- Part 1 -
It would be more correct to start with terminology, as is customary among educated people. But since this work is not scientific, I can take some liberties. However, it would not be fair to sacrifice objectivity. So, speaking of megaliths, do we have the right to use this term in relation to outlier rocks? From the point of view of official science, no.
Who are you, megalith?
Here is one of the definitions of the objects of our attention:
The term itself was adopted for widespread use quite recently, in 1867 at the Paris Congress. Its definition was rather vague, and over time required clarifications and additions. Today, the definition of megaliths includes cromlechs,
Promotional video:
Menhirs,
Dolmens,
And, the so-called "temples", which included everything incomprehensible to scientists, from the Egyptian pyramids to absolutely fantastic structures in South and Central America.
Later, the term covered such objects as:
- taula - a stone structure in the shape of a letter, - trilith - a structure made of a stone block, set on two vertically standing stones, - seid - including a structure made of stone, - cairn - a stone mound with one or more rooms, - covered gallery, - a boat-shaped grave.
Until now, everything seems clear and understandable. “Mega” means big, “lithos” means stone. But let's open the Russian-Greek dictionary, and see how the word “stone” is spelled in it. And here a small discovery awaits us. It turns out that the Greek word for a stone is "πτρα" (Peter). But what about the "lithos"?
Here again we need to abstract ourselves, and forget everything that we know about the ancient Greeks from textbooks in order to apply logic. No matter how much I was told that meteorology is the science of atmospheric phenomena, my brain clearly picks up another meaning of this word, which is evident from its very sound. Meteor is the root of the word "meteorology", therefore it is the science of meteors and not of air fronts. And this is fully confirmed by the fact that the state meteorological service in the Russian Empire existed at least from the middle of the eighteenth century, and throughout the territory, in all large, by the standards of that time, cities.
No matter how much they tell us that this service recorded changes in the weather, the surviving reports that flocked from all over the empire to the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, speak of its completely different purpose. Regular reports contain information related exclusively to meteors falling to the ground. And not a word about the weather.
In the case of terminology based on the Greek language, not everything is so obvious, however, there are many reasons to consider this language as a modern, artificially created language. This is eloquently evidenced by the "construction" of "ancient Greek" words. This is a very common practice in linguistics, when words borrowed from other languages, for adaptation to national ones, acquire artificial prefixes and endings. Such as "as", "is", "mustache", "sis", etc. So Alexis turned into Alexis, Andrey into Andreas, and Dmitry into Demetrius. A similar situation is observed today in the Baltics, where the Russian surname Kulikov, for example, turns into Kulikauskas.
Therefore, it is not surprising that for a native speaker of the Slavic group, many "Greek" words seem painfully familiar. How else? After all, any artificial language will inevitably be replete with borrowings from other languages. That is why the word "lithos" is so confidently associated with the verb "pour".
So we can assume that the stone and "lithos" are not the same thing. Natural stone is "petra" (Petrograd is literally a stone city), and artificial (philosophical) stone is obtained by casting. We remember that the alchemists knew (or were looking for, as we are told) the secret of the philosopher's stone! And the very word "alchemy" الكيمياء ('al-khīmiyā') in Greek again χυμενσιζ - "casting".
Thus, indirectly, but the version is confirmed, and more than once, which speaks of its right to exist. A stone is a stone, but a megalith is still a “big cast”. Now it is worth remembering that one of the earliest names for Egypt was Keme. Is it coincidental? Hardly, I think.
Therefore, megaliths must be classified first of all by dividing into two main groups: a) Actually megaliths, cast into the formwork, and being what is now patented as an invention - geopolymer concrete; b) Natural stones, processed using hand or power tools.
Both of these groups should be divided into two main subgroups each, according to the criterion of the date of their creation. And already these four subgroups should be classified by purpose. In my opinion, this is the most intriguing part of the study of this issue. After all, the main argument in the dispute between the supporters of the man-made origin of the outlier rocks and their opponents is the issue of the functionality of the disputed objects.
Even in cases where the rock has clear signs of artificial stone processing, and has all the distinctive features of masonry, such as separate blocks of the correct shape, having a different mineral composition, skeptics object:
- Well, suppose this is an artificial structure, then where are the door and window openings? Staircases? Indoor areas? Even as a defensive structure, it cannot be used. And if the structure is completely devoid of functionality, has no practical value, then no one would build it. This means that Nature is to blame for everything.
