Archaeologica.org

alrom wrote:

stellarchaser wrote: I didn't know that Hawass is geologist? If he's not geologist, this statement is without any value.

Osmanagic isn't a geologist nor an archeologist, but the only reason there's an archaeological dig in Visoko is because he thought there was a pyramid under that hill. Without Osma's word there's no reason to search for pyramids or ancient (i.e. pre-roman) archaeological materials.

stellarchaser wrote:

alrom wrote:

stellarchaser wrote: I didn't know that Hawass is geologist? If he's not geologist, this statement is without any value.

Osmanagic isn't a geologist nor an archeologist, but the only reason there's an archaeological dig in Visoko is because he thought there was a pyramid under that hill. Without Osma's word there's no reason to search for pyramids or ancient (i.e. pre-roman) archaeological materials.

Osmanagich saw the hill that has shape of pyramid. Osmanagich knew that the hill was inhabited since neolithic times. Osmanagich said: "Let's dig there". Osmanagich, who is not archeologist, done what every decent archeologist would and should do. To start digging there.

It is a shame and disgrace of archeologists that their job was done by someone who is not archeologist. But that is their problem. And it will become huge problem for them, if excavations result with major archeological findings.

Regardless on his personality, Osmanagich did right thing. He payed attention to a place which should be interesting for every archeologist or historian. Excavations will show how much he was right. Even if he doesn't find enything, his initial reaction was right. Not every archeological excavation neccessarily results with major findings. Carter was roaming the desert for 20 years (without results), before he stumbled on king Tut.

And knowing the history of Visochica Hill, I think chances for Osmanagich to stumble on something are pretty high. But time will tell.

alrom wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:

alrom wrote: Osmanagic isn't a geologist nor an archeologist, but the only reason there's an archaeological dig in Visoko is because he thought there was a pyramid under that hill. Without Osma's word there's no reason to search for pyramids or ancient (i.e. pre-roman) archaeological materials.

Osmanagich saw the hill that has shape of pyramid. Osmanagich knew that the hill was inhabited since neolithic times. Osmanagich said: "Let's dig there". Osmanagich, who is not archeologist, done what every decent archeologist would and should do. To start digging there.

It is a shame and disgrace of archeologists that their job was done by someone who is not archeologist. But that is their problem. And it will become huge problem for them, if excavations result with major archeological findings.

Regardless on his personality, Osmanagich did right thing. He payed attention to a place which should be interesting for every archeologist or historian. Excavations will show how much he was right. Even if he doesn't find enything, his initial reaction was right. Not every archeological excavation neccessarily results with major findings. Carter was roaming the desert for 20 years (without results), before he stumbled on king Tut.

And knowing the history of Visochica Hill, I think chances for Osmanagich to stumble on something are pretty high. But time will tell.

What I tried to say is that you give credibility to people depending if you're in favor of what they say or not.

---> "those are natural rocks" your answer ---> He's not a geologist! he doesn't know shit about this!

Osmanagic (amateur archaeologist with crazybat ideas) ---> "Hey this looks like a pyramid let's dig and see what we find" your answer ---> Let's go!

Don't forget that the people there are NOT searching for anything else but the pyramid. Neolithic/roman/medieval finds are being probably overlooked, if not destroyed.

stellarchaser wrote: What proofs do you have that Earth is 4,5 billion years old?

Scientists say that an avarage, every 100.000 years big asteroid is hiiting the Earth. So count how many asteroid encounters with Earth were in past 4,5 billion years. And each of those encounters was possibly lethal for our planet. You're geologist, so you must know how much encounters with large asteroids Earth had in its past. According to my calculations, there were 45 000 encounters with big asteroids. So we should have at least 45 000 huge craters on Earth's surface. And I don't see them in that number, even I'm not geologist.

Or take super volcanoes. There is today inactive super volcano that lies underneath Yellostone. It's 50 miles wide. One eruption of that volcano could, or could have destroy whole North America continent. At least, scientists say so. So how much super volcanoes eruptions Earth had in past 4,5 billion years? One eruption, scientists say, is enough to change shape of whole continent.

Paul H. wrote:

zagor wrote:Dear Paul, the fact is that you are very knowledgeable in Geology but also is the fact that you are very ignorable person who just from the pictures explain everything and disregard the judgment of your colleagues that works on the field (also experienced Barakat, Nukic).
Your sentence " A trained person would have to deaf, dumb, and blind to the evidence not to understand that many of the examples....." could be applied to you also.

