Well said. I'm interested in her observations of what she saw in Bosnia, not in her personal life. Marduk is just muck throwing.Harte wrote:Who cares what she believes, at least outside the boudoir?marduk wrote:err yeah sure doug
so youre saying that colette doesnt believe in aliens
that studying aliens hasnt been a big part of her life
and that she doesnt think she was abducted constantly throughout her life
do you actually know what youre talking about
or are you making this up as you go along
I'm sure Schoch has his reasons, and myself, I'm not exactly in any position to point fingers at anyone's foibles!
Of course, I not some reincarnated Sumerian lover meeting up again with my soulmate, so maybe Marduk is in a better position to judge than me.
Harte
dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
DougWeller
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:54 am
- Contact:
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
Director and Moderator The Hall of Ma'at http://www.thehallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
-
ReneDescartes
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:36 am
- Location: baal ,belgium
-
DougWeller
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:54 am
- Contact:
Actually I think this does relate to the thread, because part of Schoch's contribution to archaeology may turn out to be debunking Osmanagic's pyramid claims. And it may be, if I'm interpreting a rumour correctly, Ms Nukic's failure to convince Robert Schoch that there are pyramids in Bosnia that has led to her supposedly being in Osmanagic's bad books.
For the past 2 weeks it doesn't appear that anything has been heard from Ms. Nukic and Prof. Hodovic. Ms Nukic is the hydrologist working for the Foundation, and Senad Hodovic is the director of the Visoko Historic Heritage museum which holds the excavation permits. These two have been key players from the start, and Professor Hodovic supposedly introduced Osmanagic to Visoko Hill. But they no longer so far as I can tell have been seen publicly associated with the 'pyramids'. The Bosnian language version of the foundation website no longer shows Prof.
Hodovic as part of the "management" ("rukovodstvo"). There is a rumour from Visoko that at least Ms Nukic is no longer popular with Osmanagic. I think that these were the last of the 'expert-team' members working with the Foundation, and they seem to be gone.
If anyone has any other information, please let me know, and I'll do the same obviously.
Doug
For the past 2 weeks it doesn't appear that anything has been heard from Ms. Nukic and Prof. Hodovic. Ms Nukic is the hydrologist working for the Foundation, and Senad Hodovic is the director of the Visoko Historic Heritage museum which holds the excavation permits. These two have been key players from the start, and Professor Hodovic supposedly introduced Osmanagic to Visoko Hill. But they no longer so far as I can tell have been seen publicly associated with the 'pyramids'. The Bosnian language version of the foundation website no longer shows Prof.
Hodovic as part of the "management" ("rukovodstvo"). There is a rumour from Visoko that at least Ms Nukic is no longer popular with Osmanagic. I think that these were the last of the 'expert-team' members working with the Foundation, and they seem to be gone.
If anyone has any other information, please let me know, and I'll do the same obviously.
Doug
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
Director and Moderator The Hall of Ma'at http://www.thehallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
-
Guest
i am almost finished schoch's book 'pyramid Quest' and i do not see where he contributes much to the field of archaeology.
he has lots of theories and a few interesting points but other than that i am not sure.
i still have his third book to read but so far i am not impressed beyond his geological skills.
he has lots of theories and a few interesting points but other than that i am not sure.
i still have his third book to read but so far i am not impressed beyond his geological skills.
http://www.dailygrail.com/node/3536
Schoch comments on the fact that there is no pyramid in Bosnia.
Intro by Colette.
Schoch comments on the fact that there is no pyramid in Bosnia.
Intro by Colette.
-
Guest
will that settle things or just ignite Os' supporters to burn schoch in effigy?Osmanagic and I were apparently seeing different things, perhaps viewing an entirely different world
also it seems to be a dig with lots of blinders on:
maybe things around bosnia will settle down now and real archaeology will be able to take over.Osmanagic and others who worked with and for him insisting that this or that feature can never occur in nature, and thus must be artificial and human-made, versus me finding a perfectly reasonable geological explanation for each of the same features
Thanks for the link to Schoch's comments
it's like reading an autopsy report
it's like reading an autopsy report
Last edited by stan on Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The deeper you go, the higher you fly.
