It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bosnian Pyramid Update

page: 20
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
What is happening?

Are they all gone on vacations?




posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
What is happening?

Are they all gone on vacations?


Nop,

they are digging.

Here are some pictures of stuff they found on location they call Moon Pyramid.






posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
did they find the pavement or did they lay the pavement?

Have they any idea whats in the tunnels yet?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by vietifulJoe
I believe that this was posted here before.

This letter from Dr. Zahi Hawass is very interesting. I am thinking to send an email to SCA just to validate its origin.


The Hawass letter is genuine (and was published, remember, in a journal. We'd have heard screams from Hawass if it was made up.


Here is copy of fax from Egyptian Embassy from Sarajevo where they promised to send two experts during summer of this year. Letter is dated 8/3/06.


Apparently a number of sources are questioning it. Here's an article on it -- I can't read it, but maybe you can? I can puzzle enough to see that there are questions about it being genuine. Other sources say that the fax format is not correct for an embassy transmission.
bhdani.com...


Those two experts are the one who said that it is primitive pyramid, but apparently they are not working on the same team with Dr. Zahi, as their statements are contradicting each other.




IMHO it is very unprofessional from Dr. Zahi to give any comments without visit of location, and that is one of the reason I personally doubt origin of this letter. But you never know. He might have his reason to say so, same as Mark has his reasons to spent so much time to disrespect Osmanagic.

Because, as he says clearly, it's not a pyramid. You see natural formations and a few manmade structures. Pyramids aren't made up of a haphazard set of layers of (from one section) tiled floor, dirt, cobblestone rubble and dirt, large limestone blocks, cobblestone rubble and dirt, and more dirt.

Pyramids are made up of regular blocks of material of the same size and shape. Pyramid builders don't switch from one material to dirt and then to a layer of gravel... if we built pyramids or houses or skyscrapers or even dirt homes like that, they'd collapse on us in a strong rain.

Hawass doesn't have to go there to see that it's not a pyramid... the layers of dirt (one foot or more) between the stone layers say very clearly that it's not manmade.

Rose is angry and only one of many scholars who are angry over this. There are some interesting sites on the hill, as everyone agrees. But they're being excavated with THIS equipment -- and possibly being crushed and discarded by this same equipment: www.piramidasunca.ba.../PICT1156.jpg
(as you can see, that's official photos of the digging equipment from the official site.) When you go in with something like that, you destroy evidence.

There's no evidence he's even sifting the dirt (so what's later done with his dirt piles will be evidence that's simply scrambled... like taking a whole museum of artifacts, losing the tags that identify it, and throwing them all into a big heap.)

He's destroying good archaeological sites.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Pyramids are made up of regular blocks of material of the same size and shape. Pyramid builders don't switch from one material to dirt and then to a layer of gravel... if we built pyramids or houses or skyscrapers or even dirt homes like that, they'd collapse on us in a strong rain.


Byrd,

I'm not sure that statement is entirely accurate. For centuries, different civilizations have built on top of old structures several times. Take the findings in any area of Israel, Egypt, or South America as examples. In almost every excavation of a dwelling site, there have been multiple floors to the structure, made by people over several generations. This lends credence to the notion that the pyramids could have been built in many different ways. Just because we have one way of building something doesn't mean that that's the ONLY way that it could be built.

For example, one of the South American pyramids (name illudes me, sorry) is actually composed of several other pyramids, updated over time. There's space between the different layers of the pyramids, where most likely, the silt that was packed in between them was washed away over the course of the generations following it's construction. True, it's not very stable, but it still stands. This is one example of the evolution of a civilization of people, and should serve as a marker for anyone else looking later that these people were very innovative for their era.

Maybe the silt between the different layers was used as a cushion to prevent the whole thing from cracking up over time due to earthquakes. Have they found any evidence of reeds of any kind packed in the silt between the layers of rock? If so, that would mean that they were re-enforcing the pyramid as it was being built because they didn't think that the structure would hold up, much like the Bent Pyramid of Egypt.

Just a few thoughts.

TheBorg



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy
did they find the pavement or did they lay the pavement?



My thoughts exactly. Some of the other 'paving' has looked remarkably fresh to my eyes too.

But it may just be an illusion.

Those latest pictures clearly show ripple marks though....



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I don't have much time to translate that article in BH Dani (Bosnian Magazine), but it questions couple things about document that I posted on the site. First is the time fax was send (3:15 AM, when Ambacy does not work) and then no English translation which supposed to be standard on documents.

If I find more about this, I'll let you know.

Dr. Smailbegovic is also sceptic about pyramid, but he is sure that there is something there, most likely remains of first two cities of Bosnia. (there are some sources that those cities supposed to be located around Visoko)



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
I'm not sure that statement is entirely accurate. For centuries, different civilizations have built on top of old structures several times.