If I am so wrong, why did Dr. Zahi Hawass state in a letter:

"Mr. Barakat, the Egyptian geologist working with Mr. Osmanagic, knows nothing about Egyptian pyramids. He was not sent by the SCA, and we do not support or concur with his statements.",


"This “pyramid” is actually a sloping hill near a village.",

"What was found there is really just a mass of huge stones, evidently a natural geologic formation. The stones do not match, and there is no evidence that they were put together to form a solid structure.",

and

"Apart from its general outline, this hill bears absolutely no resemblance to the Egyptian pyramids. Mr. Osmanic's theories are purely hallucinations on his part, with no scientific backing."

Are you going to call Dr. Hawass ignorant too?

You can see this letter from Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, at:

http://www.archaeology.org/online/featu ... hawass.pdf

and ther is a short write up on it at:

http://www.archaeology.org/online/featu ... pdate.html

Judging from what Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities said in his letter, he has a very low opinion of the arguments of Dr. Barakat and Dr. Nukic and the qualifications of Dr. Barakat.

Just because a person has a PhD in geology means nothing about their expertise. For example, there are Young Earth geologists, i.e. Dr. Andrew Snelling and Dr. Steven Austin, who believe that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old. A whole list of scientists, with PhDs, who are Young Earth creationists in "Creation Scientists" at:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=res ... rch_physci

As seen above, because a person has either PhD or M.S. is no reason accept anything, which they say as being infalliable. In science, respect is earned, not given beacuse someone has a PhD. If a person makes sillyclaims about jointed bedrock being man-made stonework, liesegang banding (rings) being decorations, and ripple marks being hand carved dercorations, they will be taken to task for them just the above Young Earth creationist geologists, despite their PhDs, are for their fatally flawed arguments for the Earth being less than 10,000 years.

Some Young Earth creationists, with whom I have crossed paths, also accuse me of being "ignorant" because I argue that the Earth is around 4.5 billions years old instead of agreeing with them that it is less than 10,000 years old. In that case, the fact that they, like you, are calling me ignorant is significant proof in my mind that I doing something right.

In the future, Dr. Barakat and Dr. Nukic need to be prepared for the fact that papers on the geology of the Bosnian pseudopyramids will be submitted to peer-reviewed and other journals and abstracts submitted for talks at antional meetings that discuss their interpretations in great detail. When they start appearing, we will see what other geologists think of them.

Best Regards,

stellarchaser wrote:Essan wrote: "Well, I think the oldest rocks found so afar are only 3.8 million years old ....."

If so, why geologists like Pauh H. are claiming that Earth is 4,5 billion years old? Why such statesments are in school books? And where are proofs for that. They just throwing those emense numbers, without any reasonable thinking.

stellarchaser wrote:Essan wrote: "Well, I think the oldest rocks found so afar are only 3.8 million years old ....."

If so, why geologists like Pauh H. are claiming that Earth is 4,5 billion years old?

alrom wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:Essan wrote: "Well, I think the oldest rocks found so afar are only 3.8 million years old ....."

If so, why geologists like Pauh H. are claiming that Earth is 4,5 billion years old? Why such statesments are in school books? And where are proofs for that. They just throwing those emense numbers, without any reasonable thinking.

1) 4,5 billion years (4500 million years for us europeans) is an ESTIMATION of Earth's age. It's the best guess geologists can do.

2) There are indirect methods of doing estimations. I don't have a clue on what kind of method did they use for that age, but I know you can find one that doesn't require finding 4,5 billion years old stones.

3) Scientists, though they can be pretty sure about some things, know they are never in possession of the truth. That's against the basic principles of science. So yes maybe that estimation is wrong, but it's the best we can do with what we know now.

The idea of absolute god-given truth is left for nuts like Osmanagic, who claimed that there was a pyramid under the hill before digging a single hole.

And BTW I think the biggest problem creationists and alterna-geologists have is that they can't understand and cope with such huge time periods. The human mind is not made for that.

stellarchaser wrote:ZAHI HAWASS: "This was famous in the Middle Ages as a meeting place for merchants."

