# Solid proof that famous basalt columns are former quarries (not just a natural phenomena)



## Catalyst (Nov 4, 2020)

You have probably seen these oddly-shaped rocks many times. There are plenty of them around the world.

Stuðlagil Canyon, Island





Los-Organos, Spain




Fingal's Cave, Scotland




Devil's Tower, USA




You may have also heard that some people do not believe in the official explanation of their origin (including me). Over time, two dominant assumptions have been made about the origin of these rocks.

Assumption 1 - these are former quarries.
Assumption 2 - these are stone trees (that are some kind of silicon-based life form).

I have always considered the second one to be too contrived (to a point that it could be a deliberate misinformation, spread by some people).
So for me, it is obvious that those rocks are former quarries. But unfortunately, there haven't been much proofs of this assumption.....until now.

Thanks to this recent post I managed to find some curious photos. Look at them yourself.








This place is called "Giant's Causeway", and it is located in Ireland.

We can clearly see partially and fully finished hexagon-shaped parts lying on the ground. My guess is that these are just scrap that was left from a production that existed right at this quarry. They probably used to transform/melt the rocks into the desired shape, then cut it and polish separate parts into a finished product that could go into construction or for other needs. To do this type of production, you would certainly need some industrial-grade 3d printers or other technically-sophisticated devices. When the catastrophe/war of the 18-19 century happened and advanced technologies were taken away from people, such quarries/production sites were abandoned and people were given yet another fairy tale about the naturally-shaped rocks.






*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:*

I see a lot of non-believers here, so here is another proof, if I may call it so:





Even this modern photo can tell us a lot about the nature of these columns. Tell me, if they are really naturally-formed, then how did it happen that the rock's surface is so nonuniform and has that odd angle? If they had appeared naturally, the whole island would have looked uniformly.

To me, it looks like someone just messed up the level calibration tool when this thing was being processed by an unknown device.

This one is tricky because the surface alters its shape two times, so you can't say that water did it. Even if you will say so, look at the right side of the photo where pillars are still intact, even being close to water.

*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:*

It turned out that some people here misunderstood my main idea. So, to prevent more disputes and misunderstandings, here is a small clarification:

The main idea here comes from the fact that those two old prints show artificially-looking components of hexagonal shape that lie near the pillar rocks. Given that these small separate blocks/bricks could in no way grow naturally (at least because they are chaotically scattered all around the ground, some are overturned and some are even stacked in groups) I made an assumption that they were cut/processed by some machinery and left there as scrap (*PLEASE READ THIS SENTENCE CAREFULLY, I AM TALKING ABOUT SMALL SEPARATE BRICKS, NOT THE STANDING COLUMNS*). Particularly this fact made me think that that place is a former quarry, not the fact that the rocks have hexagonal shape. But, I do believe that the rocks too could somehow be cut in this shape directly by a certain unknown device, though it is not the main thing I am trying to prove here.


----------



## codis (Nov 4, 2020)

You should have a look into crystallography.
Such shapes can form naturally.


----------



## Catalyst (Nov 4, 2020)

codis said:


> You should have a look into crystallography.
> Such shapes can form naturally.



It absolutely doesn't refute the idea that people could make them artificially. Especially given the fact that these basalt-column places always look "out of picture". If it was indeed a natural phenomena, it would be a much more common thing to find.

I know that rocks are crystals in their nature. What I'm trying to point out here is that people could process it with some kind of machinery, and those places in the images are examples of this processing.

	Post automatically merged: Nov 4, 2020

I believe that any mentally-healthy person would notice that these parts are individual components cut out of stone. There is no way they could "grow" into this form naturally:




The people that walk there probably have no clue how it all worked because it was before the reset. Some even came there for a picnic:




It reminds of the famous paintings made by Hubert Robert, who is famous for depicting ruins:




People depicted in these pictures have no clue how it was all built, so they are just trying to adapt and survive. Just look at their primitive temporary "constructions" made of wood (if one can even call these things constructions). The level of culture before and after the catastrophe/reset is incomparable.


----------



## codis (Nov 4, 2020)

Of course they could do artificially. I did myself, in a beaker.
But there is no motivation to do whole formations and mountains, an endeavour for years or even decades.


----------



## hajnal (Nov 4, 2020)

codis said:


> Of course they could do artificially. I did myself, in a beaker.
> But there is no motivation to do whole formations and mountains, an endeavour for years or even decades.


