It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rockwall Texas Ancient Wall

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:08 AM
I am wondering if anyone has any information on a mysterious and ancient wall in Rockwall, Texas (near Dallas) that is said to encompass 20 square miles?

I came across a reference to this structure recently, with an indication that this wall could have been created by pre-historic man or could be some as yet little understood geologic formation.

About the only significant item that I could find on the web is at:

Interesting information, but I'm not convinced that the information at this site is valid.

If anyone can provide additional information (links, personal experience, etc..) that would be a great help. Also, if anyone knows of an approximate location where I could see a portion of this wall that would be great too.

I've tried to find this rock wall on Google Earth, but have had no luck with that either. Although it is said to be mostly beneath the ground, it seems like there might be some discernable effect on the terrain if such a huge structure were in place.

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:01 AM
This is news to me. I live a few miles away in Allen, TX and I always heard that Rockwall was named after a geological formation, not an archeologic find. If there's proof to the contrary though, I'd love to hear about it. I looked at the article you posted, and it seems that the links in the article are no longer valid (except the first one). Have you tried emailing the author for more info?

[edit on 9/26/2006 by PapaHomer]edited for piss poor spelling.... twice!

[edit on 9/26/2006 by PapaHomer]

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:53 AM
Much as I'd love it to be manmade, it's actually just a geological feature:

(Edit to add link for 2nd part of article)

[edit on 26-9-2006 by Essan]

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:45 PM
Thank you everyone...this is exactly the type of information that I was seeking.

Additionally, if anyone has information regarding a location where I can see some of this stone that is exposed, I would very much appreciate it.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:44 AM
New info on Rockwall's "Rock Wall" on website. Link to video. Hope it is helpful. The reporter, Aaron Chimbel, stated in the short video, that the wall is believed by archealogists and geologists to be a naturally formed. A link to the the reporter's email is here.

[edit on 7/2/2007 by PapaHomer]

[edit on 7/2/2007 by PapaHomer]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:50 PM
This is as interesting as all hell to me. I thought I would give it a bump to see what anyone else may know.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by michaelPTG

I've got a meeting setup with the excavator of the wall this weekend. I've been hunting him down for months. You may check out some interesting info on but I don't know how much of that will be confirmed when I meet with the excavator. He has more info on the wall than anyone else in the world and is the only expert on it.

I can tell you from my brief phone conversation that I'm under the impression he has evidence that the wall was constructed around 35 million years ago by humans. Pretty interesting stuff, in the realm of Michael Cremo and others. It certainly isn't geological as is commonly said.

Here's the article I covered on my blog. I'll update it after my meeting this weekend. Let me know if you want more info!


posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:42 PM
double nz internet.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by aorAki]

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:42 PM
Hmmm...humans 35 million years ago?
Noah's Flood?

Well, there were no Humans 35 million years ago.
Noah's Flood is a myth. There is no evidence whatsoever for this occurring.
Pictographs? Try trace fossils (Skolithos etc).

There is a similar occurrence in the North Island of New Zealand where an igneous feature has been grasped by the fringe kooks who have no understanding (obviously) of geological processes - or who choose to ignore them - and are trying to say it is manmade! Sometimes it is best to not even try to convince them as all they do is embrace ignorance. =5

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:46 PM
Can we get any sort of location on this...exact location that is.

Rockwall is my future home, will be moving there within a years time, I'd be willing to check this out for everyone. I'll be back and forth from where I currently am to their a lot in the near future.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:52 PM
Finally, someone who is not afraid to tell the truth, although I find him too conservative with his date. I thought we talked about an ANCIENT wall, now he says it is only 35 million years old? Why are people so afraid to reveal their true beliefs out there?

Mental institutions won't harm you, they are your best friends!


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:09 AM
If he says it's 35 million years ago, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Rockwall's walls are jointed sandstone.

It was formed during the Cretaceous (ended 65 million years ago) and is part of the Wolfe City formation: It can contain ammonites, and all sorts of odd things like baculites (a kind of cephalopod) :

They found a nice Tylosaurus embedded in it:

(Ya gotta know this stuff when you work with dinosaurs.)

I think if you go to a local rock shop (I recommend the Rock Barrell in north Dallas) you can get a book which includes information on fossils found in the formation.

The Historical Foundation for Rockwall has an upcoming seminar on it, and they have a geocaching program so I imagine that they can give you some sort of geolocation data for it:

The geologists (who have seen a lot of rock formations) say it's natural. An architect (who may not go around studying rock formations and fossils) says it's man made.

Having done a lot of rock hunting in my day and some fossil hunting as well, I'd bank on the geologists.

