Reading up on the Bosnian pyramid blah, wiki states that the hills in question are identified as flatiron formations. The pics supplied of flatiron formations do not resemble the bosnian hills, particularly in respect to the description “ a flatiron in geomorphology is a steeply sloping wedge-shaped landscape feature created by differential erosion of a resistant rock layer which is inclined in the same direction as, but at a steeper angle than the exposed mountain slope. Flatirons are known for the wide bases and steep, narrow ridge lines”-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatiron_(geomorphology)

I am not seeking to uncover any mystery but this does not look academically settled to me. None of the Bosnian features have either steeply sloping sides or ridgelines. How are these then identified as flatiron formations and in particular, how is the symmetry obvious in the first pic natural? I have supplied a very good example of a flatiron formation last.

definitely not steep

The Rock of Gibraltar is an excellent example of a flatiron formation.

As the article says, flatiron hills are erosion features. Thus, newer ones are going to be steeper and more obvious than older ones.

Bubblecar said:

As the article says, flatiron hills are erosion features. Thus, newer ones are going to be steeper and more obvious than older ones.

I live on the east coast of Australia, I have a pretty good idea of the effects of erosion on land features. I cannot see any particular evidence this is a flatiron formation. Erosion also does little to explain it’s symmetry.

Not-so-steep flatirons:

Bubblecar said:

Not-so-steep flatirons:

not so steep? the ridges there are significantly steep

>I cannot see any particular evidence this is a flatiron formation.

Maybe that’s ‘cos you’re not a geologist.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Bubblecar said:

Not-so-steep flatirons:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/Novaculite_Flatirons_Marathon_Uplift.JPG/800px-Novaculite_Flatirons_Marathon_Uplift.JPG!

not so steep? the ridges there are significantly steep

the flatirons in that pic were the rocky bits sticking out of the hills. Also, are there examples of flatirons anywhere else that are overgrown with vegetation?

Bubblecar said:

>I cannot see any particular evidence this is a flatiron formation.

Maybe that’s ‘cos you’re not a geologist.

are you being condescending?

The ridges look pretty much the same angle there as in the Bosnian photo.

>are you being condescending?

The Bosnian formations have been examined in detail by a wide range of properly qualified people. I see no sensible reason to reject their considered verdict, which is that these are natural formations of the flatiron kind.

Bubblecar said:

The ridges look pretty much the same angle there as in the Bosnian photo.

you think? They look steeper than the 45 degree ridges from Bosnia to me

Bubblecar said:

>are you being condescending?

The Bosnian formations have been examined in detail by a wide range of properly qualified people. I see no sensible reason to reject their considered verdict, which is that these are natural formations of the flatiron kind.

I can find no image of a flatiron that resemble this hill visually in any way. Obviously I haven’t examined the underlying rock, but my question is reasonable and there is no need to start with the “woo-head trying to shout down the professionals” crap. I give you more respect than that. Try returning some.

>you think? They look steeper than the 45 degree ridges from Bosnia to me

Unqualified people bickering about pitchers on the internet is a bit pointless given that: “Geologists, archaeologists and other scientists have however concluded, after analysis of the site, its known history, and the excavations, that the hills are natural formations known as flatirons and that there are no signs of human construction involved. The European Association of Archaeologists released a statement calling the pyramids a “scheme” and a “cruel hoax”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanagi%C4%87_pyramid_hypothesis

Bubblecar said:

>you think? They look steeper than the 45 degree ridges from Bosnia to me

Unqualified people bickering about pitchers on the internet is a bit pointless given that: “Geologists, archaeologists and other scientists have however concluded, after analysis of the site, its known history, and the excavations, that the hills are natural formations known as flatirons and that there are no signs of human construction involved. The European Association of Archaeologists released a statement calling the pyramids a “scheme” and a “cruel hoax”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanagi%C4%87_pyramid_hypothesis

I am as qualified as any to ask questions and refer to my observations for clarification. How about you get some rest and give your woo-killer reflexes a break huh?

Take it up with the professionals. By accepting their verdict and not pretending that I (or you) know better, I’m merely being rational :)

DV is a geophysicist and might give his view when he peeps in.

Bubblecar said:

Take it up with the professionals. By accepting their verdict and not pretending that I (or you) know better, I’m merely being rational :)

DV is a geophysicist and might give his view when he peeps in.

“Cause he said so” is in no way an acceptable scientific answer. My question is reasonable and your attitude toward my interest is undue. Not being qualified is not a crime.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Bubblecar said:

The ridges look pretty much the same angle there as in the Bosnian photo.

you think? They look steeper than the 45 degree ridges from Bosnia to me

The exact angles are likely to be a function of the local geology.

>Not being qualified is not a crime.

But suggesting that you know better (after looking at a few snaps on the internet) than the experts who have studied this site in detail is somewhat arrogant.

morrie said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Bubblecar said:

The ridges look pretty much the same angle there as in the Bosnian photo.

you think? They look steeper than the 45 degree ridges from Bosnia to me

The exact angles are likely to be a function of the local geology.

