Bosnian pyramids, Part II, no photos please!

[Paul H.]

Sorry, the pictures that you and Free Thinker gave as an example to be compared with pictures from Bosnian excavation I think doesn't apply in this case. You should find some example of the bedrock that is comparable to these pictures below. Also, If some people, including a few geologists geologists with PhDs, can continue to believe that the world is less 10,000 years old, I guess and geologist with 20 years of experience could make mistake too.

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/11060602/DSCF7317.jpg

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/11060602/DSCF7311.jpg

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/11060602/DSCF7307.jpg

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/11060602/DSCF7328.jpg

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/11060602/DSCF7287.jpg

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/100606 ... seca01.jpg

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/140606/bpm_s1_14.jpg

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/150606/pm_s8_4.jpg

Posting picture after picture of examples of jointed bedrock is not an effective way to convince people that the Bosnian "pyrmaids" are a real archaeological site. All you are doing is providing geologists like me with more material for future papers to be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, i.e. "Geoarchaeology", and argue for the so-called "pyramids" being nothing more than nature hills.. So keep the pictures coming. The more pictures, which you and others post to the Internet, the more data I and other geologists have to argue our case in future scientific papers and popular articles, which I and other geolgoists are working on about the Bosnian pseudopyramids.

(Note: I did a quick experiment. I emailed a few of the above pictures to a few geologists, whom I know, without telling them from where they came. None of them identified the pictrues as man-made stonework. A number thought that I was joking when I emailed them the source of the pictures and noted that people were serious in claiming that these pictures were man-made stonework. One geologist suggested that I write a paper, which I will not, with the keywords either "hysterical geology" or "hysterical archaeology" in the title. I think that he might have been inspired to start work on his own paper on the Bosnian "pyramids" for the The Journal of Irreproducible Results and nominate Mr. Osmanagic for an Ignoble Award when the results of his research are formally published. It would be interesting to do a formal and publishable poll by drawing from the membership of one of the geological societies, to which I belong.)

What Zagor and many supporters of the Bosnian pyramids do not seem to realize is that their pseudopyramids are the latest in a long line of what I call pseudoarchaeological sites. In fact, they are one of the commonest types of pseudoarchaeological sites, in which jointed bedrock has been misinterpreted by people, who are quite naive in their understanding of geology. These pseudoarchaeological sites include the pseudowalls of Rockwall, Texas; the pseudopavement of the Bimini Road; the Kaimanawa (pseudo)wall of New Zealand; the Phoenician Furnaces of Oklahoma. Just as jointed bedrock exists all over the world, people have confused it with man-made stonework all over the world. On the side, I have spent about eight years studying a number of alleged pseudoarchaeological sites claimed to the remains of megalithic sites, lost ice age civilizations, Atlantis, and so forth. I found that there a number of documented cases, where people mistake jointed bedrock for manmade stonework. The Bosnian pseudopyramid is starting to look like a spectacular example of how jointed bedrock can completely delude otherwise intelligent people when national pride, politics, and the personal charisma of a single person is involved.

From what I have seen, the Bosnian pyramids differ from sites in that the person promoting them has the charisma and political connections to get people excited about psuedopyramids, which consist largely of jointed bedrock. In case of the Bosnian pyramids, there is man-made Roman, Medieval, and other stonework on the hills. These unrelated structures, along with unrelated tunnels, graves, and other cultural remains have been carelessly mixed with the jointed bedrock to create a chimera, much like the Archaeoraptor, composed of unrelated pieces of natural features and man-made stonework.

An essay, which I wrote before I learned about the Bosnian pseudopyramids is "Are Straight Lines and Rectangular Blocks Always Man-Made?". This essay is found at:

http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,37 ... msg-370789

One my favorite pseudoarchaeological sites is the "Phoenician Furnaces" of Oklahoma. A nice discussion of it can be found in "A Phoenician Fortress and Furnace?" at:

http://www.viewzone.com/sender.html and http://www.viewzone.com/okla-news.html .

