MUD a different angle.

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
740
Reactions
1,923
Approaching the mud flood from a different angle because like KD suggests on another thread I too feel we are looking in the wrong places. Not that I have the inside track but it is a feeling that has grown in me since coming here. Everything has come to feel 'handed out' if you will, laid out in a specific manner.

So what is mud?
Clay in suspension with water. It isn't soil, sand, humus, gravel.
In one harmonic balance it can be walked on and it will not give.
Shift the harmonic balance by removing the water and it becomes too hard to dig into by hand.
Shift the harmonic balance by increasing the amount of water and it becomes jelly like then as more water is added it loses more and more cohesion until it become clay suspended in water and flows wherever the water takes it only settling as the flow slows and as the water evaporates/drains away it goes backwards through the process, jelly, solid, hard.

It only moves via the harmonics of water. It cannot move by itself.
All the above is easily observable once one stops and pays it some attention.

Why does this matter?
Well dry mud doesn't move of its own accord. There has to be some outside force doing the moving. Water being the primary force but severe shaking can break its inherent cohesion and it settles by losing its loses structural integrity as the components of the clay separate so anything heavy in or on it will sink into it in the same way anything heavy on or in the mud when water is saturating it will also sink.

The only way to drop a building, for example, into mud is to liquefy the mud by the action of water inundation or shaking or both. Exactly the same way the vibrating concrete settlers work.
Shaking would likely impact the materials the building is made of long before the mud lost its cohesion and became jelly like so the building would break apart.
Water inundation would likely be a much gentler process which could allow the building to stay intact and sink into the mud but as soon as the sinking building got a certain height over the door and window sills they would give way and the mud would move into the interior of the building so there would be at least some damage to the building even if it was sinking vertically, assuming a slab floor of course.
Or would the mud under the slab and round the foundations lose integrity first, I presume so, and the slab and foundations would sink prior to the mud breaching the sills. If that is the case then structural collapse is inevitable.

If there is no slab foundation then the mud in and outside the floor level of the house would all lose integrity at the same moment so it would have a much greater chance of sinking upright to the first ceiling level then the ceiling would slow the rate of sinkage for the interior whilst the walls continued at the rate they were before and this would cause damage of not collapse of the building.

Point being sinking by either means identified will either destroy the building or significantly damage parts of it so digging out an intact building is unlikely at best if the mud came up.


Mud coming from any horizontal angle against the wall of the building must be moving within a flow of water.
Dry mud will not move. It can fall down a hillside if the base of the hill is taken out by something such as an earthquake, explosion or water erosion, water power but it loses speed very quickly and just sits in a new position, it doesn't flow. It comes to rest against whatever is in its direction of fall and will stay there until the blockage's structural integrity goes or the weight of the mud above it is increased to pressure the blockage out of the way or for the mud to simply shift over the top of it to a new level.

If the blockage in this type of event is a building then there is a void behind the wall and with enough mud on the outside of the wall it will give way as it is not designed to withstand horizontal pressure.

Mud being moved by the flow of water hitting a blockage is a very different thing. The mud water is powered by the dynamic flow of the water which is seeking a new level. If it is travelling over shallow fall ground it will be sluggish and wide so can easily flow around blockages without causing any damage to even a walled building.
If flowing down valley or some other constraining geography then the walls would be much more prone to pressure from the flow and the gauging action as it went past would potentially loosen the foundation.
Crucially a flow against a wall is hitting a blockage with a void behind it which means it is susceptible to failure.

Mud dropping down out of the sky could be either dry or wet, there is no way to know as no-one has ever seen such a thing. Whether it drops as it does from a conveyor belt in a cone or pyramidal shape or comes down as snow does, the rate of fall, the volume required, how it reacts with the wind, where it comes from, etc etc are all speculative and outside the scope of this article.


How can things such as mortar, wood, glass, metal survive being buried in mud?
All of these things are part and parcel of most buildings be they brick or stone. The mud could be anaerobic which would prevent mould and fungi getting to the wood and mortar. The glass though the most fragile would survive quite happily as nothing much seems to 'eat' glass perhaps break it down would be a better word.
Metal needs oxygen to corrode as far as I can tell and an anaerobic mud would be low to zero oxygen.
I'm not sure about bacteria. They do seem to live in aerobic and anaerobic conditions just not sure which if any actively seek to colonise and consume the mortar, wood, metal.