Yes, that's certainly true!


Take the findings in any area of Israel, Egypt, or South America as examples. In almost every excavation of a dwelling site, there have been multiple floors to the structure, made by people over several generations.

Multistory dwellings were usually not added onto because that'd make them unsafe. They built multistory units like we do today, finishing it in one pass (as a general rule.) They also took houses that were falling down, tore them down, and then built on that site again... so it's really multilayered and not multistoried.


For example, one of the South American pyramids (name illudes me, sorry) is actually composed of several other pyramids, updated over time. There's space between the different layers of the pyramids, where most likely, the silt that was packed in between them was washed away over the course of the generations following it's construction.


They did it by re-surfacing the building. There wasn't a mound of dirt placed over the building and a new pyramid or whatever built that encompassed that mound of dirt and the original building.

Think what that would look like for a minute.

Let's imagine we built a pyramid and buried it in dirt and put another pyramid on top of it. In fact, to make it more of a parallel, let's say that we added several layers of dirt and gravel before we finished putting a second pyramid on top of it.

You wouldn't bother to layer in your dirt in layers that were inches thick and had thin horizontal layers of rock running through it en.wikipedia.org...:MoonPyramid.jpg . Natural processes do that but humans don't. Humans don't drag in thousands of metric tons of gravel to place it in layers in dirt structures.



Maybe the silt between the different layers was used as a cushion to prevent the whole thing from cracking up over time due to earthquakes. Have they found any evidence of reeds of any kind packed in the silt between the layers of rock? If so, that would mean that they were re-enforcing the pyramid as it was being built because they didn't think that the structure would hold up, much like the Bent Pyramid of Egypt.


Oh, there's undoubtedly plant material in the layers (Cretaceous era fossils, modern grass and other plants in the dirt), but given his excavation techniques we won't ever hear about it. When you're excavating with bulldozers and picks (which he is), then you lose all the evidence.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Oh, there's undoubtedly plant material in the layers (Cretaceous era fossils, modern grass and other plants in the dirt), but given his excavation techniques we won't ever hear about it. When you're excavating with bulldozers and picks (which he is), then you lose all the evidence.



Did I just hear you right? Are there Cretaceous fossils embedded in that soil? If so, how did they get there in between the layers?

Bare in mind that I'm still thinking this is a pyramid, mind you. If that's true, and this apparent structure actually is a pyramid, it'd be the oldest one we have on record, right? That would rewrite history. I SO hope that's the case. I love nothing more than seeing history having to be updated because of new evidence.

TheBorg



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
Did I just hear you right? Are there Cretaceous fossils embedded in that soil? If so, how did they get there in between the layers?

Bare in mind that I'm still thinking this is a pyramid, mind you. If that's true, and this apparent structure actually is a pyramid, it'd be the oldest one we have on record, right? That would rewrite history.


Even if this were a man-made pyramid and there were Cretaceous fossils in the soil, I really don't think that this suggests that the pyramid is over 65 million years old! Is that what you're suggesting??

Although judging by some of Osmanagic's past work I wouldn't be at all surprised if he came to the conclusion that Dinosaurs built them



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Even if this were a man-made pyramid and there were Cretaceous fossils in the soil, I really don't think that this suggests that the pyramid is over 65 million years old! Is that what you're suggesting??

Although judging by some of Osmanagic's past work I wouldn't be at all surprised if he came to the conclusion that Dinosaurs built them


Initially, yes I was assuming that to be the case. However, after much thought, I think it could just as easily be a simple case of the people moving the soil with said fossils in it to the site. That would indeed explain it all.

TheBorg



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
On areas with many fossils (I live in one) its common to see fossils used in houses and walls instead of rocks, as in these areas (at least here) rocks are a little scarce.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg

Originally posted by Byrd
Oh, there's undoubtedly plant material in the layers (Cretaceous era fossils, modern grass and other plants in the dirt), but given his excavation techniques we won't ever hear about it. When you're excavating with bulldozers and picks (which he is), then you lose all the evidence.



Did I just hear you right? Are there Cretaceous fossils embedded in that soil?


Er, no. I typed it badly. The limestone has Cretaceous fossils in it (and possibly Jurassic or Devonian.) There's shots of limestone that's clearly made up of layers of fossilized clams -- huge slabs of it, too big and irregular to be human transported items (and if you're building something, you don't build it out of irregular shapes. )

BTW, another sign that it's nature-made and not manmade is that all the stone layers are in sequence. If it was manmade, they'd have brought the stone in from a quarry and the YOUNGEST stone (stone at the top of the quarry, which they reached first) would be on the bottom and the oldest would be on the top.



[edit on 20-7-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Unless they were incredibly meticulous builders, which is possible, but highly unlikely. Nevermind, I take that back. It's impractical. I'm still waiting on the final verdict though. Excavations are still ongoing, right?

