Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 1

message: It is an interesting exercise to read through "The World of the Maya" by Sam Osmanagich at http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/WM.htm. In it, a person finds revealing statements such as:
... It is my theory that the Maya should be considered watchmakers of the cosmos whose mission it is to adjust the Earthly frequency and bring it into accordance with the vibrations of our Sun. Once the Earth begins to vibrate in harmony with the Sun, information will be able to travel in both directions without limitation. And then we will be able to understand why all ancient peoples worshipped the Sun and dedicated their rituals to this. The Sun is the source of all life on this planet and the source of all information and knowledge. 
and
"This temple, fortunately, remained hidden and intact until 1989, so that the Masonic cliques were not able to keep it from the world. It is clear that what we see here are space ships which travel between our Solar system and other parts of the galaxy (the head of the Maya is in the vehicles and, thereby, between the Sun and the center of the galaxy). 
These statements and the rather disjointed and rambling nature of this essay certainly raises questions about Mr. Osmanagic's qualifications as and his understanding of even the basics of archaeology.
There is an interesting discussion going about the Bosnian pyramid in  Regarding the Bosnian "pyramid"
Given that Osmanagic has no qualifications as an archeologist, and no expertise in any of the archeological actions he's taken to date (identifying, dating, and excavating an archeological site), his writings on  pseudohistory of ancient civilizations and this "pyramid" are especially telling.  In "The World of the Maya" writes of the Mayan's connections with Atlantis,  Lemuria,  Mu, "cosmic harmony",  and intragalactic travel in ancient times. It's no surprise then that he, without any evidence at all, dates his "pyramid" to the supposed time of Atlantis. -- (Ronz 19:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The World of the Maya" by Mr. Osmanagic, Revealing Reading 

message: The recent rewrite of the article does not meet wikipedia's standards. Statements like "seems to have located [...] the world's largest ancient man-made pyramid", "Osmanagic is an expert on pyramids", "It is suspected that the ancient Illyrian inhbitants [sic] of the Balkans, once thought to be more primitive, actually built these structures" require citations. Otherwise, the article needs to be restructured to make no such original claims. Besides that, the article includes spelling and grammatical errors, and is laid out in a very non-standard way. I will resist reverting to the earlier version (which was at least encyclopaedic in style), but ask that these issues to be addressed as a priority. — JEREMY 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the recent highly POV changes to the most recent NPOV version of the article. We seem to have 2 groups of Bosnians fighting over the content here - 1 group Osmanagic-supporters, and the other Osmanagic-haters - neither of whom seem to be aware of Wikipedia's NPOV and accuracy policies. --Gene_poole 03:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a reference to a Bosnian archaeologist who isn't happy with the dig to try and add a balance of opinion to the links out. They're a little uncritical. This is my first attempt at an edit or discussion post so apologies if I've messed up the formatting. --Alunsalt 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations to those who have encyclopediaised this article.  I've been researching this story and browsing internet forums.  The facts are hard to come by and the waters are muddied by conspiracy theorists, Bosnian Nationalists, people who want to scoff at Bosnia and people who believe aliens built the pyramids.  There is currently a dig ongoing on the site, we must hope that the facts will become clearer in the next few months.  Until then all we can do is try to kepp this article free of nationalistic vandalism (from either side) and from the fantasies of sci-fi nuts. (No offence to Trekkies :) ) Quarkstorm 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current state of the article

message: Has anyone managed to dig up an image with licensing we can use of this thing?
Images like this one pretty impressively make the case for it actually being a pyramid. — ceejayoz talk 19:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is at this point in time an Associated Press article up at  (that rather clearly shows that the hill in question is a forested hill at this point in time.  So I have to view the one you linked to as not being impressive.  That article leads me to believe that it is too soon to have a definitive conclusion.  GRBerry 20:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  photos 

message: I appreciate the desire not to prejudice readers about whether there are actually pyramids present at Visoko. However, readers who come looking for this content will be searching for the pyramid information (which is all this article actually covers — there's nothing worthwhile here about the hill itself), and thus I've reversed the move. — JEREMY 01:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visocica hill move

