Archaeologica.org

I asked YOU to define "brief and partial". YOU were the one who stated his visit had been "a 15 minutes tourist tour".

stellarchaser wrote:

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:

stellarchaser wrote: So tell me: Mr. Harding gave his assesment of Visocica site based on what? Please tell me that. From his brief and partial (his words) visit published in the news, I really can't see how he could make any serious assesment, exept that he came just to say his private opinion about whole thing, formed before his trip to Bosnia.

Define " brief and partial"? If you can't then, stop making stupid comments like this-

stellarchaser wrote:I never heard in my life that such high ranking scientists are making "secret" trips and doing evaluation based on 15 minutes tourist tour

"However, Harding, who said he visited the site briefly on Thursday and looked at the same stone blocks Barakat said were man made, said on Friday they were a natural formation."

"Harding did not visit other sites in the area which Osmanagic and Barakat say are further evidence of the existence of pyramids in Bosnia, such as a tunnel leading to the top of Visocica or a stone pavement made of geometrically regular shaped pieces."

"Harding said that although he had not seen the stone pavement, by looking at photographs, "I would not believe it to be archaeological. It looks to me as a natural stone pavement." He did not visit the tunnel either."

There it is, black on white. About the whole adventure, please read here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_ ... ontroversy

So please could anyone tell us based on what Mr.harding gave his assesment of the Visocica site?

C'mon RK, I did my bit. His visit was abviously "brief" and "partial"; you are proffessional archeologist. You must know magic tricks of the trade: how to make proffesional assesment during brief and partial visit to archeological site.

you need spend only 1 second beside a pile of shite to determine it is in fact shite.

eratoh wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote: Define " brief and partial"? If you can't then, stop making stupid comments like this-

"However, Harding, who said he visited the site briefly on Thursday and looked at the same stone blocks Barakat said were man made, said on Friday they were a natural formation."

"Harding did not visit other sites in the area which Osmanagic and Barakat say are further evidence of the existence of pyramids in Bosnia, such as a tunnel leading to the top of Visocica or a stone pavement made of geometrically regular shaped pieces."

"Harding said that although he had not seen the stone pavement, by looking at photographs, "I would not believe it to be archaeological. It looks to me as a natural stone pavement." He did not visit the tunnel either."

There it is, black on white. About the whole adventure, please read here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_ ... ontroversy

So please could anyone tell us based on what Mr.harding gave his assesment of the Visocica site?

C'mon RK, I did my bit. His visit was abviously "brief" and "partial"; you are proffessional archeologist. You must know magic tricks of the trade: how to make proffesional assesment during brief and partial visit to archeological site.

you need spend only 1 second beside a pile of shite to determine it is in fact shite.

Correct. And that is why we are going to keep that shite away of our country.

who is this we? the lollipop guild?

I think you can say 'shit' here.

So, anyone? We are not experts, nor proffessional archeologists. We don't know special archeological methods. Enlighten us. Mr.Harding gave his proffessional assesment based on what? It's a simple question.

Tell us, so we could trust Mr. Harding as you trust him.

stellarchaser wrote:So, anyone? We are not experts, nor proffessional archeologists. We don't know special archeological methods. Enlighten us. Mr.Harding gave his proffessional assesment based on what? It's a simple question.

Tell us, so we could trust Mr. Harding as you trust him.

perhaps you should take your head in for a de-shitting...

eratoh wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:So, anyone? We are not experts, nor proffessional archeologists. We don't know special archeological methods. Enlighten us. Mr.Harding gave his proffessional assesment based on what? It's a simple question.

Tell us, so we could trust Mr. Harding as you trust him.

perhaps you should take your head in for a de-shitting...

Is that your best?

stellarchaser wrote:So, anyone? We are not experts, nor proffessional archeologists. We don't know special archeological methods. Enlighten us. Mr.Harding gave his proffessional assesment based on what? It's a simple question.

Tell us, so we could trust Mr. Harding as you trust him.

Years of practical experience I'd guess. Since neither you nor I have seen what he saw, it's hard for us to judge whether that is enough or not.

i'm still not comfortable saying shit [oh there you made me say it].

stellarchaser wrote:So, anyone? We are not experts, nor proffessional archeologists. We don't know special archeological methods. Enlighten us. Mr.Harding gave his proffessional assesment based on what? It's a simple question.

Tell us, so we could trust Mr. Harding as you trust him.

"However, Harding, who said he visited the site briefly on Thursday and looked at the same stone blocks Barakat said were man made, said on Friday they were a natural formation."

He says he went there, saw some of the blocks that Barakat says are man made, and saw that they were natural. That would mean that Barakat doesn't know if a rock is natural or man made, even if he stays there 15 hours a day. So, the rocks that look like natural stones and that lots of geologists by just looking at the photos say that are natural, BUT Barakat says are man-made, are probably NATURAL.

Yeah we could think it's Barakat's word against Harding's word, but in fact is Barakat's word against Harding's, the geologists from Tuzla (who did on-site probes and tests), and many more that have taken a look at the pics and said that they were natural.

This probably means Barakat is wrong. In science you're never 100% sure, but you can be 90% and I think that's the case.

Said that, I'd like to read a full report on Dr. Harding's visit and a good description on what he saw etc. I agree with you on that.

DougWeller wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:So, anyone? We are not experts, nor proffessional archeologists. We don't know special archeological methods. Enlighten us. Mr.Harding gave his proffessional assesment based on what? It's a simple question.

Tell us, so we could trust Mr. Harding as you trust him.

Years of practical experience I'd guess. Since neither you nor I have seen what he saw, it's hard for us to judge whether that is enough or not.

Ok Doug, let it be so. Years of experience. I presume you are archeologist, if not at least scientist in some field. Could you tell me please are there some other archeological ways of assessment, beside experience. If you wanted to asses some site, or somebody asked you to do assesment, which methods you would use, if any?

quote]

Years of practical experience I'd guess. Since neither you nor I have seen what he saw, it's hard for us to judge whether that is enough or not.[/quote]

Ok Doug, let it be so. Years of experience. I presume you are archeologist, if not at least scientist in some field. Could you tell me please are there some other archeological ways of assessment, beside experience. If you wanted to asses some site, or somebody asked you to do assesment, which methods you would use, if any?[/quote]

I'm not asking this out of provocation; experience is by no means immportant. But we saw that Mr.Harding misjudged origin of the pavement. pavement is obviously man made. So his years of experience failed in the case of pavement. That's why I asked, is there other archeological methods of assesment, because experience can fail us sometimes, and obviously is not 100% reliable.

stellarchaser wrote:
Years of practical experience I'd guess. Since neither you nor I have seen what he saw, it's hard for us to judge whether that is enough or not

Ok Doug, let it be so. Years of experience. I presume you are archeologist, if not at least scientist in some field. Could you tell me please are there some other archeological ways of assessment, beside experience. If you wanted to asses some site, or somebody asked you to do assesment, which methods you would use, if any?

I'm not asking this out of provocation; experience is by no means immportant. But we saw that Mr.harding misjudged origin of the pavement. pavement is obviously man made. So his years of experience failed in the case of pavement. That's why I asked, is there other archeological methods of assesment, because experience can fail us sometimes, and obviously is not 100% reliable.

the paviement is natural, your girlfriend is man made