I was never too caught up on "mud flood or dust storms" or whatever, but it's rather obvious there was a previous social order that featured cleaner vibrational and aether based technology with much larger humans and rich histories that have all been erased following some kind of cataclysm and collective amnesia. I don't imagine anyone here disputes that at least, yeah? Rather hard to after everything I've seen. I don't agree with Felix's point on history erasure being unlikely.
I never cared much about the specifics of the mud part of the mud flood thing either, I always assumed the debris was from the Great Flood and whatever caused the reshaping of the continents, whether a ton of dust was kicked up from volcanoes, weapons or whatever. It's not too important to me since I think it's obvious a cataclysm happened whether it was war, a flood, or both within a frame of time. The main draw that noticing the buried buildings had, intellectually speaking, was that it brought attention to some kind of mass death and destruction event. Whether it was a "mud" flood or not is a red herring people get caught up on and often use to discredit the entire situation of our erased past. The absence of records of a mud flood, at the same time as the overabundance of records across all cultures of the Great Flood suggests what we see now is the result of at least one Great Flood level disaster, whether there were multiple great floods or some kind of DEW war, or both simultaneously. Let's not forget how easily people forget as well and how tampered everything we have left is, most people don't even know about the floods in Boston or many other US cities. The records are all there but are either forgotten or dismissed when people look for "evidence of recent floods", but I suppose because it's not mud specifically that's named in the documents and newspaper articles that means there never were any widespread floods or disasters that slipped under our nose because "someone would've mentioned it".
....Right? Right.
"In conclusion then: the worldwide Mudflood is by no means a certainty; the cover-up of the cataclysm and the previous civilisation are dubious; the Reset by the Enslavers and their creation of all previous history is illogical and there is no evidence for it having occurred between 1700 and 1850 timeline as illustrated by Will in his article ‘
Accommodating the Mudflood and Reset'. "
Flat out disagree. Coverup of a cataclysm dubious? Reset illogical? Hell no. Look around us in our current world, look at how much has been memory holed in the past 3 years, we're living through a reset of sorts right now. And people think if it's happening now it didn't happen before?
(Note, I skimmed Felix's article so I could've missed some key points that would clear up the discrepancy between him saying a cataclysm and coverup were illogical and Will's article flat out saying these are undeniable aspects of our past, but I disagree with Felix's assertion nonetheless. I simply cannot take all I've seen and then 180 and say it's "unlikely at best". I can't tell the stance of some of the admins at this point either from just occasionally checking posts here but I'd hope we agree on something being very wrong, at the least.)
---
There *was* a cataclysm, or even a series of them (more likely than just a singular one). There was a previous, highly advanced social order that had technology and culture far beyond what we're told ever existed in our past that was destroyed and the knowledge of it hidden and erased. That much is certain. Giant humans were probably common too. The mud point is a red herring that people love to run with and use to discredit these main points which are far more important than "was it mud? No, so this is all fake." Whether or not you wanna say it's irresponsible or a mistake for people to call it "mud flood theory" at first, based on the level of understanding we had of the past before more information in communities like this became more available is a needless, distracting discussion in my opinion, and more focus should be put on what's really important - the noosphere being tampered with. Endless debates about mud and then making a point to say "mud flood is fake" just muddies the water (pun not intended) and, from what I've seen, can even gaslight people in these communities trying to research the past, because the discussion goes from history to mud, and I've seen people here take the admission that it probably wasn't a "mud flood" that buried the buildings as an admission that this is all just an elaborate LARP. It's good to correct ourselves but harping on and on about mud is just a distraction.
Even in regards to liquefaction, which I'm sure could contributed to some things sinking (although I would expect these stone structures to be lopsided eventually, which I haven't seen aside from the Leaning Tower, which may suggest the original ground level however many hundreds of years ago had these buildings built on a very stable foundation on stable ground, whether it was earth, pavement, stone or whatever.), I don't care to think about whether it was liquefaction that sank buildings, or a flood, or local floods, or all 3. It's probably all of it, aside from maybe liquefaction since these buildings are still vertical, but that's still beside the main discoveries of our past we've made and meaningless to the overarching issue of having our true culture haunt us like a ghost we can never truly perceive.
"Buried basements were probably normal lol because slaves" is also retarded, I don't doubt there were basements. But 15 foot basement windows? Door frames being unearthed? A foundation having both of these and even more underneath it sometimes? Having looked down the light wells in many old buildings, they go down some 20 feet sometimes. Even in cities without a documented local flood and records of the streets being moved up. You're telling me that was normal? Hell no, I don't even need to waste mental energy debating that. (And yet I'm writing this, lol)
Let's focus on what's important and not gaslight ourselves because a few details were incorrect, then take it to mean everything we've deduced is "unlikely" because it wasn't written down. It probably WAS and has been erased from public access, as many things are right before our very eyes in the digital age.
