There Are No Ancient Megaliths - Alternative View

Table of contents:

There Are No Ancient Megaliths - Alternative View
There Are No Ancient Megaliths - Alternative View

Video: There Are No Ancient Megaliths - Alternative View

Video: There Are No Ancient Megaliths - Alternative View
Video: You Need To Hear This! Our History Is NOT What We Are Told! Ancient Civilizations | Graham Hancock 2024, March
Anonim

Machu Picchu

Speaking of megaliths, the average person immediately imagines gigantic blocks, carefully processed, tightly fitted to each other, so that they are not fastened with mortar, and most often against the background of high rocky peaks. This is the result of suggestion, for which, of course, a person should, of course, the mass media.

At the mere word "megalith", most of us imagine exactly the picture of the Peruvian Machu Picchu. Let me remind you:

Despite the fact that the Peruvian aborigines themselves claim that their ancestors did not build this, historians continue to impose on the world the idea of the achievements of the "great ancient Incas" and the outstanding Pachacuteca.

But at first glance, vague doubts creep in about the veracity of official information about this object. First, the Incas really could not create anything like that, if only because they did not know anything about steel before the appearance of the whites. And without a steel tool, all assumptions about construction methods never go beyond the fabulous.

Secondly … Well, what a city it is! People live in the city, and accordingly, it should have all the vital elements of the infrastructure, such as:

- dwellings for people, Promotional video:

- places of keeping livestock and poultry, - storage locations for supplies, - workshops of artisans (pottery, leather, weaving, blacksmithing, etc.)

- and the workshops are again supposed to have warehouses and storage facilities for storing and processing raw materials, - the city cannot be imagined without barbershops, shops, markets, baths, and … Sorry, latrines;

- there must be places of worship, and at least one public place, i.e. area for general meetings, rituals, festivities and performances.

This is just an incomplete list of parts of urban development, without which the city cannot be considered a city. But a settlement requires a lot of resources: drinking water, fuel, farms for growing food, land for grazing, etc.

Having comprehended this information, every sane person will easily come to the inevitable conclusion that at least we are facing not a city, but a village. But thinking further in the same vein, it is impossible not to dwell on the thought that if people have been here, they have never lived permanently.

Machu Picchu "reaches" a maximum of some kind of stronghold outpost, place of production, or cult place. And such places have never taken away from a person as much energy and resources as was necessary for his real birth. Means what?

This means that none of the existing versions of the origin and use of the complex in the mountains of Peru are consistent. In addition, a quick glance at the various elements of the buildings allows us to conclude that the objects presented to us were built at different times, in different ways, and with unequal opportunities.

Image
Image

The overwhelming majority of buildings were erected in our time, using primitive technologies, with a complete lack of understanding of what the builders are doing. They shamelessly hauled small, rough-cut stones, put them "tyap-blooper" on clay mortar, and invite tourists to believe that all these are ancient structures. However, one does not need to be a highly qualified specialist in order to understand a simple thing: before us are several fragments of a truly megalithic culture, which, without the intervention of modern builders, not only a city, but also a “temple” or “observatory” would be impossible to call.

Compare the objects captured in the following photos:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Most of the experts I know, having personally visited Machu Picchu, express deep disappointment from what they saw. In a few words, their opinion is expressed as follows: “I was driving to see the ancient megaliths, and they showed me a miserable“remake”. Sheer swindle, tourist attraction for not very well educated exalted young ladies."

One can agree with this point of view, one can argue, but in my opinion, one thing is indisputable: the quarry, which mined andesite and granite, was also used to produce something right on the spot. And these rocks were the raw material for this "plant". Something was produced from them.

