Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:46 pm**

Beagle wrote:Scroll to the bottom of the page and read Doug Wellars post.

Why didn't you let us know about this Doug?

Not enough time, and I haven't been receiving notifications of new posts here.

But I did discover something about Cape Breton and posted it as a new topic a few minutes ago.

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:52 pm**

Beagle wrote:Schoch is a respected geologist by any standard. IMO, he has been correct (given the info. that is available to him) in everything that he has done.

Slowly, grudgingly, most scientists agree with his Sphinx findings.

But because he flips off the "club" he is very disliked. All the rhetoric coming now is because many folks are fearful that he may give some credence to the Bosnia excavation.

The example of many folks now attacking his "girlfriend" is what I mean about "clutching at straws".

Hell, even Oz' wife hasn't been attacked. So, nothing more to say until he's done there. He arrives tomorrow.

Can you name any geologists who actually agree with him? I can name 2
that think the Sphinx is older than the conventional dating but don't accept his dates, and several who flatly disagree and think the conventional dating is correct.

His girl friend calls them 'so called geologists'. It's probably that sort of comment that leads to criticisms of her. And of course her New Age leanings.

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:53 pm**

Oh - don't expect any more posts from me until Monday night. I'll be away from any computers until probably then.

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am**

I can name 2

what are their names please and do you have any links to their work?

His girl friend calls them 'so called geologists'. It's probably that sort of comment that leads to criticisms of her. And of course her New Age leanings.

who would care what she thinks anyways?

Momma always taught me it was more polite to say "you're being naive" than "BULLSHIT!!!!"

then why didn't you practice that with me?

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:46 pm**

Doug, we had this same discussion back in the Bosnian I thread. I look forward to his findings, and we can discuss them at that time.

If anyone has looked at the picture of the "well", what is meant by it being located on the "platform" of the Pyramid of the Moon.

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:52 pm**

I think it means on the top, where the spacecraft landed.

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:56 pm**

Thanks - but why would they need a well there?

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:05 pm**

To fill up the radiators in the spacecraft.

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:17 pm**

no apparently they were based on photonic travel
so maybe the water was for making drinks ?
the most advanced drink system on earth right now is soda stream iirc
that requires water
maybe they were making intergalactic space juice (believe it or not it is a soda stream flavour, it also turns your shit green)

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:25 pm**

maybe it really belonged to the previously known construction and is being taken out of context to prove a wild theory.

oh wait,isn't this whole site being subject to that type of archeology

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:35 pm**

oh wait,isn't this whole site being subject to that type of archeology

you are the only one here that thinks that
you are the only one here who has faith
now there is some kind of connection here that i just can't put my finger on

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:58 pm**

http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=291[

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could not find more information about it, but it seems that a team of pedologists (from a "Institute for Agro-Pedology) has studied the soil and humus on the hills, and found that its thickness could match with an age of more or less 5700 years. This info was released by Dnevni Avaz, but I have no link since Avaz on line doesn't stock the news for more than 2 or 3 days. It is mentionned, with no details, here : http://r.bloger.hr/post/prilag.....46956.aspx.
However, this datation does not please M. Osmanagic : he talked about it to RTV Visoko : http://www.rtv-visoko.ba/news.php?readmore=80. He says roughly that the result given by the people of the Institute is partial, that it concerns only one place, that in some place the thickness of humus is 1,20 m, and that all the specimen have an equal importance. He adds that other analysis will be made, independently from each other, in Bosnia, Italia and Slovenia. No mention of this datation on the official website.

Seems that all the good info any more is on the Bosnia Pyramid forum.

Question: does this quote seem to be saying that 5700 yrs. ago there was NO soil and humus on the hill?

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:59 pm**

Question: does this quote seem to be saying that 5700 yrs. ago there was NO soil and humus on the hill?

thati swhat it seems to be saying andit seems to have gotten Os upset as he tap dances around the report.

However, this datation does not please M. Osmanagic

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:41 am**

archaeologist wrote:
I can name 2
what are their names please and do you have any links to their work?

As Doug's not around till Monday.... One of them is Colin Reader

http://www.ianlawton.com/as1.htm

http://www.ianlawton.com/as4.htm

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:27 am**

Thanks Arch, I guess my eyes weren't deceiving me after all. But that just doesn't compute.

Archaeologica.org

Bosnian pyramids, Part II, no photos please!