stellarchaser wrote:[quote="alrom
Geologists have identified most of the rocks at the pictures of the excavation as natural, and have given reasons for it.
And the geologists that went there and did tests concluded that it was a natural hill.
But geologist who is there now for a whole month Mr. Barakat, confirmed that some of the stone blocks are definitely man-made, and that we're talking about, quote: "most probably primitive pyramid". And you must admit that there is a difference between evaluation done based on pictures from hundreds of miles away, and between expertise on the spot, in a period of one month.
Mr. Barakat spent there a month, and I don't think that he would be giving such statements just like that. And I really don't think that Egyptians would send another scientist as they did, if Barakat had sent previously negative report back to Cairo. So things are not that simple.[/quote]
Yeah true, there are some geologists that say that the hill is natural (some of them by looking at pictures, some others by doing tests at the hill), and there's Barakat that defends the man-made origin of Visocica. The pro-pyramids say that the geologists that did those tests before the excavation began did a sloppy work, the skeptics say that it's Barakat who's doing the sloppy work as a geologist. The reasons for doubting of Barkat's claims are that he's done big mistakes before, (the case about mistaking fossilized sand dollars with bones) and that the pictures show obviously natural stones that have been classified as man-made (well we don't have a written statement by Barakat about those stones, but we can suppose that if they're being posted on the Foundation website it's because they're thought to be man-made).
And hey guys don't start ugly discussions about your primary schooling. It's completely unrelated to pyramids or archaeology
