Also, the very article you quote does the polar opposite of what you claim. It does not discredit but actually support my "armchair archaeologist" theory (which wasn't even a theory, just an example of how things COULD be misappropriated due to archaeological evidence generally being scarce):

Their results have established that Monte Sierpe wasn’t actually the handiwork of the Inca, but of an entirely different kingdom that controlled the area before they arrived. The researchers believe the rulers of this kingdom designed the Band of Holes to serve a purpose that was vital to their success and that the Inca later expropriated it for use as a tribute depot.

Arguably I've only gotten haflway through the article as it's 2:30am here, but that very statement seems to suggest that said "discrediting" didn't really happen.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

I added the link within a minute of posting and long before you replied. You must be on another instance to not have seen the change before you replied.

BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU MADE THE ASSERTION THAT SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG. IT IS YOUR JOB TO DEFEND YOUR ASSERTION, NOT MINE.

You are like Ben Carson declaring that, "Pyramids were built to be granerys, prove me wrong."

but that very statement

No, because there would be evidence of something military related or military adjacent. They said there was nothing.