I wonder who the mental midget was.....

Gee, we can repair the Sistine Chapel and Eqyptian tombs and all other great art heritage works but somehow not a single person anywhere can repair this damage?

:cuckoo:
Had the Tea Party or the John Birch Society done the sort of damage seen in the OP you would be calling for the death penalty. But since Green Pee did it you sound almost apologetic. Do you not find that somewhat hypocritical?

As an Independent I would have given them the same benefit of the doubt and looked at the evidence before I jumped to any conclusions.
benefit of what doubt?

Peruvian court gave GP the benefit of the doubt too by dismissing the charges.






They did? Where has that been reported? So far there have been no charges levied against anyone as Greenpeace has refused to give up the names of the perpetrators. Here is more recent drone and on the ground video showing the extensive damage.


From PBS Newshour

"The Nazca figures were drawn between 500 BC and 500 AD by removing a thin patina of dark rocks covering light sand. This is one of the driest regions of the world, and the lack of water and wind has helped preserve the lines for centuries.
But they're still quite fragile. "When you step on it, you simply break the patina and expose the bottom surface," said Peru's Deputy Culture Minister Luis Jaime Castillo . "How long does it take for nature….to again create a patina? Hundreds of years? Thousands of years? We really don't know."
When archaeologists visit the site, they wear special pads on their shoes [below] to broadly distribute their weight. By contrast, photos taken by Peru's culture ministry showed footprints and overturned rocks, allegedly by Greenpeace demonstrators."


Drone Footage Shows Extent Of Greenpeace s Damage To Peru s Nazca Site

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas
 
Had the Tea Party or the John Birch Society done the sort of damage seen in the OP you would be calling for the death penalty. But since Green Pee did it you sound almost apologetic. Do you not find that somewhat hypocritical?

As an Independent I would have given them the same benefit of the doubt and looked at the evidence before I jumped to any conclusions.
benefit of what doubt?

Peruvian court gave GP the benefit of the doubt too by dismissing the charges.
benefit of what? Either they did it or didn't. Since they admitted it, they did it. So what is there doubt about?

GP didn't do any irreparable environmental damage which is what this entire thread is about. Or didn't you bother to read the OP and familiarize yourself with the subject matter before sticking your oar in?





Actually they did. The evidence is extensive...

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas
 
As an Independent I would have given them the same benefit of the doubt and looked at the evidence before I jumped to any conclusions.
benefit of what doubt?

Peruvian court gave GP the benefit of the doubt too by dismissing the charges.
benefit of what? Either they did it or didn't. Since they admitted it, they did it. So what is there doubt about?

GP didn't do any irreparable environmental damage which is what this entire thread is about. Or didn't you bother to read the OP and familiarize yourself with the subject matter before sticking your oar in?





Actually they did. The evidence is extensive...

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas

Your link doesn't show any of the alleged damage to the hummingbird image itself.

President unhappy Greenpeace activists left Peru with no charges after 8216 trampling 8217 UN heritage site National Post

The court declined to detain any of the Greenpeace delegation probably because the Peruvian government didn't have a case against them.

A Nazca court rejected a request from the attorney general’s office to detain the Greenpeace campaigners, Peru’s state news agency Andina reported Friday.
 
benefit of what doubt?

Peruvian court gave GP the benefit of the doubt too by dismissing the charges.
benefit of what? Either they did it or didn't. Since they admitted it, they did it. So what is there doubt about?

GP didn't do any irreparable environmental damage which is what this entire thread is about. Or didn't you bother to read the OP and familiarize yourself with the subject matter before sticking your oar in?





Actually they did. The evidence is extensive...

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas

Your link doesn't show any of the alleged damage to the hummingbird image itself.

President unhappy Greenpeace activists left Peru with no charges after 8216 trampling 8217 UN heritage site National Post

The court declined to detain any of the Greenpeace delegation probably because the Peruvian government didn't have a case against them.

A Nazca court rejected a request from the attorney general’s office to detain the Greenpeace campaigners, Peru’s state news agency Andina reported Friday.





There was no damage to the hummingbird alleged. The allegation is they damaged the area near it. Which they clearly did. As far as your link go's the Court refused to detain anyone because they had no names so the Court rightly determined that holding all of them would be a gross over step.

These idiots are far from clear from prosecution as you so disingenuously claim.
 
Peruvian court gave GP the benefit of the doubt too by dismissing the charges.
benefit of what? Either they did it or didn't. Since they admitted it, they did it. So what is there doubt about?

GP didn't do any irreparable environmental damage which is what this entire thread is about. Or didn't you bother to read the OP and familiarize yourself with the subject matter before sticking your oar in?





Actually they did. The evidence is extensive...