It would be unfair to bypass such objects as the "House of the Incas" for example:

Image
Image

Sometimes it is called the "Fountain of the Incas", but not the essence. It is clear to everyone that this is something technological, related rather to production than to a household structure. Even less common is information about such objects as in the following photo:

Image
Image

And it's not the only one of its kind in South and Central America. There is something similar in Sacsayhuaman:

Image
Image

In general, almost all objects that science habitually attributes to Mesoamerican culture have one characteristic characteristic of all:

They are like modern quarries that have been turned into theme parks for onlookers. Choquequirao stands alone, where there is nothing at all, except for terraces and buildings lined with rough boulders. However, there are some truly amazing artifacts in this region. But there is very little information about them. Even pictures in sufficient resolution are very problematic to find on the Internet. Speech, including the Mexican El - Fuerte, in the state of Sinaloa.

Journalists trumpet all over the world about Cuzco, Palenque, and almost nothing is known about it:

El Fuerte

No matter how sad it is, we have to admit the greatest probability of the version that in fact, most of the known megalithic structures have nothing to do with antiquity.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

They did not appear during the existence of "primitive" people, and not even before their appearance, as most of us would very much like, but in a relatively recent time, when the level of stone processing technologies and the production of geopolymer concrete reached their peak of perfection, that is, … already in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But science artificially "aged" them, and passes them off as antiquity.

Probably, most scientists are sincerely mistaken, but there is no doubt that if my assumption is correct, then there are many who deliberately lie, fulfilling the order of politicians and merchants of various kinds, who are ready to invest for the sake of future profits received from the trade of "antiquities". This is an immutable law of the market: if there is a demand for a mysterious history and ancient artifacts, then supply will certainly arise.

Stonehenge

More than about Machu Picchu, Teotihuacan and Puma Punku (on Lake Titicaca), they are filming and writing, perhaps, only about the so-called "Stonehenge" in Britain. Well … The only empire in the world by its status is simply supposed to have the main megalithic complex of the planet Earth.

However, most are already well aware that these megaliths … Not megaliths at all … This is how the reconstruction of this famous "observatory" looks like when it still looked like an ordinary pile of stones.

Stonehenge. Reconstruction by William Stukeley
Stonehenge. Reconstruction by William Stukeley

Stonehenge. Reconstruction by William Stukeley.

Actually, this is how megalithic studies began in the nineteenth century, when the Englishman Algernon Herbert first described the huge stones scattered on a hilltop in Wiltshire (about 130 km south-west of London (England)). It was in this treatise that the term “megaliths.

No one knows what they were like before the modern British found them. In addition to the crocs compiled by Herbert, attempts have been made to depict how these stones might have looked earlier, and it is these fantasy pictures that are passed off today as genuine, almost photographically accurate schemes.

Engraving dated 1575 by British scholars
Engraving dated 1575 by British scholars

Engraving dated 1575 by British scholars.

Again: This could be a rough reconstruction, an assumption about how the megaliths of Stonehenge could theoretically look before destruction. But no one can say with certainty that the stones were in exactly the same order as the artist depicted them. In addition, no one can vouch for the fact that the picture was drawn precisely at the end of the sixteenth century, and not the eighteenth, or even more so - the beginning of the nineteenth.

What is the opinion of the so-called "British scientists", I think there is no particular need to clarify. What, for example, are their statements like the following:

We have already talked about existing dating methods, and it is quite obvious to us that no radiocarbon method (correctly speaking - radiometric) is applicable to minerals and rocks, since they are not able to accumulate isotopes, according to the decay rate of which dating is done. To this day, in the world, no methods have been developed that are suitable for establishing the reliable age of samples that do not belong to wildlife (of plant or animal origin).

But this is a blatant absurdity. And along with it, there are less significant facts that should also have put the history of the Wiltshire complex in a number of working versions, but nevertheless, they have long been perceived by the world community as dogmas and an immutable scientific truth.

