# Were Old World Buildings Grown?



## Starfire (Dec 22, 2022)

I had a thought/insight recently that has gotten enough response to deserve it's own thread.

This is that the Old World Builders GREW the buildings that are all over the world.

Here's the original thought from San Francisco as part of Mexico

_"These buildings may have been created on the spot with mental or technological effort. They may have even been grown in place in some way. Granite has crystal in it, and crystal is grown and shaped into many things these days. Crystal also acts as a storage device, apparently one crystal can store the information of many computer hard drives. So it could definitely store some kind crystalline DNA blueprint for a beautifully symmetrical, functional, purposeful structure. I do think it would take a large amount of mental energy as well. Perhaps 500 Old World Builders (with superior mental powers compared to modern man) joined hands surrounding the site of the new mammoth civic building and concentrated their thoughts together. Smaller buildings and houses could be created by smaller groups like guilds and families. Perhaps the cornerstone of a building has the DNA blueprint in it for the whole building. This would be why the cornerstone has so much significance. It's the one stone that is placed, and the rest are created."_

This is the enhanced thought from Alternative Means of Data Storage That Have Been Lost/Hidden

_"After I posted that I looked into cornerstones a bit more and saw them referred to as the seed of the building. They have to be perfectly shaped to be sure the rest of the building stays square. And they are also perfectly aligned to cardinal points, usually northeast (not sure why). All these items support my theory - a seed grows bigger, the cornerstone contains the plan for the whole, and the alignment of the stone is important although I think it was ley lines that were used in the past.

Also, when I say that the buildings were grown, I'm not saying they were created out of thin air. I'm saying the Builders picked a particular spot on bedrock that contained the correct minerals and was on the correct power node where ley lines crossed. Then the group of people planted the cornerstone with a ritual and put their mental energy into bringing the ingredients up out of the ground to create the stones and growing the building according to the DNA plan in the cornerstone.

It could also work for the brick buildings. The clays could be drawn up from the earth if placed in a location where clay was available."_

Alltheleaves responded with this idea. The link didn't work for me, but perhaps for you:



> expand...


_Perhaps held hands and sang._
sound energy for ancient construction at DuckDuckGo

CreekWater33 really resonated with the idea:

_"You are the first person I have come across that suggested the 'grown' structures idea. I have only pondered this idea but have not put it out there on paper or forum. But everytime I see the really intricate stuff I get an image in my mind of sage like old men concentrating extremely hard and these structures forming from materials from the ground and in piles around the site. I have no reason to be imagining this from any previous image or article and I have nothing to refer to that suggests this might be the case. It's just what pops in my minds eye when I think about the old world structures."_

 Please add your own ideas.


MODERATOR (@trismegistus) EDIT:

There was a discussion on this topic in the archived threads, found here:

SH Archive - Tartarian Stone Architecture & Star Cities GROWN using Erased Technology?

However, since the OP video link is broken, rather than combine the two threads I will allow a fresh discussion on this thread.


----------



## mifletzet (Dec 22, 2022)

The structures literally emerged out of the ground already built as a result of the 'Tesla Global information Field', as postulated by Dr Claudia Albers who had a video on the subject..


----------



## ParanthropusSlam (Dec 22, 2022)

Is there a re-up of that vid? Looks super interesting and this is a super interesting theory too. People on that archived thread were talking about how the buildings could be 'organic' if they are composed of subsections i.e. brick, and I don't think that automatically disqualifies them as being 'organic' or 'grown'. Our bodies are composed of subsections too i.e. cells.


----------



## CreekWater33 (Dec 22, 2022)

Starfire said:


> I had a thought/insight recently that has gotten enough response to deserve it's own thread.
> 
> This is that the Old World Builders GREW the buildings that are all over the world.
> 
> ...


Thanks for opening this discussion Starfire and thanks for allowing it Trismegistus. Looks like I have figured what I'm doing tonight! Once I've submerged myself into this topic through the other resources mentioned previously, I'll be back to share anything that lends itself to be helpful.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 23, 2022)

Starfire said:


> After I posted that I looked into cornerstones a bit more and saw them referred to as the seed of the building. They have to be perfectly shaped to be sure the rest of the building stays square. And they are also perfectly aligned to cardinal points, usually northeast (not sure why).


I'd like to know more about this.

Also very interesting statement in another post SH Archive - How to train your dragon

Says the etymology of the word cathode is -

_The word was coined in 1834 from the Greek κάθοδος (kathodos), 'descent' or 'way down', by William Whewell, who had been consulted by Michael Faraday over some new names needed to complete a paper on the recently discovered process of electrolysis. In that paper Faraday explained that when an electrolytic cell is oriented so that electric current traverses the "decomposing body" (electrolyte) in a direction "from East to West, or, which will strengthen this help to the memory, that in which the sun appears to move", the cathode is where the current leaves the electrolyte, on the West side: "kata downwards, `odos a way ; the way which the sun sets._

And of course cathode is similar to cathedral which we all know is built upon the word cathedra meaning the chair in the centre of the building.

