ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why Ruins Conimbriga Are Not Built by Romans

Updated on December 1, 2016
Buildreps profile image

The author proved a 100% mathematical correlation between orientation of ancient structures, ice ages and crustal displacements.

A detail of Conimbriga.  Note the new stone layers on top of the older stone layers. They are not of the same kind.
A detail of Conimbriga. Note the new stone layers on top of the older stone layers. They are not of the same kind. | Source

Who Built Conimbriga?

The answer to that question seems to be an easy one. Look it up in history books, and you will find: "Conímbriga is one of the largest Roman settlements excavated in Portugal."

Wikipedia says about this ancient ruins: "Like many archaeological sites, Conímbriga was evolved sequentially and built up by successive layers, with the primary period of occupation beginning in the 9th century; during this period the area was occupied by a Castro culture." Another page on Wikipedia tells you that the Roman empire ceased to exist around the 5th century AD. It clearly smells to contradictory nonsense.

Why do we have to excavate something that was just about two thousand years ago? Did we have to excavate the Colosseum? No. Or why is the Pont du Gard still standing as if it was built just a few decades ago? Why is the majestic Colosseum-like arena in Nimes still at the same ground level as the rest of the city? Because it is just about 2,000 years old.

Look at the Pantheon, it is surrounded by contemporary buildings which are built at exactly the same ground level. Many of these questions have never been answered sufficiently. Don't rely on science to answer them, you will dumbed and duped with a lot of nonsense generated by a so called expert in this field.

If you follow the logic there doesn't seem to be any, and that raises even more questions. If there is no logic to it, it's a web of lies.

There is obvious something very odd about our ancient history, and not many people seem to get their hands on it. Stone structures appear to last much, much longer than anyone ever anticipated before.

That is not just a statement. I can prove them. Follow me on this long tour.

Unsynchronized Decay

Nearly undamaged mosaic floors side by side with heavily eroded stone walls. It is said they are almost of the same age. Is that true?
Nearly undamaged mosaic floors side by side with heavily eroded stone walls. It is said they are almost of the same age. Is that true? | Source

How Old Are Ground Layers?

The answer to that question also seems an easy one. But is it?

Chronostratigraphy is the branch of stratigraphy that studies the age of rock strata in relation to time. It can tell us something about how deep a construction can be in relation to its age. It's not a precise indicator, but it can filter out some of the rubbish.

For example if we have to dig up the ground floors of an ancient building somewhere between 20 and 30 feet deep, how old could that be? It depends of the type of soil. Of course the area could have been flooded and buried by a mud stream, and then abandoned to be never used again. But what when it were solely solid, slowly built up layers?

If you look for example into the depth-time relation of an average peatland you will find at a depth of about 10 feet remains of an age of about 5,000 years. The deeper you go, the firmer the ground becomes, the longer compression takes. In the same peatlands you will find at a depth of about 20 feet remains of an age of about 25,000 years. It gives an indication how soil compression proceeds. Note that you cannot draw rock solid conclusions from this yet, but it gives some indications. A sort of rough framework.

The Pantheon

The Pantheon is after 2,000 years still at the same level as the surrounding buildings. No one seems to question this oddity. 2,000 years is clearly not that old.
The Pantheon is after 2,000 years still at the same level as the surrounding buildings. No one seems to question this oddity. 2,000 years is clearly not that old. | Source

Deep Excavations in Solid Terrain

If we do the same in more solid, rocky terrain you will see that at the same depth of about 10 feet things are much older. At 10 feet deep the sediments are easily 300,000 years old.

Regarded from the mainstream paradigm it's a problem when we find ancient constructions or findings at that depth in that kind of soil. They require a damn good explanation to make them just a few thousand years old. In most cases these explanations are pathetic and laughable attempts to cover things up.

If we look around the world, at the countless ancient structures, you will be flabbergasted if I tell you in how much soil these structures were covered. That doesn't happen in just a few thousand years. This is a first indication things are not what they seem, and archaeologists are not going to help you to the exit of the maze.

Teotihuacan Was Once Covered With Thick Layers of Sediment

Not many people know that Teotihuacan was covered with a thick layer of sediments, while archaeologists tell us it's 1800 years old. It took 75 years to remove the sediments. This stinks to falsification of our ancient history.
Not many people know that Teotihuacan was covered with a thick layer of sediments, while archaeologists tell us it's 1800 years old. It took 75 years to remove the sediments. This stinks to falsification of our ancient history. | Source

Is Our Ancient History Falsified?

