Carl Munck - The Code

reply to post by ArdenWolf


I would be very interested to know this as well, I really couldn't tell you. I do know that the continents and their locations has moved very little in the past 10,000 years, but I am not sure of the rate.

reply to post by ArdenWolf


hypertextbook.com...

A quick search turned this up, and the claims seem to be anywhere from 1cm to 10cm a year.

If it was 1cm a year, in 10,000 years that would be 100 meters, which is fairly significant on the grid. As far as I know Carl does not address this so this could be a reason why we haven't heard from him since, I just don't know.

Originally posted by roncoallstar
reply to post by boncho

 

iwan2ski answered you a lot better than I probably could have.

EVERYTHING would be gone except stone, any steel structures or anything of the sort would have rusted and been wiped away with weather etc. You think steel can last thousands of years? Go ahead and look up how long a steel structure would last unattended. Not very long at all.

Also, who says they even used steel and metals? Why would they when they built this matrix system from the earth, not metals. They knew as well as we do that there is nothing that compares to stones as far as durability.

Rock and earthen mounds are the ONLY thing that could survive such lengths of time, and it doesn't really get any more basic than that.

edit on 3-9-2013 by roncoallstar because: (no reason given)

Not to mention that most of the evidence is underwater now. Sea levels were considerably lower 10,000 yrs ago.

Cool GIF of 10,000 yr sea level rise.

reply to post by roncoallstar


Then at 10,000 years as an example that's a minimum of 10,000 centimeters, so at minimum at 10,000 is 1/10th of a kilometer. I'd say that makes the numbers well, wrong if considering the original locations of said curiosities.

I see you've edited with your own calculations. Yeah, I think we may have figured it out.

reply to post by ArdenWolf


Not so fast.

www.earthage.org...

Apparently there is no solid proof that drifitng occurs gradually over long periods of time, and it disputed that the shifts may occur rapidly at certain junctures. Also apparently not all of the plates shift in unison.

I still have a heck of a lot of question before I say " we figured it out" heh.

reply to post by roncoallstar


Fair, fair. May be a bit quick to jump to conclusions. Still, it's a good question.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by iwan2ski

If our modern world were to be hit with an E.L.E. where most humans are killed off and their buildings collapsed, volcanic ash, flooding and sediment covering the terrain for tens of thousands of years while surviving humans retreat to caves for shelter. Humanity would go through a stage of de-evolution where the day-in-the-life is all about survival, not learning and educating.

After just a few generations, knowledge of the old world would be all but forgotten and the few stories which were passed from one generation to the next eventually becomes myths and legends

 

You mean kinda like when they started uncovering big mounds in the Aztec which turned out to be large pyramids under the turf?

Exactly!

I have been searching the internet for quite awhile trying to find some information on Carl Munck and this theory. Well in my eyes it isn't so much of a theory as is it hard evidence. There is literally no interest in these findings to be found anywhere. Neither promoters of the theory nor debunkers. As far as I can tell it has gone relatively unnoticed and it is time for people to take notice. I do know Carl was on Red Ice Radio in 2012, and he still supports his theory, as do I.

I have thought about The Code for many years, all the time, since I discovered it years ago. Anyone who is interested in our past, which I assume is a lot of us here on ATS, needs to watch these videos. Forget all of the fuzzy UFO videos for now, this guy basically proves that the grid matrix is linked with Cydonia on Mars, among a number of other things. If you disagree, please try and debunk it by all means. If there is a flaw in his theory I would like to see it.

As it stands this is proof of a number of things until somehow debunked.

1. The pyramids were not tombs, and the rest of the ancient megalithic structures on earth are not what archaeologists say they are. They are built precisely where they are for a reason, and shaped the way they are for a reason. That reason has nothing to with ceremonial purposes, or anything else the scientists claim.

2. These ancient people were as smart or smarter than us, most likely with the capability of flight and high tech tools in order to survey the entire earth and build construction sites on precise locations. Without knowing how large the earth was, and where the land was and was not, the grid matrix system would not have been logically possible. They would have needed to know the earth just as well as we do today in order to achieve such a feat.

3. Either us or a lost civilization has been to Mars before, or came from Mars.

Until someone else can debunk this theory completely, I would have to say with certainty that this is in fact truth. I see no sign of deception and foul play in his work, and it seems no one else has been able to either for almost 20 years.

As for the subject of continental drift, I have come to the conclusion that this theory is all over the place, and the science behind it is not solid enough to prove anything as far as accurate numbers, especially in the past. We don't know how long ago this matrix was created, and we don't know the rate of continental drift if any at that time.

Please, someone take the time to watch these so it may be debated instead of disappearing into obscurity again.

reply to post by roncoallstar

Also, who says they even used steel and metals? Why would they when they built this matrix system from the earth, not metals. They knew as well as we do that there is nothing that compares to stones as far as durability.

Who is to say anything at all?

Of course if you want to talk about durability you may want to look into the characteristics of titanium. Or is the claim that absolutely everything "they" made was made of stone?

