Truly humongous megaliths in Russia

[Tiompan]

If megalith entails being a component in man made monument ,they are not megaliths.
Nearly everything ,if not all , in that vid was natural and not anthropgenic .

[Minimalist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gornaya_Shoria_megaliths

The Gornaya Shoria megaliths (Mount Shoria megaliths) are rock formations that are part of Gornaya Shoria (Russian: Горная Шория) in southern Siberia, Russia, lying to the east of the Altay Mountains. Popular, often fringe, articles[1] have claimed these rock formations to be gigantic prehistoric man-made blocks, or megaliths.

[uniface]

Anybody who takes Wikipedia to be anything but the (highly controlled) voice of the corporate world matrix is naive to the point of imbicility.

As demonstrated by (one of hundreds of topics) its coverage of the USS Liberty incident.

Wikipedia is sheer propaganda any time anything with even a remote chance of leading people to question "established values/fact/science."

[Tiompan]

If megalith entails being a component in man made monument ,they are not megaliths.
Nearly everything ,if not all , in that vid was natural and not anthropgenic .

2Got any evidence, indications, or even logical reasoning for that statement?
Or is it just wishful thinking off the top of your head? "

Yes .
http://oldfieldslimestone.blogspot.co.u ... 21_22.html

Scroll down http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/geolo ... ution.html ro rectangular blocks .The scroll further for explanation .

You got any evidence for the natural stuff being man made . It wasn't off they top off your head , I know that ,although it was wishful thinking , it came for from some dodgy website .

You must have seen http://www.titanicwalk.com/a-touch-of-m ... -causeway/
and https://www.flickr.com/photos/gms/4681115733

Definitely natural .

Fingal anyone .

[Minimalist]

Anybody who takes Wikipedia to be anything but the (highly controlled) voice of the corporate world matrix is naive to the point of imbicility.

As demonstrated by (one of hundreds of topics) its coverage of the USS Liberty incident.

Wikipedia is sheer propaganda any time anything with even a remote chance of leading people to question "established values/fact/science."

But they give their sources, uni.

Unlike you.

[uniface]

A circle jerk of propagandist "opinion creators" referencing each other while transparently neglecting to mention critical evidence that undoes their position -- and locking said sites to prevent anyone but the topic "owners" from changing them. Some "credibility" that outfit has

Back on topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFOwlZfNTO4#t=100

[Tiompan]

Right angles
http://www.australienbilder.de/serien/s ... -tas21.htm

http://oldfieldslimestone.blogspot.co.u ... 21_22.html

Scroll down http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/geolo ... ution.html ro rectangular blocks .The scroll further for explanation .
http://plantsandrocks.blogspot.ca/2014/ ... white.html

Scroll down to Gutter Tor
http://www.dartmoorcam.co.uk/cam/previouswalks/2009-9- 3_RingmoorDown/ringmoor.htm

http://xtremesport4u.com/extreme-land-s ... -cornwall/

First pic
http://themagicofcornwall.photoshelter. ... ry/Bodmin- Moor/G0000.WnKSRmgppc/

Scroll down to pic of Tor with letters . https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1 ... helman-tor

http://www.kitmikayitours.com/wgalleryd ... _id=231485


http://www.alpenverein.de/bergsport/100 ... 12428.html

For those who remember earlier fantasies this is a small scale version .
Kaimanawa Wall . http://unmyst3.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/k ... -wall.html
And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOGS0GG2vVU
But when investigated by a geologist "He identified the rock as the 330,000-year-old Rangitaiki Ignimbrite. Following the line of blocks both horizontally and vertically, and photographing them in series, he revealed a system of joints and fractures natural to the cooling process in ignimbrite sheets. What Brailsford had taken to be manmade cut, stacked blocks were no more than a type of natural rock formation."

All of the above is evidence that geology has produced what appears to some to be anthropgenic , and in many cases the less well informed attributed the formations to the work of giants , gods etc , somethings never change .
What we haven't seen and don't expect to see , is any evidence for human involvement .

[uniface]

When you want to make something go away via some facile "explanation," you can always come up with something. As in the classic UFOs = Swamp Gas.

You cannot have watched that video, noting the anomalies (like the stone spheres and pyramidal forms) and advance that claim with a straight face.

[Tiompan]

[quote="uniface"]When you want to make something go away via some facile "explanation," you can always come up with something. As in the classic UFOs = Swamp Gas.

You cannot have watched that video, noting the anomalies (like the stone spheres and pyramidal forms) and advance that claim with a straight face.[/quote

In the case of UFO's , which I have never mentioned , there are multiple explanations for the delusion .The main problem is not found in the environment but in the eye of the beholder/believer .

The vid is far more wide ranging than the Gornaya Shoria examples which are easily explained as natural features similar to those found whereever you find granite .
Unlike man made walls of Puma Punku which enclose complexes , there are no enclosures at Gornaya Shoria formed by the natural "walls " .

The stone spheres are 2,000 miles as the crow flies from Gornaya Shoria on Champ Island and have an entirely different explanation ,i.e. they are almost certainly concretions .
There are man made stone spheres that are not concretions , like the prehistoric stone balls found in the North Easst of Scotland ,which can also be very ornate e.g. the classic Towie stone ball .
But the stone balls in the vid are concretions .
The pyramid shaped hills , are just that , found in many areas and formed perfectly naturally by geological processes .
Humans did build pyramids but not the the natural hills in the vid or those claimed by the likes of Osmanagić .

