Stonehenge, the oxymoron

I’ve been traveling these last couple of weeks,  maybe running from Father Time? I’ve experienced something so unusual that it needs to be memorialized … I’ve had nothing to write about! During this period (which included my 68th birthday) my lovely wife gave me a wonderful gift: Three books, two by Immanuel Velikovsky and one by his daughter. I’ve been engrossed.

In the meantime she came across the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project, part of which results in the video above. The two, this project, and Velikovsky are in my mind connected.

The worlds of archeology, anthropology, paleontology and astronomy hold a gradualist view of human history, a slow creeping change in our landscapes, so that the mass of Stonehenge seen above must have slowly disappeared from view. It is as if I were to stand in a field and watch over the eons as my feet became covered in silt and sand, unable to move, but preserved. To dispute this strange notion is called, haughtily, “pseudoscience.” Velikovsky, had he trained in any of the above professions, would have overlooked the obvious.

Far more likely something stunning and sudden happened to bury this massive complex. But the state of modern science, not too different from the time of Galileo, dare not speak of catastrophism. They can show us this city buried beneath the ground, as their technology is simply amazing. They cannot speculate about how a city got buried, as they will be buried in slander by their peers.

Modern science is internally contradictory, an oxymoron.

32 thoughts on “Stonehenge, the oxymoron

  1. Stonehenge was “remodeled”/reshaped twice in the 20th century, with even clearly iron core popping out of what was supposed to be massive menhirs made of granite, or some other hard rock (probably transported there with the advancing ice in the glaciations of the Pleistocene).

    It therefore is clear that Stonehenge (confirming the Wallace rule!) is a fake and it begs the question how many of the other archeological finds are fake too? Tutankhamun’s mask has been exposed as probably fake (see on YouTube), the Nazca Lines are in Wallace’s field too, a mysterious prehistorical thing, so are the Dead Sea scrolls (again see YT) and I have my big suspicions about the Aztec calendar stone too, not found until 1790, more than 250 years after the Spanish conquered the Aztec… Quite strange for an allegedly 25,000 kilo stone…


    1. “Stonehenge was “remodeled”/reshaped twice in the 20th century, with even clearly iron core popping out of what was supposed to be massive menhirs made of granite …”

      That’s not iron. It’s concrete that was added in 1959 to reinforce the stone.

      Here is a photo before the concrete was added:

      and here it is in the process of it being poured:

      I don’t think it is plausible to think that they would put up a fake iron-core rock and then leave a huge section of the fake core exposed for all the world to see.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. What you are seeing in the picture is the 1950s repairs they did when is was all rebuilt and tidy up plenty of pictures of it on line


      1. How could dolmen, menhirs and cromlechs made of crystalline rock or sandstone be “rebuilt” and “tidied up” with concrete?

        The bluestone assemblage comprises a mix of igneous and sedimentary rocks typically weighing 2-3 tonnes, predominantly low-grade metamorphosed dolerites and rhyolitic tuffaceous rocks, but also strongly cleaved volcaniclastic rocks, as well as at least two different types of sandstone, one of which comprises the Devonian ‘Altar Stone’ sandstone.


        1. Because sandstone is soft. It’s not hard volcanic rock. All they’ve done is reinforced a soft part of the rock that had weathered away, as sandstone is apt to do.


  2. The “majestic city of Machu Picchu, you’ve been there Mark, has not been discovered until 1913 (!???). Did they build it in that time or is it genuine?

    The grand pyramid of Chichen Itza (I’ve been there) is near-perfect. Was it constructed by the Maya or did the Spanish “helped them” afterwards…?

    What about Angkor Wat? The Borobodur? The Rosetta Stone? The statues in Rapa Nui (been there too)? The Great Wall of China? The Chinese 700,000 Terracotta Army? The pyramids of Gizeh, were they:
    A – built in the time the mainstream claims – ~3000 BC
    B – built much earlier as the alternative conspiracy circles (Von Daniken et al.) claim – ~10,000 BC, aligning with Orion’s belt
    C – or rather just built in Napoleonic times when the “French” occupied Egypt?

    This subject is wildly interesting as it both fascinates people and turns the world upside down if it appears to be faked much later…

    In that sense it is comparable to the Space travel hoaxed stuff. Everybody in awe, but just staged by the perps.

    One “mystery” of history (and cryptography) I dived deep into I now think was just a 20th century fake, the Voynich manuscript, not deciphered to this day…


    1. Regarding the pyramids, they don’t have to comply to the A, B or C scenario. I already mentioned that I don’t trust the chronology . I also said that I consider the possibility that a great catastrophe happened maybe 700-1100 years ago . Maybe there were other catastrophes further in the past. Of course if the chronology is severely wrong, the historical narratives must also be very different. I still consider the possibility that before the last catastrophe, there was at least one civilization that was relatively advance (to what degree, I cannot tell).
      Nonetheless, I would not be surprised if many artifacts are modern forgeries. Also I don’t necessarily assume that some of these sites were discovered when they say they were discovered. Maybe they were discovered before, and they could have modified the sites in order to destroy the clues that pointed to the true history. For example there is such a conspiracy in connection to the tomb of the character called Tutankamun.
      Pillars of the Past Series made a good case that Stonehenge and Gobekli Tepe were made after the fall of the Roman Empire. Right now I believe in something a bit different. These sites were built after the last great catastrophe. The catastrophe may also be the reason why people stayed in the Cappadocian caves.

      In the end I just consider some possibilities. But I wanted to point out that there are more possibilities to consider.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sure there are. And if there’s convincing evidence for “floods” during that period (falling into the European “Dark Ages”) I think you have something.

        There’s so much his-story and archeology around, for US Americans it’s sometimes hard to grasp, being part of such a young country.