Just sayin'.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Byrd]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Byrd

The geologists (who have seen a lot of rock formations) say it's natural. An architect (who may not go around studying rock formations and fossils) says it's man made.

This seems quite fantastic in the true sense of the word.

I would say natural, personally.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:50 AM
Damn! No humans made walls 35 million years ago?

Seriously now, thanks for posting that photo. It makes it clear, to those with working eyes and a functional brain behind them, that it is natural.

I wonder how one becomes an architect, don't they teach them anything in that school?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Maegnas
Damn! No humans made walls 35 million years ago?

Seriously now, thanks for posting that photo. It makes it clear, to those with working eyes and a functional brain behind them, that it is natural.

Indeed... you can see the area there where a section of it collapsed (long ago) and was filled in by detritus from the river.

I wonder how one becomes an architect, don't they teach them anything in that school?

Certainly! They are taught many important things.

They just aren't taught geology, microbiology, paleontology, anthropology, geophysics, astronomy, psychology, geriatrics, clinical medicine, pharmacology, journalism, pathology, dispute resolution, high energy physics, filmmaking, education, cytotechnology... or any of the other courses you might find at a university. They get the standard 4 year stuff with a major in architecture. If they take a Masters' in architecture, they just take a lot more courses on architecture and materials.

As you can see from the University of Texas' architecture department home page, there's a lot to it (including historic preservation).

However, there's no geology in there at all.

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:54 PM
I won't address anyone who claims that it's total ignorance to consider evidence of extreme human antiquity. If you aren't familiar with Cremo, Tellinger, Hancock and the rest, it's an argument not worth having, and I simply won't do it.

Also, the section of the wall seen in the photo looks to cover about 60-100 ft of a wall that spans about 20 miles. If you base your judgment on that sample, I won't bother arguing with you either.

There are features that have been filled in, of which there are still photos, which give incredible evidence that the wall is man made. Arched window portals with carefully placed stone outcroppings, as well as some very symmetrical edges and capstones.

I am working with a guy who has personally paid for scientists to come from all over the world to look at the wall, the excavation of which he personally financed. He has all the info there is that has ever been gathered on it, including books written by others using his research. If you haven't been to his house and looked over a century of research, you don't know all there is to know. And if you think scientists, geologists, or archaeologists are in agreement on anything about this wall, you simply don't have all of the facts.

I am not a geologist, but I have studied ancient civilizations all over the world extensively. I know what is possible, and I am not impressed without evidence. I am not interested in arguing with close minded cynics or entertaining crazy ideas with no foundation, but if there are those our there who accept the fundamental possibilities of this wall, I'm simply putting my personal voucher out there that you shouldn't rule out alternative origins beyond geology here.

EDIT: If you believe that a geologist is more qualified than an architect at discerning the genesis of the wall, you might wonder why Zahi Hawas and others still believe that Egyptian monoliths were created with hammer and chisel, while any machinist can look at them and see the tool strokes don't remotely support this. They still can't reproduce the results using their proposed super-primitive methods to defend their own theories that they report as fact.

Real research isn't done by experts of any single strain, and no strain is superior to any other. Research takes brilliance and vision, plus passion and a dynamic understanding of the subject. Geologists are like engineers in most cases, very narrow-sighted in my opinion.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by MaxTruth]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:37 PM
The only picture I've seen that shows an arch in this wall also show that the pattern of the (so -called) "blocks" above the arch would never actually function as an arch opening - no vault, no keystone, just a rather random ashlar pattern that happens to have an eroded arch opening in it. Arch openings happen in nature all the time, as seen on

Another feature being called out as "man-made" are these iron rings embedded in the wall - yet how are these different from other naturally occurring iron deposits, such as the Baigong Pipes of China?

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:36 AM
It's decidedly unscientific for a scientist to proclaim a natural formation without also explaining the mechanism by which it was formed. They are simply stating their unsupported opinion. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the scientists who made these statements had their opinions taken out of context and quoted as fact.

As for that site in N.Z. there is more than one site, and the results of the studies on them have been sealed, and the sites themselves (the ones they know of) placed off limits so unless you have inside information, how can you make such an absolute statement?

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:10 PM
There's a lot more to that story than just a wall. Apparently a giant skull was found there around the time when the courthouse was being built.

Very interesting story.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by Essan

Natural geologic formation, huh....ok
nevermind the pipes, wheel and giant skull found...I could fill the history of how it was discovered.....they named the friggin county AND the city....babe.....all else is being covered up all giants

please someone google giant 18 foot skeletons in texas....say no more

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in