Newly Discovered Megalithic Ruins in Russia! Stones double the size of Baalbek!

reply to post by ladyteeny


Natural, not man made. Maybe at some point worked by man, buy overall natural.

It's been posted before, but I think it's worth posting again:

bluesman1955
reply to post by Phage

 

That bi

g long stone is the Baalbek stone in Lebanon. It was indeed cut by people. But they couldn't move it after they cut it.

What if thats not the original place the stone was located ?
Possibly moved from another location to that one.
What if we were all geniuses ?
Guess we would have nothing to debate on.

Just a thought

Perhaps the intended purpose of that stone was for a ramp to move other stones? Or maybe when they needed to build an obelisk, they would carve two just in case one of them broke? Then the second one was abandoned as soon as the first one was in place?

reply to post by raymundoko


I have to disagree to the claims that they are Natural. Some people here wont accept the facts of an pre early civilization. As some here fear that for whatever reason.

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by raymundoko

 

I have to disagree to the claims that they are Natural. Some people here wont accept the facts of an pre early civilization. As some here fear that for whatever reason.

edit on 11-4-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

This is called delusion.

I accept the possibility of pre early civilization and all proofs points to this formation being natural.

Inventing inexistant correlations at all costs, despite proofs of the opposite, to support your theories, is a sign of mentall illness.

The fact that you seem to believe that saying this rock is natural automatically means pre early civilizations never existed is delusion.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by raymundoko

 

I have to disagree to the claims that they are Natural. Some people here wont accept the facts of an pre early civilization. As some here fear that for whatever reason.

Over the years, I've seen this innuendo used many times on ATS and on some of the fringe websites promoting Creationism and/or lost civilisations. If it was found that a 'pre early civilisation' existed somewhere in the world, it wouldn't change very much. The change it would make wouldn't be worth generations of academics turning into liars and deniers.

Think about it. The Egyptian dynasties would still occupy roughly the same period of time, the Minoans and Olmecs would rise and fall in the same places. If some advanced civilisation built the Bosnian hills and the evidence of their existence fell down the back of history's sofa, it wouldn't really change all that would it?

Another example...Gobekli Tepi is quite an outlier and it's very well-known and researched rather than being hidden away for being awkward in conventional time-lines.

Kandinsky

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by raymundoko

 

I have to disagree to the claims that they are Natural. Some people here wont accept the facts of an pre early civilization. As some here fear that for whatever reason.

Over the years, I've seen this innuendo used many times on ATS and on some of the fringe websites promoting Creationism and/or lost civilisations. If it was found that a 'pre early civilisation' existed somewhere in the world, it wouldn't change very much. The change it would make wouldn't be worth generations of academics turning into liars and deniers.

Think about it. The Egyptian dynasties would still occupy roughly the same period of time, the Minoans and Olmecs would rise and fall in the same places. If some advanced civilisation built the Bosnian hills and the evidence of their existence fell down the back of history's sofa, it wouldn't really change all that would it?

Another example...Gobekli Tepi is quite an outlier and it's very well-known and researched rather than being hidden away for being awkward in conventional time-lines.

I believe the main problem is that most people believe that before 10.000 years ago humans were stupid cavemen incapable of anything.

That shows a complete ignorance about academic paleo-history. Man didn't suddenly become intelligent 10.000 years ago.

The birth of civilization is a very long and gradual process.

Even though we only have written traces of early cultures dating back to a few thousand years, it's very likely that we had hundreds of thousands of years of oral tradition and cultural exchanges.

Even the things we think are specific to Homo Sapiens aren't. At one point Neanderthal was even as skilled or maybe more as Sapiens.

There is no need to invent false proofs to support the idea that mankind as we know it (culture, tradition, skills, abstract thinking, knowledge of nature, technology, ...) is ages old. This is commonly accepted.