There are really many places on Earth, where you can find similar or smaller basalt-column formations, and I should like to know, if any volcanic activity  nowadays can produce such features? and if not, why?
I don't know any places in Europe,  America, or Australia, where somebody built something using whole basalt columns, and not only pieces of them.
But there is for instance  a very mysterious whole city of Nan Madol built from* whole* octagonal, hexagonal basalt columns with a very sophisticated method on a tiny Micronesian island Pohnpei (Federated States of Micronesia) and  there are lot of other artificial islands built similar way too.
A little bit hard to believe everything  that scientists say:
" *the basalt boulders, some as heavy as 50 tons, were transported by rafts*" (??????) "to Nan Madol from the other side of the island and levered into place with palm tree trunks." because  
"The boulders were dragged inch by inch up log ramps before being piled one atop the other, no mortar was used to hold them together.​The rock structures reach as high as 16 meters on Pohnwi islet."​The ruins were built on ninety-two artificial islets,  stretching out nearly a mile in length and a half-mile in width.​
The islets are surrounded by narrow stretches of water, resembling canals, so it's not surprising that Nan Madol is sometimes                                 referred to as "the Venice of Micronesia."​What is not so surprising for me, that all this explanation is full of ...unanswered questions.​Nan Madol​I don't dare to attach pictures here, but you can find many wonderful pictures here:​https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Attracti...photos;aggregationId=101&albumid=101&filter=7​​There are other very mysterious places built from whole basalt columns: in Indonesia, the Gunung Padang Pyramid and Archeological  Site which history is also full of contradictions.​Gunung Padang Megalithic Site - Wikipedia​here are some screenshots from the videos:










_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJSUYjkHa4Y_



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JJeGKPREAg_

​

​


----------



## feralimal (Nov 4, 2020)

Nice pictures.

But, OP, when are you providing the "Solid proof"?

You list 2 hypotheses (there can 1000s), you call the hypotheses 'assumptions', and then say you consider one of the 'assumptions' to be too contrived (on the basis of nothing), and so conclude it must be the other assumption/hypothesis.

Is that 'solid proof' in your view?


----------



## JWW427 (Nov 4, 2020)

Gunang was probably part of the Lemurian civilization.
I hope we get definitive proof in our lifetime.


----------



## codis (Nov 4, 2020)

hajnal said:


> There are really many places on Earth, where you can find similar or smaller basalt-column formations, and I should like to know, if any volcanic activity nowadays can produce such features? and if not, why?


As in the lab with a beaker, it depends on conditions during crystalisation.
If the temperature (or conentration) drops slow enough, atoms/molecules form crystal lattices. Rapid cooling "freezes" an amorphic, glass-like state.
Some chemical procedures use that property. A solution is slowly cooled down, to precipitate one of the dissolved salts, and large crystals with a specific shape form. It is then resolved, heated, and schock-cooled to achieve micron-sized crystals.

When steel is heated above the Curie temperature and shock-cooled, the same happens. Extreme, glass-like hardness. 
The steel is then reheated to 250..300°C for some time, to give the crystal lattice time to form (tempering).

I suppose the same thing happens when molten lava (or magma) slowly cools down.


----------



## Potato (Nov 4, 2020)

Catalyst said:


> I believe that any mentally-healthy person would notice that these parts are individual components cut out of stone. There is no way they could "grow" into this form naturally:


So anyone that disagrees with your "solid proof" is now mentally ill? There certainly are ways they could grow naturally. Others have already pointed this out so I won't bother presenting evidence.


----------



## Catalyst (Nov 4, 2020)

feralimal said:


> Nice pictures.
> 
> But, OP, when are you providing the "Solid proof"?
> 
> ...



Yes, in my opinion, these two pics show enough evidence to believe that those places are quarries. What other proofs you think there can be? Even pictures like these are hard to find.

	Post automatically merged: Nov 4, 2020



hajnal said:


> codis said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they could do artificially. I did myself, in a beaker.
> ...



This one is a great example of how a primitive culture can adopt something from an advanced one. There was probably some quarry too, which produced/processed basalt columns for further needs, and when it was abandoned, the locals used them as a construction material, but in the way they were capable of doing it.

	Post automatically merged: Nov 4, 2020



Potato said:


> Catalyst said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that any mentally-healthy person would notice that these parts are individual components cut out of stone. There is no way they could "grow" into this form naturally:
> ...



Bother to at least carefully read what is written. I didn't say that a person is mentally-ill if he disagrees with the whole assumption. I said that only in relation to the particular detail - the small hexagonal caps lying on the ground, you can all say what you want, but I just can't believe that you don't see that they are artificially-made, they clearly look different from the rocks nearby.

I agree that rocks can grow in hexagonal shape as clusters, but they don't grow as separate cut bricks like in the pictures I found.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 4, 2020)

Here's the west prospect view which is partner to the east prospect view above. 
https://artcollection.culture.gov.uk/artwork/1563/
Seems we are looking at artistic licence so some degree if these engravings from an earlier time are any guide as these tally much better with the contemporary digital photographs of the stones.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1914-0520-670https://pictures.royalsociety.org/image-rs-15832


----------



## Catalyst (Nov 4, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> Here's the west prospect view which is partner to the east prospect view above.
> https://artcollection.culture.gov.uk/artwork/1563/
> Seems we are looking at artistic licence so some degree if these engravings from an earlier time are any guide as these tally much better with the contemporary digital photographs of the stones.
> https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1914-0520-670https://pictures.royalsociety.org/image-rs-15832



Not sure what you are trying to say with these prints but it still doesn't explain how those pillars turned into separate uniform bricks. If a stone grows (even if its hexagonal shape like these stones) - it grows in one piece. But in all these old prints we see that many pillars are cut at an even length, like if someone was doing it with a template.