Also 'Archivolts' the capstones in the arches. 

Cupola is the name of the little stone birdcage kind of things that sit empty on top of many old buildings, however cupola also means the vessel in which steel is melted in an iron foundry.

I've heard people use the word 'Flying' to refer to the process of putting beams in place and wondered why. 'Tomorrow we're going to fly the beams into position.'

On the other thread Dreamtime asks 'if they were organically created, why do they consist of individual parts like bricks?' The answer is because that is the nature of things to be made of individual parts like cells, atoms etc.


----------



## TheHangedMan (Dec 23, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> On the other thread Dreamtime asks 'if they were organically created, why do they consist of individual parts like bricks?' The answer is because that is the nature of things to be made of individual parts like cells, atoms etc.


Really   ? Brickwalls are not only made of bricks . A course of bricks is laid on a bed of mortar . The process used is clearly discernable after completion.


----------



## Jef Demolder (Dec 23, 2022)

Maybe magnificent old buildings were created using morphogenetic fields, similar to the creation of biological beings.
From my side, I continue to be completely despaired by the absence of literature on church architecture.
Desperate about the missing literature on church architecture
Maybe the building of romanesque, gothic or even baroque churches was not a matter of architecture and masonry?
Or of masonry in a different sense?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 23, 2022)

Starfire said:


> These buildings may have been created on the spot with mental or technological effort.


May?
Do you have anything other than a thought?
Physical evidence?
A written process?
A description of the process?
A drawing, painting, engraving of the process?



Starfire said:


> After I posted that I looked into cornerstones a bit more and saw them referred to as the seed of the building.


Not all buildings have corner stones.




Starfire said:


> And they are also perfectly aligned to cardinal points, usually northeast (not sure why). All these items support my theory - a seed grows bigger, the cornerstone contains the plan for the whole, and the alignment of the stone is important although I think it was ley lines that were used in the past.


So you don't know why the cornerstones are often aligned north/east but reckon their placement supports your idea.
Again what evidence have you found in the objective world.


The thing is all built infrastructure is built using our eyes inbuilt levelling device. It and by extraction we can easily determine level and plumb to level.
All levers used to build the infrastructure operate within level and plumb.




mifletzet said:


> The structures literally emerged out of the ground already built as a result of the 'Tesla Global information Field', as postulated by Dr Claudia Albers who had a video on the subject..



Does a voice in a YouTube video constitute enough research into this idea for you to post as a How its done?



Quiahuitl said:


> Cupola is the name of the little stone birdcage kind of things that sit empty on top of many old buildings,


Many are made of wood and or metal.
Cupolas hang from balloons and airships and they aren't stone either.




Quiahuitl said:


> The answer is because that is the nature of things to be made of individual parts like cells, atoms etc.


What did you do to establish this answer?


Starfire said:


> These buildings may have been created on the spot with mental or technological effort.


May?
Do you have anything other than a thought?
Physical evidence?
A written process?
A description of the process?
A drawing, painting, engraving of the process?



Starfire said:


> After I posted that I looked into cornerstones a bit more and saw them referred to as the seed of the building.


Not all buildings have corner stones.




Starfire said:


> And they are also perfectly aligned to cardinal points, usually northeast (not sure why). All these items support my theory - a seed grows bigger, the cornerstone contains the plan for the whole, and the alignment of the stone is important although I think it was ley lines that were used in the past.


So you don't know why the cornerstones are often aligned north/east but reckon their placement supports your idea.
Again what evidence have you found in the objective world.


The thing is all built infrastructure is built using our eyes inbuilt levelling device. It and by extraction we can easily determine level and plumb to level.
All levers used to build the infrastructure operate within level and plumb.




mifletzet said:


> The structures literally emerged out of the ground already built as a result of the 'Tesla Global information Field', as postulated by Dr Claudia Albers who had a video on the subject..



Does a voice in a YouTube video constitute enough research into this idea for you to post as a How its done?



Quiahuitl said:


> Cupola is the name of the little stone birdcage kind of things that sit empty on top of many old buildings,


Many are made of wood and or metal.
Cupolas hang from balloons and airships and they aren't stone either.




Quiahuitl said:


> The answer is because that is the nature of things to be made of individual parts like cells, atoms etc.


What did you do to establish a brick is a cell?
Surely a brick is sand clay and water plus other odds and sods.


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 23, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> May?
> Do you have anything other than a thought?
> Physical evidence?
> A written process?
> ...



We missed you, JD.  Welcome back


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 23, 2022)

trismegistus said:


> We missed you, JD.  Welcome back


Not stopping long.


----------



## Starfire (Dec 23, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> May?
> Do you have anything other than a thought?
> Physical evidence?
> A written process?
> ...



Thanks for being a devil's advocate. This is a new idea for me. I haven't had a lot of time to research it yet, but I do intend to answer the questions you posed that are able to be answered. (Maybe you'll still be here to read my answers...)