Then there is the question of vegetation. Mud presents an opportunity for nature to germinate its mud breakers. Tap rooted plants such as thistles, some grasses, dandelions, trees and shrubs spring up and have the ability to create channels in the mud by force of growth and as their roots die these channels fill up with water and organic material which allows other plants in and pretty soon a humus layer forms which becomes soil.
Does this act like blanket protecting the buried buildings from further degradation or does it lead to total degradation as the deep roots like those of trees and some grasses hit 'paydirt' in the buried wood and mortar and as their roots carry fungal spores within and upon them the fungus then sets to work as only fungus can and the integrity of the mortar and wood breaks down leaving yet more water channels filling with detritus to allow yet more diverse plants get a start.
Animals too like to dig and mud is easy for lots of creatures large and small to excavate and live in. When they die or abandon their diggings the tiny life of fungus and bacteria get in as does any wind or water borne organic detritus and the mud covering is further weakened.
Rivers and streams have flows that are passive and flows that are destructive and occasionally catastrophic. They can shift mud into suspension very slowly and very quickly. Rain storms or persistent rain greatly enhances this ability and the ability of the 'constant slow drip' to move mud is evidenced everywhere so all the while it sits there natural factors are working to shift the mud from where it sits either to another place by flow or into soil/plant/animal/bacteria/fungal matter.

It may well be broken down in other ways such as chemical alterations or immense pressure or the actions of light wind ice steam but again this just emphasizes that what we tell ourselves is permanent is a lie everything moves just not always within the sensory range of humans.

As ever though all I have is the balance of probabilities so from the above as far as I can tell, there is no known natural mechanism which can gently bury or sink a building let alone a city or exposition made of whatever materials in mud filling the internals and the externals precisely enough so no sideways pressure is brought to bear on the foundations and walls/doors/windows/roof.

This to me, leaves human action, a post for another day.
 
Last edited:

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
337
Reactions
766
Mud dropping down out of the sky could be either dry or wet, there is no way to know as no-one has ever seen such a thing. Whether it drops as it does from a conveyor belt in a cone or pyramidal shape or comes down as snow does, the rate of fall, the volume required, how it reacts with the wind, where it comes from, etc etc are all speculative and outside the scope of this article
This is just a little aside but there Are reports of this around big earth quakes and if you do search on ‘mud from the sky’ quite a bit pops up even now.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,840
Reactions
14,527
Mud dropping down out of the sky could be either dry or wet, there is no way to know as no-one has ever seen such a thing.
9B727D07-04D8-4F99-91C8-B62A757FD9E0.jpeg

I’ve seen a few similar paintings. This one is from this thread. Red rain phenomenon, or any other related word combo, ie what @Red Bird suggested could help.

Additionally, may be a weapon of sorts could be researched.
 
OP
J

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
740
Reactions
1,923
Earthquakes throwing mud up?
Or earthquakes causing rain to fall from the firmament?
Not being flippant and have never been near an earthquake but should an earthquake that causes mud to rain down occur I'm willing to bet the earthquake destroys any buildings under the falling mud before the mud makes contact with the roof. How long would the mud have to gently fall and accumulate deep enough to bury a single story building assuming the roof didn't collapse due to the weight of the mud landing upon it?
I'm not interested in tales from history for the purposes of this thread. Observable realities only please.
 

Bear Claw

Active member
Messages
52
Reactions
169
Would it not be entirely possible that the mud would just be an 'outcome' of a flood. I think the most logical reasoning would be a huge tsumami-esque flood, which would displace a LOT of soil and deposit it elsewhere. Plus underneath the temporary seas, surely the looser earth would move about and, then when the waters leave, the mud stays?

Is not possible that the mud flood was just a flood with mud as its after effect?
 
OP
J

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
740
Reactions
1,923
As I said above. Mud is clay and water in harmonic balance. Soils can contain mud within them and soils can be devoid of mud.
As for a Tsunami pushing mud inland, fair enough but I feel sure the tsunami would not gently bury buildings leaving them intact enough to be dug out at a later date when all memory of the catastrophe had gone. Equally such a mega event would kill a huge swathe of people between shore and however far inland it went and backing out again leave a truly alien as in unknown landscape and most likely a different shoreline to boot.
How anyone could find these buildings even if it was gentle enough not to destroy them is anyone's guess.

