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

page: 6
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
In the duration of this thread I've wrapped my head around some pretty heavy support for the Bosnian pyramids. The dudes 5 part lecture and the last vid posted got me thinking. I also see a lot of people saying they're nothing more than hill's...Fair enough but I gotta tell ya, the argument for is way stronger than the argument against at this point. I conclude this by way of the fact I noticed the "Hillers" have brought nothing to the table other than some "They're hills I tell ya and nothing more!" This smell's of opinion to me. There must be a good video someplace of a debunking team going to Bosnia and pulling this research apart?




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

I have yet to see any evidence that these are not pyramids


Assuming the definition of a pyramid is a manmade structure (as opposed to a pyrmaidal shaped hill) I have seen no evidence that they are pyramids - and I've been following the story since it first broke.

The biggest clue is that there are comprised of natural bedrock - same as all the surrounding hills.

Then again, are these pyrmaids?



Is this manmade?



Or this?



What we have in Bosnia are hills on which peope lived, built dwellings and dug tunnels. But despite thousands of years of human association, they are still what geoogists call hills.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by silverbullett
 


Yeah I bet you did. I also bet the people who create/hype these stories up for revenue wish you could afford a holiday as well.

Pyramids made by mud and grass and poop, wow, the builders of that pyramid must have been bright?

Pyramids in Egypt is a different ballpark all together.

edit on 7-6-2011 by ShadowZion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by minkmouse
There must be a good video someplace of a debunking team going to Bosnia and pulling this research apart?


You want a Youtube video to show you the light?

Really?

Why is it that, these days, people only care about information if it comes in video form?

Kandinsky did a pretty good job of explaining what these "pyramids" actually are in this post. Of course, it requires some reading, which is why most "believers" probably didn't bother, but those who are on the fence should take notice of it.

And that's also quite an impressive list (and there are MANY more) of well respected archaeologists who have even gone as for as signing a declaration stating their belief that this is a hoax.

They don't need to make Youtube videos debunking it, they have more important things to do with their time, things like studying ACTUAL archaeological sites. But yes, if you really want to find the truth, it's not hard. Do some digging and it will all become clear.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by minkmouse
In the duration of this thread I've wrapped my head around some pretty heavy support for the Bosnian pyramids. The dudes 5 part lecture and the last vid posted got me thinking. I also see a lot of people saying they're nothing more than hill's...Fair enough but I gotta tell ya, the argument for is way stronger than the argument against at this point. I conclude this by way of the fact I noticed the "Hillers" have brought nothing to the table other than some "They're hills I tell ya and nothing more!" This smell's of opinion to me. There must be a good video someplace of a debunking team going to Bosnia and pulling this research apart?


Rather keen observations there.

I believe that the reason this is rejected outright without clear logical reasoning is because it now shatters our paradigm of "history" which turns out to be a load of bunk.

The truth of reality, true history, which just simply exists no matter what ANYONE SAYS, is right there in front of us. All of our books, were completely unaware of massive portions of data that is critical to piecing together our past and figuring out what the hell is really going on here after all.

It appears possible that there are organized forces working avidly against the entire human race globally to deceive us about all kinds of things that we haven't even realized yet. A human only knows that which they have experienced, and can 'trust' those whom inform them if they choose. But beyond a generation or two we really simply lose track of 99% of the actual depth of data available.

We as a civilization are completely utterly ignorant of our past, and our institution's of schooling have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to our history in the long term. Within that few hundred years it's a huge unknown, and it grows as the time duration increases.

Perhaps it is now time we humans begin to rely on our own individual common sense and logic rather than bowing on our knees to the omnipotent "degreed" talking heads. Do not let their speculations distract you from the facts of what your own very eyes can see.


The obvious is right here. Staring at us. Waiting for us to admit we were wrong all along.

I love it.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
I thought C-14 couldnt date that far back?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
There are so many things about the past that need updating yet very few scholars seem keen to do this although they admit privately its in dire need. The hostility of any 'professionals' to the open-minded investigations done by a few who did not acquire tunnel vision through university taught truth and funded academia I think require our support.

So what if civilisaton started other than Africa? The 'what', is for those of us in Europe, that our education was overseen by the church and its vested interest. The further you take back man's accomplishments the bigger the clash with biblical history and the creation. Its got around because of the idea of homo this or that toddling out of Africa, because these 'homo' can be explained as either a sub or separate species to man - once you get to homo sapiens sapiens its a different ball game.