• The first human tools are 3.4 millions years old, from H. Australoptihecus
  
• The first traces of fire mastery are 800.000 years old, from H. Habilis
  
• The first traces of composite tools and burial sites are 500.000 years old, from H. Heidelbergensis
  
• The first traces of pigment use are 250.000 years old, from H. Erectus
  
• The first traces of individual grave are 170.000 years old, from H. Erectus
  
• The first traces of art and abstract thinking are from around 100.000 years ago, from H. Neanderthalensis
  

And yet most people still believe science thinks human history is 10.000 years old and only H. Sapiens.

Lol

Only written history is. Doesn't mean people were mute and stupid before that. They had rich traditions, excellent skills and understanding of the world, exchanges with neighbors, and all that pre-written history can even be found in myths today (myths are the remnants of the oral traditions).


I wish people would be more interested in "mainstream" science before dissing it and making fool of themselves by displaying their ignorance of our current understanding of human history.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

True enough. It's also inescapable that time and space is a challenge to our comprehension and that our own histories can't be neat and linear. Folk want to see history as a chain with links forever being added, but that's linear and history's multi-dimensional.

The holes and shadows in what we do know will always lead some people to populate them with missing races, dragons and giants. I guess how we want history to have been isn't what we have and intelligent, red-haired giants are more fun than boring Harrapans and Egyptian clerics.

Definitely wasn't ancient cranes as the Romans used. Mind boggled.

Kandinsky

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by raymundoko

 

I have to disagree to the claims that they are Natural. Some people here wont accept the facts of an pre early civilization. As some here fear that for whatever reason.

Over the years, I've seen this innuendo used many times on ATS and on some of the fringe websites promoting Creationism and/or lost civilisations. If it was found that a 'pre early civilisation' existed somewhere in the world, it wouldn't change very much. The change it would make wouldn't be worth generations of academics turning into liars and deniers.

Think about it. The Egyptian dynasties would still occupy roughly the same period of time, the Minoans and Olmecs would rise and fall in the same places. If some advanced civilisation built the Bosnian hills and the evidence of their existence fell down the back of history's sofa, it wouldn't really change all that would it?

Another example...Gobekli Tepi is quite an outlier and it's very well-known and researched rather than being hidden away for being awkward in conventional time-lines.

Hey Kandinsky,

Some indeed use that line of reasoning, i.e., "academics have too much reputation to lose were the 'truth' to come out". I probably have myself - and while I still think it is a valid argument in some cases, there are other, better-articulated, reasons for established authorities to resist the notion of advanced pre-deluvian civilizations. The Smithsonian is infamous for being accused of covering up countless artifacts from a distinct race that co-inhabited the Americas alongside the Native American tribes of which we're all familiar. Jim Vieira has collected a huge amount of public records referring to "giants", often between 7 and 8 feet tall and sometimes taller, with double rows of teeth, strangely enough. There are thousands of records going back to the 1600s.



www.examiner.com...
I can't explain the reasons for a cover-up, but the evidence for one preceded any of the speculation that grew up around it. Just because I can't explain it, is not reason enough to categorically dismiss the literally-thousands of individual pieces of data which suggest the existence of a quite distinct race of men whose existence has been covered up by various authorities.

And when Native American tribes ascribe megalithic masonry and mound building to these giants, long before the stampede of sweaty Giorgio A. Tsoukaloses come along to cry "ALIENS!", it seems unwise to dismiss their claims without further study. But when politics intervenes, the scientific method breaks down. And it certainly seems that politics became involved very early on via the Smithsonian confiscation of artifacts. Hence the mess we're in...

All that said, this Russian site does look like a natural formation.

reply to post by ladyteeny


Nephilim Giants come to mind. Skeletal evidence is to be found all over the World. Research this topic!

KanuTruth
reply to post by ladyteeny

 

Naysayers will undoubtedly chime in eventually and talk about how "enormous workforces of thousands of people can move tremendous weight over many miles..." etc. etc. However, they never actually address the accurate cutting ability required to achieve these blocks. There was simply no technology present at the time to achieve these cuts. Today, we would have to employ diamond-tipped saws run by high speed machines, controlled by computers to achieve cuts like this.