To see how complex jointed bedrock can look, look at the "whaffle rock" of West Virginia at:

http://www.jonesgeo.com/waffle.jpg ,

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ ... waffle.jpg ,

and

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ ... rshed.html

The Bosnians Stone Balls

Another likely example of Mr. Osmanagic and his experts being completely confused by natural geologic features in their ongoing excavations of the hills, which they believe to be man-made pyramids, are the "Stone Balls", which are discussed at length at:

http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/Archive_f ... Balls.html .

In part, their argument against the Bosnian "stone balls" being natural is based largely upon an explanation, which has been mangled by Mr. Osmanagic to point of being a parody that any conventional geologist would find somewhat amusing, of how the natural stone balls found in Mexican volcanic rocks are created. As discussed by Smith et al. (2001) and Stirling (1969), stone balls of Cerro Piedras Bola region of Mexico are natural objects, also found in volcanic rocks near Silver Cliff, Colorado; at Steens Mountain, Oregon; near Klondyke, Arizona; and in other volcanic regions. These objects are natural objects called "megaspherulites". Megaspherulites are spherulites, which are more than a few centimeters in diameter. Megaspherulites as large as 3.66 meters (11.2 feet) in diameter have been reported by Smith et al. (2001). The large stone balls of Ahualulco del Mercado, Jalisco state, Mexico, which Mr. Osmanagic misidentified as being man-made, are documented by published research as being classic examples of megaspherulites as discussed by Stirling (1969) and briefly noted by Smith et al. (2001). Smith et al. (2000, 2001) also demonstrate that Mr. Osmanagic is quite wrong about there being "nothing in our current understanding of history that explains the presence of these stone balls".

Instead of being "thrown out of" volcanoes, as Mr. Osmanagic misstated, geologists explain the formation of both spherulites and megaspherulites by the crystallization (devitrification) of vitreous (glassy) rhyolitic volcanic material, after it has been erupted as pyroclastic flows and while these deposits cooled to create either vitrophyre or welded ash flow tuff. This explanation clearly states that this type of stone ball, megaspherulites, did not exist at time of the eruption and, thus, could not have been thrown out of a volcano during an eruption as incorrectly stated by Mr. Osmanagic.

Cited and Other References About Megaspherulites

Smith, R. K., Tremallo, R. L., and Lofgren, G. E., 2000, Megaspherulite
growth: far from equilibrium crystallization. paper presented in Session
TS-29 How Do Magmas Solidify? II, "GeoCanada 2000 - The Millennium
Geoscience Summit" Meeting of the Canadian Society of Exploration
Geophysicists.

Smith, R. K., Tremallo, R. L., and Lofgren, G. E., 2001, Growth
ofmegaspherulites in a rhyolitic vitrophyre. American Mineralogist.
vol. 86, no. 5-6, pp. 589-600.

Stirling, M.W., 1969, Solving the mystery of Mexico's great stone
spheres. National Geographic. vol. 136, no. 2, pp. 295-300.

Tremallo, R. L., 1998, Late Eocene to early Oligocene megaspherulites
from a rhyolitic vitrophyre, Silver Cliff, Custer County, Colorado; their
mineralogy, geochemistry and petrogenesis. Unpublished Master's thesis,
University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, 156 pp.

Tremallo, R. L., Smith, R. K., and Lofgren, G. E., 1998, Late Eocene to
Early Oligocene megaspherulites From a rhyolitic vitrophyre, Silver Cliff,
Custer County, Colorado: Their Mineralogy, Geochemistry, and
Petrogenesis. Paper given at the Volcanology, Geochemistry, and
Petrology Session of the 1998 American Geophysical Union Annual
Meeting, Dec. 6-10, 1998, San Francisco, California.

Note: a 3 MB PDF version of smith et al. (2001) can be downloaded from

http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/AmMin/TOC/A ... 600_01.pdf

and the abstract can be found at

http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/co ... 86/5-6/589 .

