> More on
> e-tunnel.html]the tunnels,[/url] and the sort of
> mining operations that probably took place there,
> going back to Roman times and possibly before.
I don't know where to begin. This a real treasure from the internet trash heaps.
You direct us to a drama queen blogger so totally devoid of objectivity he can't get through one paragraph without a meltdown into an emotional bias towards the alternative. This is rational to you?
You try to assassinate Osmanagic with a he said-she said dialogue worthy of the gossiping circle at the office water cooler. Without addressing the evidence itself we are asked to become entrapped in the back biting intrigue of who remembers what & when. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what physically exists at the site. Do you think you can narrow down Irna's winding twisting verbiage into a couple of real physical points to discuss? Because I haven't the stomach to read through the poorly written blog.
Ah yes, the romans are once again brought on scene, as at Baalbek, to provide the answer. What is the evidence that the Romans did anything on that site? That the Romans built the walls is as much assumption as Osmanagic's pyramid energy. But Osmanagic is wrong because he worships the wrong god.
Of all the assumptions Osmanagic makes regarding his find none are as preposterous as the assumptions the Giza pyramids are tombs. And he has far more physical 'evidence' of it being a pyramid than Egyptology has of tombs.
Yet you wish to believe a drama queen blogger and an inexperienced school teacher, that's rich.