----------



## feralimal (Nov 4, 2020)

Catalyst said:


> Yes, in my opinion, these two pics show enough evidence to believe that those places are quarries. What other proofs you think there can be? Even pictures like these are hard to find.


What does it mean to say that they are quarries?

Do you mean, that as people were extracting rock or something else, they also created these hexagonal columns as a byproduct?  How did they get the columns into hexagons?  Did they pass some machine through the rock like a egg slicer?  Is this what is left after they 'frak' the rock to extract some natural resource?  These are questions you need to answer and to support you answer with proof.

You might say that these rocks were quarried.  I'm sure that's possible and that there are hexagon rocks used to build local buildings...  But even if that's true, that doesn't explain how they came to be in this form.

As an example of alternative hypotheses - you should at least consider the MSM narrative, if only to dismiss it.

So, why is it not lava cooling over a long period of time?

Some alternative hypotheses:

Could it have been a sudden, massive, mudflood?  When mud dries it can form similar shapes, which when eroded by the sea might look like columns.



Or perhaps it was a mudflood + some specific conditions?  Eg mud + lots of very high heat to turn the mud to stone?

Or mud that was dried + pressure - eg another mudflood or water pressure?  Then heat?

Or a giant hornet nest that was petrified.

etc.

The point is there are lots of hypotheses that are possible.  That's not the problem.  The problem is evidence.

We should let the evidence drive the hypotheses.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 4, 2020)

I'll spell it out.
The first print is the partner of the first according to whoever it was who wrote the content of the British Museum website and I included it here for completeness nothing more.
The other print from an earlier time shows the stones as they look today in the digital photographs.
The artist who drew the east and west prospect prints must have taken on a bit of artistic licence with their drawing as they all feature polygons hexagons with crown shapes whereas the earlier artist and the contemporary digital photographs are simply polygonal hexagonal.
EDIT to correct polygon to hexagon




Source

There is something about the way in which the stones break that is interesting but they are not regular 'bricks' as they are shown in the prints.







Source


----------



## codis (Nov 5, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> The artist who drew the east and west prospect prints must have taken on a bit of artistic licence with their drawing as they all feature polygons hexagons with crown shapes whereas the earlier artist and the contemporary digital photographs are simply polygonal hexagonal.
> EDIT to correct polygon to hexagon


This is IMHO related to the main constitutent of the rock. Different salts do form many different crystal shapes, depending on the most stable lattice configuration (energetic equilibrum).
I would suppose that all the hexagonal rock formations are made up of the same material.


----------



## Catalyst (Nov 5, 2020)

feralimal said:


> Catalyst said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, in my opinion, these two pics show enough evidence to believe that those places are quarries. What other proofs you think there can be? Even pictures like these are hard to find.
> ...



This conversation makes me think that people here do not understand what I'm trying to point out and it looks like this:
"Do you like bananas? - No I don't like apples."

My first and foremost assumption/theory is that people carved/cut/processed those columns/pillars into the shapes that I highlighted with a picture later on (*those small separate blocks/bricks, NOT THE STONE PILLARS*). Even though I do believe that the columns/pillars were somehow made artificially too, *that wasn't the main concern of my post*. But for some reason everyone is trying to say again and again that the rocked formed naturally, like if it was the main problem.

Btw, if it had been formed by mudflood, I'm sure it would be a much bigger and common thing to find. But given the fact that these pillars are found at separate and limited locations, it's pretty hard to believe that they were somehow formed by lava or mudflood. The picture you provided doesn't look even close to the pattern of hexagonal columns.

You say that evidence should drive the hypotheses - that's exactly what I'm trying to do here. I found two pics that shows artificially-looking
components (the artificial nature of which is extremely obvious) near a rock that could pretty much be a former quarry, but all you say is that my proof is bullshit, just because you think so, while trying to refute a whole different thing. You also want to see some SUPER SOLID proof, but you tend to believe the official science's view on these objects, though it doesn't provide any solid proofs either (except for saying that it was somehow formed by lava and THAT'S IT).

So my guess is that you either do not understand me, or just troll me.


----------



## feralimal (Nov 5, 2020)

You really can't complain that people are misinterpreting what you are saying and claiming.

Your title is:
_"Solid proof that famous basalt *columns* are former quarries (not just a natural phenomena)"_
From what you now say, you must surely agree that this is _*not*_ what you mean.

Perhaps you _should_ have said:
_"Basalt columns *blocks* were quarried"_
which no one would dispute.  Especially if you provided pictures of local buildings made from the hexagonal stones.  Which you don't.