As far as proof, you know as well as I do that this theory is unprovable. We can't be there when it happened, we can't extract that information from the building itself (yet), there's no photographs of that far in the past, and any drawings or writings about it have been hidden or destroyed. 

You're right that not all buildings have cornerstones. But I'm not talking about ALL buildings. I am talking about particular buildings, that DID use cornerstones. These buildings were buried in mud and we can't get to all their cornerstones to examine them. The cornerstones used in the last few hundred years are facsimiles. They were chiseled with the date the masons finished refinishing the new facade on the old building. Or they were laid down as the first stone of new buildings being built by hand by settlers. These faux imposters are NOT the same kind of cornerstone. 

Many cornerstones in the last few hundred years are hollow and had the blueprints of the building inside. To me this is as close to proof as I'm going to get. This is a cultural memory of the cornerstone containing the energetic imprint of the entire building, the DNA blueprint necessary to complete the project. 

Reagarding bricks as cells. The HangedMan mentioned the mortar as an argument why it couldn't be grown. To me, the mortar supports the theory. Cells have connective tissues that hold them together, too. Collagen fibers would be like the mortar, tendons and ligaments relate to crossbars and supports, bones are like rafters. 

Also, wood and metal can both be grown. Wooden "subsections" (earlier in thread) can be grown as part of a brick or stone building. And metal has an atomic structure different from other compounds. The atoms are interconnected at multiple points to each other creating a matrix. This is why metals are so strong and conduct electricity so well. I believe this pattern could be grown pretty easily by Old World Builders.


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 24, 2022)

Starfire said:


> The cornerstones used in the last few hundred years are facsimiles. They were chiseled with the date the masons finished refinishing the new facade on the old building.



Anecdotally - having exploring many buildings that may fall into the "hidden history bucket" - this is one of the first things I notice.  Most of the time the cornerstones look _much_ newer than the structure itself, or in some cases is separate from the structure and displayed on a porch, or inside somewhere.  Of course that is not proof that these structures are grown, but it is part of the tapestry of curiosity some of these structures are a part of.

I share a similar hunch regarding the creation of some structures on the planet, though.  Not sure I'd have enough evidence to know anything for certain, but it is worth further digging.  

Not explicitly related, but this is a SH oldie but goodie that is a nice companion to this idea.

SH Archive - Eleanor Coade: 19th century owner of a Geo-polymer recipe.


----------



## Starfire (Dec 24, 2022)

I wanted to thank all the readers that have contributed links and threads for me to dig into. And trismegistus for allowing it to be revisited. I hadn't realized that other people might have already talked about this idea. It came to me all on it's own.

It was one of those thoughts that resonate as truth when you have it. You can feel the edges of that particular puzzle piece sliding into it's place. Giving a more complete picture overall and connecting some surrounding mysteries and knowledge. There's been a few times in my life where I think a new truth or gain a new understanding, and I feel bigger than my body. Like my energy body surrounding my physical body. Only a couple times with deep truth. This wasn't one of those times. Just puzzle piece truth.

Has anyone felt either of these type of feelings when encountering deeper understandings?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

Starfire said:


> Thanks for being a devil's advocate. This is a new idea for me. I haven't had a lot of time to research it yet, but I do intend to answer the questions you posed that are able to be answered. (Maybe you'll still be here to read my answers...)
> 
> As far as proof, you know as well as I do that this theory is unprovable. We can't be there when it happened, we can't extract that information from the building itself (yet), there's no photographs of that far in the past, and any drawings or writings about it have been hidden or destroyed.
> 
> ...


So its just an idea then.
No method, no process just a scenario within imagination.

I have built things from stone, brick, concrete block and can tell you these materials and their mortars do not grow by some unknown process. They are all conglomerates of materials put together by the hand of man or in the case of stone, natural not artificial stone, by nature.

Wood is another material I have working knowledge of and metal too Neither of these materials grow.
The only time metal can be possibly said to grow or expand is when its rotting.
Rotting metals usually expand as they oxidise and stop being metal.

The atom does not exist. It is an idea nothing more. The evidence for its existence is literally non existent.

Cornerstones with plans inside are indeed a thing. As are date stones and laid by stones but you seem to be running with the stones having a psychic ability, devoid of any evidence, to not only read these plans without eyes, without a brain but decipher the language they are written in and have some unknown mechanism to establish plumb and level and construct the building.

Given that stones absorb both moisture and heat and paper is an organic substance it wouldn't last long inside a stone box. As the conditions are aerobic then any fungus or mould on the paper or a wooden or metal box inside the stone would destroy the paper in short order.

Please post the evidence you have of original cornerstones being buried in mud if and when you come across any.

This is a demonstrable repeatable truth.
There is just one force in the objective world and that is push. Pull is merely a descriptor of direction. All movement in the objective world is pushing which is why built infrastructure is built the way it is.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 24, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Cupolas hang from balloons and airships and they aren't stone either.