But wait … Guys! But what about the pyramids? Do you seriously think that these are the tombs of the pharaohs ?! After two hundred years of active study, you haven’t even come close to solving their functionality! For you, everything that is incomprehensible for what was built, either a temple, or an observatory, or a grave, or some temple there, Goddess or God. You, like a savage who first saw a steam locomotive, look, and even a hint of a guess about what it is will not flicker in your head. The textbooks do not write about this, and that's it … Dead end …
The question is, if something is not written in textbooks, how are you generally able to make any discoveries? Such is the paradox. Therefore, I do not invite scientists for a walk along another Kazakh pearl. And all the curious and benevolent: - Welcome to Borovoe Lake!
Borovoe lake.
The State National Natural Park "Burabay" (Borovoe) was created in 2000 with the aim of protecting lake-mountain-forest landscapes, streamlining tourism and organizing recreation of the population on its territory. The park is located on the territory of the Shchuchinsky district of the Akmola region. Its area is 83,511 hectares.
The national park occupies the Borovsk mountain-forest, located in the eastern part of the Kokchetau Upland (northwestern part of the Kazakh Upland). The highest height of the Kokchetau ridge is 887m. (Sinyukha town). The ridge is composed of deep igneous rocks, mostly granites.
There are also pegmatites, syenites, and porphyrites. Molten magma, once introduced from the depths of the earth, transformed the composition of surface sedimentary rocks. Formed metamorphic rocks - crystalline shale, quartzite, siliceous limestone.
As a result of millennia of erosion and weathering of mountain strata, stone blocks of unusually original outlines appeared, resembling towers, walls, tables, monsters. From the east, the Kokchetau ridge is adjacent to the lower parts of the mountains, where gentle ridges, hills, ridges alternate with inter-hill depressions, plains and depressions.
Borovoe is a village, a climatic-kumis-therapeutic resort since 1910 in the Akmola region of Kazakhstan, built near the lake of the same name. Sanatoriums, mud baths, etc. Season - all year round. The main indication for treatment in the sanatoriums of Borovoye is the presence of tuberculosis (including in the open form) and respiratory diseases.
There are many picturesque lakes in the Borovoe massif - Borovoe, Shchuchye, Kotyrkol, Bolshoye and Maloe Chebachye, Karasye, Svetloye, etc. Most of the lakes are fresh, some are saline. There is a ramified network of rivers and streams (Sarybulak, Gromovaya, Kolchakty, Kilchakty, Imanayskiy brook, etc.). Some of them connect the lakes to each other.
Borovoe lake. Kazakhstan. Photo by Pyotr Ushanov.
I wonder what it feels like to live in a house in the middle of a ruined antediluvian city …
As usual, I always study the area in question with the help of a well-known computer program.
The unusual form of the hill on which the ruins of Burabay are located, and in this case, it is precisely the ruins, and not the rocks of the remnants, cannot but catch the eye. This is another indirect confirmation of the fact that the territory of present-day Kazakhstan was previously a group of islands in the middle of the sea. The steppes around are the former seabed, and the lakes are the remains of the Tethys Sea.
The radial form of the hill on which the national park is located vividly conjured up images of the disappeared Atlantis.
When I enlarged the image, I noticed that the former island is covered with a grid of absolutely straight lines that divide the entire territory into regular squares! First: Any specialist will tell you how difficult it is to maintain directions during the construction of roads, pipelines, power lines, etc. You have to bypass obstacles, which inevitably leads to a "broken" configuration. Here we see tens of kilometers of perfectly straight lines that divide the entire surface of the “island” in the middle of the steppe into quarters. What made the builders cut the glades according to such an ideal geometry? After all, the relief here is incredibly difficult, mountainous terrain, covered with rocks!
By zooming in as far as possible, I made sure they weren't roads or pipelines. These are glades, which are sometimes used as country roads, but most of them are simply overgrown with dense forest, and nevertheless, the lines are clearly visible!
At one time, the article by Alexei Artemiev, a researcher from Izhevsk, about mysterious glades in the Vyatka forests, made a lot of noise in a narrow circle of historians - alternative scholars. The fact is that glades divide virgin forests into surprisingly regular squares. At first glance, it would seem: - “And what's wrong? Foresters are obliged to divide the land into quarters”. Only here the question arose: “If this was done in the USSR, then why is the side of the quarter 1067 meters? This corresponds to the Russian verst (1066.8 m.)? And if this was done before the USSR, then who and how could have done it without modern technology (a simple calculation gives an incredible amount of time and the required number of workers to complete such a titanic work), and most importantly, why the glades are not overgrown?
And more recently, the entire public has been vigorously discussing the photos taken by one of the oilmen from the plane, where the same exact lines are clearly visible in the tundra, dividing the area into squares, like meridians and parallels on a map.