In sharp contrast to the stone balls of Cerro Piedras Bola region, stone balls of Costa Rica consist of granodiorite and are clearly man-made origin. There is a complete lack of either any geological or archaeological evidence, which indicates any sort of cultural connection between the stone balls of Cerro Piedras Bola region and the stone balls (spheres) of Costa Rica as Mr. Osmanagic presumes. The claim that the same techniques were used to create stone balls in Costa Rica" and the "stoneballs on the Cerra Piedras Bollas hill" as offered by Mr. Osmanagic is completely false despite him having studied them personally in great detail. In addition, he is completely wrong about the Cerra Piedras Bollas and Costa Rican stone balls being composed of the "same material".

A detailed discussion of the stone spheres (balls) of Costa Rica can be found in: "Stone Balls of Costa Rica" at:

http://www.ku.edu/~hoopes/balls/intro.htm .

++ Concretions ++

Mr. Osmanagic and his experts completely ignore a vastly more common type of stone sphere (ball). These natural stone balls, which are found within sedimentary strata of Arkansas, New Zealand, North Dakota, and many other places, have nothing to do with volcanoes. Instead, these stone balls are concretions, which formed naturally by the local cementation of sediments into a spherical mass by the precipitation of either calcite, silica, siderite, dolomite or other minerals within the sediments enclosing them.

The presumption that the Bosnian "stone balls" must be man-made because of their spherical to quasi-spherical shape is soundly refuted by a number of pictures, which I have archived for my files, posted to one of the Bosnian pyramid web pages at:

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/news_i ... NewsID=101.

These pictures are:

1. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6901.jpg

2. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6900.jpg

3. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6895.jpg

4. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6887.jpg

5. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6886.jpg

The above pictures clearly show that the so-called "stone balls" are clearly embedded in the local bedrock as is characteristic of any natural concretion. Because of this, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept the interpretation that these are man-made spheres. If these are examples of the stone balls, which Dr. Aly Abd Barakat pronounced as being man-made, these pictures are clear evidence that he, like Mr. Osmanagic, is similarly confused about the difference between man-made and naturally formed stone balls. Pictures on the "Bosnian Stone Balls" also show well defined surface fractures, which are typical of the natural concretions, which form in sedimentary rocks.

These fractures can be seen in:

http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/images/Bo ... _Kugle.jpg and

http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/images/Bo ... Bosnic.jpg .

The same types of surface fractures can be seen in the cannonball concretions in:

http://nd.water.usgs.gov/lewisandclark/ ... etions.jpg

and the fractures in a Moeraki boulder at:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/547 ... 6169zWXlhm .

According to the 1970 1:500,000 scale geologic map of SFR Yugoslavia, the local bedrock around Mecevici and Ozimica consist of limestone, dolomite, sandstone, shale, and other sedimentary strata. The presence of sedimentary strata underlying this area raises the distinct possibility that the stone balls found in the area of these villages could very well be nothing more than natural concretions. Also, the lack of rhyolitic volcanic rocks in the area, as indicated by the 1:500,000 scale geologic map, indicates that the whole discussion about the Mexican stone balls not being natural in origin is nothing more than red herring argument, which completely ignores the much more realistic possibility that the Bosnian stone balls are nothing more than natural concretions formed in sedimentary rocks.

Examples of comparable natural concretions, which are identical to the Bosnian stone balls in their physical characteristics, have been described from all over the world. They include examples of natural concretions from Arkansas illustrated in:

Hanson, W. D., and Howard, J. M., 2005, Spherical boulders in north-
central Arkansas. Arkansas Geological Commission Miscellaneous Publication no. 22, 16 pp.

Th3 3 MB version of this paper can be downloaded from

http://www.state.ar.us/agc/mp22.pdf .

++ Cannonball Concretions, North Dakota ++

The cannonball concretions, from which the Cannonball River gets its name, of North Dakota are examples of natural concretions, which are essentially identical to the "stone balls" of Bosnia. The cannonball concretions of North Dakota are as large as 10 feet (3 meters) in diameter. A typical picture of a cannonball concretion can be found in "Cannonball Concretions" at:

http://nd.water.usgs.gov/lewisandclark/ ... tions.html .