IMO, this would be an even better title:
_"Here are some pictures of so-called basalt columns. What were these?"_

Language is our way to communicate.  Perhaps you are not a native English speaker - but even so, you should be clear about what you are trying to say.

You seem to be very fast and loose with what you are saying - using words like 'assumption' (instead of  'hypothesis'), 'column' (instead of 'block'), proof, etc.  If you are using a term that deviates from the common understanding - firstly, why do that?  And secondly, if you change a term, you need to be up front about what that term means to you and should define it according to your understanding.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 5, 2020)

It seems it was the engraver who took the artistic licence not the artist.
Here are her gouache originals on which the engraving is based. The engravings are the engravers interpretation of what she saw with her own eyes and recorded in paint.
https://www.nmni.com/story/changing-views-story#drury
Here they are.




East Prospect




West Prospect



> Drury herself commissioned engravings of her paintings to be made in London by François Vivares (one of the most able landscape engravers then working in England) around three years later. In 1771, the French basalt expert Nicolas Desmarest used these engravings when stating definitively that the Causeway was a natural volcanic phenomenon, and not man-made as some had thought. Later in the 1700s they were used to illustrate the Giant’s Causeway in one of the first widely read encyclopedias, the Encyclopédie (or the Classified Dictionary of Sciences, Art and Trades), though Drury was not credited.


----------



## Catalyst (Nov 5, 2020)

feralimal said:


> You really can't complain that people are misinterpreting what you are saying and claiming.
> 
> Your title is:
> _"Solid proof that famous basalt *columns* are former quarries (not just a natural phenomena)"_
> ...


Maybe you are right at a certain degree, particularly concerning the title. And yeah, I am obviously not a native speaker. Nevertheless, when I decided to post this I was for some reason sure that people on this forum are mostly oriented towards uncommon view of historical events and wouldn't defend the official version so fiercely. But it turned out that even such things are hardly accepted.

By the way, if you are so sure those columns are natural, how do you think these constructions were made?


----------



## feralimal (Nov 5, 2020)

It is not so obvious that English is not a first language - you are able to express yourself well.

But what I objected to is your *logic*.  You provided 2 options _as if_ that was all the possible options.  You then dismissed one, on the basis of _nothing_.  And then _"deduced"_ it must be the other.  I broke down how your reasoning was flawed.

I didn't say these columns were natural.  I gave examples of alternative, unnatural possibilities.

I certainly don't think they common narrative is the real one.  For a start, I've never even seen footage (which I would be suspicious of) of 'lakes of lava'.  I've not seen lava cooling into hexagons.  So, I don't accept that.

I don't know what creates this effect - I'm very open-minded about it.  Its certainly not resolved, and we don't have proof.  I do like to see photos of the columns - perhaps some of these will give us more clues or insights into what the cause was.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 5, 2020)

These three photographs suggest we have no idea how this stone was formed. They also show that the uniform looking watercolour depiction and the subsequent engraving of the watercolour depict artistic licence as the stones are neither uniform and crack in all manner of planes.
As with all geology we actually know nothing about how rocks form or why for that matter. It is good that we can engage in such investigations as we can using the internet and come to different ideas of what we are being shown without rancour.
Pure speculation on my part but it feels that these paintings and engravings were used to promote the area, the 'science' of geology, the 'giant' narrative the brilliance of the state and doubtless other things that were deemed to be of importance at the time. 





Source




Source




Source


----------



## Catalyst (Nov 5, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> It seems it was the engraver who took the artistic licence not the artist.
> Here are her gouache originals on which the engraving is based. The engravings are the engravers interpretation of what she saw with her own eyes and recorded in paint.
> https://www.nmni.com/story/changing-views-story#drury
> Here they are.
> ...



For some reason, the engravings seem much more real and original to me than the paintings you've just provided.

There you tell everyone that they should not trust images because they can be faked, but here, you confidently post an old and suspiciously-looking painting (that looks much worse than the engravings I posted) and use it as an argument against me.

Ok! Let it be your truth and the images are fake. Here is my argument that supports your claim =)

The Bombardment of Sveaborg, 9th August 1855 by John Wilson Carmichael
You can see two versions of the same picture, but one was retouched to hide the vortices (that were supposedly created by an ether energy weapon).







Another curious case, with a painting of the queen Elizabeth, who was originally drawn with a snake which then was retouched to hide it. I guess to avoid suspicions about connection of the royal family to the reptilian stuff.




So, can we trust paintings? You tell me =)


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 5, 2020)

Seems I spoke too soon.
Just for the record and staying on topic. The narrative is the paintings came first and the engravings followed them as they engraver was commissioned by the artist according to various texts on the linked websites. I have no idea which came first or indeed when either the paintings or the engravings were done.
The modern digital photographs, which are far easier to fake than prints and paintings, show the rocks as they appear today which tally with the earlier artists line drawing linked to above so the evidence points to artistic licence used by both artist and engraver.
Adding in images from other rock formations and carvings dilutes your very clear op statement that you have found solid proof that we are looking at former quarries. They may well be quarried out and we are seeing the remnants that were not worth quarrying there seems to be no way to tell as I have been in a number of redundant quarries of limestone, sandstone, slate and gravel and it is very hard indeed to tell where the quarrying ended and the natural rock begins. In most it is impossible in some the clear sheer sides make it obvious.