If clay in the temporary seas settled out devoid of all organic matter and the temporary seas gently emptied, slowly emptied or evaporated how does this mud then get get moved to bury the buildings intact?
Or were the buildings there 'first' then they gently flooded to a depth where they couldn't be used and the water moving in carried clay from afar and laid it down to a sufficient depth over a sufficient time to build the depth of mud up gently enough to not destroy the buildings and then the water disappeared by whatever means leaving the buildings sat in the wet but slowly drying mud waiting to be rediscovered, dug out and put into use?
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
227
Reactions
1,194
Or were the buildings there 'first' then they gently flooded to a depth where they couldn't be used and the water moving in carried clay from afar and laid it down to a sufficient depth over a sufficient time to build the depth of mud up gently enough to not destroy the buildings and then the water disappeared by whatever means leaving the buildings sat in the wet but slowly drying mud waiting to be rediscovered, dug out and put into use?
Wouldn't this imply that most of the first floor structures would be more or less ruined? Assuming there is at least some wood that went into the construction of these buildings, that would all have to be replaced on top of all the digging out. Theoretically, there could be evidence of this replacement of wood only on the first floor. Tough thing is so many of these buildings have likely had many renovations since then that it might be difficult to parse what happened when without meticulous records being kept.

I'm with you @jd755, I have a difficult time wrapping my head around the hows of the mudflood. I might even have written it off completely if I haven't seen it with my own eyes, because it doesn't make a lick of sense for some of these places to be half buried in dirt on purpose. If this was somehow done by humans at some point it begs the question why half-bury them and not just tear them down wholesale?

I have some pretty out there theories banging around in my head - - perhaps Earth experienced a rapid expansion in the near past which pushed the Earth up but not human made structures. The other stems from science fiction: the Earth experienced a temporal shift in which civilization was transported from one time to another but in the exact same spot as before. Perhaps in the transported time the ground was a bit higher than the previous timeline. Please don't ask me to back either of these thoughts up, they are merely shower thoughts at the moment.
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
337
Reactions
766
I can’t find the video again but remember that actual mud flood in S. America? Also there’s another modern one of a slow mud flood in, I think, Europe somewhere. The buildings were not knocked down and they are not as sturdy as the iconic architecture seen all over the world.
We need a name for these buildings. Pseudo Gothic?
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
227
Reactions
1,194
We need a name for these buildings. Pseudo Gothic?
I'm not sure who originally coined the phrase (not me, for sure) but I like Grand Unified Architecture.

The next logical question in the way of mud flooding is - - even if it can be shown that there is a way to have this mud envelop structures without them being destroyed, how did it happen on almost every continent on the planet all within the same approximate period of time?
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
337
Reactions
766
I get how @jd755 is covering the most normal reasons for mud floods. That's usually where I start, too. Right now I'm leaning toward an earth event(s) that maybe happened almost all over, over a bit of time- and maybe more than once. Earthquakes, and volcanos, can accomplish this and liquification would be a perfect cause.
However the lack of unified tales in history of earthquakers/volcanos, in the two time periods, plus art and other tales lead you to look at weapons.
 
OP
J

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
740
Reactions
1,923
Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunami are all destructive in the first instance. True they may all create new land after the destruction but they all announce their arrival with destruction and surely this would destroy structures rather than genty bury them inside and out to preserve them for future generations to use.

As you say why half bury?
The mud flood idea doesn't do half it does complete burial by mud. I reckon controlled liquefaction of mud by the human applied control of water to change its cohesion is doable on a building on 'normal foundations' but an uncontrolled natural process would lead to subsiding rather than straight down sinking unless the process was so slow it becomes barely noticeable to the people using the building but what such a process is is not known.
In the next street over a leaking water main alongside a gable of a house built on a mud and sand bank saturated the mud to the point the gable end began to crack, as the mud under the foundation began to lose integrity but the rest of the house stayed where it was.
Once the main was replaced the ground dried out and the gable stabilised at its slightly lower position.
This suggests to me that this is how saturation of clay leads to the sinking of heavy objects on or within the clay.

I'm coming at the mud flood the same way I come at most things since coming here, from the angle not of what we are told/sold but what we see AND what is missing. Not expecting any conclusion not discounting anything just working it through 'in public' so too speak.
The fundamental is mud has to fill the inside and the outside of the building at the same rate to prevent the structural collapse. Walls are built to carry a load to the ground as safely and effectively as possible not resist top loading over their design limits nor resist sideways pressure. Watch a JCB push a brick wall over and you will quickly see just how weak they are at resisting side on pressure.
Having said that a five or six story building that was built as a workhouse in the late 1800's early 1900's made of brick but with reinforced poured concrete floors that ended its days as a hospital had to be taken down by peckers on excavators bit by bit so my money would be on that one withstanding mud from the side but then again it was built on a rock foundation, not mud/sand/gravel/piles.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,471
Reactions
4,616
Charles Fort wrote about things (mud included) falling from the sky in his compilation of newspaper articles from around the world. Lot of frogs, fishes, "blood rain", and mud have been reported to suddenly drop on peoples heads for no apparent reason.