Across Europe are numerous Roman settlements found. Take for example the Ruins of Conimbriga; they would have been allegedly built by the Romans. But new research shows why that is highly unlikely.

Why did I pick Conimbriga as an example? Because it contains the key to one of the ancient secrets.

This article will not only present the likelihood that the Romans did not built this city, it will also show you the likelihood how old this city really is, and what might have happened in the distant past.

This new research also suggests that the Roman era simply overtook much older cultures, destroyed it, made it their own and presented the remains as if it was theirs. It seems that the Romans stood at the cradle of one the biggest fabrications and falsifications in history. The power of the Vatican is still built upon a colossal lie.

It shows us clearly that the rise and fall of the Roman empire, the successive rise of the sheer unlimited power of the Vatican, and the falsification of our history on a grand scale are related. It is going hand in hand as one. If you believe you're a descendent from a primitive species which has to be educated, properly clothed, and submitted to the authority, and not from a high developed civilization, you are more willing to listen to this 'new kid in town'. Metaphorically speaking - if you believe you're the child of a peasant you will never claim the throne.

Not to forget the Spanish conquistadores who under the flag of the same Catholic church destroyed complete cultures in Latin America. This same church is involved in falsifying also this ancient history.

It is time you start to educate yourself who and what you really are.

Sedimentation Rates - Observed Relations Between Age and Depth

Region
Depth / 100,000 years
Central Asia
3.75-5.00 m (11-15 ft)
Central China
6.70 m (20 ft)
Central Europe / Alps
1.00 m (3 ft)
North East America
0.90-1.00 m (3 ft)
Colorado Texas
0.80-0.87 m (2.5-3ft)
Low Lands South of Hudson Bay
42.00 m (120 ft)

This table above shows you have to aware about the location where ruins are found. The type of soil determines the relation between depth and age, and there is a logic to it that most people will understand intuitively.

You might drown in a swamp, but not on rocky ground. That says something about how deep you find ancient ruins. On most solid rocky soils, it takes more than 100,000 years before an ancient building is covered with about 3 feet of sediments. Keep that in mind.

Why 14C Dating is a Delusion

Interestingly enough, when the 14C dating method is involved in determining the age of specific ground layers, the ratio between depth and age suddenly jumps with a factor between 20 and 40. These were the first indications that the 14C dating method are involved in a delusion of the facts.

When this method was introduced in the late 1940s, many archaeologists jumped a hole in the clouds because they hoped that ancient artefacts between a few hundreds down to about 60,000 years old could be dated much more accurately. But there are many reasons why this method is highly unreliable. I won't go too deep into this issue here, because it is a very technical treatise.

The 14C dating method is highly technical and will be covered in future articles and in the book "Atlantis is Here". 14C is an extremely sophisticated hoax that supports and even reinforces the agenda of historical falsifications.

Be honest - who dares to question the outcome of a 14C analyses? Based on what can you even question this method other than rhetoric and strong words? Only mathematics can unveil the falseness of this method.

Rock Wall Texas

Rock Wall in Texas is much older than 100,000 years.
Rock Wall in Texas is much older than 100,000 years. | Source

Rock Wall Texas

Take for example Rock Wall in Texas. Most Americans have never heard of this very ancient wall. Is it because they are non-stop dumbed by the mainstream media?

Parts of Rock Wall had to be dug up from a depth ranging from 10 up to 40 feet. It was discovered by accident in the midst of the 19th century. Even today there is not much knowledge about this wall. The depth at which the wall was found indicates it is much older than 100,000 years. From the orientation patterns of the upper parts of this ancient construction we can conclude it is at least between 220,000 and 240,000 years old. The deeper parts are probably much older, but we have no information about them yet.

Note also that all findings of this age are out of scope of the 14C method.

The paradigm Stone age, Bronze age, and Iron age - an idea for which no one seems to be responsible - does not allow (yet) a sophisticated and highly organized society way beyond 100,000 years ago. But this will change rapidly as the fake ideas of the current scientists vanish.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

— Max Planck

Back to Conimbriga - the Site Plan

Conimbriga seems to be criss-cross oriented, but when we measure and process the orientations of the main buildings something astonishing happens.
Conimbriga seems to be criss-cross oriented, but when we measure and process the orientations of the main buildings something astonishing happens. | Source

What About Conimbriga's Site Plan?