message: Here are a lot of photos:
http://index.hu/gal?dir=0604/tech/pyramid/
If you look it is fairly obviously natural. The economy of the area is much collapsed and this is a tourism PR hype trick according to everbody you ask in the central european region. 195.70.48.242 07:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here are a lot of photos 

message: It has to be noted that serious researchers have disputed heavily Mr.Osmanagics claims as not only incorrect but also that his so-called excavations have been damaging older neolithic and medieval archeological sites ! Apart from this, it has been noted that Mr.Osmanagic seems to have no scientific references to display, despite his claims of "15-year-old-pyramid-research".As is apparent from his books, all of his so-called researches are simple tourist trips! For serious information regarding this so-called "research", check:
*http://archaeoastronomy.co.uk/2006/04/17/bosnian-pyramid
*http://accidentalweblog.org/index.php?itemid=75
*http://prevara.bloger.hr/
*http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/damndata/index.php?/archives/280-Pyramid-I-see-no-pyramid-here.html
-- Comment added to main article by anon editor User:85.92.228.157, 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation: anon response

message: This is going to be a controversial one so I think we need to keep an eye on the "facts" as some things in the entry seem to be taking Semir Osmanagić's statements as fact. A couple of things that concern me and possibly need to be more qualified:
"The 213 metre Visocica hill is symmetrically shaped, with sides reportedly sloping at 45° and aligned to the points of the compass."
The contour map  (extracted from here) shows this just isn't so. The north face is roughly triangular (not in itself remarkably in geomorphological terms) but it is nearly impossible to make out a rectangular plan or even well defined other sides at all (making statements on actual aignment impossible). You can make the hill look pyramidal if you stage your photographs from the N or NE but that doesn't make that statement true. Perhaps better wording might be "Semir Osmanagić has claimed that the 213 metre Visocica hill is symmetrically shaped, with sides reportedly sloping at 45° and allegedly aligned to the points of the compass."
"The dig, involving a team of international archaeologists from Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Scotland and Slovenia [1], began in April 2006."
You can see named "international archaeologists" in this statement from Semir Osmanagić "Foreigners on our team include experienced archaeologist such as: Richard Royce from Australia, Allyson McDavid from U.S., Chris Mundligler from Canada, Martin Aner from Austria."  - few of them show up online (apart from in connection with this) suggesting they aren't well established in the field. Mundligler is probably Chris Mundigler  but a handful of (unconfirmed) archaeology graduates from different countries hardly counts as "an international team" - I could find archaeologists from America and France to come and look at things in my back garden if I tried hard enough (or made big enough claims) - would that allow me to claim they were an "international team"? My concern is that this seems to be providing false authority to the claims. Perhaps better wording might be: "Archaeologists from around the world, including Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Scotland, Slovenia and the USA, " and then throw in the link I gave  as a source too.
The current last link is Bosnian language only - for English language concerns you can see the Science and Politics blog  which has a number of entries and links to other places raising concerns. This critical article should also probably be linked in 
Caveats: I have expressed a range of concerns about this hill actually being a pyramid (despite my really wanting it to be - ironically as I was eidtting this in someone added other comments with links to what I've said - I'd still recommend using the Science and Politics blog entry as the central one for English language blogging concern about goingson as they link out to various other aspects) so I don't feel I should make those updates and will leave it to more neutral editors to decide on the best way forward (Emperor 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and have changed the statement about the hills symmetry, slope and alignment to a less assertive form.  With regards the pedigree of the archaeological team perhaps some wording could be found to communicate that they mostly haven't got any other major digs on their cv's.
instead of   
"...involving a team of international archaeologists... "
try
"...involving an international team of largely unrecognised archaeologists ..."
or 
"...involving an international team of budding, but as yet, unrecognised archaeologists..."
Quarkstorm 08:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The statements in question are derived from the article in the SMH. Feel free to correct, but be careful when rewriting them not to misattribute. — JEREMY 09:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. There is no mention of "unrecognised archaeologists" in any quoted source. I've modified the content to reflect this. --Gene_poole 03:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we refer to this discussion as the source?  The contributors here appear to be doing better fact checking than anyone else, certainly better than references to what ultimately are just pr pieces from Osmanagić. -- Ronz 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the tricky business - we can't say they are "unrecognised" however we largely have vague handwaving claims made from Osmanagić or sources close to him and this is unconfirmed. I am largely quibbling with the wording as "team" suggests something more organised than it is - which is a few people with archaeology degrees going to take a look and even that is relying on Osmanagić as it is not confirmed and there have been statements made by them. So some kind of tweaking and qualifying "claimed" "individual archaeologists", etc.. If anyone can track down the identity of the named people (there are typos galore) let me know as I will be emailing them for their comments. (Emperor 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that picking at the word "team" is a little excessive. Wiktionary defines team as: any group of people involved in the same activity. So the word team doesn't imply any level of organization at all. Also, the word "international" isn't describing anything more glorious than the fact that all the people are from differant nations(In Wiktionary: Of or having to do with more than one nation). Just because it sounds more impressive than saying "we got guys from all over" doesn't mean its false or has to be edited out. I don't know about using the title archeologist though. So I wwould have to say that a french and american coming to your yard to investigate are an international team (assuming they work together in some way)--Matt D 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the facts are shaky, but I wonder if we should be including them. For instance Kaz is right that the 365 metre measurement is nonsense. Nonetheless this is what Osmanagić is claiming. If these are not included then are we misrepresenting his work? Perhaps claims like the 45 degree symmetrical slopes slopes should be included and the caption on the photo changed to Visocica overlooking Visoko. Semir Osmanagić states the symmetrical nature of the hill and its forty-five degree slopes are indicative of a pyramid. Other archaeologists find the claim controversial. Presenting Osmanagić's statements is probably the best way to demonstrate the questionable nature of the claims, but leaves it for the reader to decide. The trick is to write it up without sounding sarcastic. For instance - The fact the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun would be the biggest pyramid shows that the pyramids were all built by the same people and the Bosnian Pyramid was the last according to Osmanagić. This has been disputed by Osmanagić who has noted that it may well have been built first. --Alunsalt 12:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can use the current illustration — which was the best I could find of the half-dozen relevant ones available in wikicommons — to disprove the claims; it's simply not clear enough. (I wrote to the "Foundation" a week or so ago about using their images, including one of Osmanagic himself, but have heard nothing back from them to date.) — JEREMY 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I can make of it, a translation of Osmanagić's book will show he's using the same theories from his other books to support his "pyramid" assertions: namely that aliens from the Pleiades cluster founded Atlantis, whose space-faring ancestors then went on to create all the ancient civilizations in the world. -- (Ronz 14:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know when the Pyramid of the Sun book was written? It's been asserted here and elsewhere that the book preceded Osmanagic's first visit to Visocica; it would be interesting to know if that's in fact true. — JEREMY 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Arg. This seems to be classic Original research. What we need is someone else doing the investigative journalism (preferably someone associated with a "reliable source") so we can quote and link to them. — JEREMY 08:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fact" checking