Rather than mud flood, I tend to suspect that what buried the buildings are sinkholes. We still have that sort of thing going on today. It can be observed (plenty of videos online).
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
589
Reactions
2,688
If the planet was "one big quarry" tailing dams would have been everywhere. Recent mine tailing dam collapses in Brazil effectively caused mud floods. This one in 2019: Video shows moment Brazil mining dam collapsed. And then this one in 2015: .
Did you notice the roofs were ripped off? That seems to be what we have the most 1800 "construction" photos of.
Completed buildings with scaffolding to the roof.

I am thinking buildings with a very large door would more likely to survive. As the internal pressure would equalize more rapidly.
 

Bear Claw

Active member
Messages
52
Reactions
169
As I said above. Mud is clay and water in harmonic balance. Soils can contain mud within them and soils can be devoid of mud.
As for a Tsunami pushing mud inland, fair enough but I feel sure the tsunami would not gently bury buildings leaving them intact enough to be dug out at a later date when all memory of the catastrophe had gone. Equally such a mega event would kill a huge swathe of people between shore and however far inland it went and backing out again leave a truly alien as in unknown landscape and most likely a different shoreline to boot.
How anyone could find these buildings even if it was gentle enough not to destroy them is anyone's guess.

If clay in the temporary seas settled out devoid of all organic matter and the temporary seas gently emptied, slowly emptied or evaporated how does this mud then get get moved to bury the buildings intact?
Or were the buildings there 'first' then they gently flooded to a depth where they couldn't be used and the water moving in carried clay from afar and laid it down to a sufficient depth over a sufficient time to build the depth of mud up gently enough to not destroy the buildings and then the water disappeared by whatever means leaving the buildings sat in the wet but slowly drying mud waiting to be rediscovered, dug out and put into use?
They are good points, and to be honest I had neglected to appreciate the strength of a tsunami vs the weakness of a building. Regarding the alien landscape, I agree, although perhaps our landscape would be alien to those who preceded any flood.

A flood could be gentle. If there are waters above / waters below, all it would take would be a controlled leak from above, or an opened tap from the sea's below, and the flood would happen, although be much more gentle. Furthermore as the Arctic ice is mostly below sea level, if it melts (due to the properties of water expanding when frozen) the sea level would fall. Whereas as the Antarctic ice is above sea level, any melting would reduce sea level. Could this be a tap / plug situation where the water levels can be controlled. And I don't think it is unreasonable to think any flood would cause a large displacement of topsoil / debris, which would be deposited where it will. With regards to the submerged buildings, it is clear many are submerged , but also there are a number that aren't. Thus I think mud flood wasn't universal.

Furthermore, I would also like to put forward the possibility that if there was a huge explosion, or fire, could it not be possible that over time, the rubble created a new layer, that has covered many buildings? Just musing... and to be clear it is musing from a position of total cluelessness over what would happen if cities were direct energy weaponed...
 
OP
J

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
740
Reactions
1,923
Right coming to the known and probable human events that could carry out the gentle burial of pre-existing buildings of stone, brick, wood, construction all stood on foundations of one kind or another by the covering with mud (clay and water in harmonic balance) so gently, so effectively, so completely that they can be dug out, refitted, and put back into use by 'future' humans.

Firstly weaponised mud.
Not at all sure how mud could be weaponised and as all weapons display the intent of the weapon holder to exert lethal force upon another if the holder deems it necessary then surely the actual deployment of the weapon would kill people and destroy their buildings not gently bury their buildings.
It could be argued that dams could accumulate mud and destroying the dam with a weapon could release a mud in water flood onto any building or people below the dam but again destruction of life and buildings would be the result not a gentle burying.
Another equally catastrophic process could be a nuclear (assuming the nuclear weapons actually work) earthquake out to sea or in an inland sea or lake which might well shove sea/lake bed and shore quite aways inland and move any mud from the shoreline or near shoreline way inland but the close the building and people to the waves of pressure and water would destroy not bury.

