Enter your email address to subscribe to this site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 313 other subscribers


Here we will look at what are supposed to be humanity’s forgotten achievements: the miraculous technologies of forgotten civilisations, submerged continents and oceanic explorers.

Some Bad Archaeologists believe that there are missing elements of our shared history: achievements that have been overlooked or suppressed, links between times and places that have not hitherto been noticed, whole civilisations that are unknown to conventional history.

Humanity’s forgotten achievements

There have always been those whose view of the past differs from that of mainstream scholars, whose alternative histories have been produced within the academic tradition, even if these scholars are seen as eccentrics or mavericks. The American Professor Robert Eisenmann, whose reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls as documents of early opponents of St Paul, falls into this category. A second group works with a perspective that generally derives from a particular philosophical or political viewpoint (such as Marxism, Zionism or fascism) and sometimes it contains genuinely new and exciting insights. There is a third group, who propose radical restructuring of chronologies (à la Velikovsky or à la David Rohl), unusual modes of explanation that include radical catastrophism (à la Velikovsky again) and the merging of separate characters such as King Arthrwys of Gwent and ‘King Arthur’ (à la Blackett & Wilson). Many of them share the arrogant assumption that they are trailblazers who have uncovered “The Truth about…”, whose work is destined to be ignored by the majority, usually because of the alleged jealousy of mainstream scholars. Generally the reason why mainstream scholars ignore their work is much more simple: despite what many people believe, academics do not have the time to read rubbish!

81 Responses to Lost civilisations

  • Emil Stoica says:


    Ley Lines from Ireland and UK….are they hoaxes too?



    P.S. are you familiar wit Carl Munck’s work?

  • Stephen Perino says:

    ..”Early archaeologists laboured under a tremendous lack of solid data. ..” A sentence from this website.
    In the truly disingenous attempts at marginalizing “lost civilizations” by avoiding even the slighest presentation of known facts surrounding ancient stone megaliths found throught the world would insult the intellect of a child.
    It seems the authors here have engaged in a very selective process by which they care to leave “common sense behind”.
    In fact the very absense of mentioning the ancient stone megaliths on this website makes the very same argument the authors use to “de-bunk” the “anomolies” found in the Art of Archeaology.
    Afterall archeology is a bachelors of art degree (not a science), and as with all art it is subject to individual taste and interpetation.
    To give an example of the point I am trying to make here is thus– megaliths built with stones weighing upwards of 1500 tons each, CUT and STACKED with a means that cannot be duplicated even by modern engineering and construction means today. By builders whom by the authors own timelines did not even have invented the wheel or sophisicated tools to construct these megaliths .
    Examples such as
    1). the Baaldek Megalith in Lebanon cut stones weighing upwards of 1300 tons each. The Romans built the Temple of Jupiter atop these stones,
    2). Maachu Picchu Peru (said to be built by the Incas however the Incas inhabited the site for 100 years in the 15th cent.)
    3). Sphinx of Egypt (which unlike the Great Pyramids shows distinct evidence of erosion by water, in an area of the Sahara that hadn’t been submerged for about 9,000 years).
    4). Heliopolis, Egypt
    5). Gobekli Tepe, Turkey.

    I could go on and list many more sites from all over the world.
    But suffice it to say these archeologists today are laboring under a very selective body of “solid data”.

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      The “solid data” to which I refer isn’t confined to the mysterious monuments you cite. The real data of archaeology consists of the minutiae that the promoters of “alternative” ideas never seem to grasp. The houses, the potsherds, the cess pits, the human remains, the field systems and so on that give us insights into the lives of people living in the past.

      Megaliths are something that cannot be taken in isolation. The great platform at Ba’albek in Lebanon is of Roman date; it is enormously heavy but it consists of stones that are nowhere near as heavy as you suggest and which experiments have shown to be easily moved with ropes and wooden rollers (Wikipedia entry on Baalbek). The really heavy stones never left the quarry! If you believe that Macchu Picchu was built before 1450, please present evidence for that assertion. If the Sphinx at Giza (which isn’t a megalith, by the way) had been built much earlier than conventional Egyptology suggests, then we ought to be able to find evidence (in the form of the boring stuff I mentioned above) for what people in the Nile valley were doing over 9000 years ago. We find that they were hunter gatherers, who did not build monumental architecture, who lived in small, mobile groups. There are other explanations for the weathering on the Sphinx and its surrounding enclosure that don’t require it to have existed at a time of much higher rainfall than at present. In mentioning Heliopolis in Egypt – of which little remains to be seen: it’s near Cairo airport – I suspect that you’ve muddled it with Heliopolis in Lebanon, which is the Classical name of Baalbek.