Here's a funny thing.  There's a lot of people whining about 'Sources' and 'Research' and so on today, so I went and looked up 'Cupola' in a range of online sources.

This meaning of cupola as the thing that hangs below an airship or balloon is not mentioned in any of the following sources

cupola - Wiktionary

Cupola - Wikipedia

cupola | architecture

Definition of CUPOLA

cupola

Definition of cupola | Dictionary.com

Cupola definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


 So what I'm going to do now is go ahead and assume that 'Jd755' is right and all these authoritative sources are wrong.  

Interestingly Britannica says 'When placed atop posts or lanterns, they may also serve as lookouts or sources of light or air.'


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Here's a funny thing.  There's a lot of people whining about 'Sources' and 'Research' and so on today, so I went and looked up 'Cupola' in a range of online sources.
> 
> This meaning of cupola as the thing that hangs below an airship or balloon is not mentioned in any of the following sources
> 
> ...


Its not about me nor about being right or wrong, not even about your offence at words on screen or what you give your authority to.

Its about the content.

Once you break free from authorative mainstream sources of the kind you posted a better picture emerges.


*From History of the First World War Magazine - Issue 23 - The cupola of a Zeppelin L2




*


----------



## Starfire (Dec 24, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> So its just an idea then.
> No method, no process just a scenario within imagination.
> 
> I have built things from stone, brick, concrete block and can tell you these materials and their mortars do not grow by some unknown process. They are all conglomerates of materials put together by the hand of man or in the case of stone, natural not artificial stone, by nature.
> ...


Now you have gone beyond devil's advocate and moved into the area where you're just trying to raise my hackles. Sorry, no go.

I'm a liitle suprised you are even on this forum where people try to look past the narrative we've all been taught and seek real truth. You seem pretty locked into the current paradigm. Maybe you just come here to troll people....

How can you say wood is not grown? It comes from trees. They send their roots into the earth and bring up nutrients such as nitrogen and iron (a type of metal). Their leaves interact with gases in the air that we can't see and the process of photosynthesis creates solid wood. 

And stone grows too. Really, really slow usually. But the correct mental energy could speed up that process. Sedimentary stone forms from many individual particles that eventually become so densely packed they become one object/stone. The correct mental energy could bring enough individual particles up from the earth and compress them together into stone, brick or metal.

Other stones are formed by concretion of fluids. The fluid leaks and hardens and leaks and hardens until it becomes rock. This process could also be sped up and adjusted as needed to grow a structure, (with the correct mental energy).

As far as the hollow stone blocks with blueprints in them...you misunderstood the point. Those are the modern fake representations of true historical cornerstones (according to my theory). Of course the hollow stone isn't interpreting the paper blueprints. It's just dead stone.
But the real cornerstones that I am discussing would have been grown/created by the Old World Builders with a special process to imbue them with the plan for the whole building. It could be called living stone, even. 

(I'm sure you will ream me for that last statement.)


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 25, 2022)

Please please present your evidence for these buried old world corner stones because that is the fundamental basis of your idea and I for one have never seen one, seen a photo of one or heard of the idea.
If you have evidence then we all have something to work with.

My contention is based entirely in my experience of life and is simple. All built structures conform to plumb and level. The only thing that recognises plumb and level is the human eye and brain.
Ergo humans built the infrastructure.

You could do worse than use the search on here.
Here's this old troll having discussions in days of yore about artificial stone.
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/artificial-ancient-granite-and-marble.5105/post-53492

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/1...ase-exposition-in-saint-louis.5298/post-92041

Truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## mifletzet (Dec 25, 2022)

ParanthropusSlam said:


> Is there a re-up of that vid? Looks super interesting and this is a super interesting theory too. People on that archived thread were talking about how the buildings could be 'organic' if they are composed of subsections i.e. brick, and I don't think that automatically disqualifies them as being 'organic' or 'grown'. Our bodies are composed of subsections too i.e. cells.


If you contact Claudia Albers she may be able to reupload her youtube video number 1398 entitled* "Tartarian buildings grown, not built"*

https://www.youtube.com/user/claalb1/videos

Amazon.com : claudia albers

Dr Claudia Albers

SH Archive - Tartarian Stone Architecture & Star Cities GROWN using Erased Technology?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 25, 2022)

mifletzet said:


> If you contact Claudia Albers she may be able to reupload her youtube video number 1398 entitled* "Tartarian buildings grown, not built"*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/user/claalb1/videos
> 
> ...


And here is the cntact page of her site Contact Planet X News - Planet X News


----------



## Starfire (Dec 26, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Please please present your evidence for these buried old world corner stones because that is the fundamental basis of your idea and I for one have never seen one, seen a photo of one or heard of the idea.
> If you have evidence then we all have something to work with.
> 
> My contention is based entirely in my experience of life and is simple. All built structures conform to plumb and level. The only thing that recognises plumb and level is the human eye and brain.
> ...



You might be starting to grow on me, JD. 