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas

Your link doesn't show any of the alleged damage to the hummingbird image itself.

President unhappy Greenpeace activists left Peru with no charges after 8216 trampling 8217 UN heritage site National Post

The court declined to detain any of the Greenpeace delegation probably because the Peruvian government didn't have a case against them.

A Nazca court rejected a request from the attorney general’s office to detain the Greenpeace campaigners, Peru’s state news agency Andina reported Friday.





There was no damage to the hummingbird alleged. The allegation is they damaged the area near it. Which they clearly did. As far as your link go's the Court refused to detain anyone because they had no names so the Court rightly determined that holding all of them would be a gross over step.

These idiots are far from clear from prosecution as you so disingenuously claim.

This is from the link in your OP;

On Tuesday, culture ministry officials showed reporters aerial photographs of the damage, and said that when the Greenpeace trespassers snuck into the U.N. World Heritage site in the middle of the night, they marched single-file across the delicate volcanic rocks and white sand, leaving a path that has introduced a new line to the iconic Hummingbird-shaped figure.

That was the first thing I checked when I started reading this thread. I compared the image in your link to other images taken before. There was no "introduced new line" to be seen anywhere.
 
benefit of what? Either they did it or didn't. Since they admitted it, they did it. So what is there doubt about?

GP didn't do any irreparable environmental damage which is what this entire thread is about. Or didn't you bother to read the OP and familiarize yourself with the subject matter before sticking your oar in?





Actually they did. The evidence is extensive...

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas

Your link doesn't show any of the alleged damage to the hummingbird image itself.

President unhappy Greenpeace activists left Peru with no charges after 8216 trampling 8217 UN heritage site National Post

The court declined to detain any of the Greenpeace delegation probably because the Peruvian government didn't have a case against them.

A Nazca court rejected a request from the attorney general’s office to detain the Greenpeace campaigners, Peru’s state news agency Andina reported Friday.





There was no damage to the hummingbird alleged. The allegation is they damaged the area near it. Which they clearly did. As far as your link go's the Court refused to detain anyone because they had no names so the Court rightly determined that holding all of them would be a gross over step.

These idiots are far from clear from prosecution as you so disingenuously claim.

This is from the link in your OP;

On Tuesday, culture ministry officials showed reporters aerial photographs of the damage, and said that when the Greenpeace trespassers snuck into the U.N. World Heritage site in the middle of the night, they marched single-file across the delicate volcanic rocks and white sand, leaving a path that has introduced a new line to the iconic Hummingbird-shaped figure.

That was the first thing I checked when I started reading this thread. I compared the image in your link to other images taken before. There was no "introduced new line" to be seen anywhere.





The whole area is a World Heritage Site nimrod, not just the images. Please note where it says a new line TO the Hummingbird. My gosh you're dense.
 
benefit of what doubt?

Peruvian court gave GP the benefit of the doubt too by dismissing the charges.
benefit of what? Either they did it or didn't. Since they admitted it, they did it. So what is there doubt about?

GP didn't do any irreparable environmental damage which is what this entire thread is about. Or didn't you bother to read the OP and familiarize yourself with the subject matter before sticking your oar in?





Actually they did. The evidence is extensive...

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas

Your link doesn't show any of the alleged damage to the hummingbird image itself.

President unhappy Greenpeace activists left Peru with no charges after 8216 trampling 8217 UN heritage site National Post

The court declined to detain any of the Greenpeace delegation probably because the Peruvian government didn't have a case against them.

A Nazca court rejected a request from the attorney general’s office to detain the Greenpeace campaigners, Peru’s state news agency Andina reported Friday.
hey smart ass, maybe you should read the OP. Seems your interest here is to defend the undefendable and doing a lousy job. Perhaps you should just stop!
 
GP didn't do any irreparable environmental damage which is what this entire thread is about. Or didn't you bother to read the OP and familiarize yourself with the subject matter before sticking your oar in?





Actually they did. The evidence is extensive...

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas

Your link doesn't show any of the alleged damage to the hummingbird image itself.

President unhappy Greenpeace activists left Peru with no charges after 8216 trampling 8217 UN heritage site National Post

The court declined to detain any of the Greenpeace delegation probably because the Peruvian government didn't have a case against them.

A Nazca court rejected a request from the attorney general’s office to detain the Greenpeace campaigners, Peru’s state news agency Andina reported Friday.





There was no damage to the hummingbird alleged. The allegation is they damaged the area near it. Which they clearly did. As far as your link go's the Court refused to detain anyone because they had no names so the Court rightly determined that holding all of them would be a gross over step.

These idiots are far from clear from prosecution as you so disingenuously claim.