Among such facts, I include the linguistic component of the Stonehenge problem. Note the difference in the spelling of the word itself:

- Stonehenge, - Stonhing, and finally -

- Stanhengues, which sounds like STANHING

Several groups of linguists and philologists in Britain have been fighting to the death for decades to prove their own version of the origin and meaning of the word. And only to our people it is clear that the root "stan" has exclusively Slavic roots. Stan is not only a parking place, but Stanitsa (stress on the first syllable) is a settlement in which the banner of the army is located, which in the old days was called Stan. And the signals were the banners of the squads that were part of the army, hence the verb to honk, which literally meant "wave the signal".

It is clear that attempts to deduce the etymology of many Russian words from Latin fail completely, unless traditional science is engaged in this. Meanwhile, all this can be gleaned from dictionaries of the nineteenth century, published in Russian, and calmly stored in libraries and museum funds.

Therefore, the most probable version of the origin of the word "stanching" can be considered the one according to which "stan" is a settlement, and "khing" is a replacement for the Russian word "prince", which in Western European languages was transformed into "konung" "(King). Those. literally, "stanching" could mean "prince's camp", "king's fortress", or the like.

But it doesn't matter. The main thing for us is the opportunity to realize the fact of forgery, the deliberate substitution of concepts by historians, thanks to which they literally blinded us, did not give the opportunity to penetrate the essence of things, and blindly believe in stories that are considered scientific data.

However, what kind of science can we talk about, if so far no one has thought of even to explain the purpose of the famous cromlech. Here are several versions that resonate most in the souls and minds of amateurs who trustingly accept the ideas of "scientists":

- A pagan temple for the administration of religious rituals.

- Observatory of Ancient Farmers.

- Crematorium for the incineration of the bodies of the dead.

- Portal for moving in space and time.

- Flying saucers launch pad.

There are even more exotic versions, more absurd, but which, I believe, have the right to exist until one of the others is convincingly proven. In my opinion, the construction of Stonehenge should be considered in conjunction with all other structures of radial architecture, which are available throughout the northern hemisphere. Vivid examples of such are the Scythian settlements belonging to the Tripolye culture and the same Arkaim.

Whatever Stonehenge was earlier, it has at least one thing in common with other megaliths: It consists of giant stones. But unlike Gornaya Shoria, for example, which no one built these days, Stonehenge was built literally from scratch, in our time, using reinforced concrete structures, plaster and construction equipment.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Of course, we have no right to say that Stonehenge did not exist before, and it was created only in 1958. Not at all. It is clear that even stones have properties to age and deteriorate. All structures over time need repair and constant maintenance, so this reconstruction should be considered as a concern for the preservation of cultural values. But this should not harm the truth. And we see all over the world, just the dishonesty of historians, archaeologists and builders, for whom political benefits are more important than the establishment of the truth.

Cologne Cathedral

But in general, in my opinion, it is clear that there can be least complaints about builders and restorers. You need to ask dishonest officials who, in their own way, use the results of the labor of those who preserve the legacy left by previous generations for posterity.

We know the following about the pearl of Gothic architecture in Western Europe:

Dom zu Kölle (German) Roman Catholic Gothic cathedral in the city of Cologne (Germany). The construction of the main church of the Cologne Archdiocese was carried out in two stages - in 1248-1437. and in the years 1842-1880. That is, first 189 years, and then, after a break of 405 years, another 38 years. In total, the construction took 227 years.

Even according to official figures, the cathedral was completed only in 1974. True, it is officially believed that this was the year of the end of the restoration work, to eliminate damage to the building during the Second World War. In fact, construction continues to this day. Under the guise of restoration of structural elements that have lost their original appearance, of course, but in fact, the "restorers" still continue to create new masterpieces of stone-cutting art of the "Middle Ages", and subsequent generations will not even dare to doubt that all this was built in our time.

In total, the breaks between construction were 405 years. Is anyone able to believe this?

Image
Image

Just imagine how long a frozen construction site can stand in the middle of a city. A year, two? Today and more, because funding protection is easy. But half a century ago, the construction site abandoned by the builders would have been pilfered for building materials in a matter of days. What are the centuries of interruptions!