There's quite a few threads that have been linked by you and others that I want to dig into. Might take a few days. I'll keep an eye out for the proof that I already told you wasn't available.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 26, 2022)

To take your idea out of the mind and into reality you have to discover some physical evidence for the grown stone.

This gives you lots of options.
Establish what building(s) near your location fit your definition of Old World buildings and go visit. If the building is still entirely Old World construction and you know the alignment of the buried cornerstone then you should be able to make as detailed and as lengthy an investigation of the probability of there being such a stone hidden in the earth. You may even gain insight into how it got there and why it remains buried.

Another thing could be to establish for yourself what marks a grown stone out as being grown. Is it appearance, texture, weathering, lichens, etc.
Armed with this insight you could then try to find a demolition site of an Old World building and see if any of the stones left lying around or incorporated into new structures are likely grown stones.

You could also look into any documented tales which allude to this process. Or drawings/paintings of the establishment of the process. Presumably if your idea has merit to you it must have far more merit to the Old World builders so humans being human the placement if nothing else would be marked by ceremony of some kind and this ceremony could have been recorded in images, poetry, songs, oral stories.

Its only when the thought is put to the objective test of the physical/tangible world it either stands or falls. It is the doing that makes all the difference.


----------



## alltheleaves (Dec 27, 2022)

The Stone that the Builders Rejected Became the Cornerstone?


If *the* *cornerstone* was not exactly right, the entire building would be out of line. For that reason, *builders* inspected many stones, rejecting each one until they found the one they wanted. *Rejected* stones might be used in other parts of the building, but they would never become the *cornerstone* or the capstone (*the* first and last stones put in place).

As for objective tangibility in the previous comment, that is the crux of the issue. Scientific Rationalism blinded and then atrophied the ability to see fully what is possible.

There is plenty of evidence of cornerstone ceremonies. Which may have been and may be pale remembrances of a past when the ceremonies were more than "mere formalities".


----------



## reverendALC (Dec 27, 2022)

To play the devil’s advocate here… let’s abandon any notion of anything beyond mainstream science and physics.

what could the importance of a cornerstone truly be, beyond vestigial ceremony?  To make a statement such as:

If *the* *cornerstone* was not exactly right, the entire building would be out of line

I cannot understand this. Stones are not legos which can and must be connected in prescribed manners with prescribed angles. If a stone is unsuitable for a cornerstone but “might be used in other parts of the building” then I’m lost. If any imperfection can be accommodated elsewhere in the building process, surely it can be accommodated in the beginning. If this stone being 1/8” off square will set an entire build awry, if we used that stone halfway through, wouldn’t it by that logic set the latter half of the build awry?

Considering the ceremonial importance of corner and cap stones, my reasoning dictates one of two things:

its all pomp and pretense like a ribbon cutting

there is (or was) more to the cornerstone than meets the eye and is explicable by current norms


----------



## Starfire (Dec 30, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Establish what building(s) near your location fit your definition of Old World buildings and go visit. If the building is still entirely Old World construction and you know the alignment of the buried cornerstone then you should be able to make as detailed and as lengthy an investigation of the probability of there being such a stone hidden in the earth. You may even gain insight into how it got there and why it remains buried.


Some good suggestions there.

I live in Cleveland, so there are plenty of Old World buildings. I see new ones frequently, as my job involves some driving. If I have time I stop and take pictures. The problem is getting access to the basements.

I've been looking at old maps, photos, lithographs and Street View on Maps for months now. All over the world, but focusing on the US. Here's the general trends:
• New England was settled early enough by the Dutch and the British to say they built their own old  buildings. Also, LOTS of city wide fires to destroy stuff.
• The whole southern half of the states can claim the Spanish colonialists built all the old buildings. Also, the War of Northern Aggression/Southern Secession in the 1860's burned up a lot of old buildings in the South.
• Northern California and the Pacific Northwest had fires, exhibitions and public improvement projects they used to disguise or get rid of the buildings. Seattle had a brilliant decades long coverup they called the Denny Regrade to dig up and re-use the old buildings. 
• The Midwest had fires and exhibitions, as well as public projects. They also had the native Hopewell and Adena mound building cultures to explain away suspicious piles of dirt before they could be dug up and remodeled or destroyed. 
•The Great Basin area had the Mormons to remodel the old buildings and pretend like they were brand new. (All-Mormon thread coming soon...)
• The Great Lakes area was exploited, I mean explored, pretty early by the French, then the British, then American colonists. So they pass off a lot of buildings as built by any of them. They also had public projects like the raising of Chicago.

Cleveland is a Midwestern Great Lakes city, so had both mounds and early exploration. It was surveyed in 1796, but not settled much until after the the war in 1812, when the natives got kicked out. Cleveland grew pretty much continuously from then until now. It became an important port city. Lots of industry like steel, oil and cars. Several different areas with big old houses that rich city founders lived in with names like Millionaire Row and The Gold Coast. REALLY rich people, and also mobsters starting in the 1920's. So Cleveland never had the big city wide fires and it's big exhibition wasn't until 1936 because they didn't want to destroy much. Instead there were rich people donating public libraries, schools and universities. There were lots of big old churches with pipe organs, of every denomination, being "built". Masonic temples, court houses and government buildings popped up everywhere. And of course there were the businesses and factories that made the rich guys rich!

