Bosnian pyramids, Part II, no photos please!

Random older topics of discussion

Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters

Locked
Essan
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:16 am
Location: Evesham, UK
Contact:

Post by Essan »

GG wrote:they should stop working on the sun pyramid and fully concentrate on the moon pyramid
They should concentrate on excavating one specific site properly - instead of uncovering rocks and then moving straight on top somewhere else.

If those stones Ciko posted the picture of are really artifical paving then we need to dig trenches to determine the edge of the paving, and we need tp excavate under it to find out what, if anything, lies underneath. There is weeks of work to be carried out on that one spot alone.

You really would have thought they had someone who'd at least read a book on archaeology to help them by now ..... :roll:
Essan
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:16 am
Location: Evesham, UK
Contact:

Post by Essan »

Ciko wrote:can some archeologists and geologists explain this to me

conection material betwwen stone blocks as you can see it on this photos
Looks like decayed bedrock that has eroded along the outer edges of the beding planes.
Paul H.
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:42 pm
Location: Louisiana

Post by Paul H. »

Ciko wrote:can some archeologists and geologists explain this to me

conection material betwwen stone blocks as you can see it on this photos
The "connection material", between the sandstone beds, which Ciko talks about above is not "connection material". In some cases, this "material" between the sandstone beds is just a natural layer of finer-grained sedimentary rock, which is often interlayered within natural sandstone beds. As well documented in the published literature and observed by the Bosnian geologists, with who I corresponded, such interlayering of sand and finer grained sediments, as seen in the pictures posted by Ciko, is quite typical of fluvial and lacustrine sedimentary rocks like those, which comprise the local bedrock. In other cases, this material is soil, which has filled cracks that have opened up as the sandstone has weathered. Such crack fills can be cemented to varying degrees with calcuim deposits precipitated from local groundwater and within the weathering zone. The material filling joints is nothing more than a variable mixture of calcium deposits, which has precipitated from local groundwater, and sediment, which has infilltrated into and filled open joints. Such so-called "connection material" can found in outcrops all over the world filling joints between blocks of naturally jointed bedrock and between individual layers.

What I would like to have explained is:

1. if these are manmade blocks, why do their thickness, size, and shape and the orientation of the joints separating them vary so greatly?

How wildly and widely variable the thickness of "blocks" within different layers can be is seen in three layers shown by the photograph at http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/gallery/ ... 600mat.JPG . For example, judging form the photograph lower layer appears to be about 6 times thicker than the middle layer and twice as thick as the upper layer.

and 2. Why do the ripple marks on the surface of difference blocks within a layer all have the same orientation?

An example of such ripple marks can be seen in the bottom righthand photograph at http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5116/materialii6.jpg . Close up pictures of the stone "pavements" from this and other "excavations", which I have acquired, show individual ripple marks, which match up perfectly across the joints, on adjacent blocks . The only sensible way to explain this is that the layers, exhibiting such ripple marks were broken up in place. This possibly happened when these layers were folded after lithification during the formation of an anticline, of which the pseudo-pyramids of the Moon and Sun are part.

Paul H.
Guest

Post by Guest »

to play devil's advocate here for the sake of argument andif we are talking about the picture posted tues.:

1.
if these are manmade blocks, why do their thickness, size, and shape and the orientation of the joints separating them vary so greatly?
the only time man made items are exactly the same is when man uses machinaery to manufacture their product. when left to hand tools it is very difficult to produce the exact same shape each time, especially when there are a numberof blocks tobe produced. i don't think even the stone blocks of the pyramids are uniform and exactly the same each time.

as to the joints being non-uniform, it is a matter of a simple construction fact, weight upon dirt makes the dirt settle causing the uniformity to lose its shape and appear ragged, torn, cracked and so on. over this amount of time, plus the weight of the dirt upon these stones, it is a sure possibility that the earth underneath 'settled' causing the pattern to lose its uniform shape.

2.
Why do the ripple marks on the surface of difference blocks within a layer all have the same orientation
they could be meticulous builders and annal. i have worked with some people like that, who need everything to line up just right or it is not a good construction job.

i am not saying it isn't natural or that these blocks were placed by anyone other than the known builders (romans and so on) for we do not see enough of this path to determine what else lies around it. a better angle would help and more dirt excavated would be an enormous help to get a clearer picture of what is there.

this pathway would make sense constructively speaking if there were more construction surrounding it, such as structural foundations, other pathways and so on. it doesn't make sense if it is all by itself and would have to be concluded as natural if that is the case.

my question is, what is the normal or average size of a natural field of these stones? does this fit in with theat norm or is the width and breadth a lot larger when encountering such natural formations?

too little is exposed and the angle plus coverage of the picture is too limited to draw any good conclusions from it and too many supporters of this dig have a habit of doing this as they seek to justify their theory.
stan
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by stan »

Sorry, Arch, but therehas been so much BS associated with this
Visoko affair, I don't feel we need any "devil's advocates" on the subject.
That's what Os was. :roll:
The deeper you go, the higher you fly.
marduk

Post by marduk »

i thought he was the Devils special Envoy
Sulejman Tihic is the devils advocate
:lol:
Guest

Post by Guest »

i am just pointing out that there is more than one explanation for the blocks to be there not that they prove a pyramid but that they could have been placed by an ancient civilization (not Os') that is more recent and more careful in itas construction methods.

i think a blanket and offhand dismissal via pictures alone, and bad angles as well, is just too arrogant to consider without reviewing more facts and possibilities.

in no way do i consider Os' theory true or even credible, but then with known construction on site, a natural formation isn't the all enveloping answer either.
stan
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by stan »

I am willing to wait for good archeological reports from the site.
I think most of the alternatives have already been discussed, but
not put into a coherent form, but I don't think we can do it here.
THere just isn't enough detailed information out there yet.
The deeper you go, the higher you fly.
Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle »

We'll probably have to wait a good month or so for Schochs' report. I don't think there will be any doubt about it then.
GG
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: USA

Post by GG »

someone show me that these 'natural formations' are happening in other places of the world...show me some examples of this
CHEAH NIG
Guest

Post by Guest »

someone show me that these 'natural formations' are happening in other places of the world...show me some examples of this
i think that has been done quite extensively throughout the two threads on this forum. there are many pictures posted which answer your request
Ciko
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:19 am

Post by Ciko »

latest from moon pyramid

Image

Image

Image
Guest

Post by Guest »

ciko--you are beating a dead horse---wait till schoch gives his report
Ciko
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:19 am

Post by Ciko »

DougWeller
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:54 am
Contact:

Post by DougWeller »

And if that was dug up by non-archaeologists, if there is anything archaeological there a lot will have been destroyed. I hope that isn't what happened.
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Director and Moderator The Hall of Ma'at http://www.thehallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Locked