Page 58 of 77
Re: Can anyone translate Bosnian (and mortar)
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:16 am
by Frank Harrist
Paul H. wrote:DougWeller wrote: What is worrying is that I have seen photos of bits of real ruins dug up from the 'Pyramid of the Sun' where we know the Romans, for instance, built.
One of the problems is that there are real archaeological sites with real man-made, i.e. Roman, structures lie on the hills being dug up. Thus, the Bosnian "pyramids", as visualized and interpreted by Sam Osmanagich, are chimeras, much like Archaeoraptor, composed of unrelated parts, i.e. jointed bedrock and man-made tunnels. In this case, the supporters have no real evidence that the tunnels, possibly ancient copper mines, and real man-made structures are connected specifically with the hills, which they claim to be pyramids, in any direct way. They are making assumptions about such connections and then claiming them to be fact without any real evidence
Doug also wrote:I will bet that they are not keeping the information archaeologists need, sketches, exact locations of everything they find, etc.
This is the primary reason that the majority of conventional archaeologists are concerned about the digging done by Sam Osmanagich. Nobody worries about the "research" being done by Greg Little on the Bimini Wall because no conventional archaeologist accepts it as being man-made. As long as alternative archaeologists are not trashing real archaeological sites in their work and wasting only their time and money, conventional archaeologists (and geologists) have better things to do with their time to comment on every psuedoarchaeological site, which appears on the Internet and are quite content to let them work away undisturbed.
Howwever, in case of Sam Osmanagich, he is digging a hill with numerous and extremely significant archaeological sites on it. He has the potential to, and quite possibly is doing, significant damage to some important archaeological deposits. Looking at the pictures so far posted, especially one photograph of a skeleton that was so-called "excavated", the so-called "excavations" look more like holes made by pothunters and relict collectors, which I have seen in Louisiana, than anything approaching a scientific excavation. The point of real concern is that real and significant archaeological sites are being trashed and damaged by the utterly haphazard and seemingly uncontrolled digging that is being done in the search for what are quite likely imaginary pyramids. If there were not any real archaeological deposits of any significance on the hills being dug up, conventional archaeologists would be far, far less concerned by what Sam Osmanagich, is engaged. If there were **not** any significant archaeological deposits on the hills, which are being dug up by him, the vast majority of archaeologists likely would simply ignored what he is doing. Conventional archaeologists and geologists in general have much more important and pressing ways to use their time than to get into long and involved discussions about a claim that an outcrop of jointed bedrock in Oklahoma is a Phonecian Fortress or sandstone dikes in Rockwall, Texas are the remains of long lost city unless there is some good reason to do so.
Yours,
Paul
That's what I said about 50 pages ago and have repeated about a dozen times. Wasting time and destroying evidence.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:22 am
by Yamemaru
This osmangic guy reminds me of the guy who discovered troy, they are both ametures destroying everything in the search for glory.
But in this case its worse...there is no pyramid!
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:40 am
by Minimalist
No suggestion there anyone stored it for later use.
Absolutely right. That was my take on reading the story. My impression was that the Sahara has been drying since the early fifth millenia. It is hard to imagine that Egypt was heavily forested two millenia later; we are not talking about the Congo basin, here.
The whole thing had a feel of some of those ad hoc explanations that are used to try to explain away biblical anachronisms.
The science gave a date, a repeat of the testing gave a date, the Egyptologists didn't like either date so they make up 'reasons' why their own test is wrong. The Shroud of Turin was c14 dated to the 11th-12th century AD and the believers made up tales about why that date was 'wrong', too.
I'm sorry. I have a problem with that.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:09 am
by Beagle
This thread is 58+ pages long. That's a lot of reading. Over the last month many different people have joined in here. I think it should be noted again that nearly everyone is preaching to the choir.
The intensity about this excavation began immediately. Os is an amateur and most likely wrong. Everyone knows of the Roman post and the midieval castle.
When Zahi Hawass dispatched an Egyptian geologist, Dr. Barakat, to look at the site it was initially viewed as a step in the right direction. When Barakat said that he thought there might be a pyramid there, he was attacked relentlessly. His credentials were also questioned. I don't think I saw an attack on Zahi Hawass for sending him though.
Frank is right. These things have been said over and over here.
I might as well repeat my thoughts on this subject. Nobody on this forum can say with certainty what is there. I fear that valuable artifacts are in danger if the site is not excavated properly. And I happily await the UNESCO team due to arrive this month.
If the UNESCO team says ANYTHING short of "there's nothing there, stop the dig", then I guarantee that every member of the team will be burned in effigy.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:12 am
by Katherine Reece
The science gave a date, a repeat of the testing gave a date, the Egyptologists didn't like either date so they make up 'reasons' why their own test is wrong.
Actually you only seem to have part of the explanation ... Egyptologists knew even before the dating was done that the King's List (which is what the dates for Khufu's reign were derived from) could easily be 100-200 years off.
Also.. IIRC ... the dates that were too old came in from the higher parts of the pyramid .. as if the people began to run out of wood and began scavenging for it ... hence the old wood problem.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:13 am
by Minimalist
Hey, there may be no "effigy" about the burning.
People take things seriously over there!
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:18 am
by Beagle
It seems like we're talking about more than one pyramid now.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:20 am
by Katherine Reece
Beagle wrote:It seems like we're talking about more than one pyramid now.
Yes ... sorry... but I wanted to correct the misconception that arose after the discussion of mortar.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:23 am
by Frank Harrist
Minimalist wrote:No suggestion there anyone stored it for later use.
Absolutely right. That was my take on reading the story. My impression was that the Sahara has been drying since the early fifth millenia. It is hard to imagine that Egypt was heavily forested two millenia later; we are not talking about the Congo basin, here.
The whole thing had a feel of some of those ad hoc explanations that are used to try to explain away biblical anachronisms.
The science gave a date, a repeat of the testing gave a date, the Egyptologists didn't like either date so they make up 'reasons' why their own test is wrong. The Shroud of Turin was c14 dated to the 11th-12th century AD and the believers made up tales about why that date was 'wrong', too.
I'm sorry. I have a problem with that.
The dates didn't agree with the written history so some other logical alternative had to exist. In a place where wood became so scarce it was probably re-used and recycled as much as possible, the wood they burned may have been used in an old temple which they tore down to be replaced with a new one and the wood was re-used. That makes more sense than re-writing the history.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:50 am
by Minimalist
The dates didn't agree with the written history
Which written history is that? There is no real written history by the Egyptians themselves. The best they managed was Manetho, a 3'd century BC scribe but he was obviously writing well after the fact.
There are over 2 million stone blocks in the Great Pyramid alone. I doubt that there would have been enough wood in any "old temple" to fire that much mortar. Not to mention feeding the workers and producing their copper tools.
It's an interesting and important question, though. What was the energy source?
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:59 am
by Beagle
It seems strange that we have not had much of a discussion about the Great pyramid before. Anyway, I'm having some serious "mortar" questions rolling around in my head. I'll have to do some reading.
I'm going to the other room for a while guys.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:29 am
by Minimalist
Start a separate thread.
Let's not be accused of hijacking this one.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:00 am
by Yamemaru
this thread has nothing to do with the so called bosnian pyramids anymore.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:04 am
by Beagle
Yamemaru wrote:this thread has nothing to do with the so called bosnian pyramids anymore.
Dont worry - we just started a new thread.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:29 pm
by Beagle
Is it Sunday in Bosnia?