        I do not subscribe to JLB’s claim that “everything more than 200 years old is just a hoax” and relate it to Australia being a young country, 200 years before I was born not even the first penal colony was established… While in Europe there are castles (certainly look old) and other structures that seem to follow at least part of the his-storical timeline…

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I think that some of our timeline is surely fraudulent, but much of it is not. We can verify a lot of history – at least architecturally and geologically, although of course there’s a lot of margin for error in both directions. But castles and pyramids and other megastructures can be quite easily dated, and even constructed anew. It just costs money, and if there’s no Return-On-Investment, nobody will fund anything majestic anymore.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Many gold mine owners in Peru really wanted to help the natives of the area, and what is more helpful than leaving them with a tourist trap instead of a mine site? Machu Picchu has generated interest in the area,brought in tourist dollars. Whoever had the idea should be lauded as a great humanitarian.


    1. Such “hoaxes” as Machu Picchu, Stonehenge, the pyramids … we should be as impressed with current artisans capable of such construction as with people of times gone by. I more easily subscribe to the notion that we have little knowledge of timelines, as dating techniques are overblown in their alleged accuracy.


  4. Mark, I’m curious if you’ve found any insight from Velikovski that we haven’t discussed before? Do you find his stuff easy to read, or is it really tedious? How would you compare his view of astrophysics to Miles’ charge field theory?


    1. Honestly, I am just coming to admire the man more as I see how he dealt with adversity. Then I learn from his daughter that he suffered depression and was suicidal at times due to the onslaught from the scientific community. In the larger scheme of things, I think he is going to help me understand why these fake events work and why people are disappointed to find out they are fake. His Mankind in Amnesia is next on the list.

      By the way, thank you for your interest. It is rare in the comments section.


  5. what about those weird pictures of Stonehenge, where it looks like a building site with cranes and such? The Georgia Guidestones also look similar, no? I don’t trust the authenticity of such things. The Great Wall may be authentic, its historical background not so. Same for pyramids. The entire pharaoh angle is so heavily novelized and filmed. Mark is right about dating techniques. Archeology works on invented numbers, which are being reused to base other numbers on them. We cannot relay on the historical documents either. Radiocarbon dating is like DNA test. There never was a systematic measurement of its accuracy. The archeologists can easily contradict themselves if they work for different parties. For instance if the creationists and their counterparts determine the age of some religious artifact.


    1. I recall reading twenty years since somewhere on the net, that a mammoth found in Northern Siberia was carbon dated and its front legs were said to be 10,000 years older than its hind legs, which were nearer the surface in its icy domain.


  6. “If we know the amount of uranium and lead in a rock, can we tell how old it is? We can if we know how much uranium and lead were in the the rock to begin with. [Otherwise] we can make one of two assumptions. (1) There was some lead in the rock when it was formed. (2) There wasn’t any lead in the rock when it was formed. If we make the first assumption, then we have to figure out how much there was. Since scientists don’t know what process formed the rock in the first place, we cant possibly know how much uranium and how much lead that process created. Therefore, the accuracy of the computed date depends entirely upon how well we guess at the initial concentrations of uranium and lead. There is no more reason to believe that the rock initially contained 20% uranium and 80% lead than there is to believe that the rock initially contained 80% uranium and 20% lead. If you assume an initial concentration of each kind of material, the calculations will yield the an age determined entirely by whatever guess you make. If we make the second assumption, the calculation will yield the oldest possible age. … If one uses three different dating techniques on two different rocks from the same rock formation, it is quite possible that one will get six different dates. If one uses Potassium/Argon and Lead/Lead on the same rock, the Potassium/Argon date will probably be millions of years while the Lead/Lead date will probably be billions of years. Geologists know this, so they never bother to do Lead/Lead dating on a recent lava flow, nor do they do Potassium/Argon on “ancient” gneiss. Whenever a radioactive date calculation does not agree with the preconceived notion of how old the rock is, that date is declared “discordant” and is ignored.” (Tatsumoto, Snelling and Rush, Department of Physics, Indonesia University of Education, “How Can We Measure Age of the Moon According to Moon Rock Ages?”, 2008


  7. It is my prediction that within a few years it will be commonplace for people to question all of ‘history’ pre-1600. Not ‘normal’ people (normies) but people on blogs like this, where people are open to non-mainstream ideas. Already people are openly stating that they do not take official chronology on faith, and once the faith is broken, it is only a matter of time until further questions are asked.

    Once those questions are asked, the dearth of PRIMARY SOURCES soon becomes apparent. Anybody can try this for him or herself: choose a figure/monument of history (Stonehenge is a good example) and see how far back you can trace the PRIMARY SOURCES regarding the topic.

    If you spend time seriously trying this yourself, it is likely to leave you puzzled, bewildered, even disconcerted.

    There is something very, very suspicious going on when it comes to ‘history’. And I am not talking about Velikovsky or his so-called ‘alternative chronology’. I am talking about a complete lack of substantiated primary sources more than a few hundred years old. In the case of Ancient Egypt, it is even worse: I personally date that hoax to about 1900.

    Is JLB saying that Ancient Egypt is a hoax? Yes, I am. And for those who are interested to know why, I have ample supporting evidence.


  8. Max Igan made an interesting video . He still makes some assumptions but the overall message seems good enough.

    The sad part is that the outsiders will probably never know the true history. The fake history is probably the most useful weapon the elites have, the basis of all other propaganda. The famous quote from 1984 “He who controls the past …”, summarizes the situation pretty well. That quote also mentions the present. We don’t have to go hundreds of years to get fake history. The history of yesterday or 1 hour ago is filled with fake/false/disingenuous info.


    1. This supposed to be a reply on April 28 7:55 from Calgacus

      Max Igan left Australia before they good pick him up…lucky guy!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s