Puma Punku at Tiahuanaco is probably the best example of this:
Ancient Stone Cutting Technology

And, consider this. Why would you CHOOSE to cut stones into 3000 ton blocks and put your labor force through such agonizing work to move them (as if it were even possible) if you could cut rocks of just 1 ton each that were much easier to move? You can still build the same size structure, and do it faster. Wait...too much logic? yeah...too much.

S&F

Maybe the unthinkable is true and they did it out of convenience. I had an idea what if they had knowledge of capstone vibration fracturing technology which I just made up now. You put a metallic capstone on a stone and you create a metallic capstone ringer of a certain size that will make the capstone ring at a certain frequency when it gets hit thus fracturing the stone at uniform sizes. I wonder if something like that is possible. It's sort of like alchemy.

mcguyvermanolo
reply to post by ladyteeny

 

Nephilim Giants come to mind. Skeletal evidence is to be found all over the World. Research this topic!

Wrong! It was built by thousands of Jewish slaves and the Siberians commissioned Egypt to build it. Shortly after Moses parted the Red Sea if my memory serves me correctly...

I think almost everyone, myself included, would walk over the bones of an ancient dinosaur, and never realize it was there.

This could be a natural formation, or it could have been shaped, or even built by ancients, or ETs, or some other beings.

Here is a link of pictures of how granite fractures.

www.google.com... QsAQ

If this link doesn't work you can google "natural granite fracture" to get to the same page. Some of these structures have blocks, not a lot of blocks, but a few, that have already been posted here on the thread.

I wonder how many of these block like structures are out there, and what percentage of granite formations do they compose.

If there are a small number of these block structures out there, which is a tiny percentage of granite formations, then maybe they are all artificial, or carved, and not natural.

This new site from the op is pretty spectacular in the number or huge blocks forming a very large wall.

I'm not seeing any practical advantage to building this huge wall, but would that even be necessary?

It will be interesting to see what they find on the next expedition to the area.

Just wicked cool, period!

Reminds me of Devil's Postpile near Yosemite National Park. Nature is very precise with her carvings. ~$heopleNation

Devil's Postpile, California's Sierra Nevada

phinubian
reply to post by Phage

 

But if they are not natural then who or what made them ?

edit on 9-4-2014 by phinubian because: (no reason given)

I dunno, they look kind of Lovecraftian? Maybe the "great old ones" did the deed? If they find a way in and locate a book bound in human skin, I hope they remember to say "Klatto Verata Nicto" before trying to pick it up. LOL

Cheers - Dave

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by raymundoko

 

I have to disagree to the claims that they are Natural. Some people here wont accept the facts of an pre early civilization. As some here fear that for whatever reason.

edit on 11-4-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

No that really isn't it

They're natural we see it time and time again in nature with the same stone/rock

I'm very much a believer of a long lost civilisation the globe over lost to catastrophic disaster, rising sea levels ice age etc,

I'm just not foolish enough to just believe anything when there is a mountain of evidence going against it, it is totally obvious it is natural

This thread is giving me a headache. I'm glad it's only 7 pages long so far.

I love ancient aliens, and truly believe our world was inhabited by many different species of beings that shared their knowledge with us, and may still be present.

However, nobody is denying the possibility of an ancient advanced civilization, but these formations are evidently natural. Also, 'Geology' would be the term some people are looking for when they're relating to this thread since 'Archaeology' is the study of 'human activity in the past', which has nothing to do with these particular formations.

Just because you can't 'see' how something can be done, doesn't automatically make it something impossible. It simply means you don't know everything, and have something new to learn.

This thread should be moved to it's proper place.

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts


good one, but still doesn't explain the blocks if they are made.

personally, i don't think so.