I can understand this, but a) flatiron features are common. they are present in the qld volcanos. Every example of a flatiron I am aware of will not support vegetation as it is primarily solid rock. b) all flatirons I have viewed have features that are obvious on all other examples(such as one face that resembles an iron on its end for which they are named). Even when these common features differ, they are obvious as being similar.

Bubblecar said:

>Not being qualified is not a crime.

But suggesting that you know better (after looking at a few snaps on the internet) than the experts who have studied this site in detail is somewhat arrogant.

I did not suggest I knew better. I stated that none of the features given as evidence of a flatiron feature were not apparent to me in this example. The arrogance is not mine.

please excuse my irritation bubblecar. dealing with reticent lawyers does little for ones patience.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

please excuse my irritation bubblecar. dealing with reticent lawyers does little for ones patience.

We understand.. which is why you don’t see me trying to irritate you. ;)

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

please excuse my irritation bubblecar. dealing with reticent lawyers does little for ones patience.

We understand.. which is why you don’t see me trying to irritate you. ;)

aaaaww, fanks rb :P

these features near Fernando de Noronha(second image) are vaguely similar. They do not display the same symmetry. Fernando de Noronha illustrates flatirons having the same gradient as the original feature. The Bosnian feature seems far too uniformly symmetrical to have simply eroded.

Has anyone questioned whether it is a natural feature that has been worked into this shape by humans rather than a structure?

oops…

Riff-in-Thyme said:

these features near Fernando de Noronha(second image) are vaguely similar. They do not display the same symmetry. Fernando de Noronha illustrates flatirons having the same gradient as the original feature. The Bosnian feature seems far too uniformly symmetrical to have simply eroded.

Has anyone questioned whether it is a natural feature that has been worked into this shape by humans rather than a structure?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

these features near Fernando de Noronha(second image) are vaguely similar. They do not display the same symmetry. Fernando de Noronha illustrates flatirons having the same gradient as the original feature. The Bosnian feature seems far too uniformly symmetrical to have simply eroded.

Has anyone questioned whether it is a natural feature that has been worked into this shape by humans rather than a structure?

I’d have to wait until the image loaded but have you ever tried to work flatiron?

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

these features near Fernando de Noronha(second image) are vaguely similar. They do not display the same symmetry. Fernando de Noronha illustrates flatirons having the same gradient as the original feature. The Bosnian feature seems far too uniformly symmetrical to have simply eroded.

Has anyone questioned whether it is a natural feature that has been worked into this shape by humans rather than a structure?

I’d have to wait until the image loaded but have you ever tried to work flatiron?

removing rock to another location has not troubled humans that I have heard

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

these features near Fernando de Noronha(second image) are vaguely similar. They do not display the same symmetry. Fernando de Noronha illustrates flatirons having the same gradient as the original feature. The Bosnian feature seems far too uniformly symmetrical to have simply eroded.

Has anyone questioned whether it is a natural feature that has been worked into this shape by humans rather than a structure?

I’d have to wait until the image loaded but have you ever tried to work flatiron?

removing rock to another location has not troubled humans that I have heard

Not necessarily as in the image you presented.

When humans remove rock they take the bits that are going to fall on their head, first.

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

I’d have to wait until the image loaded but have you ever tried to work flatiron?

removing rock to another location has not troubled humans that I have heard

Not necessarily as in the image you presented.

When humans remove rock they take the bits that are going to fall on their head, first.

Or the bits that go in the wall or the pyramid or the megalith. Were those created simply to avoid crushed heads?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

removing rock to another location has not troubled humans that I have heard

Not necessarily as in the image you presented.

When humans remove rock they take the bits that are going to fall on their head, first.

Or the bits that go in the wall or the pyramid or the megalith. Were those created simply to avoid crushed heads?

Yes. You can’t build things if the workers are dead.

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Not necessarily as in the image you presented.

When humans remove rock they take the bits that are going to fall on their head, first.

Or the bits that go in the wall or the pyramid or the megalith. Were those created simply to avoid crushed heads?

Yes. You can’t build things if the workers are dead.

of course!

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I can understand this, but a) flatiron features are common. they are present in the qld volcanos. Every example of a flatiron I am aware of will not support vegetation as it is primarily solid rock. b) all flatirons I have viewed have features that are obvious on all other examples(such as one face that resembles an iron on its end for which they are named). Even when these common features differ, they are obvious as being similar.

How about instead of relying on a single low-res photo, you hunt down the actual reports and/or papers or whatever was written about it by the experts? It’s bound to have detailed descriptions of what’s under the soil, maybe even some cores or geophys.

if you have time dv could you clear up this query for me? If you go over the thread I am only questioning whether it is an entirely natural formation or one that has been anthropologically enhanced(not counting what the fella who has been ‘excavating’ the other sites has done to them).