Archaeologica.org

I am sure there's something man-made or "man-adjusted" as Bob so eloquently phrased it. I'm also sure that a lot of evidence is being destroyed in this mad rush to confirm it as a pyramid(s). I don't think there's a pyramid there. I think that Sam is only stroking his own ego mainly. Of course some people will see what they want to see or won't see what they don't want to see. It's a shame they're ruining so much good archaeology in the process.

Ah, we have been treated to yet more pictures of natural rock formations with the claim they are man made. Ha! Ha! Ha! To add to the fun here is another picture to enjoy. Note the squared corners, the even spacing between slabs, the flatness of the rocks. These rocks in fact look much more man made than anything coming from this so called "pyramid".



I am fairly sure that we will all see yet more pictures of natural rock formations coming from the "pyramid" camp. Don't be fooled. This thread should change its name to Geology 101.

Freethinker, that is an interesting picture. Where is that? Or where did you get the pic?

Sudanese pyramids:




Maya pyramid:




Inca Pyramid:



Moche Pyramid:



Chinese Pyramid:



Ziggurat of Ur:



Well built Egyptian Pyramid:



Not so well-built Egyptian Pyramid:



Nazca Pyramid:




It's just not that hard a standard to meet, Frank. Basically, any old hill that men make can be construed as a pyramid.

Ultimately there needs to be artifacts of some kind. If none are found, archaeologists will not accept it no matter what is found under the dirt. There have been some bones found between some rocks I think.

There has been enough time go by to have some information available about those bones, such as their age, etc. We're just not getting anything but pics of rocks.

FreeThinker wrote:Ah, we have been treated to yet more pictures of natural rock formations with the claim they are man made. Ha! Ha! Ha! To add to the fun here is another picture to enjoy. Note the squared corners, the even spacing between slabs, the flatness of the rocks. These rocks in fact look much more man made than anything coming from this so called "pyramid".

Great picture, Freethinker, and even better point. I remember saying something similar about, oh, 43 pages ago!

The thing is that artifacts on the surface could have been dropped there any time.

Artifacts UNDER the dirt would have some significance.

If anyone recalls some years ago when a German engineer named Rudolf Gantenbrink (or something) sent a little robot up one of the "air shafts" in the Great pyramid? It ran into a door of some type which they they later refitted the robot with a drill and went through with a camera....only to find another door!

However, I seem to recall that on the way the robot went past a stick. Recovering that stick and carbon dating it would seem to be a much more useful archaeological idea than drilling holes in rocks. I wonder why they haven't done it?

Beagle wrote:Freethinker, that is an interesting picture. Where is that? Or where did you get the pic?

The Comal County, Texas, website. I just captured the url of the picture and then traced it back.

If I am remembering it correctly, the bones were found down in the cracks of the stones. I took that to mean that they were uncovered by digging and so were UNDER the dirt.

Beagle wrote:If I am remembering it correctly, the bones were found down in the cracks of the stones. I took that to mean that they were uncovered by digging and so were UNDER the dirt.

One would hope that some attention was paid to provenance of anything found but....given the disorganized nature of the dig I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Sadly I agree.

On the pyramid shaft exploration, I think our friend Zahi has has put the skids to it.

DougWeller wrote:

Beagle wrote:Freethinker, that is an interesting picture. Where is that? Or where did you get the pic?

The Comal County, Texas, website. I just captured the url of the picture and then traced it back.

Thanks Doug!

Well then, Bob, perhaps it's a pyramid shaped hill. That still doesn't justify raping the site. There are pyramid-shaped hills all over the world and few of them are man-made. What I have trouble with is the methods they're using trying to prove it's a pyramid when it don't really make a shit. It's a hill! It has archaeology on it, but these clowns are ruining it trying to prove this hill is a man-made pyramid. Sure they can claim it's a pyramid, because after all a pyramid is just a shape. That don't mean it was shaped that way by some prehistoric culture.

Minimalist wrote:

I think that everybody in this thread believes that there isn't a pyramid under that hill, but Ciko

Incorrect. I'm willing to wait until a definitive decision is made. Frankly it looks as if there is something man-made or at least man-"adjusted" there and given the nature of pyramids or ziggurats elsewhere in the world it does not have to be too specific in order to qualify.

Sorry you're right, I should better say that there's no proof of a pyramid under Visoko Hill by now. We don't really know, but those pictures of stones aren't proofs for sure.

That still doesn't justify raping the site.

Hmmm.....I don't know about that one. The hill has been sitting there, ignored, for years and now because someone who is outside the club has started digging on it the club reacts by whining "we were going to dig there....someday."

They would have treated Heinrich Schliemann the same way. One can never be sure in a dispute like this if it is science or ego that is at stake... and Oz is guilty of that as well but he's the one who picked up the shovel.

The funny thing is that Oz does not need a full, Egyptian style pyramid to make his point. He just needs a hill that has been helped along by human hands and then the big question becomes WHEN was it helped. I, for one, do not believe that nature could have formed 4 equal-sized slopes at the same angle by itself and if (big "if") that is what they uncover then there is going to be some drastic re-thinking of European history in order.