Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun carbon dated to 25,000 years old.

reply to post by nOraKat

And for all the debunkers - what would a 25,000 year old leaf be doing on top of a man made structure? How can it get there?

This is a very good question. I would like to hear an educated answer, please??!!

reply to post by Sublimecraft


hmm 25000 years old ... pre dates the Deluge 12,000 yrs , Tiwanaku 17,000 yrs
Göbekli Tepe 10 to 17,000 +


well People Remember Modern Humans ( US ) has been on this planet for 250,000 yrs

as what scientist has to us

either US or our Deitys that left these ruins ... for us to find ..

but to me...

Puma Punku takes the cake of the Unexplained Ancient Lost Technolagy that we may of Once had ..

Originally posted by LetsGoViking
Really? This again?

This is a hill. Here are the sides laid out against true north:

Here is a view from ground level, from the southeast:

There is nothing vaguely pyramid about this hill. No orientation, nada. It's a hill that possibly some neolithic culture build on...maybe.

I must agree.
If anything, this leaf just further proves that this is exactly what it looks like: a hill.

Really, what they should do is crack open some of the other hills around this hill/pyramid which are not purported to be pyramids, and see what they look like on the inside. If they are similar to the pyramid hill, then they are all hills - but maybe used by ancient peoples of course. If they are not similar, then perhaps this thing really is a man-made structure.

reply to post by randomname


no, but it proves that the leaf is at least as old or older than where it was found. It couldn't have been sitting on top of a hill which was not yet formed now, could it?

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by Sublimecraft

 

hmm 25000 years old ... pre dates the Deluge 12,000 yrs , Tiwanaku 17,000 yrs
Göbekli Tepe 10 to 17,000 +

The hill is actually several million years old, geologically, no deluge (if you mean a biblical event that covered the world), nope of Tiwanaku - if you really believe that tell us how Posnansky came up with that number? GT is around 12k old not 17 AFAWKN

Puma Punku takes the cake of the Unexplained Ancient Lost Technolagy that we may of Once had ..

Very nice stone working technology, I'd say the greatest unexplained 'lost' technology is how they figured out the bow and arrow, acorn processing and metal working

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Agreed, you would think the board members here would be quicker to accept the notion that this very peculiar "hill" is a pyramid.

It doesn't look remotely natural aside from the trees. I've seen a lot of mountains and none looked like this. Bosnia would be an appropriate place for prehistoric man to have civilized. Outside of western culture most people agree that humans created civilizations multiple times and civilization post 6,000 BC was only a remnant of what once was.

Surely there is more evidence below the surface?

reply to post by Hanslune


Recorded history is only a tithe of the true history of civilization.

We have discovered stranger and more unbelievable things to be true in the past.

One surely must accept the potential that Atlantis was not a myth but actual fact.

We've lost a lot of evidence for civilization in the past. We've actually lose considerably more than we've found... Keep an open mind.

reply to post by Hanslune

I'd say the greatest unexplained 'lost' technology is how they figured out the bow and arrow, acorn processing and metal working

Don't forget the hybridization (aka genetic engineering) of maize.

Originally posted by On7a7higher7plane

It doesn't look remotely natural aside from the trees. I've seen a lot of mountains and none looked like this.

Ask geologist what they think, they have investigated the hill and found it to be.... a hill why do you deny their opinions?

Bosnia would be an appropriate place for prehistoric man to have civilized. Outside of western culture most people agree that humans created civilizations multiple times and civilization post 6,000 BC was only a remnant of what once was.

Its a nice theory but it falls apart based on the lack of evidence for such 'cycles' and is further damaged by the evidence against it

Where is the culture that Osmie thinks built these pyramids, absolutely no doubts about the cultures in Meso-America, South America, AE and Sumeria they are there and easy to find - but other than some hunter-gather groups, there is no city at that location in Bosnia- how do you explain that?

Surely there is more evidence below the surface?

Well that's the problem for the hills - there is isn't anything to point to their builders. I have noted before, for the volume of these hills where did the materials come from - can you point to the quarries?

Again these quarries are easy to find in AE and Meso-America

One would wonder where the habitations are, the briquetage, and other commonly found relics of large cultures or civilizations - why are they lacking in Bosnia?

If you follow the evidence you get hills, if you go on pure 'belief' and deny the known evidence you get 'pyramids'

reply to post by Sublimecraft


re:
Why this is not more extensively covered by the MSM is not surprising, after all, it flies in the face of modern academia with regards to what we are taught about our ancient past.

When people hear about Bosnian, Chinese, American, Indian etc.. they know they are not for burial

reply to post by rickymouse


Read this for..
...the history of Cement/Concrete.

reply to post by MagnificentTongue


In the USA, you have a pyramid shaped mound.
The Miamisburg Mound.

I have been following this for a while, and I have been awaiting the Carbon dating results. Thank you for this information. This puts it in the period of the Tiahunaco/Lake Titicaca structures. We have been here and civilised for a very long time. For me on this one, like a few others, one either throws out Carbon dating, or one accepts that we were building structures, beautifully engineered - very big ones - for tens of Millennia. Cheers, Grant.

Originally posted by DejaVuAgain
reply to post by randomname

 

no, but it proves that the leaf is at least as old or older than where it was found. It couldn't have been sitting on top of a hill which was not yet formed now, could it?

The soil was 12000 years old.
Not the rock underneath it!

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by thePharaoh
YEC and believers...+...darwinsim and atheists

I fall into neither category.

*shrug*

You have to, it's not a question. You either believe, or you don't. If you don't, you are an atheist.

Pretty simple stuff actually.

P.S.

Even if you are a believer, Darwinism is true. The weaker die. We've observed this for centuries.

Weaker not being relative to physical strength, but relative to ability to survive. You can not be strong (read; you can be weak) and survive through wit -- for reference.

reply to post by Sublimecraft


They could be naturally formed but shaped by people and used "for whatever pyramids are used for" like the others? I don't see what they haven't properly excavated yet, its kinda like the ones in china, the tomb of the first emperor of china is rumoured to have an ancient burial city beneath it but they're too superstitious to go down there.

As for the age, that is quite incredible! Carbon dating never fails to amaze and confuse us puny humans!

reply to post by Annanu


Just looked up the Titicaca structures. It's very interesting. I wonder if the same sort of humanoids built the pyramids. And why.

Originally posted by Laykilla
You have to, it's not a question. You either believe, or you don't. If you don't, you are an atheist.

Pretty simple stuff actually.

I don't believe in a "god" except as the sum total of all possibilities and awareness being ultimately one total being, completely undefinable yet still being very real. As much a "higher power" to me as I am to my own cells who are also individual units of life "separate" from me... in that I continue despite a cell dying, yet I still can't be "me" without them.

Just because you apply simplistic boundaries doesn't mean the rest of us are confined to your limited set of definitions. To a lay Christian or "Believer" I sound like an atheist when we get down to it in discussion (or worse since I state that they are just as much God as the "god" they worship), to an atheist I sound like a theist that they can't place in a particular religion. Both are trapped in their limited "us vs them" way of looking at everything and can't see they are both wrong and right.

Originally posted by Laykilla
Even if you are a believer, Darwinism is true. The weaker die. We've observed this for centuries.

Weaker not being relative to physical strength, but relative to ability to survive. You can not be strong (read; you can be weak) and survive through wit -- for reference.

I love how every generation thinks they are the one living at the time where most of the mysteries of the universe are more or less revealed while the later generations wonder what it must have been like to live in a time where people thought so simply and overlooked so many things staring them in the face.

I was once in your shoes writing your sort of posts. *shrug*