This was able to be pulled off because of the mounds everywhere, supposedly built by natives. Many buildings and houses were "built" on top of the mounds to allow for higher elevation and drainage for the foundation. At least that's the story. I'm pretty certain that these mounds were excavated to reveal complete buildings that were a little messed up from being in dirt. And then the Freemasons in town refaced the buildings, created front doors with stairs up to the new front door,  and made the half buried bottom windows disappear or look like basement windows.

These mounds were of various sizes, both regular houses and large buildings that were buried in a layer of mud. This would have been caused by a flood-based as opposed to an earthquake-based cataclysm. A flood would deposit mud over the tops of everything. An earthquake with ground liquefaction would cause the buildings to sink directly into the ground, leaving the upper parts clean. You see a lot of sunken Old World buildings that weren't buried over the top with mud. 

Regarding alltheleaves post on rejected cornerstones. The perfect cornerstone would be correct in three different dimensions: length, width and height. The building is grown or constructed in three directions from it: left, right and up.

The reason the rejected cornerstones could possibly be used in the other parts of the building is they could be correct in two dimensions. They could be used in a flat wall but not a corner.

Thanks for all ideas.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 30, 2022)

Ifi may ask can you give your definition of Old World building?


Starfire said:


> These mounds were of various sizes, both regular houses and large buildings that were buried in a layer of mud


Surely there must be photographs, drawings or paintings of these structures half buried or local paper articles or even local historians/antiquaries report. Have seen any or able to link to an online source?


Starfire said:


> You see a lot of sunken Old World buildings that weren't buried over the top with mud.


Once again there must be images.
I found these two sites interesting.

Early Stone Houses in Downtown Cleveland - Deep Cover Cleveland
Assuning you can ignore the academics guesses at ages of things!

Cleveland Area History
As an example of just how bad it is to sift fact from fiction.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 30, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Its not about me nor about being right or wrong



No, it really is about you being right and the authoritative sources being wrong


----------



## reverendALC (Dec 30, 2022)

Most everything the world believes today was once counterindicated by authoritative bodies in the past.

if you believe in globe earth, imagine when globe earth was first widely introduced as a concept. There must’ve been tonnes of literature, speculation accepted as fact, and postulation about how the flat earth worked.  The naysayers of the past probably pointed emphatically at the volumes of evidence and the tomes of literature supporting flat earth, demanding concrete proof of heliocentrism.

hilariously however, our world transitioned to heliocentrism without concrete proof in demand.

I don’t support (or decry for that matter) many of the things on this forum, but I wholeheartedly support the ability to discuss lofty or otherwise infirm subjects. Requesting corroboration is fair and desirable, but shutting down immediately in the absence of “proof” is dismissive.

I think that these proofs are more likely to be uncovered/discovered by willing participants who are supported and encouraged by their peers


----------



## Starfire (Dec 31, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Ifi may ask can you give your definition of Old World building?
> 
> Surely there must be photographs, drawings or paintings of these structures half buried or local paper articles or even local historians/antiquaries report. Have seen any or able to link to an online source?
> 
> ...



My definition of Old World buildings:  Very large grand buildings of indefinite age, falling into roughly four architectural styles, aesthetically pleasing, frequently symmetrical, dome/spire/tower with taller metal spike or statue on top, other smaller dome/spire/towers with spikes on top, evidence of the original ground story now being partially or fully buried and then altered for function and disguise, basement windows filled in, short doors on back at ground level, stairways down to entrances, front porches with stairs added, large fireplaces with no soot, sometimes pipe organs, garden areas with lots of water features if the grounds aren't under mud, many very tall doorways and windows (for very tall people), interiors are very highly decorated with high ceilings and graceful lines. Usually several old buildings in same area, at least in Cleveland. I would also include star forts in this category.

This link has multiple images of Old World buildings. 

Similar style buildings are all over the world. Were they built by our civilization?

The pictures KD shows are examples of what I consider Old World buildings.

About what I wrote_ "You see a lot of sunken Old World buildings that weren't buried over the top with mud."_
The statement I made was a general statement about Old World buildings worldwide, not specifically in Cleveland.

From looking at the KD pictures and many more from many sources, I have seen a trend. The buildings in the southern hemisphere appear to have been buried more by earthquakes and soil liquefaction. They are frequently sitting on flat ground with no trees or smaller buildings around. Because the trees and smaller buildings have sunken into the ground. Leaving the ground flat and empty around the cathedral, post office, government building, university, or world's fair site.

Whereas the northern hemisphere has more evidence of mud coming from above by flood or explosion. The buildings have been covered in mud instead of sinking down into the mud. There's more dirt hills that have to get dug out to reveal the buildings. Examples are San Francisco and Seattle.