Land changes through deforestation I have already broached here
This process has not been measured by anyone as far as I have been able to discover so other than very local effects it's a process that has not been recorded anywhere nor has any assessment been done to try and guesstimate how widespread by location or in time the process was/is. All I know is mud flows off of land cleared of forest.

Deliberate draining of lakes, temporary seas, re-directing of streams and rivers etc could all release either mud from their beds or fast moving water from whatever fed the lakes/temporary seas could pick up and shift any mud it moved over to deposit it elsewhere. This mud in suspension could deposit itself quite passively if the flow was slow enough and could even be directed by man through earthworks and walls etc to fill in hollows and such.
Perhaps lakes were routinely drained then refilled to harvest something that is no loner harvested this would lay mud down in layers over time but if there were buildings being flooded regularly would they stand or would they have been removed and used elsewhere?

Humans knew more about the carrying capacity of moving water and the correct temperature required, along the lines of victor Schaubergers log flume which could move even heavier than water logs down the mountain with ease due to the natural vortex action of +4 degrees water and the correct egg shaped channel.This sort of knowledge could have been used to move large volumes of things that needed to be moved a distance and moving mud from lake bed/river bottom for reasons long forgotten is best done by water doing the work not men.
This could get out of hand and bury buildings, possibly slow enough to allow the structure to stand with minimum damage though I do wonder what the possible gain from burying the buildings could be.

Mining often, not always, involves clay or mainly clay spoil heaps, settlement ponds, lagoons, lakes, huge volumes of saturated clay being moved around, frequent failures of containment/settlement processes, spills, etc so is a distinct possibility as a source of mud floods. However these breaches and spills are catastrophic in nature not passive events moving mud into and around a building to raise the internal and external mud at the same rate to prevent collapse of the structure.As evidenced above by redbird where the mud flow took out the walls of the structures.

Clay is a sticky substance. Even when being saturated with water and moved along it sticks to whatever it can but seems to prefer sticking to itself most of all.
Persuading it to move with water is hard enough, keeping it moving is entirely dependent on the volume and rate of flow of the water. When either or both slow then the mud quickly drops out of suspension and coats whatever it finds itself over.

This matters because when I look into the machinery and processes available to remove mud from around and inside a buried structure without further damaging the structure or collapsing it entirely I struggle to see how it could be done in the times that are speculated to have seen this process in play. Not that there is anyway to identify this time with any accuracy but for the sake of this article let's say in the past three hundred years simply because machines seem to have made an appearance.
Today we have all manner of high tech and importantly robust large machines, pumps, sources of diesel powered hydraulics, steel alloys etc that is so ubiquitous we easily forget or more often simply don't think about their predecessors steam, animal and human power.
We also have no comprehension of the numbers of steam powered machines there were in use, what they were capable of, how long they could operate before breaking down or wearing out, where they were used etc.
All we get are glimpses through accounts, photographs, engravings and drawings.

However even from these glimpses the steam powered machines clearly can move mud just as effectively as the diesel powered hydraulic machines of today and probably on a similar scale to all but the biggest contemporary machines, judging from the bucket sizes we do get to see, but not as quickly. That said not seen a steam powered bulldozer yet.
So man and machine could remove the mud from the outside of the buildings but not the inside for obvious reasons.
Mud inside the buildings can only be moved labouriously by hand or more easily by water if the structure of of the building is to be preserved. The pressure of the internal mud has to balance the pressure of the external mud to stop the walls from blowing and the mud around the foundation has to maintain its integrity throughout the process or else it will sink deeper down and possibly more on one side than they other further putting the building structure at risk of collapse.

Another problem with the mud removal is once the building is located and the mud scraped off of the roof, assuming it survived the burying process, there is no way to assess the likelihood of the building being intact underneath the roof unless a tunnel is dug into the mud.
Digging down from the top would create a void on one side and if the pressure inside the building or on the opposing side were too great it could shift into the void.
Digging in from the side in a tunnelling endeavour could be done by hand or water jet and would need propping but an assessment could be carried out as to the viability of further efforts to dig it out.
The question for me is would it be worth the effort and on the back of that how would the people doing he digging or ordering it know it was going to be worth the effort let alone know what is buried in the mud or how they knew of its location. Who takes the decisions and based on what evidence?

Wooden buildings/piles/logs in the ground are giant sponges. Any water in the mud will seek to saturate the wood as it is easier to move through wood than it is clay. Once surface water finds a way though the clay by the actions of weather, plants or animals and humans its game over for the wood. Even the rising of the water table would be enough for the wood to saturate and be made ready for decomposition once the roots get to it or it is exposed to the air on digging out. Saturated wood has next to no structural integrity so if dug out and the mud that was keeping in in place disappears the wood collapses.

