Page 12 of 77
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:31 pm
by Guest
Use them freely.
doesn't make sense.
I'm just glad to see you post anything that isn't related to the stupid bible!
i have posted many responses that weren't related to the Bible, problem was they usually were attacking your precious theories, or showing how false they really are.
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:53 am
by Ciko
reply
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:33 am
by Guest
As far as I'm concerned, this picture should kill any speculation on this hill being man-made-
Ciko wrote:
How old would it need to be for a hill to form around it on only
two sides?
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:50 pm
by Minimalist
Lucius Flavius Silva built this ramp up the side of Masada in less than a year.
Why not wait and see what the excavators come up with?
reply
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:05 pm
by Guest
Yes, but that was man-made.
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:11 pm
by Minimalist
You are assuming that this is not.
Four, 45 degree angle slopes, does not seem 'natural' to me but I am willing to wait for the results of the dig. There are enough people there that the results should be definitive.
archaeological dig
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:49 pm
by stan
Press release:
Sam Osmanagic, world's greatest authority on
archaeology, has just released photos of a new
archaeological tool which will enable him to complete
the excavation of Europe's first Pyramids --the Pyramid of the Sun, the Pyramid of the Moon, and the Pyramid of the Dragon--in only three weeks!
Osmanagic says the self-propelled machine should
arrive in Visoco by next Tuesday at the latest.
[/url]
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:14 am
by Ciko
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:44 am
by Guest
with that many people hanging around watching, they could put themto work and clear this thing in no time.
so far i am not convinced it is a pyramid. instead i think it is hill fortifications. the pyramids in egypt & mexico, seemed far more elaborate in their construction that what we see here.
then with all those people crawling all over the thing, how do they expect to find any artifacts to help date it or explain its use?
in some of the photos the rocks look natural, split apart by earthquakes or whatever. one set looks like an old road not a structure. i think it is wishful thinking to conclude that it is a pyramid.
till proven differently, i thinkit is a natural hill with lots and lots of rock. some of which were dragged there for protecting the townsite.
reply
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:57 am
by Guest
Agreed. You can wait till Doomsday for more evidence, but that's only going to prove two things:
a)It's a natural hill.
b) How gullible some people are.
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:35 am
by Guest
Minimalist wrote:
Four, 45 degree angle slopes, does not seem 'natural' to me
Where? Have a look at the hill from this angle-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4912040.stm
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:43 am
by Frank Harrist
The most natural slope is 45 degrees. If you pile dirt, or rocks, or gravel, or shit high enough the angle of the slope will naturally be 45 degrees, so that proves nothing. It may indeed be some kind of structure, but they haven't proved it yet.
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:10 am
by gunny
Tool Marks ---Where are the bloody tool marks?
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:18 am
by Minimalist
how do they expect to find any artifacts to help date it or explain its use?
Exactly what artifacts do they have for the Giza pyramids?
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:06 am
by Frank Harrist
Minimalist wrote:how do they expect to find any artifacts to help date it or explain its use?
Exactly what artifacts do they have for the Giza pyramids?
The pyramids themselves plus about 2 hundred structures surrounding them and the cemetary for the workers. I can't name any specific artifacts other than that, but I know there are lots of them. Statues, cartouches, sarcophagi. You seen any of that from Boznia?