-
Guest
i have finished the book and will post his conclusions tomorrow. i want to see if these problems are over with before placing a serious post on the board.
the one thing that bothered me though was he spent too much time in magic, mysticism, and mysteries and not enough time on the pyramids themselves. he waited till the appendices to talk about them which to me was a waste of time and paper.
the one thing that bothered me though was he spent too much time in magic, mysticism, and mysteries and not enough time on the pyramids themselves. he waited till the appendices to talk about them which to me was a waste of time and paper.
-
Guest
here is some quotes from the last chapter of the 'Pyramid Quest' which give schoch's opinion about the great pyramid and sphynx. taken from pages 204-6:
"The biggest and most common mistake made in attempting to unravel the mystery of the great pyramid is to assume that it is but one stucture built at one time for one purpose."
"Not that our understanding is complete. There is much about the great pyramid we do not underdstand and may, in fact, never fully comprehend."
This picture begins with time. What we know as the great pyramid was built not all at once, in a single historical episode, but in stages across a long span of prehistory and history."
"I believe the evidence shows that the mound that underlies the greatpyramid and was incorporated into it as a part of the structure's foundation began serving as a sacred site no later than 5000 b.c and possibly as early as 7000 b.c"
"Use of the mound for ritual purposes, such as sacred astronomy, almost certainly dates tothe time when the first structures were erected on the giza plateau--namely the core body of the sphynx and the sphynx temple.
"The next round of construction occurred in the middle of the fourth millenium b.c. in the predynastic period, centuries before Menes brought the two lands together."
The standard explanation is that the barriers were meant toprotect khufu's mummy from grave robbers. i doubt this explanation, though, simply because there is little reason to believe thatthe great pyramid was intended primarily--or even secondarily--as a burial site."
in reading this book of his,my opinion of schoch has gone down as i see him bordering the fine line of archaeology and hancockism. he may be right abut the age of the sphynx but i am doubting his conclusions about the great pyramid. i will read his other book, ' voices of the rocks' before making a final decision but i do not think he contributes much to archaeology, except when he uses his expertise in geology.
"The biggest and most common mistake made in attempting to unravel the mystery of the great pyramid is to assume that it is but one stucture built at one time for one purpose."
"Not that our understanding is complete. There is much about the great pyramid we do not underdstand and may, in fact, never fully comprehend."
This picture begins with time. What we know as the great pyramid was built not all at once, in a single historical episode, but in stages across a long span of prehistory and history."
"I believe the evidence shows that the mound that underlies the greatpyramid and was incorporated into it as a part of the structure's foundation began serving as a sacred site no later than 5000 b.c and possibly as early as 7000 b.c"
"Use of the mound for ritual purposes, such as sacred astronomy, almost certainly dates tothe time when the first structures were erected on the giza plateau--namely the core body of the sphynx and the sphynx temple.
"The next round of construction occurred in the middle of the fourth millenium b.c. in the predynastic period, centuries before Menes brought the two lands together."
The standard explanation is that the barriers were meant toprotect khufu's mummy from grave robbers. i doubt this explanation, though, simply because there is little reason to believe thatthe great pyramid was intended primarily--or even secondarily--as a burial site."
in reading this book of his,my opinion of schoch has gone down as i see him bordering the fine line of archaeology and hancockism. he may be right abut the age of the sphynx but i am doubting his conclusions about the great pyramid. i will read his other book, ' voices of the rocks' before making a final decision but i do not think he contributes much to archaeology, except when he uses his expertise in geology.
-
Guest
well it seems i am the only one interested in discussing schoch buti will post this one and see what happens.
'Voices of the rocks' is by far his best book and he doesn't get sidetracked into wingnut theories but actually for the most part stays to the topic. he does make some good observations whichi will quote below, but on a whole, i think he is over-rated especially when he leaves his specialty and expertise. here is what he has to say on pgs. 50 & 51:
"In the end, the physical evidence stands. based on what we know, the great sphynx of giza was constructed soewhere between 7000 and 5000 b.c."
"The arguments advanced to support the 2500 b.c. dating of the sphynx and attribute it to Khafe are ad hoc ideas invented to protect an established chronology."