Mr.Hawass obviously has simmilar halucinations that he acusees Osmanagich of. This is ridiculous statement. Visoko was capital of mediaeval Bosnia. And sort of sacred place, because bosnian kings built their churches around Visoko.

Irna wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:ZAHI HAWASS: "This was famous in the Middle Ages as a meeting place for merchants."

Mr.Hawass obviously has simmilar halucinations that he acusees Osmanagich of. This is ridiculous statement. Visoko was capital of mediaeval Bosnia. And sort of sacred place, because bosnian kings built their churches around Visoko.

Ridiculous statement ? Maybe you shoud say that to the owners of this website : http://www.visoko.co.ba/?go=english
Visoko reached the peak of its development during the late Middle Ages. It became a strong social, political and economic centre and it had the status of a royal town.Its name has been mentioned for the first time in 1355,in a chart issued to the merchants of Dubrovnik by the ban Tvrtko I.On the vast plain near the town of Visoko there were built residences of the bans and the kings.There were the chief houses of the Bosnian Church and the centre university of Bosnian Church.There foreign envoys were received and state assemblies "of all Bosnia" held.Visoko was an important trading centre and ther was a considerable colony of merchants from Dubrovnik.The numerous charts and letter issued and registered in Visoko or its surroundings show the significant role of this town at that time.

And to them : http://www.feniks.co.ba/eng/node.php?id=396
Intensive political, economic and social developments took place in Visoko and the surrounding area throughout the Middle Ages. From the 12th to 15th century it is the seat of the Bosnian state stretching between the Sava river and the Adriatic coast. Favourable communications, the proximity of ore deposits and the role of the political centre made Visoko the focal economic point of Central Bosnia.

And you should point the errors in the works of Dr Pavo Andelic (http://www.most.ba/038/092.htm), who says that beside Stari Grad Visoki on the hill, there was, on the East and North-East sides of the hill, the town Podvisoki, which in the middle ages was "an open trade center" that lived of craft and trade.

By the way, I noticed that the en.wikipedia article about Visoko was modified by a "HarisM" on the 1st of May ; he placed a longer (and better) text about the history of the town, but in the process he erased all references about the trading that took place in Podvisoki (charts for Dubrovnik merchants, goods traded from Visoko...) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=50870089

Irna

It could be that Dr. Barakat had passed “the red lines” too...

Minimalist wrote:

It could be that Dr. Barakat had passed “the red lines” too...

You mean....Zahi holds grudges?

Minimalist wrote:

It could be that Dr. Barakat had passed “the red lines” too...

You mean....Zahi holds grudges?

stellarchaser wrote:

alrom wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:Essan wrote: "Well, I think the oldest rocks found so afar are only 3.8 million years old ....."

If so, why geologists like Pauh H. are claiming that Earth is 4,5 billion years old? Why such statesments are in school books? And where are proofs for that. They just throwing those emense numbers, without any reasonable thinking.

1) 4,5 billion years (4500 million years for us europeans) is an ESTIMATION of Earth's age. It's the best guess geologists can do.

2) There are indirect methods of doing estimations. I don't have a clue on what kind of method did they use for that age, but I know you can find one that doesn't require finding 4,5 billion years old stones.

3) Scientists, though they can be pretty sure about some things, know they are never in possession of the truth. That's against the basic principles of science. So yes maybe that estimation is wrong, but it's the best we can do with what we know now.

The idea of absolute god-given truth is left for nuts like Osmanagic, who claimed that there was a pyramid under the hill before digging a single hole.

And BTW I think the biggest problem creationists and alterna-geologists have is that they can't understand and cope with such huge time periods. The human mind is not made for that.

Alrom wrote: "And BTW I think the biggest problem creationists and alterna-geologists have is that they can't understand and cope with such huge time periods. The human mind is not made for that"

Human mind has some scepticism about such emense time frame because many questions are unanswered. Reasonable mind HAVE TO challenge those estimations, because they are ridiculous.

From "a mind that cannot cope with such huge time periods", just a one simple questions for you: do you know what ammount of mud and other materials would fresh waters bring to oceans in 4,5 billion years? Ocean floor would be measured in hundreds of miles (in thickness). And if rivers and other fresh waters were depositing materials at ocean floor for 4,5 bllion years, where are those deposits? Simple question.

It is at subduction zones that the Earth's lithosphere, oceanic crust, sedimentary layers, and trapped water are recycled into the deep mantle.