Forum of the article
Well, my point is that someone who judges by reading your article, gets the impression that Swelim refuses a man-made origin completely. But he doesn’t. In his first report he didn’t really concluded that these are pyramids, so this new paper isn’t a correction of his last report at all. He simply gives a summary of pro and contra, nothing more. But it seems like you understood it as a complete change of opinions.
so that he considers that "the true status" (man-made or natural) will be decided by archaeological finds; and he has to recognize that there were no such finds, so that "until then we may dismiss human intervention".
well, this is what he always said, only a little more "polite", when he was pointing to the fact that no one knows anything about the possible civilization and the purpose of the pyramid.
Dr. Swelim does not seem at all convinced that the “pyramids” at Visoko bear the least evidence of any human intervention.
Re-reading again his text, the only evidence he acknowledges is the fact that Visocica is a ’geometrical pyramid’, nothing more.
He listed the findings and opinions, and commented the ones that were doubtful for him. It’s another story if they are doubtful for you.
I re-read the two papers, and cannot help thinking that he really changed, at least partly, his opinion. In the 2008 report, he is relatively cautious, and you are right to point that he never really affirms anything, and calls for further research and analysis. But you’ll find in that report numerous sentences like the ones below:
"The pyramid shape of Plješevica Hrašće especially the west side cannot be a result of nature alone" p.33
"when regular features appear on two or three sides of one hill, with corners and sides oriented to the cardinal points, the case cannot be ignored" p.39
"Human intervention removed thin layers of shale exposing a white and smooth hard face of the upper part of the nucleus" p.40
"The regularity of the sides could easily be achieved by trimming the outer edge of the soft clay terraces" p.40
"Human intervention brought them as much as possible to perfection." p.44
not to mention his use of a construction vocabulary ("masonry", "the tiles are set", "the tiles were carefully set", "the tiling is arranged in strips"... but it may be a problem of lack of mastering of English?)
But his 2010 text, if it doesn’t totally exclude the possibility of a man-made pyramid (or a terraformed hill), warns that it would be "out of proportion". So yes, I feel I am entitled to consider he changed opinion.
However, his 2010 text is so strangely written, so tortuous, that sometimes he seems to say one thing and its opposite in the same sentence, so that I admit that I could be wrong.