This is from the link in your OP;

On Tuesday, culture ministry officials showed reporters aerial photographs of the damage, and said that when the Greenpeace trespassers snuck into the U.N. World Heritage site in the middle of the night, they marched single-file across the delicate volcanic rocks and white sand, leaving a path that has introduced a new line to the iconic Hummingbird-shaped figure.

That was the first thing I checked when I started reading this thread. I compared the image in your link to other images taken before. There was no "introduced new line" to be seen anywhere.





The whole area is a World Heritage Site nimrod, not just the images. Please note where it says a new line TO the Hummingbird. My gosh you're dense.

So you now use spurious insults because you cannot make your point in a "civil manner"?

Where exactly is this "new line TO the Hummingbird"?

Not seeing it in any of the articles I have read so far.
 

Your link doesn't show any of the alleged damage to the hummingbird image itself.

President unhappy Greenpeace activists left Peru with no charges after 8216 trampling 8217 UN heritage site National Post

The court declined to detain any of the Greenpeace delegation probably because the Peruvian government didn't have a case against them.

A Nazca court rejected a request from the attorney general’s office to detain the Greenpeace campaigners, Peru’s state news agency Andina reported Friday.





There was no damage to the hummingbird alleged. The allegation is they damaged the area near it. Which they clearly did. As far as your link go's the Court refused to detain anyone because they had no names so the Court rightly determined that holding all of them would be a gross over step.

These idiots are far from clear from prosecution as you so disingenuously claim.

This is from the link in your OP;

On Tuesday, culture ministry officials showed reporters aerial photographs of the damage, and said that when the Greenpeace trespassers snuck into the U.N. World Heritage site in the middle of the night, they marched single-file across the delicate volcanic rocks and white sand, leaving a path that has introduced a new line to the iconic Hummingbird-shaped figure.

That was the first thing I checked when I started reading this thread. I compared the image in your link to other images taken before. There was no "introduced new line" to be seen anywhere.





The whole area is a World Heritage Site nimrod, not just the images. Please note where it says a new line TO the Hummingbird. My gosh you're dense.

So you now use spurious insults because you cannot make your point in a "civil manner"?

Where exactly is this "new line TO the Hummingbird"?

Not seeing it in any of the articles I have read so far.




I suggest you watch the video link I provided.
 
Peruvian court gave GP the benefit of the doubt too by dismissing the charges.
benefit of what? Either they did it or didn't. Since they admitted it, they did it. So what is there doubt about?

GP didn't do any irreparable environmental damage which is what this entire thread is about. Or didn't you bother to read the OP and familiarize yourself with the subject matter before sticking your oar in?





Actually they did. The evidence is extensive...

Greenpeace action damages world heritage site PBSNewsHour Captured on Ustream PBS NewsHour Stream Noticias pol ticas

Your link doesn't show any of the alleged damage to the hummingbird image itself.

President unhappy Greenpeace activists left Peru with no charges after 8216 trampling 8217 UN heritage site National Post

The court declined to detain any of the Greenpeace delegation probably because the Peruvian government didn't have a case against them.

A Nazca court rejected a request from the attorney general’s office to detain the Greenpeace campaigners, Peru’s state news agency Andina reported Friday.








There was no damage to the hummingbird alleged. The allegation is they damaged the area near it. Which they clearly did. As far as your link go's the Court refused to detain anyone because they had no names so the Court rightly determined that holding all of them would be a gross over step.

These idiots are far from clear from prosecution as you so disingenuously claim.

Most of these tree-hugging dopes are looney-tunes.
 
I don't have to prove anything.They have been tied to hundreds of acts which have either directly damaged the environment or made en existing situation worse.

Your failure to prove your baseless allegation when called upon to do so means that you just seriously damaged your own credibility. Have a nice day.
Destroying the Inca lines is proof enough you fucking lunatic.
 
I don't have to prove anything.They have been tied to hundreds of acts which have either directly damaged the environment or made en existing situation worse.

Your failure to prove your baseless allegation when called upon to do so means that you just seriously damaged your own credibility. Have a nice day.
Destroying the Inca lines is proof enough you fucking lunatic.

Onus is on you to show which "Inca lines" have been "destroyed". Post the pictures.
 
I don't have to prove anything.They have been tied to hundreds of acts which have either directly damaged the environment or made en existing situation worse.

Your failure to prove your baseless allegation when called upon to do so means that you just seriously damaged your own credibility. Have a nice day.
Destroying the Inca lines is proof enough you fucking lunatic.

Onus is on you to show which "Inca lines" have been "destroyed". Post the pictures.
I'm still waiting on what the doubt was? Can't answer that?
 

Forum List

Back
Top