message: If you visit this site you can see the comment I am the Royce Richards made famous (and notorious) by Mr Osmanagich. I made an initial enquiry into the project and then decided to distance myself from it as it looked to me like someone selling snake oil. I have since had my name published in articles in national newspapers in Australia and in international media as an “Australian Archaeologist out to unearth ancient Bosnian pyramids and rewrite the established version of history........”
Its all a big load of bollocks. The “Bosnian Pyramid” is just a shonky attempt by a shonky person to make a name for themselves, its not something I want to be involved with. Its quite annoying as I now get random emails from all kinds of kooks expecting me to be an authority on Bosnian pyramids!! The damage this will do to my professional reputation is yet to be seen..........!
I never gave Mr Osmanagich permission to give my name to any media organisation and I never gave any media organisation permission to put my name in print. For the record I am an archaeologist. For the record I am not involved in the Bosnian pyramid project. For the record I’m pretty annoyed with finding my name given to the media in relation to Bosnian pyramids.I thought it could be an imposter, but I've emailed the address in the South Australian government and it's genuine. Royce Richards is, according to the official site, on the archaeological committee. Is this verification enough to be able to write up a section on the misrepresentation of archaeologists? At the moment you only have my word for it that I've emailed him, but realistically the whole world cannot email him to check. It is also provocative enough to inspire a few flames. I thought I'd put it up for debate before writing it up to see what other people think. Alunsalt 08:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arg. This seems to be classic Original research. What we need is someone else doing the investigative journalism (preferably someone associated with a "reliable source") so we can quote and link to them. — JEREMY 08:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeologists

