- Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10 - Part 11 - Part 12 - Part 13 - Part 14 - Part 15 - Part 16 - Part 17 - Part 18 - Part 19 - Part 20 - Part 21 - Part 22 - Part 23 - Part 24 - Part 25 - Part 26 - Part 27 - Part 28 - Part 29 - Part 30 - Part 31 - Part 32 - Part 33 -
As you can see from the name, this is already the 34th part of the collected facts and examples on the topic of the mysterious reasons for finding buildings (built no later than the beginning of the 19th century) in soil layers. Neither the drawdown nor the growth of cultural layers in the city (which is nonsense in itself) - this cannot be explained. Today, there are several main versions of possible events in our history. I will briefly talk about one of them in this article. But there is no clear answer: why is it not recorded in the literature, in the history books of that time? Rather, there is, but again as a version.
To begin with, another example:
Church of John the Baptist in Kerch
According to an inscription found on one of the columns, the construction of the temple dates back to no later than the 8th century AD.
What could have brought this structure? The building does not look like a subsidence, all the masonry would crack and the building collapsed. Cultural layers? Why are they not growing now? Not a centimeter over the last hundred years. The main version of the reasons for this picture is in the following information:
Promotional video:
In previous articles posted this video. I will post it once again as the main version, explaining the reasons for the introduction of buildings with clay layers. 500-600 years ago, something happened that threw ash or clay dust into the Arctic. What then could have happened on the continents?
If these are layers of volcanic ash, then skeptics will say that volcanic ash is not clay? What does it have to do with the clay layers in which old buildings are immersed? My explanations given earlier:
vaduhan_08 once expressed the idea that clay is volcanic ash. The logic is as follows: the same rocks, as when crushing by water erosion, are thrown out in the form of powder from the vent of volcanoes. Only the ash color is gray, because the rocks underwent heat treatment and became, in essence, cement. I tried to develop this version here.
This ash could be thrown out during global degassing by every mountain and hill, like the mud volcanoes of Azerbaijan (burning gas, mud, ash - all of it erupts, the video is on youtube). These are the layers:
If such layers were deposited in the Arctic, then what was on the continents and near volcanoes? Or then there were strong winds, hurricanes capable of carrying masses of sand and dust? This version is also suitable for the process of filling buildings with soil.
Video commentary:
Comment by russ_mir_sibir:
I asked archaeologists and climatologists here. And here's what. In 1883, the Krakatoa erupted, and the wind rose built a cover of volcanic ash 2-3 meters high towards Moscow. This is how the dust settled in a cone from Indonesia to Moscow and the Arctic. The conclusion was made by glaciologists who found layers of volcanic ash in the ice of the Arctic.
Deciphering layers during excavations in Kostenki. The dates are official, you can agree with them, but better not. Radiocarbon analysis is not accurate. It takes into account the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as a constant at all times. And this is far from the case.
One can look at these layers only as a fact of the presence of volcanic ash in the layers of clay. So maybe clay and volcanic ash are the same or similar in origin formations?
Here's another interesting observation, if you look at it from the perspective of these conclusions on this topic:
This is permafrost. But not frozen ground, but pure ice. And above it there are layers of clay, and above the clay there is already some layer of black soil, turf.
Let's think, argue: if layers of ice have formed over vast areas. It does not matter for whatever reason, the flood threw the water and it froze, came out of the depths or fell out in the form of snow, which caked into ice. The fact is that in endless spaces there is nothing that could leave clay after its destruction. Clay is not organic; it could not come from vegetation alone. Yes, and grass does not grow on bare ice. So something brought this clay. And, most likely - the wind. Whether these were dust storms or volcanic ash - they can determine in the laboratory (if they want).
***
Footprints in ancient soil on display at the Guellas de Acahualinki Museum, Nicaragua
The Museum of Managua (the capital of Nicaragua) Guellas de Acahualinka has a unique exposition: in the ancient lakeside soil, traces of humans and animals were left, which, according to scientists, escaped from a volcanic eruption. The approximate age of these tracks is 10 thousand years.
Pay attention to the thickness of the soil. It doesn't look like volcanic ash anymore. There are volcanoes in Nicaragua today.
But if you still trust the opinion of scientists in this matter, then what kind of powerful eruption was that period? Or maybe it was not 10 thousand years ago, but in historical time? Then this fact also sheds light on buildings brought in by soil around the world.
***
To conclude this part, I will give you another example:
Antalya, Turkey
They write that this is a tomb of the Lycian type of the IV century BC.
And dreams are a layer of clay that covered this place with a multi-meter layer. For comparison, the photo from the deletion:
What happened that the area ended up under these layers of clay?
I propose to make their own conclusions.
Continued: Part 35
Author: sibved