In the picture of the Chicago Worlds Columbian Exposition foundations it shows tree trunks with their bark still on simply knocked in by steam hammer aka pile driver to provide a foundation. This suggests that at least for the depth of the tree there is nothing but mud, sand or gravel therefore depending on which medium it is the pile will only be structurally stable until the water saturates it.
Once wet its ability to pass the load it is bearing to either the rock on which it stands or the medium that surrounds it or both diminishes. If the load it is carrying remains for a length of time, which I know not, it will fail sooner or later and subsidence will occur revealing itself in cracks or collapse in the structure it is supporting. Bark is an even more effective sponge than wood.

So yes it seems possible that with care and using machines men could dig out a building that was intact from a burial by mud. The probability is that unless it was buried by equal care the floors and roof would be pancaked and windows and doors would be useless, assuming it was of brick or stone construction.
This is not a process I could imagine a gang of unskilled labourers doing. The potential of it going wrong is too great if the people doing the work don't know how to do what they are doing. Once they have few under their belt though they are no longer unskilled so then they could do it again and again.

During the building of the Columbian expo according to the photographs men, machines and animals were employed to move the mud around. Men with hand tools, men on mule drawn carts and scrapers, steam shovels and of course steam railways which seem to have simply run over rails laid on wooden sleepers as temporary rail track.
If the mud buildings were dug out in the same timeframe its a safe bet a similar combination did the work.


Other known man made events that can create a mud flood are not known to me.
None of the events shown in paintings are experienced today or so it seems, they are certainly not written about, photographed or filmed if they do.
Lava bombs are known to be emitted from a volcano and pyroclastic flows have been filmed both are destructive processes neither man made.

Which brings me to the crux of the mud flood idea, for me, is what is the point of burying buildings?
If a weapon was/is deployed that just kills people what is the point of burying the buildings afterwards when reusing makes more sense.
If an accidental event occurs like a dam breach occurs it too is destructive in nature so it follows a deliberate dam breach or removal would be equally destructive unless it was under close control and done slowly but why do that if burying buildings is the goal?

I just cannot see what the point is of deliberately burying something underground that is meant to be used above ground. Cellars and basements I can see sense in, dungeons even, food stores, cold and cool stores all make sense as they wouldn't work above ground.
Tunnels and culverts also make sense as again what is the point of a surface tunnel unless it is to protect the tunnel's travelling surface from rock falls as the do in the Alps and in Japan, probably elsewhere.
The careful burying of a working building makes no sense to see entire towns and cities as being buried makes even less sense, to me always to me.
There is a working town and it gets deliberately buried in mud by means unknown for purpose unknown and the town disappears and becomes useless just as effectively as one burnt down, one bombed, one hit by a tsunami, one reclaimed by nature. There are a fair few ways to put a town beyond use, burying them intact makes no sense.
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
227
Reactions
1,194
There are a fair few ways to put a town beyond use, burying them intact makes no sense.
This is where my head is at on the mud floods, too. With all the strange fires that are talked about on here, it sure seems a lot easier to take a torch to a building if you want it gone, rather than half-burying it in mud.

The only logical conclusion, in my mind, is a natural phenomenon. Whether or not that natural event is known to us is a different story. It almost seems like these structures are sunken into the earth, rather than earth being built up around it.
 
OP
J

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
740
Reactions
1,923
This is where my head is at on the mud floods, too. With all the strange fires that are talked about on here, it sure seems a lot easier to take a torch to a building if you want it gone, rather than half-burying it in mud.

The only logical conclusion, in my mind, is a natural phenomenon. Whether or not that natural event is known to us is a different story. It almost seems like these structures are sunken into the earth, rather than earth being built up around it.
It seems its moot anyway. youtube has had the truth of it all along, apparently. 1811-12: Destruction Hypothesis
Thanks for taking part I truly appreciate it.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,471
Reactions
4,616
It seems its moot anyway. youtube has had the truth of it all along, apparently. 1811-12: Destruction Hypothesis
Thanks for taking part I truly appreciate it.
Well, youtube has spoken. We can all go home, now. :) He certainly presents a compelling case and his claims are worth investigating for validity but, until his hypothesis is proven or disproven, it's just that-a hypothesis. You do good research and you might find it worth your while to check into any assumptions he's made. Don't throw in the towel just yet.
 

Top