And no we can no more trust painting as prima facie evidence of anything than we can any other medium. All they provide are clues and surely it is sensible to view all media in this light be it visual, written, moving, printed digital and even physical. Same goes for the chronology.  To me it would make more sense that the engraver copied the painting not the other way round but it is equally possible that the painter copied the engraving or indeed the painter and the engraver are one and the same.

Whilst we are on the subject of the snake, and this is as far as I go off topic, I've found a picture of a statue of Peter the Great on his horse with the same coiled serpent underneath him and will be posting it up here for examination and discussion by whoever is inclined to take part but in a thread of its own.


----------



## codis (Nov 5, 2020)

Catalyst said:


> By the way, if you are so sure those columns are natural, how do you think these constructions were made?


I would say, chiseled out of natural blocks.
Sandstone is not too hard to work with - nothing compared to granite or basalt.


----------



## JWW427 (Nov 5, 2020)

Smoke rings from concussive military action––cannon fire and explosions––is not uncommon especially in the age of smokey black powder.
I do find it odd that they retouched the painting to hide it.


----------



## Huaqero (Nov 5, 2020)

Nuclear Reactor Control Rods, maybe?
Either petrified or expanded in volume, that would naturally end into a hexagonal shape ...


----------



## codis (Nov 5, 2020)

Beehive cells are also hexagonal.
Not manmade (bee-made), and not natural ...


----------



## windmilljoe (Nov 7, 2020)

I am a big fan of the EU community (Electrical Universe). The below video has an explanation of how these hexagonal stones (may) form. To my mind it is worth your time digging through the fast cache of information they offer. It might give some people solid answers to things like shaping the geology, displacing vast bodies of water, destroying of parts of the Earth, deserts, etc.

It starts at about 3 min. But better watch the whole video for context.


----------



## veeall (Nov 7, 2020)

Via munita:[15] A regular built road, paved with rectangular blocks of the stone of the country, or with polygonal blocks of lava.

So whether or not these basalt blocks are volcanic, they could have been the source material for roman roads. Here below, Pygmies (or Pents ) are inspecting these kind of roads:


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 7, 2020)

Excellent find veeall. Here is the annotation in Italian
Sepalero detto falsamente degli Orazj, e Curiazj, Rimane su la via Appia fuori d'Albiana delle parte Orientale. 
A. Via Appiana che conserva in questo sito l'antico l'antico lastricato, largo circa ventiquattro palmi. 

Here is the Deepl machine translation into English.
Sepalero, falsely called Orazj, and Curiazj, remains on the Appian Way outside of Albiana in the Eastern part. 
A. Via Appiana that preserves in this site the ancient paved, about twenty-four palms wide.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 7, 2020)

Sepolcro detto falsamente degli Orazj, e Curiazj.
Rimane su la via Appia fuori d'Albano dalla parte
Orientale. A Via Appia che conserva in questo sito
l'antico lastricato, largo circa ventiquattro palmi.​Tomb falsely called of the Orazi and Curiazi (Horatii and Curiatii - Wikipedia). It remains on the Appian Way outside of Albano (recognised today as this town, even though I have some doubts about that, Albano Laziale - Wikipedia) on its Eastern side. (A  don't know what it means or why this letter is here) The Appian Way that preserves in this site the ancient paving, about 24 palms wide.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 7, 2020)

The A is on the pavement in the engraving!


----------



## Citezenship (Nov 8, 2020)

veeall said:


> Via munita:[15] A regular built road, paved with rectangular blocks of the stone of the country, or with polygonal blocks of lava.
> 
> So whether or not these basalt blocks are volcanic, they could have been the source material for roman roads. Here below, Pygmies (or Pents ) are inspecting these kind of roads:


The stones are bigger than the people, i always wonder about this, some say ropes and pulleys but my intuition says otherwise!


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 8, 2020)

I went looking for the road material as its similarity to the material of the giant's causeway is striking. Best I could find is this.
Becherman writes ‍a study by the US Bureau of Public Roads (1934) ‍on several cross sections of the Via Appia reveals it to be made up of five layers. The first consists of lime mortar or sand. The second involves two layers of stones cemented together with lime mortar or clay. The third layer consists of crushed stones or gravel mixed with lime mortar, sand, or clay. The fourth is made of compacted gravel and hot lime. Finally the road was paved with large basalt stones (Becherman, 2002).