TheBorg



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
You guys may or may not want to check out the latest web published claims:

www.bosnianpyramid.com...


This should help the thread go a little further.

Personally, I think Osmanagic is working hard here. When the carbon dating comes back its gonna be a whole new set of arguments here.....



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
Personally, I think Osmanagic is working hard here. When the carbon dating comes back its gonna be a whole new set of arguments here.....

They first have to show that what they are carbon testing is man-made, otherwise it is meaningless. Why aren't they testing any of the artifacts they have found? Oh yeah, they haven't actually found any (excuse my sarcasm, it's not aimed at you newtron, but the people running this "research"). Some enormous civilisation built a "valley of pryamids" but somehow left no other trace of themselves? Good cleaners?

To be honest that whole lack of artifacts thing does bother me a bit. If you dig up anywhere in Europe for long enough you will start to find the detritus of past societies - old coins, arrow heads, spent cartridges from WWI, bits of pottery etc ect etc. I cannot understand why the are not reporting digging any of this up - especially considering there was once some kind of medieval fort/city at the top of the hill there should be stuff everywhere. Either:

1 They really aren't finding much as they are digging with bulldozers and pick axes.

2 They are finding lots of stuff but it doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived notions of a 12,500 year old pyramid building civilisation.


On a seperate note the remote sensing expert, Dr Amer Smailbegovic, whose thermal images we have looked at before has left the project saying the hills are entirely natural:



What you can see on Pljesevica (the slabs) is what we call orthogonal fissures made by the stress of the geomechanic accomodation. [...] Even if there are some rare places which are really "anthropogenic" (man-made), there are very well founded indications ... that the entire hill of Pljesevica is nothing else than an anticlinal

[This quote is a translation and can be found here: www.bosnian-pyramid.com... along with the link to his origninal quote.]

He also doubts any serious scientist will join the work now, as Osmanagic has stigmatised the whole project.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25

When the carbon dating comes back its gonna be a whole new set of arguments here.....


Actually, it reveals a remarkable degree of ignornance.


He also believes that a cement-like substance was used to bind the blocks together. The Institute’s analysis of the connective material used to bond the blocks showed that calcium hydroxide was present the construction of both pyramids – the binding materials had a 97% chemical similarity on each site. Bešlagić said that this proves that “the builders knew about oxidized connective material.”

Further tests are underway to prove that whether or not the connective substance is handmade and the materials will be carbon dated.


You can only carbon date carbon compounds .....



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

You can only carbon date carbon compounds .....


True, however it does actually seem like you can use carbon dating on ancient lime based mortars (so I have just disovered anyway) due to it absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere:



The quicklime is slaked with water to produce building lime (calcium hydroxide, the source of whitewash and plaster), which absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it sets. Unfortunately, most lime samples contain impurities in the form of incompletely burned limestone fragments or particles. Because this limestone derives from fossil carbonate deposits, even small levels of contamination will make the sample appear far too old when subjected to 14C dating

So it is possible, but also extremely tricky and 3 different samples could yeild 3 widely different results. It looks like something that would never stand up on it's own, but only as a part of a suite of tests and analysis to provide another clue to an building's age.

This article goes into detail about all the different ways of dating mortar:

www.buildingconservation.com...

It seems that Osmanagic et al should be using some of these techniques to find out if the mortar is actually mortar, and not a naturally occuring substance.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Hawass surely is one of the most annoying guys in archeology!

I wish someone would give him a slap...

Is it not he who has blocked all attempts made at looking into the chamber (that suposedly exists!) under the great sphinx?!

What cracks me up the most is scientists, sceptics and believers are all continuely getting it wrong and all having ago at each other even tho they are all in the same boat... we generally know f~ck all about anything most of the time, people lie and manipulate results in their favor

as Bill Hicks said everthing we know has been learnt..... if you had devoated your life to egyptology and have been taught and tested on established concepts and obtained a first with honours, then are you gonna let new concepts destroy the (only) theories they know! its the same with all science and religon - peoples beliefs continuely edit all the information we are given (whether its believers/skeptics/scientests etc)

I have seen several interviews with hawas apearing, and he never ever gives his opionions without bias (or without some kind of verbal personal attack!).....
So what happens? some alternative historians begin giving there "radical" new therory and do their best to back it up..... but because they dont have the neccesary qualifications we rubish there claims......
How come in the real life-work place a degree means nothin, and in my experience usually indicates lazyiness!
3-4 years of partyin with a lot of info forced down their throats only means that the person in question is a good student, nothin more, we trust doctors with our lifes, they still make mistakes,

i supose my point is hawass is the embodiment of all that is wrong with archeology, stuck in his ways, even when geologists give him their findings he dismisses it, though archeology is such a hit a mmiss subject he believes the theory's handed down to him by other scientests are true and unchangeable, let us not forget that most translations, findings were made by Victorians and Napolionic France, hardly the most trustworthy archeologists,

Ps this is my first post and i know im touching on egypt! so please go easy on me!



