The last global mud flood

[stellar]

Yeah, most of the sites I visited were in Peru on one hand and Mexico/Belize on the other, but I also visited a few others in Colombia, Honduras, and maybe Guatemala? For the half-dozen years I lived there financing myself from local work (~$1/h) so I didn't necessarily visit as many as any avid traveler could - i spent 2 years working in Panama and Costa Rica without visiting a single site - but I do feel safe enough to state the "Global Mudfloods" hypothesis would have some serious explaining to do before it could even start to seem like a valid hypothesis.

Well, I guess you are the go to expert then, good to know. Maybe I need not ask the C's after all.

 

[United Gnosis]

Hi! A couple points in mild rebuttal: in terms of scale, the last solar minimum may have been a somewhat lesser event than what we may be facing. (How could anyone really say? Especially given that our soulular development is going to have an effect) But that is a good guess, especially if humanity is actually DEvolving which will have a net negative and amplifying effect on events.

The events of a solar minimum may not always be the same. My understanding is that liquefaction is more the result of a constant steady vibration of a multiplicity of shocks and does not result from a massive single whopper of a jolt. Of course inundation is a major factor too. Liquefaction of the earth requires a specific set of factors: the right kinds of substrate and soil. These qualities of the earth and the simultaneous concurrence of the right shocks along with inundation have to be present. There are places on the earth where this is so and places where it is not. As the C's have described what may be coming, there are going to be different things happening in different places. California may "fall into the sea" but somewhere else that will not be happening.

I too have trudged through numerous ruins. I was lucky enough to do this in the early 1970's before tourism was the big deal it became. It was a time when you could tromp all over Palenque and there were no guardrails, no paths to stay on, no signs...not even a gift shop and only one fat sweaty Federale sitting at the entrance eating an orange with a flask of tequila in his hip pocket looking like Pancho Villa's stunt double and half the time he wasn't even there. It was awesome! The spaceman was even still on the sarcophagus. But I wouldn't expect a liquefaction event there anyway. The limestone is the wrong medium, the jungle holds what soil there is together and probably no earth shakers either.

So, it does NOT look like this liquefaction, if that is what it was, was global and happened "everywhere". I agree there. That does not preclude it being a localized phenomenon on several continents. Or at a specific latitudinal bandwidth. As far as Titicaca or Machu Picchu go, they are both at higher elevation where the C's said something like that the folding of the earth would be minimized. So further south the conditions were just wrong and it just didn't happen there. I agree.

But just because something didn't happened in one area does not mean it didn't happen anywhere else. I guess I could have just said that to keep it short!

What intrigues me is not a mud flood, per se, but what it points to. But I don't want to engage in flights of fancy.

I thought of Fulcanelli. I pulled up Dwellings of the Philosophers and started reading. It seems to echo this idea of a golden age as evidenced by the remnants of the Gothic era. He goes on and on about the historical record not matching what can actually be seen.

And that is right up the Mud Flood Alley.

i'm lucky that I spent that year in Costa Rica studying permaculture. I learned about soil and had multiple opportunities to dig around (digging foundations for various farm sheds and plantings at multiple communities across the Zona Sur - and I have to say that my own untrained eye would have assumed the same - that the jungle had deep roots and that the soil would hold together well. It doesn't. At least in Costa Rica (and I learned that not just from digging a few holes, but also from talking to experienced permaculturists who had scouted many pieces of land before buying theirs) that a lot of the low-jungle grows on poor, tightly packed highly clayish soils. This makes for a very slippery layer (terrible when driving on a 'wet' dirt road, nearly impossible to drive on with a motorcycle) and I noticed such soils as far north as Belize. Combine this slippery clayish soil with the hilly landscape and you start to understand why mudslides cause such a terrible toll on the latin countries.

All this to say, yes, a liquifaction event would probably require mid-scale shaking, and could be distributed unevenly on the surface of the planet I still don't see anything that would require claiming more than a couple local events. Otherwise there's a lot to be explained to constrain this - to me - unspecific and wildly flailing 'theory'. Not that I want it to propose explanations. I'd like it if it started by proposing a specific dataset of a timeline of events that it has to explain, because right now I don't even see something that basic.