message: I've restored the (apparently representative) letter to the Times Online. Is there some doubt that this (notably redlinked) source is fraudulent or WP:NPOV#Undue weight? If so, it should probably be removed again. Also, why was the Dutch link to Visocica removed? Is the article about the hill, rather than the "pyramids" perhaps? — JEREMY 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the "pyramids" - whether they are real or not. The only reason I or most of the people researching this subject have ever heard of Visocica hill is because of the pyramid theory associated with it. We're not here to make value judgements on Osmanagic's theories - merely to report them, and the controversy resulting from them. --Gene_poole 04:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant "is the Dutch article (only) about the hill?" I was trying to work out why the link was removed. Since it was removed by an anon user (incidentally, one accused of vandalism and sockpuppetry) during a mass reversion, I've restored it. — JEREMY 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I misunderstood the context of your query. --Gene_poole 06:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter to the editor and Dutch link?

message: They released a piece on their site  - the quotes from Curtis Runnels could do with adding into the criticism section. (Emperor 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't include a lot we don't have already (except the embarrassingly partisan petition, which we've thankfully abandoned now — wish I'd actually bothered to read it earlier...) Sure, the Runnels critique is another good laugh at the pyramidiots, but there's already plenty of that in the criticism section. There is, however, a valuable clue in there as to how Osmanagic might have attracted his "international team" (ie. inclusion in the Archaeological Institute of America's online listing of excavation opportunities); if only we were able to verify that's what happened. Also, there are apparently five pyramids now! Perhaps we should run a competition to name the last one. :) — JEREMY 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have thought that Archaeology Magazine saying it got on the list was "verification" - you could always ask them directly (or would that be original research ;) ). You are right about the seeming spread of the pyramids - I'm going to call it and go for The Emperor Pyramid. Its grandiose and self-aggrandising which all seems rather appropriate ;) (Emperor 03:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! "The Emperor Pyramid" gets my vote. So, who wants to email the BBC? — JEREMY 03:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The New York Times has taken Archaeology Magazine's lead: "Some See a 'Pyramid' to Hone Bosnia's Image. Others See a Big Hill." (Ronz 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeology Magazine

message: I've added the link to "the other side" of the story. 217.227.222.19 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AntiPyramid Web-Ring 

message: Osmangic is now on record claiming the pyramid has supernatural powers:
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=inDepthNews&storyID=2006-05-08T120401Z_01_L26318455_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-BOSNIA-PYRAMID.xml 
Osmanagic believes the site was chosen in the belief that it was a focal point of energies, like Giza in Egypt. That, he says, could explain the local claim that no one was killed in the three-pyramid area during the 1992-95 war.
"The pyramid saved them," he said.
(Ronz 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why so concerned?  Because the citizens of the town of Visoko, the country of Bosnia, and the world deserve better than to be taken by such charlatans.  I'm also very frightned as what will happen when people finally start facing the facts and look for a scapegoat when they realize they've been played for fools. (Ronz 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally I'm taking an interest because I heard the story, got interested, did a little digging and then it all fell apart. I feel it should be stringly marked as krankery to prevent anyone who can't be bothered doing that digging taking it at face value. --Artw 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramid Has Supernatural Powers 