The criss-cross orientation of the buildings at Conimbriga seem to be nothing special. But when we correlate the buildings on this site they correspond for 88% to the locations of the five geographic poles. These ancient geo poles range back over a period of about 340,000 years.

I know that geology tells us the geographic pole did not move over the last one million years. But the odds are 1 to 76 billion (!) that this is not true. Greenland (as well as the whole crust) shifted over the North Pole and that is the reason why Greenland is covered in ice, and also why it is currently melting.

How large are the odds that the orientation of the ruins of Conimbriga correlate for 89% with the five poles? That's including our current geographic North pole.

We can sort this out mathematically.

Five Geographic Poles Over the Last 340,000 Years

The Earth's crust has moved on the rhythm of the eccentric orbit around the Sun. The four former poles are proven mathematically. Pole II:1 to 76 billion down to Pole V: 1 to 13,500. Conimbriga correlates for 88% with this pattern.
The Earth's crust has moved on the rhythm of the eccentric orbit around the Sun. The four former poles are proven mathematically. Pole II:1 to 76 billion down to Pole V: 1 to 13,500. Conimbriga correlates for 88% with this pattern. | Source

How the Site Correlates to Former Geographic Poles

The site of Conimbriga correlates for 88% with the PROVEN former geographic North poles. Pole VI is still unproven, which makes any correlation to that former pole illogical.
The site of Conimbriga correlates for 88% with the PROVEN former geographic North poles. Pole VI is still unproven, which makes any correlation to that former pole illogical. | Source

The Odds to Correlate to Ancient Poles

Pole
Probability
I
6.7%
II
3.3%
III
4.4%
IV
-
V
5.5%
VI
-
Combined
0.00054% or 1 to 185,000
To understand where these calculations are based upon other articles have to be read. In the book "Atlantis is Here" the calculations are fully explained.

Why the Outcomes Have to be Nuanced

The outcome 0.00054% or 1 to 185,000 has to be downsized. There is a good reason for that. A sceptic might argue that Conimbriga was picked to serve a specific purpose, and that could be true. We are afterall kicking against the legs of the establishment. And when you do that you must be careful with drawing conclusions.

The full dataset consists of 368 buildings and constructions spread around the world, and 232 separate sites.

The definitive outcome that Conimbriga might have been (re)oriented by accident to the five geographic poles is therefore 1 to 797, which equals 99.87%, a deadly blow to the established ideas. But when we find more sites which are reoriented in the same fashion as Conimbriga, it supports the theory of multiple reorientations of sites due to crustal dislocations, and therefore the true age of ancient sites.

More matching reorientations means we can upscale the outcomes again. The fact is there are quite a serious amount of ancient sites which show similar reorientation patterns as Conimbriga. Five ancient sites met similar requirements, which means we can upscale the outcome with a factor of 5, making it 1 to 3,985.

Leaving out here all the complicated calculations and details, we can say with 99.97% certainty that Conimbriga's history goes back 340,000 years, and that is quite another story. When a historian tells you a story it was a Roman settlement of about 2,000 years old, he/she could be right for just 0.03%. Keep that in mind about ALL ancient sites spread around the world.

When you choose to listen to stories of historians, remember it's your own choice. An ignorant choice which is based on Mythos and not on Logos.

That is why I probably will call the book "Atlantis is Here". Wake up! Atlantis is in plain sight, and don't you dare to forget that!

© 2016 by Buildreps

Other Sites Showing Similar Reorientation Patterns

Site
Country
Reorientations
Becan
Mexico
3 times (67%)
Calakmul
Mexico
3 times (100%)
Carnac
France
2 times (100%)
Cobá
Mexico
2 times (100%)
El Tajín
Mexico
4 times (75%)
Eshnunna (Sumer)
Iraq
3 times (100%)
Harappa
Pakistan
2 times (100%)
Labna
Mexico
2 times (100%)
Lamanai
Belize
2 times (100%)
Mehrgarh
Pakistan
2 times (100%)
Mixco Viejo
Mexico
2 times (100%)
Moral Reforma
Mexico
3 times (67%)
Palenque
Mexico
3 times (67%)
San Andrés
El Salvador
2 times (50%)
Tikal
Guatemala
2 times (50%)
Tula
Mexico
2 times (100%)
Uxmal
Mexico
3 times (100%)
Xochicalco
Mexico
3 times (100%)
The number between brackets (xx%) means the amount of different orientations of a site that successfully matches to one or more of the former geographic poles.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • billybuc profile image

      Bill Holland 6 months ago from Olympia, WA

      You are quite the historian, my friend, and I thank you for passing on your knowledge to us. Very interesting read.