 

[United Gnosis]

Well, I guess you are the go to expert then, good to know. Maybe I need not ask the C's after all.

compared to whoever edited those videos, I wonder if I might be? It feels as if these people never travelled or even noticed that more than one continent had European influences and buildings, and then say "LOOK AT THESE BUILDINGS!"

Ok. Again. I'm looking. What do you see?
What would a precise question to the Cs be?

 

[Zzartemis]

Ok. Again. I'm looking. What do you see?

This explains what you are asked to see (from my previous post)

For the most part we are very much used to seeing these buildings here and there all over the world. If it’s a city or town with some history under its belt, it will have one or two of the above structures; some will have more. We do not think about those builders of the old, not having any building and construction equipment of today. Granted, at some point, a railroad was introduced, and some of those buildings were constructed not far from a body of water. At the same time, quite a few were built with no luxury of railroads and ports. Do we wonder who made thousands of windows in the 18th (17th, 19th) century, or where mountains of bricks (block shaped stones) came from. Where roofing materials came from, or who sculptured those stairwell posts making them 100% identical? Wondering, an observer might spend a moment thinking about all those things. Most people will not.

In other words, it is impossible to build anything of that magnitude without infrastructure, and trained, skilled construction workers of various positions. Europe clearly had a century or two head start on the rest of the world. But the so-called Colonial Expansion produced such ridiculous amounts of these buildings, I struggle to find any conventional explanation. Tens of thousands of similar style buildings popped up all over the world within a very short period of time. Very often in places where any thought of an appropriate infrastructure would be ludicrous. The Industrial Revolution did not fully kick in until 1830s-1840s

 

[United Gnosis]

This explains what you are asked to see (from my previous post)

For the most part we are very much used to seeing these buildings here and there all over the world. If it’s a city or town with some history under its belt, it will have one or two of the above structures; some will have more. We do not think about those builders of the old, not having any building and construction equipment of today. Granted, at some point, a railroad was introduced, and some of those buildings were constructed not far from a body of water. At the same time, quite a few were built with no luxury of railroads and ports. Do we wonder who made thousands of windows in the 18th (17th, 19th) century, or where mountains of bricks (block shaped stones) came from. Where roofing materials came from, or who sculptured those stairwell posts making them 100% identical? Wondering, an observer might spend a moment thinking about all those things. Most people will not.

In other words, it is impossible to build anything of that magnitude without infrastructure, and trained, skilled construction workers of various positions. Europe clearly had a century or two head start on the rest of the world. But the so-called Colonial Expansion produced such ridiculous amounts of these buildings, I struggle to find any conventional explanation. Tens of thousands of similar style buildings popped up all over the world within a very short period of time. Very often in places where any thought of an appropriate infrastructure would be ludicrous. The Industrial Revolution did not fully kick in until 1830s-1840s

So basically, it is presenting an argument of incapability? I get it when talking about ancient high technology, machining marks in idols of hard stone and so on, but, colonial buildings? High-tech builders mysteriously constructed those windowed buildings, then were wiped out by cataclysmic mud floods, only to leave the buildings and windows pristine as if wiped by a neutron bomb, only for us remnants to re-inhabit the leftovers while promptly forgeting about it and crafting various cultural and ethnic narratives to fill the 84'd past, with appropriate phenotype populations to suggest the fake history, because really we only recovered from global catastrophe a couple hundred years ago?

Seems like another one of these problems of scale Woodsman talking about. To me it sounds like the argument of someone who hasn't seen the incredible amount of work that humanity and prosperity can amass over centuries. Wasn't Paris' average height already at 4 stories back in 1400, a couple centuries after it started out in a field?

I'm curious, I'n not enough of an history nerd to dig out contracts from medieval Venice or something, but I'm sure one could find out the scale and timeline of work teams constructing such large-scale buildings. It's obviously not out there if you've seen what workers in the third world casually accomplish with few or no power tools. It's the centuries to build it that's missing from that picture, so instead it hunts for a fantastic explanation.

