Bosnian Pyramid Update

page: 30
12
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
3 years with no peer reviewed papers and no evidence either architecturally or artifactually of any kind

thats a big fat zero then





posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I'm sorry that I didn't have time to read through this thread. This could have already been pointed out, but the most recent issue of Archeology magazine totally debunked the Bosnian pyramid theory.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
3 years with no peer reviewed papers and no evidence either architecturally or artifactually of any kind

thats a big fat zero then



What are chances that scientists are going to accept a theory which contradicts the vasrt majority of what they think they know about histroy? none. That is not really a valid point. The peer review process should be called the sneer review process.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptik101
 


Perhaps it would help if Osmanagic undertook a proper archaeological dig, produced some results and wrote about it? Instead of moving a few bits of bedrock around to create what he things a pyramid should look like?

In terms of archaeological evidence, he will go down as having conducted the least successful dig anywhere in the world ever.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptik101
 


I am sure (in a personal way only, I do not know any scientist) that many scientists from different areas would be very interested in proof of a new, older, civilization capable of creating such a construction at the time this was supposedly made.

It would change many things, but I think it is wrong to think that all archaeologist, historians, sociologists, linguists, etc., etc., would not be delighted with a find like this.

Also, if this "alternative history" is being ignored (or worse) by "mainstream science" (whatever that may be), where are those scientists that are against "mainstream science"? In every science "branch" we can find scientists eager to find new, alternative proof of something, one of the reasons being that it could be the ticket to fame (and money grants) to them and their studies. That is why they try to build a strong case when they have a suspicion of a new, revolutionary theory, if they can convince enough people they can get enough money to keep on studying what they want.

I am not an archaeologist or a geologist, but looking at the area it does not look like those hills are pyramids (or even hills transformed in pyramids), they look natural, and one of the things that makes me think it it's the distribution of the vegetation. If this place was a pyramid or an artificially changed hill, the vegetation would not follow the same patterns as on the other hills around it, it would be different; this is one of the ways of finding buried ruins, photos taken from above show that the different vegetation that grows over underground rocks or over areas more recently covered with dirt trace the shape of those underground ruins/areas.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   


What are chances that scientists are going to accept a theory which contradicts the vasrt majority of what they think they know about histroy? none. That is not really a valid point. The peer review process should be called the sneer review process.


It all about evidence, science has shown an amazing ability to self adjust. Note the changes in scientific standards in the last 150 years. If peer review was meant to keep things from changing - it has failed miserably. What peer review does is ensures (in most cases) that the evidence is correct and no oversight has occured.

Osmie is a fraud



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Browsing during a different search, I found this rather interesting article (nothing spectacular, just interesting - and with good questions asked).

I haven't noticed the article on ATS so far, but it is a very long thread, so I may have overlooked it, and I apologise if the URL has been posted before.






[edit on 20-3-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Just reading the last page of this topic and noticed this post:

Originally posted by Skeptik101

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
3 years with no peer reviewed papers and no evidence either architecturally or artifactually of any kind

thats a big fat zero then



What are chances that scientists are going to accept a theory which contradicts the vasrt majority of what they think they know about histroy? none. That is not really a valid point. The peer review process should be called the sneer review process.


This is the type of post that makes me feel it is entirely pointless posting on this board sometimes. The original post clearly says that there is

"no evidence either architecturally or artifactually of any kind"

and yet the poster replying to this completely ignores this, attacks the part about no peer reviewed papers and then concludes through this attack that he is right.

He didn't even address the part about lack of physical evidence, and his debunking of the peer review papers was based entirely on his own oppinion of the science community.

This board is full of people like this that, instead of reading and addressing the whole post or topic, pick on one specific thing, sometimes even just attacking spelling and grammar, and then think that this has proved the other person wrong.

You have not proved him wrong, and you never will untill you consider the whole post, not just one part.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I once saw a documentary about the excavation there.
And the thing that impressed me the most - beside the natural beauty of the place - was the happy, energetic mood of the local people, as far as I could see from the footage, and this (heavily paraphrased) statement: "They are happy and feel alive again because their homeland which was once a synonym of war and carnage can now be well-known for something else, more inspiring."

In other words, because they were "building" a new identity for Bosnia and for themselves, transcending the old bloody one.

No harm there.
After all, all identities are, by definition, constructed.

Has anyone read the article I posted?
Any comments?

(The above is not a rhetorical question, BTW.)






[edit on 22-3-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


Yes, I read it, and it only confirmed what I have read in other occasions.

Thousands of people are depositing their whole confidence in the future on something that does not exist. Sad, but true (as the Metallica song
).



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Yes I read it also

An ATS thread in real life!

It would appear to be a massive fraud



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
This made or made not be fact. But it from a dream I had about a colonial of Atlantis that settle around Illyria call Dementica. They name later was change to Dalmentia by the Romans. They might had something to do with the building of the Bosnian pyramid.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by kennethmd]

[edit on 22-3-2008 by kennethmd]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kennethmd
 


And what is the relation to this non-existent Bosnian pyramid?

Are you sure you are in the right thread?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


If you think my post don't belong on this tread. I remove part of it or all of it.
I change my post instead.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by kennethmd]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Vanitas: Thanks for the article. Interesting reverse-conspiracy (a conspiracy initiated by the fringe-side in collaboration with the Board of Tourism).


Kennethmd: Dont worry about it (but you will get more responses in a thread about Atlantis. This is a thread about the Bosnian Pyramids).



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kennethmd
 



I don't think so.

But, you know... after all I've read, seen and experienced, I know better than to off-handedly dismiss anything by now.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 
My post was different then the post I have writen now. I had change the post that had writen. I had edited it.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 

I never said it was fact. I said it made or made not be fact. Meaning it haven't been proven. It only from a dream.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kennethmd
 


And I never said that you said it was a fact.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 
Ok.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join