Probability is the cornerstone of Quantum Mechanics and other more complicated Physics theories. It is also one of the cornerstones of our theory and the resulting method. Data analysis in physical experiments that show a correlation of 95% between two events is considered sufficient proof. This means that 19 out of 20 experiments confirm a theory and 1 out of 20 does not. In our method, we work with correlations of far over 99.99%. If that does not convince you because you may be incredulous, we might be on the same page because we are skeptics too.

When a theory is falsifiable, it is most probably not true or needs adjustments on the outer fringes. When it is false deep into its core it can be completely thrown overboard.

## When is a Theory Falsifiable?

One of the most important things to be skeptical about is when one owns a theory and then tries to do everything possible for it to be falsifiable. Attempts to falsify a theory does not work by saying: “*This cannot be true! The history books say otherwise!*” or by stating that “*Extensive research by archaeologists clearly prove that ancient structures are not older than a few thousand years.*”

The Out of Africa (OOA) hypothesis of Homo sapiens is falsifiable because Homo sapiens skulls and bones have been found all over the world and these are skulls that are *proven* to be far older than the OOA hypothesis period when Homo sapiens is believed to have left Africa. It is clear that the OOA theory is *proven* to be wrong, because it is easily falsifiable. The probability of its correctness is 0%.

But since the OOA hypothesis appears to be wrong, with which theory can it be replaced? Is it with a little twisting of the OOA theory or do we throw it all overboard? What then?

Our Mathematical Holistic Orientation-based Dating Method of Ancient Monuments provides a full framework to introduce in a whole new paradigm and this paradigm is clear about one thing: *the original foundations of ancient buildings are hundreds of thousands of years old*. Even Wikipedia acknowledges the existence of Homo sapiens for upwards of 500,000 years and it is clear that Homo sapiens had the capacity to build massive structures. This is not something they had to “learn” over a course of some 400,000 years. They surely inherited such abilities from even older civilizations whose remnants have long disappeared into the mists of time.

Both institutions, geology and archaeology, have uncorrected assumptions sitting at the core of their learned academic foundations. Their theories are easily falsifiable. But the governing bodies that run these institutions do not accept the much-needed corrections (follow the money).

## At the Interface Between Geology and Archaeology

Geologists tell us that there is no evidence that the crust deformed on a massive scale over the last 500,000 years, as we claim. We maintain that this is incorrect. Only a glimpse at the paleomagnetic records is enough to falsify this geological believe system. We also say that archaeology’s time scale of Human activity is incorrect. Geology and archaeology are disconnected disciplines but nevertheless, they have a common interest.

We say that, in principle, geology and archaeology should be intimately entwined. On what basis do we make this statement?

- orientation patterns of ancient structures around the world,
- the apparent lack of any Homo sapiens’ building activities between 420,000 and 10,000 BC,
- insufficient explanations as to how it can even be possible for the long list of mysterious, colossal, ancient stonework around the world to be the works of humans over just a few millennia,
- the way the ancient structures were used can only be sufficiently explained with our crustal deformation model,
- the one-on-one match between crustal deformation patterns and Earth’s temperature changes over the last 500,000 years,
- the one-on-one match between crustal deformation patterns and orientation nodes of ancient structures,
- the combined circumference of the Laurentide ice sheet, the Innuition ice sheet, and the Scandinavian ice sheet that all have a common center point on Greenland,
- the presence of Greenland’s ice sheet has been explained with the latest official theory confirming that crustal deformations are the cause of this ice sheet to be there at all,
- the correlation between eccentricity of Earth’s orbit and the occurrence of glaciation cycles,
- paleomagnetic data does NOT converge into unambiguous patterns without the corrections of the crustal deformations, as we suggest.

There is only one way to combine these seemingly incoherent, but crucial observations and established scientific facts and that is with our Mathematical Holistic Orientation-based Dating Method. The disconnected disciplines like geology, archaeology, and paleontology lead inevitably to nonsensical theories that exist only in their own parallel academical worlds.

The probability that one relatively simple theory coincidentally merges all these ten observations together without contradictions is 0%. That is how we know that our hypothesis is 100% correct for all ten points.

## Archaeology Neglects Anomalies on a Massive Scale

We can point to an endless list of human-made artifacts that are routinely found in undisturbed layers that are, according to geologists, many hundreds of thousands or even many millions of years old. They are called: Out-of-Place artifacts or OOParts. These are systematically disregarded by historians and scientists and for them it’s easier to classify them as hoaxes than to seriously study them; because if they did, it would undermine their carefully constructed and delicate paradigms. Besides, OOPart studies are not funded by contemporary academia.

Furthermore, the collaborative effort and interface between “unbelieving” archaeologists and pragmatic geologists rarely function. If they were to consult each other then too many questions would arise about how it could be possible that constructions are found at depths that are much older than just a few thousand years.

## How do we Use Probability?

Our method is truly revolutionary because it uses the non-materialistic properties of ancient buildings: *location and orientation*. For example, we have discovered that the foundations of ancient structures in the Western hemisphere are fundamentally different from those in the Eastern hemisphere. Their orientation focal points follow a path that runs vertically over Greenland.

We have calculated the probability for such a pattern to be coincidental. The result is 0%. The answer is that the crust deformed on a massive scale, moving the geographic pole to another location. Ancient structures that were once cardinally oriented are now not cardinally oriented any longer. The answers are simple and solid, the consequences are profound.

It is relatively easy to define the probability for these patterns to be formed coincidentally, namely we have found a Geological invisible force that also underpins our ancient history.

We are 100% sure that we have found the holy grail of ancient history: *multiple lost civilizations*. The consequences are numerous and profound – most mysteries are suddenly not so mysterious anymore.

## Western Versus Eastern Orientations

## Probability is the Answer

Some of our readers propose the idea that maybe a migrating magnetic pole was the cause of such a pattern as shown in Fig. 2. If that were the case we wouldn’t find such a discriminating pattern because the magnetic pole has moved as much “to the other side” of the geographic pole within a period of only a few thousand years. Relying on the movement of the magnetic pole would lead to an almost even distribution which is clearly not the case.

Probability gives us the ultimate answer: the geographic pole moved over a course of 350,000 years in four steps and the orientation extensions of ancient structures show us the pattern of these movements.

© 2015 – 2020 by Mario Buildreps

https://mariobuildreps.com

Proofreading and editing: J.B.

## 3 Responses

Can you please let me know what you think of these 4 confirmed ancient Hawaiian sites that share the same intersection point on the 47,1 reference line?

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1232131,1232131#msg-1232131

Also, am I right when I calculate the probability for these 4 structure to form a node in the following way?

The orientation of a structure will always intersect the 47,1 line at some point (except when the orientation is parallel).

When dividing the circumference at the 47,1 reference line into 400 portions of 100 km, the probability for 4 structures to share the same intersection will be: 1 * (0,0025)^3. This results in a probability of 0.0000015625 % that the intersection node is a coincidence.

It takes very accurate work, because the sites are very close to each other. Because the sites are so close to each other, the angles are very sensitive to slight errors. It is too early to say they form one reliable node. For that we need the locations and the orientations of the sites, so that we can check the claim. If the claim indeed is correct, it is a remarkable discovery that reinforces the method even further.

Happy to hear! And curious to know if the claim is correct.