How many cultures would have had to '84 their past to hide the fact that we have all simply re-colonized abandoned, pristine ruins? How did every minority ethnicity synchronize to coordinate some kind of euro-centric lie prepared to hide the Truth?

 

[Yupo]

This explains what you are asked to see (from my previous post)

For the most part we are very much used to seeing these buildings here and there all over the world. If it’s a city or town with some history under its belt, it will have one or two of the above structures; some will have more. We do not think about those builders of the old, not having any building and construction equipment of today. Granted, at some point, a railroad was introduced, and some of those buildings were constructed not far from a body of water. At the same time, quite a few were built with no luxury of railroads and ports. Do we wonder who made thousands of windows in the 18th (17th, 19th) century, or where mountains of bricks (block shaped stones) came from. Where roofing materials came from, or who sculptured those stairwell posts making them 100% identical? Wondering, an observer might spend a moment thinking about all those things. Most people will not.

In other words, it is impossible to build anything of that magnitude without infrastructure, and trained, skilled construction workers of various positions. Europe clearly had a century or two head start on the rest of the world. But the so-called Colonial Expansion produced such ridiculous amounts of these buildings, I struggle to find any conventional explanation. Tens of thousands of similar style buildings popped up all over the world within a very short period of time. Very often in places where any thought of an appropriate infrastructure would be ludicrous. The Industrial Revolution did not fully kick in until 1830s-1840s

The buildings had architects and whatever they must have called project managers back then. Skilled workers trained others. Labor and many raw materials were cheap in the colonies. Each job might have been small and simple. Working together with direction produced magnificent constructions. Look at the great cathedrals of Europe, constructed with simple technologies. Look at Biltmore House in North Carolina. Granted, there was some infrastructure (a railroad built just for material deliveries for the project), but otherwise, all by hand. Drawn and planned by hand, across an ocean. Super snail mail. There was no such infrastructure for the Loire Valley houses, which were the inspiration for the design.
In NC, local labor was trained to do the construction. The little village, including a chapel and hospital built to accommodate these workers are still standing, as far as I know. Anyway, none of it is surprising. We are simply used to easier life (power tools and cars) and lower standards for construction.

The sky is the limit: human powered cranes and lifting devices

From the earliest civilisations right up to the start of the Industrial Revolution, humans used sheer muscle power, organisation skills and ingenious mechanics to lift weights that would be impossible to handle by most power cranes in operation today. The most common tower crane used in...

www.lowtechmagazine.com

I'll say the same about (high end) clothing. I have a particular interest in textiles and historic attire. It is possible to produce such garments today, but no one would. Elizabethan to Georgian. It is jaw dropping to see what was possible to produce without modern technology.
I'm starting to be of a mind that technology is actually taking us back to a dark age, by weakening and dumbing-down our species. OK, so I'm a Luddite.

 

[United Gnosis]

[I was editing my previous message but went past the time limit. These were meant to be the closing paragraphs]


It really sounds like some hysterical pattern recognition, projected from someone not familiar with the capabilities of trained workers and stonemasons. An argument based on modern dissociation from manual labor.

For reference. I once saw - in Guatemala - a medium size family build a 3-story house. In the middle of a steep hillside, with 100 meters of tight stairs to walk either way to the closest vehicle-accessible road. They built it out of cement bricks and rebar, granted, the materials were crafted elsewhere with modern technology, but only 2-3 men ever worked on the project proper, with the women and kids supporting them. That includes the men walking uphill with a trolley tied as a backpack loaded with piles of cement blocks, it also includes using only hand tools and picks to dig a foundation 1 story deep, into fairly rocky hillside.

Oh, and best of all? It was nearly complete after 3 months. From an average of 2 men working. Any westerner wouldn't believe it - I had a hard time believing myself even though my window had a view on that plot, I'd see them slowly banging and grinding and shuffling and the structure evolved right in front of me, I would seriously have never imagined that a manual laborer could be so effective.

