Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The C14 radio carbon dating confirm: The Bosnian "Moon" Pyramid was build 10,000 years ago!

page: 10
84
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


On simple science matters and the like, wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable and reliable source.

But I would be interested in hearing where and when they used to carbon date dinosaur bones? Was it before or after they stopped using tree rings to determine climate conditions during the Cretaceous?


And back on subject: if ever any evidence is forthcoming to suggest that these hills have been altered by humans other than during known periods of occupation then I am sure we'll all be very interested. But so far, all we have is evidence that people have lived on and around the hills of thousands of years and left various remains. And that the hills themselves are comprised of varying layers of sedimentary rock. Which we knew all along.

They so far appear to be no more altered than thousands of other hills around the world on which earthworks have been built or platforms dug or mines and quarries excavated. Including my local hills, the Malverns.




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Including my local hills, the Malverns.


Ah! but, Essan, don't you know that the Malverns, as well as Schiehallion, are pyramids too!


Irna



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

you seem to base your knowledge on wikipedia much.
there are other sources and articles that support what the man is saying. I'm sure you can google it.

I know wiki has its limits, but rather than steer you towards the multitudinous scientific papers explaining the process in technical terms, I thought I was doing you a favour by offering an adequate synopsis. Forgive me my assumption. For narrower discussions of radiometric dating, I would suggest that you check the references cited on the bottom of the page.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


and then they just leave and forget? If I was an expert in these areas and someone showed me something I considered to be a major find, i'd be actively drumming up support for the further research... why is this not happening?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Irnadupont
 




I was up near Schiehallion back in May - from this angle looks like someone's been building an extension on one side





(and seriously, just looking through a few photos, it's surprising how many hills look pyramidal from certain directions!)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Did you read the article in you link?

It clearly states that this is a pyramid.


Conclusion 1. At Visočica we have tolerable scenarios, similar to, the local ones at Mexico, China
and elsewhere. Thus the pyramid hill Visočica is a new introduction to the local scenarios of
pyramid science.
Conclusion 2. Because Visočica has small deviations from the classical format as some of the
Egyptian pyramids do; I believe that Visočica is justified for a pyramid nomination.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ceetee
 


They are continuing excavations at the site.

Try reading the links provided, you might actually learn something.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Did you read the article in you link?

It clearly states that this is a pyramid.


Conclusion 1. At Visočica we have tolerable scenarios, similar to, the local ones at Mexico, China
and elsewhere. Thus the pyramid hill Visočica is a new introduction to the local scenarios of
pyramid science.
Conclusion 2. Because Visočica has small deviations from the classical format as some of the
Egyptian pyramids do; I believe that Visočica is justified for a pyramid nomination.


Yes...it does. And it also declines to state that it is man-made. He uses a bunch of verbiage to press, though mildly, that it is geological in origin. Please read the whole report in its context.

Or not. Believe what you want...it changes nothing as you have no investment in the outcome anyway.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



I already stated a page or two ago, that it may be a hill that has been shaped into a pyramid, which is what is being claimed.

From what someone else posted, Egypt's pyramids might also have hills in their interior.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I already stated a page or two ago, that it may be a hill that has been shaped into a pyramid, which is what is being claimed.


Or indeed, a hill that looks vaguely pyramidal from one direction on which people have lived and worked over the past few thousand years?

Anyway, you accept it is not a wholy manmade structure.


From what someone else posted, Egypt's pyramids might also have hills in their interior.


No. The Great Pyramid has a slight rocky core, but not a hill.

Maiden Hill in England is a much better example of a hill that has been altered by man then anything in Bosnia (or Egypt)






top topics



 
84
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join