So what do we have? A stone age, super highly advanced culture that wanted to create something long lasting but could only come up with...stones?

reply to post by Phage


So they have to use titanium to build structures to be more advanced than us? Maybe they chose to use stone, grounded to the earth. Do you think giant blocks of titanium would have been better? Titanium is lightweight, and would serve absolutely no purpose in the construction of structures such as these.

Do you know that a lot of the megalithic structures are earthquake proof?

reply to post by roncoallstar

Do you know that a lot of the megalithic structures are earthquake proof?

Not all?

reply to post by roncoallstar

Do you think giant blocks of titanium would have been better?

No. Blocks are a pretty silly way of building things unless you don't have other options.

reply to post by Phage


Possibly? If you can find a list of the ones that aren't I'd love to see it.

Every structure in the grid matrix is earthquake proof that is for sure. As far as any of the other structures he doesn't touch on, you want proof? They are still standing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by roncoallstar

 

Do you think giant blocks of titanium would have been better?

No. Blocks are a pretty silly way of building things unless you don't have other options.

edit on 9/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Right, so silly that we have multiple ancient cultures who built this way and they are still here. Even our modern earthquake proof buildings wouldn't last long unattended, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you seriously saying that the pyramids and megalithic structures around the world were constructed poorly?

reply to post by roncoallstar

Every structure in the grid matrix is earthquake proof that is for sure. As far as any of the other structures he doesn't touch on, you want proof? They are still standing.

I see. So those that have survived are proof that they involved some sort of advanced knowledge. But those that collapsed did not involve such advanced knowledge. What sort of advanced engineering do those stacked up stones exhibit which made them able to withstand the effects of earthquakes. Or is that just one of those mysteries that no one has been able to figure out, "even to this very day"?

Are you seriously saying that the pyramids and megalithic structures around the world were constructed poorly?

No. I'm saying that stacking blocks is a pretty rudimentary means of construction but it works well when better materials and technology is not available.

reply to post by Phage


Just because it seems rudimentary to you does not mean that it was rudimentary to them. Besides you keep claiming there are better methods of construction and somehow building with megalithic blocks is worse than building with materials that we use, yet you aren't giving any examples. That is because there simply isn't another way. If we were to build structures in modern times with anything but megalithic blocks in the hopes that they would last THOUSANDS of years unattended, we would fail miserably.

You seem to not understand that there is no other way to build structures that would last thousands of years on it's own without being made the way they were. There is a purpose to the stacking of blocks, being packed tightly together, and that purpose is posterity. No more, no less.

Tell me, how would you build something to last thousands of years without using stone? Do tell.

Maybe people just haven't had time to watch these videos, which is understandable. Maybe people just can't wrap their head around this theory and the math involved, which is also understandable. However, I will continue bumping this thread until we can get an intelligent conversation going.

There is no way I am going to let this slip for another 20 years unnoticed. I thought ATS was a main hub on the web for topics such as this, yet most of what I have seen on these forums are debunkers and believers alike throwing hollow comments around, with no real facts to back them up. This may be one of the most important discovery of our time, and no one cares?

It is mind boggling to me, but we will discuss this one way or another. There has to be some intelligent and logical people on these forums who are willing to debate. Where are you? Maybe the reason people aren't replying is that this has been discussed before in the past, but I can't find any trace of it if that is the case.

reply to post by roncoallstar


Hold on here. There has been perfectly reasonable discussion on here. My question for example was perfectly legitimate. It's a good question. He states the location of the center of Stone Henge is in a very exact place purposely and still is to this day based on very specific numbers in it's construction. It would take very little shifting to make that not true. This is a reasonable and rational question.

So don't go saying things about everyone being irrational and unwilling to discuss anything.

Originally posted by roncoallstar
Maybe people just haven't had time to watch these videos, which is understandable. Maybe people just can't wrap their head around this theory and the math involved, which is also understandable. However, I will continue bumping this thread until we can get an intelligent conversation going.

There is no way I am going to let this slip for another 20 years unnoticed. I thought ATS was a main hub on the web for topics such as this, yet most of what I have seen on these forums are debunkers and believers alike throwing hollow comments around, with no real facts to back them up. This may be one of the most important discovery of our time, and no one cares?

It is mind boggling to me, but we will discuss this one way or another. There has to be some intelligent and logical people on these forums who are willing to debate. Where are you? Maybe the reason people aren't replying is that this has been discussed before in the past, but I can't find any trace of it if that is the case.

edit on 5-9-2013 by roncoallstar because: (no reason given)

Chill out dude.. I, like many others haven't had time to watch all the video's yet.. I have watched twenty minutes of the first one and I find it intriguing to say the least.. There is a good documentary showing the topic of deteriation of materials over time, I'll have a search and post it up if it's available online...

reply to post by lewtra


I'm not trying to get excited but it seems like this topic has gone ignored.

I look forward to reading the article.