The nature and origin of cannonball concretions is discussed in:

Feldmann, Rodney M., 1997, Theodore Roosevelt National Park. in
A. G. Harris, E. Tuttle, and S. D. Tuttle, eds., pp. 127-135, Geology of
National Parks. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.

More pictures of cannonball concretions can found in "A Photographic Journey up the Missouri River in North Dakota - Lake Oahe to the Cannonball River at:

http://nd.water.usgs.gov/lewisandclark/photos2.html

Specific pictures are "Cannonball Concretions on display at the Paul Broste Rock Museum, Parshall, North Dakota" at:

1. http://nd.water.usgs.gov/lewisandclark/ ... tions3.jpg

and "Cannonball Concretions on display at Fort Abraham Lincoln State Park" at:

2. http://nd.water.usgs.gov/lewisandclark/ ... etions.jpg

Additional pictures of cannonball concretions can be seen in "concretions" at:

http://www.rocksforkids.com/R&M/concretions.html .

Another article about concretions is "Concretions" at the Desert USA web site is:

http://www.desertusa.com/mag98/oct/papr/geo_conc.html .

Published peer-reviewed papers, which discuss in detail examples of natural stone balls, which are spheroidal (cannonball) concretions, found in Wyoming, Utah, Spitsbergen, and Alexander island, Antarctica are:

McBride, E. F., Picard, M. D., Milliken, K. M., 2003, Calcite-cemented
concretions in Cretaceous sandstone, Wyoming and Utah, U.S.A. Journal
of Sedimentary Research. vol. 73, no. 3. pp. 462-483.

Horne, R. R.., and Taylor, B. J., 1969, Calcareous concretions in the lower
Cretaceous sediments of south-eastern Alexander island. British Antarctic
Survey Bulletin. vol. 21, pp. 19-32.

Krajewski, K. P., and Luks, B., 2003, Origin of 'cannon-ball' concretions in
the Carolinefjellet Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Spitsbergen. Polish
Polar Research. vol. 24, no. 3-4, pp. 217-242.

++ Kettle Point Concretions ++

Stone balls in the form of natural concretions are found in some abundance at Kettle Point on the southeast shore of Lake Huron in Ontario, Canada. The Kettle Point concretions are typically spheres to oblate spheroids, which ranging in diameter from 0.3 to 1.5 meters (1 to 5 feet). Such natural stone balls are quite common in many exposures of the Kettle Point Formation and other Devonian black shales in the region. The origin of these natural stone balls are discussed in:

Coniglio, M., and Cameron, J. S., 1990, Early diagenesis in a potential oil
shale: evidence from calcite concretions in the Upper Devonian Kettle
Point Formation, Southwestern Ontario. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum
Geology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 64-77.

++ Moeraki Boulders, New Zealand ++

The Bosnian stone balls are also very similar to the "Moeraki boulders" found in new Zealand. Pictures of Moeraki boulders can be found in:

http://homepages.ezysurf.co.nz/~middlei ... lders.html .

Like the cannonball concretions of North Dakota, the Moeraki boulders have also been confused with man-made artifacts by alternative archaeologists such as Gavin Menzies. More pictures of Moeraki boulders can be found at:

http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/oamaru/7Mo ... lders.html .

Pictures of individual Moeraki boulders washing out of the strata
enclosing them are:

1. http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/oamaru/81M ... irth1S.jpg and

2. http://homepages.ezysurf.co.nz/~middlei ... ch23-4.jpg .

A picture of a number of Moeraki boulders is found at:

1. http://homepages.ezysurf.co.nz/~middlei ... ch25-5.jpg .

Being still, in place, makes it difficult, if not impossible, to argue that they are man-made. Also, a number of scientific papers, which clearly demonstrate the natural origin of Moeraki boulders, have been published They include:

Boles, J. R., Landis, C. A., and Dale, P., 1985, The Moeraki boulders;
anatomy of some septarian concretions. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology. vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 398-406.

Brunsden, Denys, 1969, Mystery of the Moeraki and Katiki boulders.
Geographical Magazine London. vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 839-843

Forsyth, P. J., and Coates, G., 1992, The Moeraki boulders. Institute of
Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.