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris the watcher
Hawass surely is one of the most annoying guys in archeology!

I wish someone would give him a slap...

Is it not he who has blocked all attempts made at looking into the chamber (that suposedly exists!) under the great sphinx?!


You may be annoyed by Hawass, but I don't think you can back any of this up with actual evidence. Hawass has allowed several digs under the Sphinx, and several more occured before Hawass got his job. There's been no evidence found there of any "secret chamber," though tunnels have been found under the Great Causeway that presumably lead in that direction. These were "discovered" by Hawass, though the locals (many of them) already knew about them - children used to go swimming in the pools of water found in these tunnels.

I believe if you spend a little time looking into your wild claims, you'll find that most of them are based on channeled information and on the "trance induced" clairvoyance of Edgar Cayce - a hit and miss (mostly miss) psychic of the early 20th century.

Also, the claims of a chamber found that Hawass won't let them dig are basically resulting from hard feelings voiced by pseudohistorians that had several times requested permission to dig under the Sphinx in areas that have already been excavated in the past.

Surely you don't suggest that Hawass, whose main job is the preservation of Egyptian antiquities, should allow any excavation in any place by any group that applies to dig?


Originally posted by Chris the watcheras Bill Hicks said everthing we know has been learnt..... if you had devoated your life to egyptology and have been taught and tested on established concepts and obtained a first with honours, then are you gonna let new concepts destroy the (only) theories they know! its the same with all science and religon - peoples beliefs continuely edit all the information we are given (whether its believers/skeptics/scientests etc)


Not so. Science is continually in flux. Your problem, and the greatest attribute of scientific rationalism, is that science actually requires some evidence for any new paradigm.
This evidentiary requirement is diametrically opposite to the attitude of religion. It's just pure hyperbole to group the two schools of thought together as you so blithely do here.


Originally posted by Chris the watcherI have seen several interviews with hawas apearing, and he never ever gives his opionions without bias (or without some kind of verbal personal attack!).....
So what happens? some alternative historians begin giving there "radical" new therory and do their best to back it up..... but because they dont have the neccesary qualifications we rubish there claims......


I have a different opinion of Hawass. Though I agree that he can be annoying.

Regarding these "alternative historians," it sounds like you've read some of their stuff. Let me ask, have you actually looked at both sides of any "evidence" these frauds have foisted on you? ATS is a decent place to start. Use the search function, and look for posts by Byrd, using whatever subject you are wondering about. I think you may be surprised to find out how far people like Hancock, Sitchen, von Daniken, Cremo and the others will go in their misrepresentations of what we actually know about the ancient world.


Originally posted by Chris the watcherHow come in the real life-work place a degree means nothin, and in my experience usually indicates lazyiness!
3-4 years of partyin with a lot of info forced down their throats only means that the person in question is a good student, nothin more, we trust doctors with our lifes, they still make mistakes,

You're probably right about a Bachelor's degree. However, when you start talking about Master's and PhD's, you're getting into some really dedicated people.

A guy like Graham Hancock (former journalist - BS degree - no archaeological training, schooling or experience at all) can spend a few weeks in a nice air-conditioned library digging around, and come up with some stupid "theory" that attempts to demolish the work of individuals that spent decades bent over in the desert, brushing dirt off stone with a toothbrush, just hoping to find a few shards of broken pottery.

Excuse me if I lend more credence to the people that are actually willing to do the required work.


Originally posted by Chris the watcheri supose my point is hawass is the embodiment of all that is wrong with archeology, stuck in his ways, even when geologists give him their findings he dismisses it, though archeology is such a hit a mmiss subject he believes the theory's handed down to him by other scientests are true and unchangeable, let us not forget that most translations, findings were made by Victorians and Napolionic France, hardly the most trustworthy archeologists,

Please provide some evidence, any evidence of Hawass "dismissing" any findings presented to him by any scientists, be they geologists or others.

Also, regarding translations, I don't see the point. Egyptian heiroglyphics were (finally) translated by Champolion a long time ago, true, but what difference does that make? Do you think he got it wrong?

And hey, in archaeology, findings are findings. What does it matter when they were found? In the Victorian Age, practically nothing at all was known about Egyptian history. Since then, using these findings, both the findings from a century ago, and new ones, we have been able to piece together some of the history of Egypt, a thing that wasn't really even contemplated before Champolion. Sure, it's patchy, yeah, it's piecemeal and incomplete. I guarantee you that Hawass would readily admit this.

If the history of Egypt was complete and absolutely authenticated, there would be no Egyptologists, all the Egyptologists would have to get jobs as Museum tour guides!


Harte




top topics



 
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join