Why Ruins Conimbriga Are Not Built by Romans

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

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

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 was just about 2,000 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 centuries 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. Why had the Pantheon not to be excavated while it is about 2,000 years old? Many of these questions have never been answered sufficiently.

Our history has been falsified at a grand scale, which is now finally proven with a new mathematical method.

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.

How old could these deepest Mayan ruins be? Based upon the ground specs they are at least 650,000 years old. Any other claim is irrational.

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. A sort of rough framework.

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 can be 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 nonsensical mythos stories to make them just a few thousand years old. In most cases are these explanations unscientific attempts to safe the ruling paradigm. And still, most people swallow them like sheep.

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 find 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 also stinks to falsification of our ancient history.
 

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: orientation patterns.

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 current power of the Vatican is still built upon this colossal lie once established by the Roman empire.

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 descendant 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 conquistadors 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.

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 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.

Carbon Dating is a False Fabrication

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 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. 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 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 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. But this will change rapidly as the fake ideas of the current scientists vaporises.

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.
 

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 a whopping 1 to 209 trillion (latest data June 2017) 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 (still) 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 88% with the five proven geo 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. For example Pole II: 1 to 209 trillion. Conimbriga correlates for 88% with this pattern.

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 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 skeptic might argue that Conimbriga was picked to serve a specific purpose, and that could be true.

The full dataset consists of 501 buildings and constructions spread around the world. Conimbriga is also represented in tis database with five buildings.

Leaving out all the complicated calculations and details, we can say with 99.9882% certainty that Conimbriga’s history goes back 340,000 years, which 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: 0.0118%. That’s not very much! Keep that in mind about ALL ancient sites spread around the world.

Our history has been falsified to make you believe our ancestors were nothing more than stupid morons. A huge lie. And that idea is something you have to reprogram in yourself.

Other Sites Showing Similar Reorientation Patterns

Site
Country
Reorientations
Becan
Mexico
3 times (67%)
Calakmul
Mexico
3 times (100%)
Carnac
France
2 times (100%)
Chichen Itza
Mexico
4 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. The 5 bold printed reorientations meet the same requirements as Conimbriga.
© 2015-2017 by Buildreps

Leave a Reply