But then that's probably due to our entire generation being so dissociated from labor. Because sure, most things are harder than they look, and most agendas get grossly underestimated when one starts out, but we also seriously underestimate the effectiveness of a laborer who knows where he's going. This is why I'd rather assume organic growth as a working hypothesis rather than seeking some much wilder explanation, especially if that explanation has a serious challenge in defining a domain of applicability.

 

[A Jay]

I watched a couple of Mud Flood and Tartarian Empire videos last year and they were all the typical conspiracy videos you find on YouTube. All examples given had other explanations, all examples given don't support the claims, all videos had the same paranoid emotional reasoning and flavor, and so on. They reminded me of Flat Earther videos and chalked it all up to people's emotional reasoning getting the better of them in yet another case.

From a theoretical position, I find it very hard to believe that a massive and technologically advanced empire such as what is put forward by those videos could be scrubbed so completely from the historical record in all places that until recently it has never been talked about. I mean, there was a cult of Caesar long after he was dead and gone so where are the people decrying the fall of their once great civilization with wonders that were so ubiquitous and commonplace?

I'm more than a little skeptical when it comes to big claims such as these with so little to support it.

 

[BHelmet]

i'm lucky that I spent that year in Costa Rica studying permaculture. I learned about soil and had multiple opportunities to dig around (digging foundations for various farm sheds and plantings at multiple communities across the Zona Sur - and I have to say that my own untrained eye would have assumed the same - that the jungle had deep roots and that the soil would hold together well. It doesn't. At least in Costa Rica (and I learned that not just from digging a few holes, but also from talking to experienced permaculturists who had scouted many pieces of land before buying theirs) that a lot of the low-jungle grows on poor, tightly packed highly clayish soils. This makes for a very slippery layer (terrible when driving on a 'wet' dirt road, nearly impossible to drive on with a motorcycle) and I noticed such soils as far north as Belize. Combine this slippery clayish soil with the hilly landscape and you start to understand why mudslides cause such a terrible toll on the latin countries.

All this to say, yes, a liquifaction event would probably require mid-scale shaking, and could be distributed unevenly on the surface of the planet I still don't see anything that would require claiming more than a couple local events. Otherwise there's a lot to be explained to constrain this - to me - unspecific and wildly flailing 'theory'. Not that I want it to propose explanations. I'd like it if it started by proposing a specific dataset of a timeline of events that it has to explain, because right now I don't even see something that basic.

Good points. I still think there is something here. But real data and analysis is needed.

 

[BHelmet]

I want to reemphasize that I think “global” doesn’t exactly fit and is throwing this thread off the mark. There are plenty of places it is not evident. But there are far too many buildings with the ground floor buried and stairs Added on leading to the 2nd floor. Buildings like the big Temple in Salt Lake with multiple floors with windows (!) buried. (Not to mention a more modern looking facade concealing a more ancient building beneath) That is not fanciful conjecture. The evidence is.... evident!

 

[stellar]

The commentary on this two part video does not really propose anything although it does, IMO, reveal the privilege of the gentry and wealthy to usurp and possibly cover up things for whatever reasons, probably for some sort of self gain. These tunnels are not headline news, nor sponsored by the UK government for excavation, rather funded by ordinary people seeking answers.

A similar narrative, built in the 1800's, known to the military and not talked about. Most people have no idea and probably don't care. Although some parts of them may have been built at that time, I think those actions covered up more than was revealed. The narrative actually tries to maintain the history we are taught until it can't explain what is actually revealed.

Perhaps this will be easier for some to watch as it filters out the woo woo beliefs that some just can't get past in order to filter through to the core of the point. Martin just seems down to earth, doing what he loves and, IMO, uncovering some gems wort questioning.

I think it is easier to cover up history in places where there is continuity of civilisation by attributing stories and timelines after the fact when no one alive is able to prove otherwise or argue the point or even care because they are in survival mode and probably ignorant of what has gone before. Yet there always seems to be that group who is in the know and has power and clout to call the shots and just create stories and call it gospel by which they laymen must abide. Contrarians have been harshly dealt with and used as examples for others.

