reply to post by Osmanagich
For others...review PAGE 5
of this thread to understand what Mrs. Osmanagic is getting at in her response to me. Now we shall continue the
Ah, yes finally what I've been waiting for...the source itself (or as least as close as I can get to it). Mrs. Osmanagic it is with the greatest
respect that I will attempt to criticize you and hope to not be met with the same slander as I was previously. My sources are academics in the field
and I believe your refutation needs to be along those lines and not in your honest opinion. Do not criticize my sources unless you have some
counter-evidence supplied by an academic institution not affiliated with your own. I will admit being slightly wrong about your husband's thesis
topic but I am no doubt correct about the FIELD in which he received his doctorate (SOCIOLOGY and not ANTHROPOLOGY). For this misstep I apologize and
hope you can note the point I was trying to make in relation to this. The topic of his thesis was not my issue, it was the field in which it was
awarded. I.E. It was not in anthropology, the field under which most archaeologists garner their degree.
Scientific projects frequently gain support from the outside community through grants and peer review. This is how they usually acquire their funding
(at least in non-profit cases). If you're citing yourselves only then this is inappropriate and an unworthy defense Ad-Hoc. Let me reiterate, you
need to give me a source in conjunction with your statements, not your opinion.
I guess first we can start off with comments about the last glacial maximum. It appears that I do stand corrected on the issue of temperature and
glacial covering in your region of Europe. Perhaps I was too hasty in my analysis of the situation. Here's the facts:
In southern Europe, across most of the Mediterranean zone, temperatures were perhaps 8-10 degrees lower than at present in both summer and winter
(Frenzel 1992 a,b). It is interesting to note, however, that frost was not severe enough to wipe out relict populations of the endemic Mediterranean
date palm, Phoenix theophrasti, from the warmest parts of Crete and the SE Aegean (Rackham, in press)
Lake level evidence from southern Europe (Harrison et al. 1996) gives the paradoxical picture of moister-than-present or only slightly drier
conditions during the LGM and late glacial; the wider evidence (e.g. palaeobotanical evidence, slope wash sediments) shows that in fact the
'ecological' aridity (experienced by plants) was actually much more severe than today. This contradiction within the evidence may relate to the
patterns of rainfall; for example very few sudden storms, concentrated in winter when the plants were not growing (Prentice et al. 1992), or (very
speculatively) the drought-effects of lower CO2 on vegetation despite high overall rainfall. Lake levels suggest that in fact the most arid phase of
all was reached around 15,000 14C y.a, shortly before the intial interglacial warming occurred.
So, I stand corrected on the inhabitability of the region but still make great strides in my logic (academic source posted after this paragraph to
support my next claims). I understand that you all are trying to rewrite history and that simply restating it is not disproving your mission.
However, I must use this as evidence against the building of pyramids during your supposed time period. I understand that the paper I submit covers
the Middle Paleolithic period (300,000 BC - 30,000 BC), but is relevant in that it sets up the events to come in the Upper Paleolithic Era (the exact
time frame you described 50,000 BC - 10,000 BC roughly).
This paper describes the beginning of the formation of stone tools and essence of language as we know it today. We're actually talking about AFTER
this time period when we were at the point of time when neanderthals had just gone extinct and modern Homo Sapiens had just began to fluorish (Upper
Paleolithic Era). We were still struggling to survive and had not yet even established well-known agricultural feats which enabled us to farm at the
time these supposed pyramids were built (Well-known fact...look up Upper Paleolithic Era on any search engine if you do not believe me). I find it
difficult to ration with the construction of gigantic megastructures before we could even manage to feed ourselves efficiently as a species. WE ARE
TALKING PREHISTORY HERE. Like I said, you're trying to rewrite history, so these "facts" may be debunked and do not necessarily serve as proof
counter to your point. This is of course given that these hills in Bosnia are actually pyramids. I am simply stating well-known facts as the world
has them written.
Homo Sapiens of the Upper Paleolithic/Late Stone Age was quintessentially modern in appearance and behavior. Precisely how this transformation
occurred is not well understood, but it apparently was restricted to Homo sapiens and did not occur in Neanderthals.
In the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia, or the Late Stone Age as it is called in Africa, the archaeological signature stands in strong contrast to that
of the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age. It was characterized by significant innovation:
-a remarkable diversity in stone tool types
-tool types showed significant change over time and space
-artifacts were regularly fashioned out of bone, antler and ivory, in addition to stone
-stone artifacts were made primarily on blades and were easily classified into discrete categories, presumably reflecting specialized use
-burials were accompanied by ritual or ceremony and contained a rich diversity of grave goods
-living structures and well-designed fireplaces were constructed
-hunting of dangerous animal species and fishing occurred regularly higher population densities
-abundant and elaborate art as well as items of personal adornment were widespread
-raw materials such as flint and shells were traded over some distances
However, I guess these facts would be moot if it were to be proved by your group that a pyramid was, in fact, built in Bosnia. I simply state
these facts so that people understand the gravity of the claims which your husband is making
. He is accelerating the evolution of mankind
thousands of years by assuming these pyramids were built at the infancy of our species. I have already established facts why I do not agree with your
husband's pursuit of this excavation thoroughly on PAGE 5
of this thread. These reasons include lack of qualification, lack of evidence, and
destruction of buried artifacts located within the mountain.
Most importantly though, I would like to discuss your funding. Who is funding your project?
Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Loses Funding
The Ministry of Culture of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina wants to put an end to the funding of the project “Bosnian Pyramid of the
However, Culture Minister Gavrilo Grahovac decided to shut down the source of funding ... because this was not a serious archaeological research
[project] . The credibility of the people who collaborated on the project was “unreliable” and they have published their findings that were kept
away from the experts.
The scientific research team has proved that the hill Visocica is a natural geological formation and its relief is the consequence of natural tectonic
Please refute the claims in bold with clear citation of findings and academic support of your claim (any fashion of support will do).
You go on to simply state that you are funded and I understand your sources may be confidential. However, you must understand that any single person
can fund any project and that personal funding does not constitute institutionalized research. Privatized research is for individual gain and not the
greater good of the scientific community as is most institutionalized research. This is because institutionalized research is almost always done for
a non-profit goal (hence-the backing of an already profiting institution). Institutionalized funding allows for grant distribution from the
scientific community through scientific review!
I see a great lack of results that are equally questionable in their integrity (source below).
I am sorry if you are offended by this, but a wealthy source of information has lead me to this conclusion, not my emotions. Again, You need to give
a publication or citation regarding finds that is not self-reported and self-published, for this is not an AUTHENTIC CLAIM. It has gone through no
peer review system
and is no more substantiated than me claiming that the Earth is flat simply because I deem it to be so. True information is
gained through many people evaluating a source and coming to a conclusion, and not by one person evaluating a source and submitting a conclusion
before having others also evaluate the evidence. That's how a court of law works isn't it? Questions of authenticity are reviewed by peers to come
to a common conclusion known as the truth. Isn't that how science should work as well in order to be fair and justified? Please give me your
thoughts and take your time analyzing this post. I understand it is quite lengthy, but feel it necessary to adequately explain my point of view
without causing personal offense.
edit on 22-11-2010 by TheChemist1 because: Grammar/Punctuation/Word Choice/Additional Source
edit on 22-11-2010 by
TheChemist1 because: (no reason given)