Source

Given the fact the road is a long one and transporting stone is hard work even using today's methods and technology I then went looking for basalt outcrops akin to the one at the giant's causeway and it seems the causeway formation is not unique at all.
Source

If the stones used on the Appian way are of basalt quarried out of these outcrops the point made about quarrying made in the op is sound. Men actually quarried broadly hexagonal stones and used them as a road surface. Speculating here but it seems that propensity of the basalt to fracture horizontally in the main meant the paving stones required next to no shaping or other preparatory work which would make them ideal to create a flat all weather surface to move along.
I have yet to find the basalt quarries/outcrops along the Appian way but I would speculate there must be at least a couple in close proximity given the weight of these stones and the difficulty of transporting them across rough ground.
Try as I might I'm yet to find anything in Antrim or its immediate vicinity that has been built with or from the causeway stones save a few low stone walls.


----------



## Therinkha (Nov 8, 2020)

Hey there, first post.

Giants Causeway.
I think the clues in the title.

Firstly, I’ve been a couple of times to the Causeway (Wife is from Antrim) it’s a beautiful coastline. Take a jacket or two.

I’ve seen lots of old paintings of the Antrim coast and artistic licence is very prevalent.
Lots of Ulster Scots in Antrim so that explains the exaggerating.
I don’t think the columns are man made or quarry’s but some could be ancient giant trees.
Check the YouTube channel hangman1128. He really shows how trees break down (haha, repetitively) and once its seen can’t be unseen.

Any back to the causeway here’s my hypothesis.

It’s a Giant, a very big one.
Could the basalt columns ( the visitor centre official story is fun) be skeletal muscle fibres. There’s also the Giants Organ ( cardiac muscle tissue?) a wee bit from the causeway.
Fingal’s cave ( another organ?) is 82 miles from Giants Causeway off the coast of Scotland.

The mythical story of the giant Finn McCool is having a bit of trouble with Benandonner a much larger giant from over the water in Scotland.
When Benandonner comes to fight Finn his wife disguises him as a baby. When the giant Scot saw the baby he thought how big must Daddy be and fled.


I’ll apologise if I’ve made an arse of the images posted (or not) don’t usually post on forums, I’m an old technophobe.


----------



## veeall (Nov 8, 2020)

I don't believe the official version, even the theory of them being fossils seems more plausible. I especially doubt this formation happening slowly over a long period of time. Could it be some kind of tranformation process applied to the area by someone using vibration-sound heat electromagnetics etheric tech - now, thanks to SH, i can fantasize  though i'd leave the heat out personally, too much smoke.

Hypothetically, it would have been only natural to put these blocks to some use by ancients, even the gravure posted by OP states in the description 'This extraordinary quarry'.

Edit: a picture i found Unwrapped | Geology, Ancient tree, Giant tree


----------



## Forrest (Nov 9, 2020)

*Basalt Column Formation via Cosmic Thunderbolt*, possibly a coronal mass ejection (CME) from the Sun, possibly from charge exchange with a passing planet or moon. This takes place as a series of definable stages, each on a time scale of minutes, except for the cooling-off stage.

Recall that the energy content of a single, average solar CME is sufficient to slag the entire land surface of the planet, if it was delivered here all at once. There are dozens or maybe hundreds of these events every year, depending on who is counting. Only a passing tidbit of that energy is required for the hypothesis presented.

*These formations have some common features:*

A limited area  over which the formation is found.
A clean start  and end to the formation in the vertical direction. Like basalt caps on plateaus, they are rootless.
Igneous rock,  formed of cooled lava, as with volcanoes.
No evidence of a volcano.
Curving upwards at the base
Lack of horizontal stratification within the columns. No evidence of sedimentary process
into roughly  hexagonal cells, close packed.
*The stages of formation are:*

*Blasting.* The initial touchdown of the thunderbolt, over a wide area and in combination with its induced telluric currents, shatters and breaks up material on and under the ground. This is commonly called electric discharge machining in Electric Universe circles. *Time interval: a few seconds.

Gathering.* The shattered pieces of rock and dirt are transported horizontally, from the outer reaches of the thunderbolt footprint, toward its regions of higher current density.  The video shows examples. As the material converges on the site of the to-be columnar basalt, the thunderbolt contracts with it, and intensifies. If the distance of the gathering is over a radius of one km, and the average speed of transport is 100 km/hr, the *time interval is 1/100th of an hour, or 36 seconds.*

Shiprock is an example of where this gathering process stopped. Material of a “peculiar geochemistry” came in from defined directions, consolidating sideways as it move towards the center. It was partially melted in the process. The formation of Shiprock may have been witnessed by the Navaho, who passed the story of a giant lightning bolt down in a partly garbled form.





