26-06-2026, 10:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 26-06-2026, 10:23 PM by Mark Knowles.)
(26-06-2026, 09:50 PM)Aga Tentakulus wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It’s not about the theory. It’s about how it’s presented.You pointed out that two very small and minor lakes in the bottom left hand corner(blink and you could miss seeing them on the rosettes folio) that I highlighted in my theory amongst the very many lakes I pointed to were probably not likely to have been lakes at the time. I didn't argue with that as I thought that inevitably some of the very numerous details that I highlighted in my rosettes were likely to be incorrect and I said as much before you even mentioned those lakes, but I thought it best to come up with the best identification that I could for each detail. In fact, I said here in the forum prior to your comment that it seemed to me almost impossible that every detail that I highlighted was correct.
A so-called expert can’t tell you what it is, but he’ll tell you what isn’t possible.
Mark has experienced this with me. For example: If he considers the rosette to be lakes, even though some of them are reservoirs that weren’t built until 1930, I won’t accept that.
I think also it is very difficult to know what all the lakes around Lucerne looked like 600 years ago.
However, you seem to think that because you spotted 2 very small discrepancies that you somehow disproved my theory.

