Why the Ruins of Conimbriga Were Not Built by Romans

Across Europe are countless numbers of Roman settlements allegedly built by Romans. Take for example the Ruins of Conimbriga, it is believed they would have been built by the Romans. But new research shows why that is unlikely.

Fig. 1: A detail of Conimbriga. Note the new stone layers on top of the older stone layers. They are not of the same kind. This suggests that the site is renovated by Romans on top of older foundations, similar as we see in many other Roman settlements like Baalbek.

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 these 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.

Why do we have to excavate something that is just about 2,000 years ago? Most people think that 2,000 years is old, because they cannot comprehend much beyond their own limited lifespan. They tend to think 2,000 is very ancient, and so excavation sounds plausible. It’s not plausible, because most people, even Geologists, have no idea how soil builds up over time.

The global average rate for soil to build up is only about 1 inch per 1,000 years. An alleged Roman settlement which has been excavated from a depth of some 10 feet is way over 100,000 years old.

It’s time to wake up!

How Old Are Ground Layers?

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.

Fig.2: How old could these deepest Mayan ruins be? Based upon the ground specs they are at least 500,000 years old. 

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.

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.

It also gives us confirmations of what we already knew from the orientation patterns.

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 depth these sediments can be easily 300,000 years old.

Regarded from the mainstream paradigm it would be a problem when we find ancient constructions or findings at that depth in that kind of soil. Geologists are not funding to do any examinations which could harm the paradigm of archaeology.

If we look around the world, at the countless ancient structures which were excavated, we see that most ancient structures had to be excavated from layers which are many hundreds of thousands of years old.

Fig. 3: Not many people know that Teotihuacan was covered with a thick layer of sediments, while archaeologists tell us it’s 1800 years old. If that would be true the site would be covered with only 1 or 2 inches of soil. It took 75 years to remove the soil. 

Is Our Ancient History Falsified?

Across Europe are numerous Roman settlements found. Take for example the Ruins of Conimbriga. According to historians they would have been built by the Romans. But new research shows why that is impossible

This new research shows crystal clear 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.

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. Let’s not forget the Spanish conquistadors who under the flag of the same Catholic church destroyed complete cultures in Latin America.

That were not some minor raids, these were large scale, well organized invasions to destroy and cover up our ancient history as good as possible.

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)
 Note: when monuments are left undisturbed these rates will approximately apply. When monuments are regularity visited the monuments won’t get covered that easily with soil.

This table above shows you have to be 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.

The Carbon Dating Method is Very Unstable

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 are indications that the 14C dating methods 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.

Radiocarbon dating is, how it’s being used today, an extremely sophisticated hoax that supports and even reinforces the agenda of historical falsifications. That statement doesn’t fall just from the sky. We have found profound proof for that, which, after verification, will be published at a later date.

An Example of a Problem: Rock Wall in Texas

Fig. 4: The Rockwall at Rock Wall in Texas is much older than 100,000 years.

Rock Wall Texas

Take for example the Rockwall at Rock Wall in Texas. Most Americans have never heard of this very ancient wall, although it should take a whole chapter in the history books. But that would destroy much of the established carefully defended paradigms.

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 240,000 and 270,000 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. This paradigm is heavily defended.

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

Fig. 5: Conimbriga seems to be criss-cross oriented, but when we measure and process the orientations of the main buildings something astonishing happens.

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 correlate with the current and former geographic poles.

Geology tells us the geographic pole did not move over the last one million years, which is also one of the highly defended paradigms. But the odds are a whopping 1 to 2.98×1016 that geologists are right about their ideas of a fixed crust. Greenland shifted over the North Pole and that is the reason why Greenland is (still) covered in ice.

It’s not difficult to understand once you see it.

How large are the odds that the orientation of the ruins of Conimbriga correlate for 83% with the proven geo poles? That includes our current geographic North pole.

We can sort this out mathematically.

Five Geographic Poles Over the Last 340,000 Years

Fig. 6: The Earth’s crust was deformed due to an oscilating force which was generated by a high eccentric orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The four former poles are mathematically proven. For example Pole II: 1 to 2.98×1016. Of all possibilities is Conimbriga correlating with this pattern. It suggests that Conimbriga has been reoriented, but can we prove that?

How the Site Correlates to Former Geographic Poles

Fig. 7: The site of Conimbriga correlates with Pole I, Pole II, and Pole IV. 

The Probabilities That Ruins Coincidentally Correlate With Current and Ancient Poles

Building nr.
Orientation Ruin
Match? Pole
1
-30°
Y
IV
2
-40°
N
3
-13°
Y
 II
4
Y  I
5
-32°
Y
 IV
6
-14°
Y
 II

Why Conimbriga is Much Older

The probability for one of the monuments of Conimbriga to correspond with the current or one of the former geographic poles is 7 to 22. Of the 6 measured main structures are 5 corresponding with one of the nodes and only one not.

The probability for that pattern to be coincidental 1 to 75 or 1.33%. Hence are we for more than 98.5% certain that the site corresponds with the shifting crust, and is therefore much older. The oldest nodes to which the site relates is between 240,000 and 270,000 years old. That is the most probable true age of the original site.

© 2015-2018 by Buildreps