Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
Insequent

Bosnian Pyramids

Recommended Posts

 

Mmmmm. Throws a bit of a spanner in the (current paradigm) works.

 

-Edit- If you choose to watch it, this bugger speaks sooo slowly. Change the speed setting on the YouTube player to 1.5x. 

Edited by Insequent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess discussing this particular presentation is now moot. YouTube has removed it for violation of it's terms of service. 

 

3 hours ago, Micromegas said:

i didn't watch the vid but the wiki article pretty much says it all.

 

The Wiki article pretty much sums up mainstream academia's response to the claims, which is nothing new and is to be expected. Having said that, as Wiki states, there have been a number of bona fide experts in the fields of geology, history and archeology (who have actually visited the sites - some seem to have dismissed the claims not only without visiting for themselves, but have not even bothered to actually look at possible evidence) who refute the claims of Semir Osmanagić. They state the hills are completely natural, in particular, the stone slabs which were found when excavating. Despite my own reservations about the level of veracity exercised by the mainstream, I note some of the experts who have commented have no immediately apparent reason to deny any pro-pyramid evidence is real when it is (or even may be), and they have been pivotal in overturning the accepted paradigm before. I don't imagine they would knock back an opportunity to repeat the exercise. I was a little baffled by the intensity of the establishments efforts to discredit the guy. If he's wrong and he's digging around in natural hills, what is the harm? He's going to come unstuck eventually

 

My issue with anything like this, is ascertaining what is fact. An example of this problem is the dating for The Great Sphinx which mainstream Egyptologists still maintain was built by the Egyptians during the reign of Khafre c 2500 BC. Yet there is apparently some contemporaneous (and earlier) text which state the Sphynx was already in existence, and the water erosion on the Sphynx enclosure indicates the structure is at least twice that age, and possibly even in excess of 20 000 years old, as claimed now by at least 200 geologists who have visited the site. When you consider the fact Egypt has not seen a climate with any significant precipitation for at least 7000 years, plus the required passage of time to achieve the level of erosion we see, it starts pushing the construction of the structure further into history. 

 

There were a number of claims made by the presenter in the vid I linked, such as having a piece of one of the stone slabs sent off to a laboratory for testing. He claimed the results showed it was an artificial concrete, much stronger than we can create today and definitely not natural stone. Given he also named the laboratory where he sent the piece, I was going to follow it up to see if this and some of his other claims could be verified. (Shoulda dun notes).

 

Gonna keep digging on this one (pun intended :P ), mainly because I got no idea if this is legit or not. I think the talk was about work which had been completed last year, or earlier this year, so it may be some of the mainstream would offer a different opinion if presented with the latest claims. If this is the case, there appears to be evidence presented by those who claim they are indeed pyramids, at least in my mind, which needs to be properly addressed and not just brushed off. And there's a little bit of a gut feeling as well...

 

Then there's the tunnels....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm all for questioning the 'mainstream' and it's important to do so, but there's limits, because the 'mainstream' is actually the product of hundreds if not thousands of years of investigation. paradigms don't get frequently overturned, they are slowly evolving. For example, the sphinx won't end up being 20k yrs old, but its state of preservation may indicate a period of rapid erosion by water during recent fluvial period of short duration (such as the medial climatic optimum), and this fluvial period may end up being politically important, a marker of its own paradigmatic importance... and these Bosnian pyramids won't end up being made by humans. if something is too far outside the paradigm it is not usually accurate, because the 'paradigm' is a collaborative effort where these speculative theories are left field. But the interest is commendable. my general feeling, read all the standard stuff first because it's the best approximation.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too true, Micro. The more I've looked into the Bosnian guy, the more he comes across as being way outside of left field. Some of his claims, well... Let's just say he's not doing himself any favors. I found a couple of interviews with some mainstream guys, in particular Robert Schoch, and they were quite restrained with their criticism (and their frustration), considering his stubborn refusal to accept unequivocal, hard scientific evidence contradicting his claims. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the Bosnian businessman; something which is sometimes not easily conveyed with the written word.

 

I think the documentary below answers quite a few of the claims, though I would still like to see some response to some things said in the video which has been removed. For me, as it stands with the evidence presented and discussed so far, much as I'd very much like it to be, the current paradigm is in no danger. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/09/2018 at 12:07 PM, Micromegas said:

i'm all for questioning the 'mainstream' and it's important to do so, but there's limits, because the 'mainstream' is actually the product of hundreds if not thousands of years of investigation. paradigms don't get frequently overturned, they are slowly evolving. For example, the sphinx won't end up being 20k yrs old, but its state of preservation may indicate a period of rapid erosion by water during recent fluvial period of short duration (such as the medial climatic optimum), and this fluvial period may end up being politically important, a marker of its own paradigmatic importance... and these Bosnian pyramids won't end up being made by humans. if something is too far outside the paradigm it is not usually accurate, because the 'paradigm' is a collaborative effort where these speculative theories are left field. But the interest is commendable. my general feeling, read all the standard stuff first because it's the best approximation.

 

 

 

This makes no sense at all.

What are the limits?

 

Thousands of years of investigation? really?

We don't even know currently what happened thousands of years ago.

 

New discoveries are pretty much outside of the paradigm by definition.

 

The egyptian pyramids are made from concrete, this has already been backed up with analysis of the microstructure of the blocks.
 

The arguments against the bosnian pyramids are weak imo.

It's like saying the egyptian pyramids are natural rock formations cause similar formations can be found in the area

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


New discoveries are pretty much outside of the paradigm by definition.

not really. new discoveries generally have as their substrate the content of older discoveries.