In conclusion, let's not obsess or or trying to find a reason why it's normal to build a foundation with doors and windows then bury it. Enough is amiss to justify denying many things we're told to take for granted as normal and as they seem. I have not been active here in a while, but I'm curious what the current knowledge meta is and a summary of where we believe we currently stand with our understanding of what happened. Someone should make that thread or a video series if it doesn't already exist. I don't know if the Lifting The Veil video series has been updated since I last saw it.
Fill me in if I'm wrong.
Another possibility is that people used to have a type of concrete that looks like stone to us. The large pieces of stone were not carved, they were cast. I also think they used a stone softening technology in ancient Egypt and also in Peru. Stones were softened, put into place then they settled. This would explain why the stones in those ancient structures fit so tightly together (without mortar) that even water can't get into the cracks.
This photo takes it to a new level. You can see how the stone was softened and worked. Unless you want to believe it was carved of course.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXXQ5SE9RN4&ab_channel=CoolGuitarGear
The pinches in these stones suggest that the material once wanted to expand when compressed, like a sponge, then cured and hardened into what looks like stone. Interesting.
Yes and I think liquefaction is what happened due to the fact that the insides of the houses are not full of water as would be in Noah's Ark flood. People are not very biblically literate oh, but it clearly says that God said oh, sometime after the great flood, that I will shake the Earth and all the people will be missing and nobody will know what happened to them exactly or who they were exactly. So shaking the Earth would cause the liquefaction and the moving of soil as what happened apparently on Easter Island. The statues were covered up to their necks and the mountain behind them that has never shown very much in pictures, is totally bare of Earth. But the Earth is piled on to the statues.
I just find this hard to buy since the buildings are almost never lopsided, and the liquid in these structures would've had plenty of sediment and filth in them long after the water eventually dried. Plus they were probably filled in when the floors were moved up and reconstructed sometime after the fact, for all we know the original floors could have a gap of a few feet near the original ceilings but we'll never be able to find that out because they're so deep underground and have long since been built over.
...Sounds familiar.
I don't see the mystery about basements. They make more efficient use of the available building plot and provide a stable climate for the storage of perishable goods (and even for people in times of extreme weather,) not forgetting that most of the buildings cited as 'mudflooded' are from a time before refrigeration. The same applies to the class of people who occupied these grand buildings - the basement would be where the servants did their work, nicely hidden from view and they would sleep in attic rooms amongst the rafters. Tradesmen would come and go via entrances at basement level away from the grand main entrances to the street. In many cases stables, coach houses and later garages would also be incorporated at basement level. In fact the often seen 'Mews' found in London had one street entrance that led to the rear of a basement level shared by many houses. It was all about keeping the hoi polloi out of sight and out of mind.
I made a post a long time ago (
Giant people in Francesco Lazzaro Guardi's paintings?) on how the large door frames of older buildings and apartment blocks in cities like New York suggest that windows were repurposed into doors then the construction finished with the same quality as the structures' original doors would've had, because the presence of DEEP, LONG buried windows under grates outside New York apartments and the presence of a new door done with the exact same proportions of the above ground windows beside it (but with a fancy stone frame) suggest remodeling, but of high quality. All of this suggests that for whatever reason the ground floor was moved up and they picked a window that led to a hallway (usually) and turned it into a door. Especially considering that on these buildings, the windows are often identical or very close in design for many rows as you ascend the floors which makes me think they picked a window and turned it into a door. This is especially obvious to me when looking at those classic photos of the buildings in Russia where they find a door under street level, underneath the modern door, which suggests it was built out of a window.
All it would take is carving out some of the stone and putting the frame in. The basement windows continuing down is curious coupled with the fact that these older doors (or windows turned into doors too?) aren't parallel suggests the basement windows and the ground floor windows could've once been one and the same, and who is not to say the doors under the doors weren't also once windows? Perhaps in the past they encountered circumstances that made making windows into doors a common practice. I doubt these were the original doors but the staggering of them compared to the modern windows is curious and suggests either these were all originally one LARGE window per segment or something happened that for whatever reason resulted in them the frame and filling the top in to make the door before they were once again filled in. I have no idea, but it's curious that they're staggered when that doesn't fit in the with the harmony of the windows always being lined up for the above ground part of the structure. But it does suggest that there was a reason to turn windows into doors.
Either way, these ain't normal basements, they're retrofitted to be them when originally it seems they were anything but. Perhaps these really were doors but not ground floor doors, since a staple of these older buildings is balconies and viewing ports whether from windows or doors. Many old prints and paintings often show buildings bursting with people leaning out of windows or on balconies, sometimes the balconies were built from these windows and sometimes they were doors, it seems windows often shared the function of doors for these balconies, so who knows? It would line up with the frame being lowered since it seems some were built with only some of the windows being intended as portals from the structure to a viewing port. I realize I'm harping on about basements after saying that was dumb, but I admittedly have a personal fascination with trying to get an idea of what the complete state of these structures once looked like. Russian structures are particularly grand and I imagine have many buried columns.