Klug, H., and Zakrzewski, R., 1986, Die Moeraki Boulders;
riesenkonkretionen am strand auf Neuseelands Suedinsel [The Moeraki
boulders; giant concretions of the beach of New Zealand's South
Island.Schriften des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins fuer Schleswig-
Holstein. vol. 56, pp. 47-52

Thyne, Geoffrey D., and Boles, James R., 1989, Isotopic evidence for
origin of the Moeraki septarian concretions, New Zealand. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology. vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 272-279

The abstract to Boles et al. (1985) stated, in part:

"The Moeraki boulders are large (to 2 m) calcite concretions
with septarian veins of calcite and rare late-stage quartz and
ferrous dolomite. The concretions are enclosed by Paleocene
marine mudstones with vitrinite reflectance values of 0.29% R
suggesting maximum burial temperatures of 25-30 degrees C."

and

"The growth time of the larger concretions is estimated at about
4 million years based on published diffusion growth models.
Extrapolation of compositional trends versus growth time from
these concretion bodies suggests that septarian veins form on a
time scale of several million years."

After removing them from the outcrop, it is possible that people at many times during the past, may have rolled concretions around the landscape and incorporated them into their backyard landscaping. Still, there is nothing about them being spherical in shape, which provides any proof of them being man-made.

Of course, a few of the Bosnian stone balls could be made-man. Still, there exists, not single piece of hard evidence, which has been published, indicating either when they were carved or who might have carved them. In place of hard evidence, only arm-waving speculation unsupported by any substantial research about when and by whom they were carved has been so far presented by Mr. Osmanagic.

++ Leisagang Banding ++

Mr. Osmanagic and his experts also seem to be having difficulty recognizing Leisegang Banding as being a natural in origin. On the web page, where they have extracts from "the official reports into the excavations at the first known pyramid in Europe" at:

http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/index_fil ... rt_en.html

On this web page, it is stated:

"One of the blocks was excavated from a depth of 1.7m.
It was found to have circular patterns which will be
analysed further; it is thought that they are man made."

There is a picture of the circular patterns at:

http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/images/Bo ... sSlabs.jpg

Looking at this picture, it is quite clear that the circular patterns, which they refer to is an undoubted example of natural Liesegang banding. There is no doubt, even from a picture, that these circular patterns are natural, not man-made. Unfortunately, Liesegang banding (rings) seem to have an unfortunate habit of confusing people are naive in their understanding in geology.

A brief discussion of them can be found in "Geologic Pattern Formation at

http://wwwitp.physik.tu-berlin.de/~krug/geol_en.html and in

"Stone Images" at http://www.pgi.gov.pl/pgi_en/index.php? ... le&sid=109 .

Some pictures of Liesegang banding for comparison, can be found in (1.) "Liesegang Rings" at:

http://www.huddersfieldgeology.supanet. ... /ring1.jpg

and http://www.huddersfieldgeology.supanet. ... 20envi.htm

(2.) "Liesegang banding in Tapeats Sandstone, Deer Creek, mile 136.3. at:

http://www.aapg.org/slide_bank/grand_canyon/72.cfm

(3.) "Fracture-controlled Liesegang banding in siltstone" at:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/7LM20.jpeg and

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/minfracs.html

(4.) " Liesegang banding in Unkpapa Sandstone, Calico Canyon, Black
Hills, South Dakota" at:

http://www.geodil.com/image.asp?ImageID ... egoryid=97

and http://www.geodil.com/image.asp?ImageID ... egoryid=20

A simple definition of Liesegang Banding is:

"1. Secondary, nested rings or bands caused by rhythmic
precepitation within a fluid saturated rock (AGI, 1983). 2. A
small-scale, more or less concentric, chemical reaction effect,
seen as discrete, but largely contiguous, structures throughout
a part of a rock body. Each structure shows, on an exposed
surface, ring-shaped bands of concentric colour. The effect is
probably caused by rhythmic precipitation in a gel (a jelly-like
colloidal solution), perhaps a kind of weathering process...........
(Wyatt, 1992)."