I measured the side of the block, and you know, I wasn't even surprised. As soon as I first noticed the "grid" on the ground, I was immediately confident that the sides of the squares would be equal to one Russian verst. See for yourself.
Orientation to the cardinal points does not add clarity to the question. If the deviation from the direction to the North Pole were in the opposite direction by the same amount, then it could be argued that the quarters are oriented to the old North Pole, which before the catastrophe was in the territory of modern Greenland.
It should be noted that, as in other places where such "markings" are seen, the lines are visible only in areas not affected by prolonged exposure to natural or anthropogenic nature. Where other traces of intelligent life have been preserved. I have practically no doubts that before us are structures similar to the Egyptian pyramids. The only difference is that the Kazakh "pyramids" suffered, to a disproportionately greater extent than those in Giza.
They underwent not only natural destruction from prolonged exposure to the external environment, but were initially thoroughly damaged as a result of some kind of destructive factor. A factor of such destructive force as is possible only in a global catastrophe. When the expression "left no stone unturned" is not figurative.
Natural rock from a monolith into rectangular blocks of regular shape does not crack.
The blocks you see at the bottom right leave no chance for those who claim their natural origin. In nature, straight lines do not exist. Nature always strives to destroy and erase everything that is even, smooth, with straight edges, corners and edges. But nature cannot create a rectangular stone. Nature does not even create a radial hole, only ellipses of irregular geometry.
The base (2.5 m) was clearly under water until recently, but the top was open to winds and abrasives that have been floating in the air for thousands of years. This is what nature does with artificial structures.
There is no doubt that these are blocks, not a cracked monolith.
Here are the traces of the destruction of monolithic rocks. As you can see, there is nothing close to what we observe in Borovoe, although the mineral composition of rocks in the south in the Krasnoyarsk Territory and in Kokchetau is approximately similar.
Here two analogies come to mind at once: - the ruins of a classical pyramid, and a parabolic mirror, of which there are many around the world, Kailash, Ergaki, Bayanaul, etc. And just here, the question of dating objects of these two types arises. Without a reliable, reliable method of dating the origin and processing by the mechanical impact of rocks, it is impossible to determine which is older, the pyramids in Giza, or the structures in Borovoe. The methods used by geologists give errors in millions of years, which does not allow us to take such "scientific" tools of cognition seriously.
Why is there age! Cases are known when several laboratories independently analyzed rocks independently of each other, and gave directly opposite conclusions about the mineral composition and origin of the samples under study. So, samples taken from one block of the Egyptian pyramid, one laboratory classified as natural granite, identical to that mined in the Aswan quarry, and another gave the conclusion that it is artificial granite, based on crumbs from crushed Aswan granite, with the addition of lime, characteristic for bottom sediments of the Nile, and animal hair.
Anyone who has been to the Brest Fortress cannot fail to notice the analogies. Just make a correction for the dimensions, and you will see the glazed streaks of the brick melted by German flamethrowers.
Although I admit that these are not traces of exposure to high temperatures at all, but the result of natural erosion, it is impossible to write off any of the versions until at least some research is carried out.
Very much like a badly damaged statue of the Sphinx, similar to the one from the Giza plateau near the Great Pyramids. Was there a pyramid here too? Was. And there is. And not one!
The sea was probably splashing right at the foot of the walls. They, in fact, could be a pier, or an embankment. And the place from which the photographer is shooting was at a depth of about thirty meters.
Isn't it obvious that it was a pyramid? Just one half of it collapsed. There are also smaller pyramids nearby. Everything is exactly like on the Giza plateau.
So, we considered the second type of outliers, which is actually very similar to the natural one. But in fact, it is, more likely, not. Like Bayanaul, it is very ancient, but the differences are significant. If Bayanaul arose from layers of granite "paste", using the "pancake" technology, then the objects in the village of Borovoe bear pronounced traces of construction using large blocks. The construction technology is most likely similar to that used in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids.
The difference is also in their purpose. If Bayanaul is similar to a landfill for miners who extracted metal using the in situ leaching method, then Borovoe is a complex of utilitarian facilities. This appointment is not clear to us for now, but the day will surely come when there will be clarity in this matter. After all, until recently, we could not understand what the "pancake" outliers are. The joint efforts of my friends from Krasnoyarsk sibved and Sergey Izofatov allowed formulating a fairly convincing version of the origin of some types of remnants, and adding a few more indirect facts confirming the version of anthropogenic terraforming. But this will be discussed later.
Continued: Part 3.
Author: kadykchanskiy