In Australia on the other hand there is supposed to be nothing but the natives and bushland. Existence of petroglyphs and hieroglyphs are not taught in school nor where they can be found and what that may imply. Australia was discovered in 1770-ish and that's all we need to know.

Adelaide, specifically, is said to have had a population of around 14000 in 1850 most of whom were farmers and yet to look at the city at that time I can't help but wonder that some of their claims just don't make sense to me. Search reveals this:

"Holy Trinity Church
Oldest Buildings Project
There are already 216 places on the South Australian Heritage Register that are known to have been built between 1837 and 1855, with Holy Trinity Church on North Terrace in Adelaide acknowledged as one of the oldest buildings in the state.10 Mar 2020"
Being on a heritage list, it is probably not some little shack or quaint statue. And St. Peter's Cathedral must have been really hard work for those labourers. When did all these people tend their farms and families while building all this? By the 1850's Victoria's gold rush took a lot of people away and the copper mines up north, so who was left to build?
Oh, and most places are opened, established, founded, dedicated, commemorated or some other word implying, but not committing to, 'building' in writing. Yeah, you could say it was the expression of the times and how they spoke but...nah, doesn't really hold water IMO.

The paintings of Nuremberg and and Basel in the 1560's comes to mind with the sky phenomena and what really happened that is not talked about. Certainly the very floods and landslides of today are leaving millions homeless, some dead and others migrating. I Wonder if in 50 or 100 years from now someone will dig them up, restore and claim ownership. Not all things are destroyed or fully buried so, who knows.

I don't know what the real story is. I would like to know.

A lot of this has reminded me of the hundreds of years of history that have been falsely manufactured and distorted, whether in one lump or increments, as Laura's work has revealed; also various tunnel's in different parts of the world the C's have spoken of which are for the most part not known about. It's all quite intriguing.

 

[mkrnhr]

There is a lot about the past that we don't know. Catastrophism, despite being well argued for in the cases of the Younger Dryas, the ending of the bronze age and the ending of the roman era, and some other instances, is still a paradigm that is resisted by academia for ideological reasons. If there has been some cataclysmic event during the 18th century, there must be better evidence for it than for older eras. The proponents of the hypothesis are doing such a sloppy job that almost looks like self-sabotage, it doesn't only discredit their own hypothesis, it also risks discrediting the whole catastrophism by association, or at least giving a too convenient weapon for its adversaries to do so.

 

[stellar]

The proponents of the hypothesis are doing such a sloppy job that almost looks like self-sabotage, it doesn't only discredit their own hypothesis, it also risks discrediting the whole catastrophism by association, or at least giving a too convenient weapon for its adversaries to do so.

That's fair enough. I would still like to work out why SO many buildings have the outward appearance as if buried and most of these underground spaces ARE large; and hidden from general knowledge.

 

[stellar]

Just wanted to mention that the Australian Natives speak of a big flood that displaced them inland for a time and they say it happened about 500 years ago. This is not in school books, of course and I don't know of anyone looking into verifying it, so I''l keep looking.

 

[Sheeba]

But just because something didn't happened in one area does not mean it didn't happen anywhere else. I guess I could have just said that to keep it short!

So, now we have water up from the ground in major cities around the Globe (Washington, London etc). This is covered in dam-failures-floods-landslides thread and the thread about crazy weather.

I have looked into the mud flood phenomenon as well, and been intriged about the "why there, not here" phenomenon. Looking now at the grumsy water pumping up from the ground in this City one day and that City another day made me wonder. One day due to heavy rainfall and next day old pipes, broken pipes etc as in this article from sweden/Gøteborg.

Göteborg läcker - Ingen vet varför - P4 Göteborg

Den senaste veckan har flera stora vattenledningar brustit runt om i centrala Göteborg. Om det finns något samband är i nuläget oklart, temperaturskillnader, ...

sverigesradio.se

I am fascinated by this "muddy water coming up from the ground" in inhabitated places -phenomenon. Could it be a correlation between the mud flood discussed in this thread and what we are looking at around the Globe nowadays ?