reply
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:12 am
Yes!! Please!?
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
RK Awl-O'Gist wrote: we're now on page 56.
There's no evidence, no constructive arguments.....
Have another look at the bottom of THIS page, in THIS thread; it says "page 57".zagor wrote: We are now on page 134
especially when you consider who hired the team from TuzlaMarduk,
If that doesn't imply that Osmanagich and his team of puppets are a bunch of pathological liars, I don't know what the hell does
he hasn't actually got any of those qualificationsSam Semir Osmanagich M.Sc., B.Sc.Ecc., B.Sc. P.Sc.
i hear you beagle, just needed to get some type of idea of what is going to take palce.Fair enough Arch - let me answer your question based upon my own knowledge and my own reality
i think that is because we are at the point we need the hill uncovered to see what is really there so we can put a conclusion on this matter. the skepticism requires more definitive proof one way or the other before anything poignant can be said.That thread on the pyramid's forum is almost as pointless as this one; it long ago degenerated into a propaganda/slandering exercise.
i think this will be the mantra for the next year or twoThis finding requires more careful research.”
so they are saying they found concrete?are indicating that those stone blocks of very high hardness are man-made and casted in place.
so they are saying they found concrete?
yes and that is my point, it seems that the report ;The Romans used concrete a lot. And arches, arch!
; is going to try and say something else.The analysis achieved on stone block samples
how long do you think we will have to wait until he releases his final report of his analysis?Couldn't today but I'll try to find some news on Schoch tomorrow
RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:Have another look at the bottom of THIS page, in THIS thread; it says "page 57".zagor wrote: We are now on page 134![]()