This is followed by a question that is inevitable in the given circumstances. I would like to know how the "ancient German" builders managed to build a structure of this level back in the thirteenth century? Is such a gap in knowledge and technology ownership possible in different countries?

After all, according to the official version, only log churches and huts with towers were being built in Russia at that time! And here the created myth about the Mongol-Tatar yoke comes to the rescue. Like, it's all accursed to blame for the fact that Russia was backward. But if to the east of the Dnieper lived only nomads Mongols in yurts and Russians in dugouts, then why these gigantic territories were not occupied by the owners of such technologies, with the help of which they were created prohibitively perfect in technical terms structures?

It is all the same, as if today we could not oppose NATO with nothing but sabers and muskets. Everything can be explained simply if you understand that in the thirteenth century, the technologies on the territory of modern Germany were no different from those that were in service with the Great Tartary, and most likely, even inferior to them. There, as elsewhere, they built approximately the same buildings and structures. And in the nineteenth century, the level of technology in Europe and Russia was not fundamentally different. That is why all monumental stone structures were erected around the world at the same time. The peak of construction fell on the late nineteenth - early twentieth centuries.

Photo of the late nineteenth century. Construction of the Cologne Cathedral
Photo of the late nineteenth century. Construction of the Cologne Cathedral

Photo of the late nineteenth century. Construction of the Cologne Cathedral.

Q. E. D. Without the emergence of industry, the widespread use of machines and mechanisms, the construction of such facilities would only be possible in a fairy tale. But we don't believe in fairy tales, do we?

The main lie of historians lies not in hiding the technologies of the distant past, but in the artificial aging of completely modern objects built already in our time. Today no one will still believe that Berlin Airport, for example, was built in the fifteenth century. But who can guarantee that in fifty years our descendants will not believe in this?

Compare the two shots:

Image
Image
Image
Image

They have the same object. This is the Abbey of Saint Germain in the Dardennes (Germany) 1949. And in our days. Can anyone now believe that this is not a medieval building? Likewise, standing in front of the Cologne Cathedral, no one doubts that it was built in the thirteenth century.

But these are not isolated examples. In fact, the construction of "antiquity" in the late nineteenth - early twentieth century was literally put on stream throughout the world.

Stone cutting workshop. Germany 1916
Stone cutting workshop. Germany 1916

Stone cutting workshop. Germany 1916

* Reconstruction * Notre Dame de Paris. Thirties of the twentieth century
* Reconstruction * Notre Dame de Paris. Thirties of the twentieth century

* Reconstruction * Notre Dame de Paris. Thirties of the twentieth century.

Quarry No. 9. Great Britain, early twentieth century
Quarry No. 9. Great Britain, early twentieth century

Quarry No. 9. Great Britain, early twentieth century.

All the same was happening at this time on all continents, in all countries. Only unlike Europe, Russia did not appropriate a historical place for itself in the "ancient world", because it had an excuse in the form of the myth of the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

And finally: Until now, enthusiasm about the figurine of the "astronaut" which meticulous tourists saw in the decor on the facade of a medieval church in the Spanish city of Salamanca does not subside.

Cathedral Catedral Nueva, built between 1513 and 1733. There were no cosmonauts at that time. And yet it is on the wall of the cathedral. Moreover, in boots with grooved soles …

Image
Image

I thought that even all children and retirees already knew that it was the sculptor-restorer Miguel Romero who allowed himself a little "artistic prank" during the renovation work on the facade of the cathedral in 1990. It turned out that I was wrong. Almost every day there are those who are more willing to believe in a miracle than to use rational thinking.

Well, it is difficult for some adult uncles and aunts to live without a bright fairy tale. Well, they are too lazy to check the accuracy of the information on the Internet. God is with them. They want to believe in Santa Claus, let them believe in themselves. I am concerned about something else:

How many more of these "artistic pranks" do we still take at face value?

Author: kadykchanskiy