I wonder if there has been any update on this discovery and the consequences? It is dated 2002 Exactly what my sister asked me! I have actually been searching google for the update since I clipped this.  Oh, and all I've gotten are disputes and more evidence on the pottery found on the site-- pretty much summed up in this Wikipedia entry. Still much controversy on this subject but chief NIAT geologist Badrinaryan's report looks very convincing. See a copy of it on Graham Hancock's site. Might be worth a look at the site thru Google Earth or Worldwind. Invictus, there is no way. The images are so poor you really can't tell what is going on. Processing and interpreting remote sensing data is a real skill. Those ones look like Rorschachs. For example, the one of the basements is patently an artifact of the survey. The survey transects simply aren't lining up, making "streets" or "walls" at the joins. And I saw only one stone artifact that looked real--the pink "core" with no scale. The rest are pebbles. And there should be no debate as to whether something is a concretion or pottery--all you have to do is lick it. This guy might be a fine geologist, but he has no grip at all on archaeology. Graham Hancock.... AAAGH!  (but yo... I understand your feelings about Hancock. For me he is (in spite of everything) far more preferrable than the establishment jerks like Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner or volunteer paradigm defenders like Martin Stower and Doug Weller (of the "online pawns" of archaeology orthodoxy.)"Talisman" was a good read; I also liked the "Keeper of Genesis" (though I have strong disagreements on many subjects with Hancock and Bauval.) |
View the Top Clips from October 12, 2006
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