 

for example, work on the content of the limestone blocks used in the pyramid of cheops used chemical analysis that itself was the result of thousands of years of research into chemistry, microscopy, etc. Furthermore it was only the highest level blocks that were cast from the limestone concoction, while the lower blocks were hewn from nearby quarries, as per the standard theories of 'conventional' (i.e. paradigmatic) egyptologists. Thus a new discovery was integrated with an old discovery, and the paradigm didn't shift completely (as it would if it were discovered that the pyramids were made by aliens). Mind you, it is still under debate (and some egpytologists don't like it all, which at a local level is indeed a paradigm shift), but seems like a fair hypothesis, not like the bosnian "pyramids".

Quote


What are the limits?

 

Thousands of years of investigation? really?

 

 

the 'limits' to investigation are what falls so far outside the scope of provability and probability that the theory can add nothing to existing knowledge, such as the pyramids being made by aliens. sometimes knowledge evolves rapidly. The theory of evolution was a fair whack to the paradigm for example and Darwin himself struggled with integrating it into his theological mindset. so I don't disagree that some new discoveries fall outside existing knowledge paradigms and there are some discoveries that defy 'limits'. but typically, humanity claws out small bits of new knowledge from a mass of accumulated knowledge, and 'new' knowledge requires the substrate of 'old' knowledge even to be expressed. You can't even make a new discovery if you don't know what's come before - think for example of describing a new species of animal if linnean taxonomy had not evolved out of prior notions of taxonomic inquiry, such as the Aristotelian system, that has turned out to be imprecise. Yes in this case genetic taxonomic inquiry may rewrite much of what we know but the paradigm of taxonomy (classifying living organisms) won't get overturned as such, and will still be reliant on thousands years of investigation, some of which will remain accurate and which we have a fair idea occurred because it has been written down.

 

i tend to suspect those with bizarre conspiracy theories have their target set on something other than the topic at hand. it is important to gather a certain level of baseline knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

less then 5 hundred years ago the sun was rotating around the earth!!

 

you are delusional Micromegas *points and laughs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dutch dumbfuckery at its best again :lol:

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dual the master of antilogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you wanna call things

 

Matter of the fact is

 

20 hours ago, Micromegas said:

 it was only the highest level blocks that were cast from the limestone concoction, while the lower blocks were hewn from nearby quarries, as per the standard theories of 'conventional' (i.e. paradigmatic) egyptologists.

 

This is an assumption, if you had read the paper all the tested samples contain anomalies, just some not tested blocks 'look like they have been quarried' on a picture

 

?format=750w

 

Besides the science this picture is pretty obvious don't you think?

It's a ground level block from the khufu pyramid

 

And some more interesting points in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZVNbwbyGPY

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davidovitas' work is quite interesting and he presents a very cogent theory. It has some way to go, but I personally find it really innovative, and the agglomeration theory does have some potential for changing some parts of the archaeological paradigm with respect to ancient megalithic structures. I will keep an eye out for that in archaeological contexts I am more interested in than egypt. Thanks for pointing it out, I might have a further look into it sometime.

 

The Copernican revolution might well be described as a paradigm shift. But it didn't just appear out of nowhere, there were other models of a heliocentric universe before this, several thousand years beforehand in fact. But this is, itself, only accurate in the context of the scientific paradigm of knowledge, which is not the only 'paradigmatic form' that knowledge can take.

 

Human knowledge builds itself up over a long period and has and does pass through many forms. Inquiry and new developments are highly important in that context, and the current paradigm is a combination of new knowledge with superseded knowledge sloughed off, fitting the general spirit of the time, which these days in the western world is largely 'scientific'.

 

But even this of course does not take into account the agendas that may be embedded in the production and acceptance of knowledge as truth - religion, politics, culture and so on. Sometimes old knowledge becomes new again for reasons not directly related to its veracity.

 

Personally I am more curious about the history of ideas than the truth of ideas as such. Since I generally present my arguments from this angle, I have a tendency to confuse people when there is not enough time and space to draw out the details. That is almost entirely a fault in my delivery, and sometimes due to my characteristic of (incorrectly) over-extrapolating from small details. But, the confusion is also partly due to the parochialism of knowledge, which is more about its history than its truth. People get very sensitive about what they think they know because of how it informs their identity and can have disproportionately strong reactions to even minor challenges to how they think. I can understand responses like this because they manifest in history all the time, and to a point it is very important to look after knowledge that others might think is delusional (such as cultural groups maintaining their cultural forms in the face of the impacts of colonialism). Likewise, I do appreciate some of the startling discoveries that are made by rigorous research that have added to how we understand our reality. My own mentality, though my education, is greatly informed by the Copernican revolution and it took years to budge it enough to see the form of knowledge and its plurality more accurately.

 

But this does not extended to accommodating every far out theory that I hear, and I suspect the Copernican revolution may indeed have caused some of us to spend too much time in the sun, trying to work out what does indeed go around what!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Micromegas said:

the agglomeration theory does have some potential for changing some parts of the archaeological paradigm

 

It already has been changed, that microcstructure research was done in 2006 to test davidovits theory

 

Ofcourse things don't come out of nowhere (everythings connected)

 

I'm all pro scepticism, as long as good arguments are put on the table

 

9 hours ago, Micromegas said:

People get very sensitive about what they think they know because of how it informs their identity and can have disproportionately strong reactions to even minor challenges to how they think

 

I wonder how this relates to the folks from the documentary that  @Insequent linked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/10/2018 at 12:31 PM, DualWieldRake said:

What is the current paradigm?

 

2bosniaballs.jpg

 

It's just a wind swept rock. Everything is a windswept rock.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×