*Uplifting.* In concert with horizontal transport is an uplift force- electrogravitic, electromagnetic. Partial cancellation of local gravitational force. This might be envisioned as a partial ionization and charge acquisition in the material, a temporary excess of electrons in the material and the ground beneath it, dynamically sustained. The video shows uplifting. *Time interval: same time as Gathering.*

Ayers Rock is an example of where this uplifting process stopped. It is composed of the same kinds of rocks as the surrounding desert, gathered together, uplifted, and partially sintered, but they weren’t melted down to form basalt. The Aborigines have this story as one of their myths, so it may have been witnessed in recent times. The cosmic thunderbolt then left us its signature on top, the crater chains of Ayers as with its superficial twin, Phobos.





*Focusing.* A focusing of the thunderbolt on the uplifted material, the principle of the lightning rod. Devil’s Tower is a clean example.  In general, the focusing of the plasma beam and the gathering of the material interplay in a more complex fashion (plasma-cymatics), resulting in final forms other than simple towers. *Time interval: seconds, minutes.

Melting.* partial (Ayers) or full (column and cap basalt). The material is heated to a point above the average meting points of its constituents, a phase change to a viscous liquid, while still being drawn upwards. *Time interval: minutes.*

An example of plateau cap basalt, which Michael Steinbacher brought to our attention on the EU Geology Tour-





*Recrystallizing*. In the liquid or semi-liquid state, diffusion process can occur. As the material cools, incompatible elements and compounds are preferentially driven outwards, to collect at the surfaces of the individual columns. These form the weak interfaces between columns. *Time interval: hours, days.

Plasma-cymatics*. In all of the stages above, the thunderbolt thunders. The sound at a distance is that of ordinary sound waves in air, but within the plasma-rock column are several additional processes that can be described with the language of sound, diffusion, sortation, and plasma structure. This may contribute to the hexagonal shapes of the columns.

*Cooling. *The thunderbolt has now ceased. The columnar basalt formation cools to the average ambient temperature. *Time interval: months, years.

Eroding. *The formation erodes most quickly by sloughing off pieces of basalt, due to wind, water, thermal stress, and lightning. During this period, the Thunderbolt is always out there, seeking new things to transform.* Time interval: many moons.*


----------



## pushamaku (Nov 9, 2020)

​


veeall said:


> I don't believe the official version, even the theory of them being fossils seems more plausible.



Personally subscribe to the theory of gigantic organic matter that petrified.




http://www.woodanatomy.ch/macro.htmlhttp://www.woodanatomy.ch/micro.html
​


----------



## Catalyst (Nov 9, 2020)

veeall said:


> I don't believe the official version, even the theory of them being fossils seems more plausible. I especially doubt this formation happening slowly over a long period of time. Could it be some kind of tranformation process applied to the area by someone using vibration-sound heat electromagnetics etheric tech - now, thanks to SH, i can fantasize  though i'd leave the heat out personally, too much smoke.
> 
> Hypothetically, it would have been only natural to put these blocks to some use by ancients, even the gravure posted by OP states in the description 'This extraordinary quarry'.
> 
> ...


Wow, this one looks very curious. I just don't understand what the crane is doing there ?. Is it trying to break the columns? If yes, isn't it too small for that? I wish we could see a photo of this place before they started their work, just to make sure that the uncovered part of the hill is a result of processing done by modern-day machines. Because I have a minor suspicion that they found it at this state some time in the past, then buried the naked part by small stones, and now show a crane there is if it was the thing which did the processing.


----------



## hajnal (Nov 9, 2020)

windmilljoe said:


> I am a big fan of the EU community (Electrical Universe). The below video has an explanation of how these hexagonal stones (may) form. To my mind it is worth your time digging through the fast cache of information they offer. It might give some people solid answers to things like shaping the geology, displacing vast bodies of water, destroying of parts of the Earth, deserts, etc.
> 
> It starts at about 3 min. But better watch the whole video for context.



Thank you very much for the video. It was very interesting and really gave me "solid answers" of my questions. because having seen former EU videos and pictures about electrical nature of many other strange geological features ( fulgurites, thundereggs, and so on...) I've also learnt to assume, that the origin of these columns may be not only volcanic, but somehow electric too, as the simple volcanic origin didn't explain,  for instance: why are these columns sometimes hollow inside?



Forrest said:


> *Basalt Column Formation via Cosmic Thunderbolt*, possibly a coronal mass ejection (CME) from the Sun, possibly from charge exchange with a passing planet or moon. This takes place as a series of definable stages, each on a time scale of minutes, except for the cooling-off stage.
> 
> Recall that the energy content of a single, average solar CME is sufficient to slag the entire land surface of the planet, if it was delivered here all at once. There are dozens or maybe hundreds of these events every year, depending on who is counting. Only a passing tidbit of that energy is required for the hypothesis presented.
> 
> ...


Big thank you for your article, which gave a full explanation of the natural process.
As volcanic catastrophes are common nowadays too, and EU scientists say that "all volcanoes are electric",    if now we don't see natural  disasters producing  similar big columnar-basalt mountains,  the circumstances may be  were very  different in that time...who knows, when?
I hope, it remains so in the near future too...


pushamaku said:


> ​
> 
> 
> veeall said:
> ...