I am very lucky where I live because apart from the Jurassic coastal areas I use to visit my son in a village near Stone Henge. His flat looked out to the edge of Salisbury Plain and from it I could see this fabulous hill. What amazed me was that it rose very high and then looked as though someone had taken a knife and sliced very carefully the top right off. I've even aligned a spirit level to the line of this hill and it is flat. When I have asked about the hill either the normal residents have lived with it so long its igorred or I was told by someone from the local history society it was natural. To the left of this hill we have another of similar height but which looks like a hill and the Scouts camp up there. This is an area where we have crop circles and as I mentioned in an earlier post the Glastonbury Zodiac is fairly close by to the West and we have Stone Henge to the East.

I am sure we still have remnants of the fantastic landscape artistry but there is very little to help ordinary people like myself identify some of the markers that would indicate man's handwork.

To Arkon,

I have read about Thom's megalithic yard which tells us that this is a universal measurement. I expect the pyramids in Bosnia have been measured and I wondered if they were fashioned using this measurement in some way. I know its easier when constructing a pyramid from scratch to select your measurements but don't know if, when construction is an adaption of the landscape, this universal measurement would feature except as stated on an earlier post where diagrams of the size of base and its relationship to the height were carefully worked out? If this measurement has indeed been used, I would have thought it was yet another reinforcement for the view that these mounds are indeed very ancient proof of man's capabilities

One last thing I would like to mention is that my country was under Druidic care prior to Rome's arrival and Christianity.
I listened to a lecture where an interesting point came up about Druid values. They believed land was free and allocated three lines per family etc. This was a major reason why both the churchmen and the Romans wiped them out. Neither of these parties believed peasants had any rights to free land. If you think of the old monastic wealth and through Rome our royalties wealth which is based on land ownership - its another very good reason for changing such nice ideals which gave no credance to greed and acquisitions. Interestingly the Druid carried a measuring stick Men with these measuring sticks are spoken of in the bible - there they are angels, who ever they were they were fascinated by measurments.













a mention



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 
So come on give us the facts that you know it's all "hooey" (whatever that means?)

Ok, a bunch of intelligent rebuttal has already been posted. I can get to work with Google and provide all the info needed...again. However, if you haven't absorbed what's already here, are you going to read any information that I post? Or does it simply represent 15 minutes that I'll never get back. As far as 'hooey' goes...do I have to lead your fingers to a search engine? It's easier to find than this is to type.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Lynda101
 


Amen, sister. Amazing what is lost to the past, eh?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I have a few questions to help clear things up for me. I am not trying to prove or disprove anything; I just want to clear a few things up that I have questions about.

1) Can a pyramid shaped mound be called a pyramid if it naturally formed and not man made?
2) If a past group of humans inhabiting a place leave behind remains on a site that one is trying to carbon date for other reasons, wouldn’t this make the results inconclusive, even if it supported the theory that was being put forward?
3) Why do people believe that there is data being withheld by mainstream archeology about a site like this when they seem to be releasing more earth shattering discoveries than this would be such as the hobbits that a previous poster mentioned?

These are just a few of the questions I had regarding some of the statements I have read in this thread that I had questions about.
edit on 6/7/2011 by AlienCarnage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



I believe that the reason this is rejected outright without clear logical reasoning is because it now shatters our paradigm of "history" which turns out to be a load of bunk.


You dropped the 'P-bomb,' otherwise known as the idiot's calling card.



A human only knows that which they have experienced, and can 'trust' those whom inform them if they choose.


BS. Have you been to Australia or Ibiza? Have you been killed in war or bitten by a koala bear? These things exist regardless of whether you experienced them or not.



We as a civilization are completely utterly ignorant of our past, and our institution's of schooling have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to our history in the long term.


Muzzle, you aren't civilisation; there's no need to equate your own ignorance (AKA lack of knowledge) with the rest of the world. It's all yours and there's a cure out there if you choose to use it. For starters, why not read up on the history and different perspectives about the Bosnian hills/pyramids? I've posted a couple of interesting links in this thread, but if you're gonna use your 'common sense' and deny anything without personally experiencing it, I can't help but wonder how you've decided the 'pyramids' are real? Sounds like cherry-picking what you want to believe...