SH Archive - Seattle regrading or unearthing? Which one was it?

San Francisco as part of Mexico

Will Scarlet and Felix Noille recently published their findings regarding a 10th century cataclysm focused on the north pole which spread a thick layer of muck over the northern hemisphere.

The Dark Earth Chronicles - Part One

That link you posted to Cleveland Area History was funny and also illustrated my comments about Cleveland perfectly!! Of course the first wooden shack in Cleveland was a fur trading post owned by John Jacob Astor!! Didn't I tell you it was a bunch of rich guys coming here to get more rich? That Astor house got moved all over the place because they kept having to excavate the current pile of dirt it was sitting on.

As far as stone houses in Cleveland, there are a couple super old ones that I drive by sometimes. They are obviously built by settlers. Quite small and crude, comparatively.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 31, 2022)

Aaah now I get where you are coming from.
Korbens grand architecture.
Incidentally every post on his blog and more he has yet to post are here in the archive
SH Archive - Similar style buildings are all over the world. Were they built by our civilization?
Here is the reply string to the original.
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/s...rld-were-they-built-by-our-civilization.5143/

All I can say I have looked the things people claim for these buildings existence and none stand muster.
As for being buried intact pure fantasy quite frankly it just doesn't happen.
I go into depth on one or two threads in this archive where Korben and I banter back and forth which show the impossibility of buildings surviving the catasstrophy by being buried but buggered if I can recall the thread title.
When I do I'll drop it in.

I have never seen any imagery or written evidence which shows buried buildings being dug out anywhere let alone Seattle or San Francisco. Two towns incidentally about which korben banta and I had long and interesting discussions about on here and on his blog.
Should you ever find any then I would like to see or read them.

The process if it were real has stopped. No mud burials are ongoing today and no mud retrievals are ongoing today.
Given the supposed expansion in sprawling urban environments, industry and roads you would they these buried buildings would be popping up all over and they aren't.

Coming back to Cleveland the log cabin Astor story reads like so many in US history as a cover story for some dodgy or nefarious dealings.
The cabin story prior to the Astor connection is much more plausible.

Just shows the difficulty we all face in establishing probability.
I look forward to you getting out and about and showing us what you discover.

I can't do it where I live as there aren't any buildings that fit the old world definition you kindly provided.

SH Archive - A probable mud flood process.

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/a-probable-mud-flood-process.5076/

Hotel Kazan in Kazan, no mud flood.


----------



## mifletzet (Dec 31, 2022)

There is a tradition that the walls of both the 1st and 2nd Temples in Jerusalem  were not destroyed by the Babylonians or Romans, but descended in to the ground on their own accord, and that they will again rise on their own accord in the Messianic era. And that the Golden Candelabra, and also the Golden Calf, were not made by men, but by Aaron and Moses throwing large lumps of gold in to the fire and they emerged by themselves.

The Tabernacle in the Wilderness and the 1st Temple also arose of their own accord:

_"You must not say that it was Moses who set it up, for miracles were performed with it and it rose of its own accord, for it says, “The Mishkan was erected” (Ex. 40:17). [Just like when Solomon built the Temple,] everyone was helping him, including both man and spirits, because it says: “For the house, in its being built…”  (I Kings VI, 7) – [that is,] it was built of its own accord. Therefore it must have been built miraculously. Similarly, when the Mishkan was erected, it also rose up miraculously. (Shemot Rabbah 52:4)."_

The Masons/Freemasons, who claim knowledge from the Solomonic Era may have used 'magical' Hebraic techniques up until the end of the Gilded Age c.1920.


----------



## robgreen12345 (Dec 31, 2022)

Starfire said:


> I had a thought/insight recently that has gotten enough response to deserve it's own thread.
> 
> This is that the Old World Builders GREW the buildings that are all over the world.
> 
> ...



@Jd755 

this person had a similar idea

r/tartarianarchitecture - Theory I have about tartarian architecture - it was built instantly similar to a 3d printer

Another theory is religious groups like Tibetan Monks can instantly manifest things


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 31, 2022)

robgreen12345 said:


> @Jd755
> 
> this person had a similar idea
> 
> ...


Have ever done anything to put the theory to a test or come across the writings of anyone who has done so?


----------



## robgreen12345 (Dec 31, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Have ever done anything to put the theory to a test or come across the writings of anyone who has done so?



I think Michael Tellinger wrote about stone monuments in South Africa and he says they are formed in the shape of crystals and suggests they emerged from the ground and are not built by hand but created instantly through resonance.


_View: https://youtu.be/sECZ_CV_94Y?t=2091_


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 31, 2022)

robgreen12345 said:


> I think Michael Tellinger wrote about stone monuments in South Africa and he says they are formed in the shape of crystals and suggests they emerged from the ground and are not built by hand but created instantly through resonance.
> 
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/sECZ_CV_94Y?t=2091_



Did he test his theory?


----------



## robgreen12345 (Dec 31, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Did he test his theory?



Has anyone tried to create a building with sound resonance? I don't think so. 