[uniface]

Being essentially deaf, all I had to go by was the video (pictures). Assumed it was all one place.

My bad. Sorry.

UFOs = delusion ?

[Minimalist]

A circle jerk of propagandist "opinion creators" referencing each other while transparently neglecting to mention critical evidence that undoes their position -- and locking said sites to prevent anyone but the topic "owners" from changing them. Some "credibility" that outfit has

Back on topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFOwlZfNTO4#t=100

Yeah, because there is no evidence of rocks fracturing naturally along vertical and horizontal planes, is there?




I took this photo myself in the Verde Valley a couple of years ago. No one suggested Martians did it!

[Minimalist]

You cannot have watched that video, noting the anomalies (like the stone spheres and pyramidal forms) and advance that claim with a straight face.

You don't know our Uni, do you?

[Tiompan]

Hagar Qim, a probably middle to late pleistocene 'temple' on the (very rocky) island of Malta (very little sand and dirt, that could have been used, had it been available, to lift BIG boulders into place), in the middle of the Mediterranean –

Not “probably “ at all , it certainly wasn’t built in the “middle to late Pleistocene”.The earliest for date for human habitation on Malta is from the Ghar Dalam phase c. 5000 BC which is firmly in the Holocene which followed the Pleistocene . No sand ,tell that to the excavators , the monument was covered in sand . Regardless the megaliths were probably levered into position .

[Tiompan]

Hagar Qim, a probably middle to late pleistocene 'temple' on the (very rocky) island of Malta (very little sand and dirt, that could have been used, had it been available, to lift BIG boulders into place), in the middle of the Mediterranean.

Not “probably “ at all , it certainly wasn’t built in the “middle to late Pleistocene”.The earliest for date for human habitation on Malta is from the Ghar Dalam phase c. 5000 BC which is firmly in the Holocene which followed the Pleistocene.

[Lily quote ]Ah, I see you looked up the club's position over the last 200 years. The same people who claimed that the sphinx was 4500 years old and thus, for 200 years, ignored 8 whole millennia of its history...
Obviously Hagar Qim couldn't be allowed to contradict that narrative. So, pulling it out of their asses, they made it fit in there. And you're still repeating the mantra almost 2 centuries later.

Ah it's obvious you subscribe to the fantasy view as opposed to evidence i.e. just make stuff up and when the evidence is presented to show you are wrong ,ignore it .
Of course there is bound to be some nut(s) who will agree with you that the monument was built in the "middle to late pleistocene " but they will know nothing about the subject .

No sand ,tell that to the excavators , the monument was covered in sand . Regardless the megaliths were probably levered into position .

[Lily quote ]Yeah, I can see you know Malta well, that you were on-site and speak from experience. So you've got photos or sketches of the excavation 150 years ago? Or at least a diary of the excavators?

It’s clear you don’t know about Hagar Qim , or local conditions regarding sand ,or the likely age of contributors to this site ,clue , I guarantee all were born after 1900AD .

I certainly wasn’t there at the 19 th C excavations ,although I can believe you might imagine you were, and I don’t have a diary from any of the excavators but we do have their reports and even despite photography being in it’s infancy at that time we can do better , we have the drawings of Jean Houel of the site from 1787 which shows us the depth the site was covered in before the later excavations . We might also get a clue from the area today and the immediate local geology , the same as used in the monumnet , i.e. globigerina limestone , which is even softer than coralline limestone . Regardless as noted earlier the presence of sand didn’t matter , as the megaliths were more than likely erected using levers .


[Lily quote ]I can't wait to hear your take on Gunung Padang, easily twice or three times as old as the sphinx' real age, and 5 to 7 times as old as it's age as purported by 'the club' (https://search.disconnect.me/searchTerm ... 1b3f6e8f8c)

You’ve got yourself into enough trouble with “russian megaliths “ ,”no right angles in nature “ , "Maltese temples from the Pleistocene " etc. , changing the subject to GP won’t help , best not go there , as that will prove even more embarrassing .

[Tiompan]

You’ve got yourself into enough trouble with “russian megaliths “ ,”no right angles in nature “ , "Maltese temples from the Pleistocene " etc. , changing the subject to GP won’t help , best not go there , as that will prove even more embarrassing .

I understand you conveniently like to avoid the sphinx and GP
OK, so let's keep focused on Hagar Qim:
you apparently know Malta well, you suggest that you were on-site and speak from experience. So you've got photos or sketches of the excavation 150 years ago? Or at least a diary of the excavators? Anything to support your position?

The sphinx and GP have nothing to do with your earlier errors and are merely a covenient means of avoiding them by changing the subject .

More errors , I have never claimed or believe I know Malta well . I didn't suggest that I was on site or had photos or sketches from any of the excavations , although I may have , as the excavation reports and Houel drawings are accessible , I didn't suggest that I had a diary of any excavator either .If you manage to read that into what was written then it is hardly surprising you believe what you do from your "studies " .