I'm not  an expert, or scientist  and my knowledge is  too little to decide who is correct in his assumptions about a theory, but I find your pictures very beautiful. The capability of Nature to organize similar forms in micro, and macro,  to identical pattern from organic or inorganic matter has always fascinated me very much, the marvels of the forms make me  feel something like religious admiration.




Catalyst said:


> veeall said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe the official version, even the theory of them being fossils seems more plausible. I especially doubt this formation happening slowly over a long period of time. Could it be some kind of tranformation process applied to the area by someone using vibration-sound heat electromagnetics etheric tech - now, thanks to SH, i can fantasize  though i'd leave the heat out personally, too much smoke.
> ...


In Hungary also are some columnar basalt mountains, a medieval fortress was built on top of one of them.
The most famous was really a quarry yet not so long ago, from 1930- 1960 the half of the mountain was quarried away, the small pieces of rock were used to built roads and buildings.
https://www.bfnp.hu/en/latogatohely-1/hegyestu-geological-visitor-site-monoszlo






 



​



Catalyst said:


> This one is a great example of how a primitive culture can adopt something from an advanced one. There was probably some quarry too, which produced/processed basalt columns for further needs, and when it was abandoned, the locals used them as a construction material, but in the way they were capable of doing it.


as the pictures show, the columns tend to crack somewhere, and as building material they were broken into small pieces, nobody used them, or transported them in whole form in modern time.
So I wonder, where did the "primitive tribes"  ??????? could find the artistically made whole columns, how could they transport them without breaking them, faraway on the sea and up onto the steep hillside.
I feel, we are here "in the footsteps of giants", who may be were the inhabitants of some very advanced antediluvian common culture, (of Lemuria, as *JWW427 wrote)*
who may be were really capable of making artificial columns themselves.


----------



## codis (Nov 10, 2020)

Here an example I personally know:




Had been working around at the top with my wife, and except for this cliff side, it looks like an ordinary hill top.
More details here: Scheibenberg (Erzgebirge) – Wikipedia
The English Wikipedia version contains very little information.


----------



## Myrrinda (Jan 5, 2021)

Great post!
I think it is all of the above.
1. Catastrophic discharges and earthquakes
2. Old megafauna turned to stone (becoming precious valuable materials? I forgot where I saw this, but one guy claimed Opal used to be the blood of gigantic creatures, has anyone heard of that?)
3. Really large people mined the (for their purposes) usable stuff out of the landscape

Yesterday I watched two documentaries from a series called "Aerial America", about New Mexico and West Virginia. Once you see it you can't unsee it. I think the Grand Canyon was a really bad catastrophic event and then "they" mined the shit out of it! Maybe until the next flooding came, who knows. The modern quarries in West Virginia look a lot like "natural" formations around the world. They scratch off whole mountains, but oh dear, they do it all over the world... 

Btw really beautiful landscapes there nevertheless and when this CV shit ends I really want to take a USA trip and see it all first hand.


----------



## Jsallard (Jan 5, 2021)

Hey guys, am I the only one who thought about Nan Madol ? 

It's a mystery how they built it, but all those picture of hexagonal rock remind me of this city ! 













Also, Nan Madol is huge, and there is many island that are man made. Just to remind everyone, Nan Madol is isolated in the Pacific ocean, yet they built a huge fortress out of thin air. (Well almost) Also, what were they trying to protect ? From who ? I'm not trying to derail the topic, but the column are similar.


----------



## Jetsam (Jan 6, 2021)

Myrrinda said:


> Great post!
> I think it is all of the above.
> 1. Catastrophic discharges and earthquakes
> 2. Old megafauna turned to stone (becoming precious valuable materials? I forgot where I saw this, but one guy claimed Opal used to be the blood of gigantic creatures, has anyone heard of that?)
> 3. Really large people mined the (for their purposes) usable stuff out of the landscape.



I agree. Maybe the giants were zapped...and then covered in mud!

I did read ages ago that diamonds were the closest to our souls " " electrically but at some point they were mostly contaminated and now they just mess people up. I know that sounds crazy and I lost that book a while ago. But I don't think it was wrong. Opal is amazing, probably more than we know.
Edit: (My husband is a rock hunter and we currently have several jars of opal in distilled water because otherwise it would break down and be a jar of dust I guess.)

Thank you to those that made this a discussion rather than an argument. IMO everything stolen history is speculation, we'll never know for sure. We can all speculate individually and maybe be partly correct or we can share ideas and consider each other's pov and potentially get closer to the actual truth.


----------



## Samson4prez (Feb 25, 2021)

they are obviously the remains of giant petrified trees


----------



## Forrest (Feb 25, 2021)

Samson4prez said:


> they are obviously the remains of giant petrified trees



No they are not. Trees are not hexagonal or polygonal in cross section. Trunks don't grow together in close pack. Trees have growth rings. Petrified trunks aren't the same composition as basalt.


----------