...or is that just my common sense talking? lol



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


I am no expert but I have enjoyed enormously reading through this particular thread. One of your questions reminded me of something I always notice when I am driving down through Cornwall, where they have done a lot of mining. Dotted around are these slag mounds which when I first saw them, reminded me of 'round ended' pyramids.

I mentioned this to a builder friend who told me that he has worked on very old houses there, where the walls have been so battered by the wind and natural age deterioraton, they literally bear little resemblance to the original lines. So it probably was not so outlandish for the edges to deteriorate and give a more rounded shape.

I do look forward to reading more about Bosnia and its archaelogy. One thing I have learned is nothing is cast in stone.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
I thought C-14 couldnt date that far back?

It's good to 50-60 KYA with the right sample.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



Assuming the definition of a pyramid is a manmade structure (as opposed to a pyrmaidal shaped hill) I have seen no evidence that they are pyramids - and I've been following the story since it first broke.


And yet you provide no evidence whatsoever for your claims.

Not one link to a debunker who has been to the sight, looked at the digs, and provides evidence that these are only hills that look like pyramids.


The biggest clue is that there are comprised of natural bedrock - same as all the surrounding hills.


If they built a pyramid, why wouldn't the build it from natural bedrock from nearby hills?

There is also the possibility that this was a hill that was shaped into a pyramid and developed as one large structure. That would be a smart thing to do.

Your bottom two pictures look like man made structures. The third picture looks very much like a wall built to shore up the hill.

Here is what natural cliffs look like.

www.hickerphoto.com...

Typically, you can clearly see the horizontal lines of the layers, and the vertical lines from erosion. Natural rock walls do not look like stacked stones, or large stones laid next to each other.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


I read it, and there is not one shred of evidence provided that these are not pyramids.

If you read such evidence, please post the quotes and links.

Like most debunkers you won't, because you are stating opinion as fact. You are not only able to provide facts to back up your claims, you can't even support your position with logic or reason.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Sounds more like your arrogance talking than common sense.

Your reading comprehension skills are terrible, you misconstrued everything that was said.

When someone resorts to slogans such as

the idiot's calling card
they only succeed at making themselves look like an idiot.

Do you seriously pretend that there are not many different groups who back specific versions of history to suit their own agenda?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 
I'll be very, very simple here...there are no 'Bosnian pyramids' in the sense of man-made pyramidal monuments constructed at any point in the past 10 000 years.

Sure, there might be 'agendas' in the archaeological community (they are humans), but it doesn't mean that pyramids exist in Bosnia...or even Australia. You've been shown links with alternative explanations, a statement by international scientists calling it a hoax and not one damn photograph that even looks like a man-made pyramid.

In spite of this, here you are implicitly suggesting that there are indeed 'Bosnian pyramids' and based on what? A simple dislike for accepted history?

I guess we'll have to politely agree to disagree on the subject. No doubt the world won't spin from its axis as a result. Have a great day!



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Essan
 



Assuming the definition of a pyramid is a manmade structure (as opposed to a pyrmaidal shaped hill) I have seen no evidence that they are pyramids - and I've been following the story since it first broke.


And yet you provide no evidence whatsoever for your claims.



A hill is a well defined natural prominence. Given that we are looking at well defined prominences, comprised of varying layers of natural bedrock, covered in soil and vegetation, and upon which humans have at various times built structures, what would you call them?

For more info on what a hill is (I guess you never took geography at school?) I suggest starting with wikipedia.


See also: irna.lautre.net...



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Your bottom two pictures look like man made structures. The third picture looks very much like a wall built to shore up the hill.



They are all 100% natural structures. The 1st picture is the Malverns, a range of hills near my home. Which look pyrmadia from some directions. The 2nd shows flat bedrock on the summit of Pen y Fan, the highest hill in South Wales and the third is a natural basaltic dyke on the Isle of Jura in Scotland.

The point being to show that natural rock structures can look manmade in some circumstances.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I will make this reply even more simple.

You don't know what you are talking about because you have never been there, and have yet to read anything by anyone who has been there to base you opinion upon.

Your whole opinion is based on faith in a system, that is acting more like a religion, than a group of scientists.





new topics




 
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join