"Mark Lehner told the New York Times, 'If the sphynx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization? Where is the pottery shards? People during that time were hunters and gatherers. They didn't build cities.'" (I have a few choice words for him)
"Or have we, in the assumed superiority of our own culture, arrogantly written off an ancient, vanished people different from ourselves, yet sophisticated in ways we do not understand."
this last one seems to be his best statement of all three books and probably hits the nail on the head concerning our attitude about the past civilizations.
obviously i give more credit to the ancient societies and do not think of them as illiterates or monkeys just hanging around waiting to die. they were all given tghe same brain as modernman thus it stands to reason that they would explore, create, build (cain built a city thus lehner is off the martk) and actually do things we tend to reserve for our selves and the 19th to 21st centuries.
i think it is unfair and wrong to paint the early civilizations as stone age neanderthals who who did nothing but scratch themselves while sitting around a fire grunting out a few sounds for communication.
such thinking does reflect a superiority complex and an arrogance that is usually misleading and full of agendas other than seeking the truth. plus with their selective criteria it is hard not to see how researchers can come to such false conclusions.
schoch says on pg. 54:
"When most Egyptologists are presented with a hypothetical dating of the great sphynx tothe 7000-5000 b.c. period, the point immediately to the lack of phyusical evidence indicating the presence of a civilization capable of supporting such an effort."
it is the latter part of the quote that i want to address at this time. the questionshould be 'why'. Why is there a lack of physical evidence? obviously, you know my perspective on this and it is a valid one as it explains such lack of findings.
to draw conclusions based upon this lack of evidence without footnoting mitigating factors leads one to the present problem of superiority and arrogance.
it is entirely possible that schoch is right, which doesn't contradict or subvert the biblical records thus an early date is only a problem for those who wish to maintain their own superiority and identity.
'Voices of the rocks' is by far his best book and he doesn't get sidetracked into wingnut theories but actually for the most part stays to the topic. he does make some good observations whichi will quote below, but on a whole, i think he is over-rated especially when he leaves his specialty and expertise. here is what he has to say on pgs. 50 & 51:
"In the end, the physical evidence stands. based on what we know, the great sphynx of giza was constructed soewhere between 7000 and 5000 b.c."
"The arguments advanced to support the 2500 b.c. dating of the sphynx and attribute it to Khafe are ad hoc ideas invented to protect an established chronology."
"Mark Lehner told the New York Times, 'If the sphynx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization? Where is the pottery shards? People during that time were hunters and gatherers. They didn't build cities.'" (I have a few choice words for him)
"Or have we, in the assumed superiority of our own culture, arrogantly written off an ancient, vanished people different from ourselves, yet sophisticated in ways we do not understand."
this last one seems to be his best statement of all three books and probably hits the nail on the head concerning our attitude about the past civilizations.
obviously i give more credit to the ancient societies and do not think of them as illiterates or monkeys just hanging around waiting to die. they were all given tghe same brain as modernman thus it stands to reason that they would explore, create, build (cain built a city thus lehner is off the martk) and actually do things we tend to reserve for our selves and the 19th to 21st centuries.
i think it is unfair and wrong to paint the early civilizations as stone age neanderthals who who did nothing but scratch themselves while sitting around a fire grunting out a few sounds for communication.
such thinking does reflect a superiority complex and an arrogance that is usually misleading and full of agendas other than seeking the truth. plus with their selective criteria it is hard not to see how researchers can come to such false conclusions.
schoch says on pg. 54:
"When most Egyptologists are presented with a hypothetical dating of the great sphynx tothe 7000-5000 b.c. period, the point immediately to the lack of phyusical evidence indicating the presence of a civilization capable of supporting such an effort."
it is the latter part of the quote that i want to address at this time. the questionshould be 'why'. Why is there a lack of physical evidence? obviously, you know my perspective on this and it is a valid one as it explains such lack of findings.
to draw conclusions based upon this lack of evidence without footnoting mitigating factors leads one to the present problem of superiority and arrogance.
it is entirely possible that schoch is right, which doesn't contradict or subvert the biblical records thus an early date is only a problem for those who wish to maintain their own superiority and identity.