message: The more Osmangic says, the less sense he makes, the more evident he's just making things up.  The "Osmanagić's interpretation" section shows this.  Should we try to make the section make sense, or continue with it as is, the ramblings of a charlatan?
:I think the claims are contradictory, but I'm not sure he's a charlatan. I'm more inclined to believe that he doesn't know what he's talking about and has a short memory. For instance the article currently states that the Pyramid is between 12,000 and 500 BC. I'm pretty certain I read a claim on the official site (twice) that it could be from before the end of the Ice Age - which would be a very odd misquote. I think if he were intentionally misleading people he'd be much better at it. I don't think you can make the section make sense without editing Osmanagić and people reading the reference might want to know if he has made a specific claim. Then let them make up their own minds. --Alunsalt 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a charlatan in that he claims skills and knowledge that he clearly does not possess, and he uses these claims to support his further claims and raise funds.  Whatever his initial  intentions, he's currently trying to deceive people rather than admit his previous statements were wild and baseless.  (Ronz 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly I'll admit I'm wrong. It does look like he is a charlatan. Here's one of the photos pointed out to me by Kat Reece at the Hall of Ma'at. It appears that not only is he faking evidence - he's not doing a very good job of it. Can we get that in the article as fair use? --Alunsalt 21:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image has now disappeared. Did anyone snag a copy? (Emperor 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I didn't. I've just searched my cache and its bereft of anything Bosnian. Alunsalt 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm surprised no one has included much from Osmangic original claims (other than in the article's introduction, which still sounds like a PR piece): It's Europe's first pyramid that's over 12,000 years old and was made by shaping the hill into a step pyramid then covering it  with primitive concrete. (Ronz 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osmangic's Contradictory Claims 

message: This page needs to be brought into line with the truth about the "pyramids".
At present articles like this make a mockery of wikipedia.
Hi I don't know how to sign my comments really but yes I am not responsible for what's written here above, I do however see that persons point, the article at the moment does give one the impression that there could possibly be a pyramid there. There is however obviously no pyramid to be found there, when I first heard the news of a pyramid in Bosnia I thought that it was sorta exciting but it's just BS, a mistake, a hoax a fuckup who knows. Either way this article should tell it like it is, there are no pyramids there. (Signed by me or something)
:The article in it's present state is a great example of what Wikipedia is supposed to do - document information that is both factual and NPOV. The article makes it abundantly clear that Osmanagic is a crackpot and his theories completely nuts, and this is fully referenced. How this "makes a mockery" of Wikipedia is for you to explain. --Gene_poole 01:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha.. 'crackpot'... gold. Stop The Lies 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this makes a mockery of wikipedia. 

message: ::See http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/gallery.html for more up to date images Polymorph 06:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  current photos needed of excavations 

message: The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" 
Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" 
John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine
(above added 00:48, 26 September 2006 by Ronz)
Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims"
--Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Refs

message: (Anyone know why I can't see the references? Do others have this problem?) - It's the gallery tag that's causing it.
It's now almost a year since the pyramid pr started.  Early on, the sources available were few and poor.  I think we have enough available sources now that we should at least discuss this article's reliance on poor sources, and what changes should be made now that many better ones are available.  Minimally, I think the article could contain a section critical of most media about the pyramid, citing the multiple sources that have published such media criticisms.  Additionally, I think it's worth considering adding something about this being a hoax designed to increase tourist revenue and influence politics across Bosnia, again citing the multiple sources available. --Ronz 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "pyramid" after one year

message: Osmanagić and APBPSF have been playing with weasel words, making an issue of whether or not the hill is man-made or natural.  Everyone knows that there are man-made structures on the hill.  Man-made structures do not make the hill into a pyramid.  Please don't fall for this simple ruse. --Ronz 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's a natural hill with man-made structures on it

message: I'm proposing that we stop treating Osmanagić and APBPSF (Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation) are reliable sources.  If needed, we can summarize all the evidence.  If the source for material is Osmanagić or APBPSF, we should look for other reliable sources before incorporating it, otherwise it should not be added to the article.  For example, there are claims that Aly Abd Barakat thinks portions of the hill are man-made, but we have no reliable sources confirming this and more importantly we have no sources that confirm if Barakat thinks there is a pyramid or just other man-made structures. --Ronz 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to an extent. It's been demonstrated that Osmanagić is not a reliable source with fabrication of experts who turned out not to be on site. However, because this is a fantasy concocted by Osmanagić there is a need to report what he says and the official site is as reliable as anywhere else for that. --Alunsalt 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  We need to report what Osmanagić claims about the situation.  We need to be cautious and find other sources when the source is unclear (because the source is almost always an APBPSF press release) or when the APBPSF makes claims about others' actions, claims, or credentials. --Ronz 23:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding reliable sources