Wyatt, A., 1992.. Challinor's Dictionary of Geology. Cardiff, Wales: University
of Wales Press.

Some References About Them are:

Fu, L., Milliken, K. L., Sharp, J. M., Jr, 1994, Porosity and permeability
variations in fractured and liesegang- banded Breathitt sandstones
(Middle Pennsylvanian), eastern Kentucky; diagenetic controls and
implications for modeling dual-porosity systems. Journal of Hydrology.
vol. 154, no. 1-4, pp. 351-381.

Ortoleva, P. J., 1983, The self organization of liesegang bands and other
precipitate patterns. In G. Nicolis-G and F. Baras, eds., pp. 289-297,
Chemical instabilities; applications in chemistry, engineering, geology,
and materials science. NATO ASI Series. Series C: Mathematical and
Physical Sciences. no. 120; D. Reidel Publishing Company. Boston.

Shahabpour, J., 1998, Liesegang blocks from sandstone beds of the
Hojedk Formation, Kerman, Iran. Geomorphology. vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 93-106.

Best regards,

Paul H.

[Guest]

Very good, but you left out using something like a Harris matrix and either a grid system or GPS for mapping the location of every artefact found

Apologies, Doug. I was trying to strike a balance between informing and avoiding sounding patronising.

[stellarchaser]

I NEVER said that there is a pyramid on that hill. That site was populated from neolithis times till today, so what is so outrageous to expect that some archeological artefacts would be find there? That is why Visoko Museum organized the excavations in the first place.

And excavations should be stopped if what they're looking for is found to not exist at all.

Tell me Alrom, are you an archeologist? So if you're looking for a roman settlement for example, and instead of that you find settlement from bronze age, you would stop the excavations? can we speak resonably here?

but I understand that we're living in a world ruled by rational thought

Are you sure in this? Now as we speak thousands of children dying becaouse or extreme poverty, and thousands of people starving this very second. Not to mention innocent people dying in the wars caused by pure greed, or devastation of our nature, again out of pure greed. I was hoping that science would lead us to better world, but it seems that science didn't give its best. So please don't be pathetic.

Oh ok, I misunderstood you. So you say that there's no pyramid there but there are roman and medieval (and maybe older) artifacts there and that they should change the objective of the excavation to that. Yeah I agree with you on that.

But Osma Team have been proved to be quite inept so they should be kicked out and substituted by real archaeologists.

For me there's no pyramid there until I see scietific proofs about it. Truth is that the Hill has pyramidal shape. It can be natural, which is rare, and can be artificial. It can be only that humans for some reason reshaped the hill into shape of the pyramid. In this case it wouldn't be a pyramid, but a mound. And mounds you can find everywhere in the world. But even that is just a possibility. But since it's known archeological site from past times (prehistoric, roman and mediaevel artifacts), it could be expected that excavations will resulted with further findings. That is why I can't understand that people want to halt excavations.

These tunnels are interesting. People who researching tunnels claim that they are definitely man made. Visoko Museum also invited miners to examine them, and they said that those tunnels definitely are not mines. But they said that they had found air ventilation openings on every 30 metres of tunnels. Furthermore, there has been found that megalith with unknown insciptions. As far I could see, inscriptions consists of arrows and letter "E". But thanks to a our famous camera man one cannot be certain are there more signs on the monolith or not. Pavement is also definitely man made in my opinion, and that wall that was found two days ago. It is true that they are finding different things on different locations, but now they are working simontaneously on two hills, plus tunnels. So we'll see.

If I had one, I would tear up my Diploma if nothing is found on Visochica

[Beagle]

Stellarchaser et al, I have sometimes heard myself and some others referred to as archaeologists. Thanks but I am not. Most forum members here are not professional archaeologists.

None of my formal education is in archaeology or a related field. I am now retired from my profession and I am now enjoying another lifelong interest as of 11 months ago.