    • Larry Rankin profile image

      Larry Rankin 6 months ago from Oklahoma

      Interesting insight!

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 6 months ago from Europe

      Thank you very much both for your comment, Bill and Larry! Our history is falsified from head to toes, that's for for sure. Thanks for your loyalty, my friends.

    • MizBejabbers profile image

      MizBejabbers 6 months ago

      It certainly is falsified. I'm about 3/4ths of the way through the book Transylvanian Sunrise and learning about the Bucegi Mountains in Romania and I've been following the story of the Bosnian Pyramids for several years now. I hope to learn if there is a connection. We've been told all kinds of stories about the Egyptian Sphinx and England's Stonehenge. Maybe someday we will learn the truth. Keep diggin' my friend and keep on keeping us informed.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 6 months ago from Europe

      Thank you for your kind comment, MizBejabbers! Many adults don't believe anymore the fairy tails we've been taught at school simply because there are tons of unexplained mysteries all around the world, and new ones keep popping up almost each day. The conservative ideas of our history clearly stink to a very big cover up. But it's good to be aware that this cover up is not from yesterday; it already began with Moses, some 3,500 years ago.

      It's a very interesting book you are reading, although I always like to see verifications where the claims are based on. Regarding the Romanian Sphinx; it could be actually true it is an actual very ancient sphinx. This Romanian Sphinx is no part of my dataset, but after your comment I performed a short study on it. The Egyptian Sphinx is looking to the current sunrise. If the Romanian Sphinx would be real it could have been looking to a very ancient sunrise, but I am not very sure about that. It must have been many millions of years old.

      The Egyptian Sphinx has been dated somewhere between 4,500 and 10,000 years BP, and has a significant amount of erosion along its base.

      If the Romanian Sphinx is really that old it could explain the huge amount of erosion.

      It's very interesting, that's for sure!

    • MizBejabbers profile image

      MizBejabbers 6 months ago

      Buildreps, FYI, I'm about 3/4th through the book and I must express my disappointment so far. I'm just now getting to the meat of the story because at least half of what I've read is a rant against Freemasonry. The Freemasons were very instrumental in establishing the U.S., so what is their motive for working against the good of the country, both ours and Romania's? But I do have an open mind and like to read and study what is available to debunk the history we studied in school. I've been fascinated for years by the Egyptian Sphinx.

    • ChitrangadaSharan profile image

      Chitrangada Sharan 3 months ago from New Delhi, India

      This is a very well written and well researched article! I am sure this will benefit many readers for academic purposes.

      Very Interesting and informative read and thanks for sharing your knowledge, the wonderful pictures and other details!

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 3 months ago from Europe

      Thank you for your kind comment, Chitrangada Sharan!

    • profile image

      Scandinavian 4 weeks ago

      I can back up what you say about the Pantheon. It is the same with St. Pauls Basilika in Rome, an impressive building many tourists miss. It was a seat of judges in Roman times.

      When I had property in the North I noticed someone had worked on stones in the area. I saw the stones and dug up chips on my land. They were buried around 33 centimeters (about a foot)underground. How am I to interpret that? They say Via Dolorosa in Rome is three meters above the road the Lord walked? And Pantheon and the Basilika are not? The chips I found, are they several thousand years old?

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 3 weeks ago from Europe

      Thanks for your comment, Scandinavian. Our history has been turned into one big mess, there's hardly to none logic to discover in the stories. Interesting example you mention there. Roads and entrances of buildings must somewhat match onto each other, let's say within a few inches. If that's not the case they are NOT from the same time frame, no matter how the stories are told, they are wrong.

      If the chips you've found are left behind in undisturbed soil, they can be easily between 20,000 to 30,000 years old.

    Click to Rate This Article