I don't think anyone knows the exact method or would have the tools to do it.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 31, 2022)

robgreen12345 said:


> Has anyone tried to create a building with sound resonance? I don't think so.
> 
> I don't think anyone knows the exact method or would have the tools to do it.


Thanks.
I figured the theory hadn't been put to the test by anyone. 
I did find his website and no mention of him testing anything.


----------



## robgreen12345 (Dec 31, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Thanks.
> I figured the theory hadn't been put to the test by anyone.
> I did find his website and no mention of him testing anything.



Maybe Coral Castle used the technology??

And the owner hid it?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 31, 2022)

robgreen12345 said:


> Maybe Coral Castle used the technology??
> 
> And the owner hid it?


Sorry but I have been all theoried out for years.
No-one it seems who invents a theory of the way something might be done has ever gone on to figure out how to test said theory.
My guess is because if they make any money from the promotion of the theory then they risk killing the golden goose.
Might not be true in every case but a hell of a lot of theorists have inventory for sale.


----------



## robgreen12345 (Dec 31, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Sorry but I have been all theoried out for years.
> No-one it seems who invents a theory of the way something might be done has ever gone on to figure out how to test said theory.
> My guess is because if they make any money from the promotion of the theory then they risk killing the golden goose.
> Might not be true in every case but a hell of a lot of theorists have inventory for sale.



Why do you expect normal, ordinary people to have the technology to build pyramids, buildings and structures?


Jd755 said:


> Sorry but I have been all theoried out for years.
> No-one it seems who invents a theory of the way something might be done has ever gone on to figure out how to test said theory.
> My guess is because if they make any money from the promotion of the theory then they risk killing the golden goose.
> Might not be true in every case but a hell of a lot of theorists have inventory for sale.



off topic but David Wilcock is building a flying car based on levitation technology discovered by scientists 100 years ago


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TiRCoGkJXU&ab_channel=thirdphaseofmoon_


----------



## trismegistus (Jan 1, 2023)

robgreen12345 said:


> Maybe Coral Castle used the technology??
> 
> And the owner hid it?


Post in thread 'The missing link to ancient power'
SH Archive - The missing link to ancient power


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 1, 2023)

robgreen12345 said:


> Why do you expect normal, ordinary people to have the technology to build pyramids, buildings and structures?


What a bizarre question.
What makes people who build strtuctures abnormal?

I hope and it is proving to be forlorn hope, people who invent a theory put that theory to a test.
I hope people that promote other peoples untesterd theories would do some testing or evidence gathering of their own, beyond watching YouTube videos.


----------



## Starfire (Saturday at 5:50 AM)

mifletzet said:


> There is a tradition that the walls of both the 1st and 2nd Temples in Jerusalem  were not destroyed by the Babylonians or Romans, but descended in to the ground on their own accord, and that they will again rise on their own accord in the Messianic era. And that the Golden Candelabra, and also the Golden Calf, were not made by men, but by Aaron and Moses throwing large lumps of gold in to the fire and they emerged by themselves.
> 
> The Tabernacle in the Wilderness and the 1st Temple also arose of their own accord:
> 
> ...


Thank you for this information. It doesn't surprise me at all. This is exactly the kind of image I have in my mind. A building raising up with everyone "helping... including both man and spirits."

Please send me any good links you have to read the Talmud and other Judaic books online. A few years back I went to buy a Talmud. I was told I should only own it if it was given to me as a gift. It never was. So a link from you now would be appreciated. (And you can let me know if that's a true tale or not.)

I really like your idea about the Freemasons using the old ritual techniques to alter the Old World buildings.


----------



## Starfire (Tuesday at 7:09 AM)

Jd755 said:


> Aaah now I get where you are coming from.
> Korbens grand architecture.
> Incidentally every post on his blog and more he has yet to post are here in the archive
> SH Archive - Similar style buildings are all over the world. Were they built by our civilization?
> ...



Took a little while to read the links people posted.

I thoroughly enjoyed "A probable mud flood process." Might even go back and read it again. Very insightful thoughts on trees. And you support your argument well regarding deforestation as the cause of flooding and landslides. I just think there were more incidences of destruction than just floods.

I tried sending you a message, but it was blocked. Too bad, it was nice.


----------



## Jd755 (Tuesday at 9:28 AM)

Starfire said:


> Took a little while to read the links people posted.
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed "A probable mud flood process." Might even go back and read it again. Very insightful thoughts on trees. And you support your argument well regarding deforestation as the cause of flooding and landslides. I just think there were more incidences of destruction than just floods.
> 
> I tried sending you a message, but it was blocked. Too bad, it was nice.


Oh I'm sure there are more than floods seeking to destroy mans infrastructure. The key for me is the destructive nature of the events. None of them are benign.

I do hope you find out what these others are and share here. I am looking forwards most to read and hopefully see what you find in Cleveland and its surrounds.
I have every setting where I have a choice turned off as it gets distracting.


----------