[Frank Harrist]

Wow, Paul! That was a very informative post. I just wish Osmanagic would read it and take it to heart. I have a few friends on a Rockwall, Texas related site that you should talk to or with your permission I may post part of what you wrote to it. I'm certainly no geologist, but everything you said makes perfect sense to me, and to any rational person I hope. It's amazing that they got this far without someone pointing out these things to them. Thanks for that post.

[DougWeller]

Very good, but you left out using something like a Harris matrix and either a grid system or GPS for mapping the location of every artefact found

Apologies, Doug. I was trying to strike a balance between informing and avoiding sounding patronising.

No problem. It would be so easy for the Foundation to show that they are doing their digs scientifically if they could just show us a few photos showing their techniques. soil being sieved, etc. Since they don't, they shouldn't be surprised if people think the worst.

[stan]

I nominate Paul H. for scientist of the year!

[Ciko]

which I and other geolgoists are working on about the Bosnian pseudopyramids.

if you find a hill like this and that it is oriented north south east west,

http://bosnian-pyramid.com/gallery/Pyramid/375054no.JPG


I will stopp believe that bosnian pyramids exists

[Guest]

if you find a hill like this and that it is oriented north south east west

It isn't; go have another look at that photo. It's more North-North-East to South -South-West.

[Minimalist]

which I and other geolgoists are working on about the Bosnian pseudopyramids.

if you find a hill like this and that it is oriented north south east west,

http://bosnian-pyramid.com/gallery/Pyramid/375054no.JPG


I will stopp believe that bosnian pyramids exists

You know something else interesting about that picture, Ciko, is that the tree line goes further up the hill on the north side than the east and west (and, we can't see the south side.) I would have expected the trees to get less sunlight on the north side.

[Ciko]

here you can se pyramid from new 3 angles , and you can see the south side

http://bosnian-pyramid.com/gallery/Pyra ... ajnovi.JPG [/img]

[Guest]

Ciko,
Nowhere in those photos can you actually see the south side of that hill.

[Minimalist]

See, that looks like a completely different hill to me. In that later shot it looks like the trees go all the way to the top on the north side.

[Guest]

I think you're right. I thought at first that they had just got their compass directions mixed up, but the photo on the far right of that page doesn't look like the same hill. The path you can see in it doesn't appear in the same pattern in the rest of the photos.
I don't think it can even be explained as a photo of the eastern side taken from practically at the bottom of the hill.

[Minimalist]

When Dr. Schoch (see earlier post) refers to the manner in which "experts" dismiss amateur archaeologists there is a perfect example in this case.

I have heard it said that Dr. Hardings trip was only 15 min. That is too hard for me to believe. What I think everyone can agree on is that it was a token visit, as his mind was already made up.

If Dr. Schoch were to agree with Dr. Harding entirely, we can rest assured that it will be after a fair and comprehensive analysis. It is totally beyond me why the archaeological establishment wants to continually alienate the general public with such attitudes.

I totally agree, Harding came to Bosnia only to have press conference where he'll say his opinion, regardless on findings on the ground. If we put pyramid aside, there are stll many reasons to continue excavations.

And I believe that will get right answer from Mr. Schoch; as you say he's respected geologist. The fact that acheologists don't like him is that Mr.Schoch wasn't repeating their "party line" and wasn't slave of their Dogma. Same as Mr.barakat, who is also respected geologist - he said things they don't like to hear, and all of the sudden, he's not reliable.

I'm really looking forward to Mr.Schoch's oppinion.

It isn't a matter of archaeologists not liking him, it is a matter of other, working geologists disagreeing with him.

How many people there think Schoch teaches geology? He doesn't, he has been teaching maths and science at the College of General Studies at Boston University -- a non-degree awarding college. I'm not sure how you could call him a respected geologist. He doesn't teach geology, he doesn't have a lot of well-regarded publications in geological journals, etc.

Schoch has a PHD in geology and geophysics from Yale which puts him quite a few rungs up the ladder from me.

Hancock relates that at the 1992 Convention of the Geological Society of America Schoch obtained the endorsement of 275 other geologists for his findings on the Sphinx (footnote #4) and in footnote #5 made a similar presentation to the 1992 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, so, clearly....he is not just some guy who likes to look at rocks.