your end elcano
AdminNosy writes:
It's too bad but this doesn't seen to be the place for you and other members have better things to do with their time.
Honestly Nosy, if elcano would stop beating around the bush and post a topic where his real motives are clear (historical revision) it might be fun to at least refute the hell out of...pretty sure his English isn't sufficient though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by AdminNosy, posted 01-17-2007 7:49 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 92 of 132 (377822)
01-18-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
01-18-2007 2:20 AM


Re: I have a question.
PaulK writes:
Then you're in the wrong place. This board is devoted to discussion. If you only want to lecture to people - and if you won't deal with the evidence against your assertions - then this is no place for you.
The tactics of these 'history revisionists' are full of this skepticism and based on straw men...Pliny is in the way of their 'proof', so they first have to disprove Pliny; say he never existed, that he lived at another time, that he was writing about a different volcano.
Then you have the proof of the excavation site iteself. Gotta get rid of that...cite all kinds of examples of people who have planted 'fake' artifacts for archaelogists, deny the effectiveness of dating methods, claim that Latin was still a popular language in 1631. Sure some thing aren't provable beyond doubt...but the alternative theories of 'false' history and purposeful elongation of history by coniving humans is ridiculous, IMHO. There is no motivation for it, certainly not enough for a broad-scale cover-up such as these people imagine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2007 2:20 AM PaulK has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 94 of 132 (377828)
01-18-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by elcano
01-18-2007 1:48 PM


Re: I have a question.
elcano writes:
The description of this eruption is made using the words of two witnesses of it:
Question; how do you decide to believe these witnesses and not to believe Pliny? That is the problem with this type of research...it is cafeteria style history, where you can pick out the witnesses YOU like.
At Herculaneum, the palace of the Archbishop
According to Wikipedia, no town has gone by the name of Herculaneum since 79. I am sure if we put our heads together we can discover why your witnesses say there was a town of Herculaneum. It might be simple...notice they say 'at' Herculaneum, and not 'in' Herculaneum. Almost like it was a site they were talking about, as in 'at the site of Herculaneum'. They DO say 'in' Naples. Here I WOULD like to see the original Italian (not Latin, btw! on this important document).
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by elcano, posted 01-18-2007 1:48 PM elcano has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 100 of 132 (377845)
01-18-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by elcano
01-18-2007 3:30 PM


Re: Pliny the Younger.
elcano writes:
I approve, that dug out the city was lost in 1631.
So the city which we have as ruins is the same one that was lost in 1631? I do not understand your meaning. The cities were clearly not 'lost' in 1631, they were cleared and rebuilt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by elcano, posted 01-18-2007 3:30 PM elcano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2007 11:59 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 106 of 132 (378214)
01-19-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by elcano
01-19-2007 8:02 PM


Re: for all
elcano writes:
I can agree with you. In that case the information of Wiki is not correct. There is no information in modern books that medieval authors mention Pompeii. (Why?)
That will only hurt you more than help you. If Pompeii was still in existance in 1631 you would want to prove that it was metioned in medieval books, or at least deicde when you think it was first built as a city..,
And RAZD is correct...nobody died in 1631, but many skeletons were found in Herculaneum. If you would like us to believe that Pompeii was destroyed in 1631 please explain how these bodies got there, how they died, when they died?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by elcano, posted 01-19-2007 8:02 PM elcano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024