      Now, as for Göbekli Tepe: what an amazing site! This is the sort of place and the sort of fieldwork that does have the potential to transform how archaeologists understand the past. This is much more impressive and important than speculations about the age of the Sphinx because this is precisely the sort of “solid data” that you mistakenly claim that archaeologists are so selective about.

      • farang says:

        Are you stating that Geology is now “speculation” and that scientifically-accepted methods of identifying and dating weathering are “speculation?” Apparently the geologists that used science to re-date the Sphinx are “fake scientists” to you? Elaborate on that notion, please.

        Amazingly, you then proceed to acknowledge Gobkli Tepe as really 11,000 years old. But the Sphinx can’t be older than 4500 years? Where is the EVIDENCE YOU DEMAND TO SEE in Egypt’s re-dating, OF 11,000 YEAR OLD STONE BUILDER CULTURE IN Gobkli Tepe? There isn’t any.

        Further, just to demonstrate how thinking INSIDE THE BOX and APPEARING credible makes one miss the most obvious of evidence: The Vultures of Gobkli Tepe. You see…Gobkli Tepe, Karduniash/Babylon, Hittite, Uratian, Armenian, Assyrian and Egyptian leave a TRAIL of ART culture a blind detective could follow. All the way to what is most probably a silver vessel of a type that the myth of the “Holy Grail” was founded upon. IF one looks and SEES. Remember well: Mittani Vedic kings supplied the wives of many of the most famous 18th dynasty figures. However, I refuse to walk you straight to the Grail.

        Further, “Vedic Mythology” or Hindu, and “numerology” are not interchangeable concepts. Instead, it shows a distinct “Imperialistic” (British to be specific) education taint to allege that India’s influence on ALL of the ancient world can be flippantly dismissed. You are seriously ignorant on this subject. Do you even know why images of the “Scorpion King” show him holding a Plough? Because he used it to “Aerate” the soil. Do you know the Vedic term for someone that uses that implement?

        They used “numbers”: they date their culture/civilization back 70,000 years (using myths/precession). And now we have what? An article this week re-dating of the migration of modern humans up the east coast of Africa through India and Arabian penisula…@ 70,000-130,000 years ago. Surely, it’s just a conspiracy to make you look foolish…..

        I see a distinct lack of intellectual curiosity to not wonder how “mainstream” archaeologists and Egyptologists see “Her-a-a-kahuti” ( “Horus on the Horizon/Rising Sun”) in the image of a “falcon-headed Ra carrying the disk of the sun on his head” while any decent mythologist worth his salt can giggle and point out it is Hari-Garuda, an avatar of Vishnu, the Sun god Hari (Hari/”Horus/Her” the Greek “us” suffix added by “mainstream” scientists for exactly what purpose?) and the eagle Garuda that carries him.

        “Her” (not “Heru/Horus”), which is what the hieroglyphs REALLY spell out, is Hari. An aspect of Rama/Ra. VEDIC.

        Elementary deductions, Watson. Child’s play for those educated and non-dismissive of evidence.

        The robe found in Tut’s tomb is a robe of the Cohen Gadol priests of Amun, an inscription reads “M’kel”, naming Tut as the Mahakala, the Vedic Archangel “Michael.”

        Odd, because while us “conspiracy theorists” were stating it? Seems a few weeks ago a 700s BC mummy from Egypt turned up….with a tattoo of the Archangel Michael on her thigh. It was all over “mainstream” archaeological websites.

        Only the willingly blind or incredibly arrogant can’t see “Ptah” is Buddha, and Ra is Rama. Even when statues of a SLEEPING PTAH are waved in their faces, or a GOLDEN PTAH statue dropped on their feet. Alas, some can’t even make the elementary step of seeing the Sokar/Amun/Ptah wall carving at Saqqara as a Vedic TRIMURTA. ShakaMuni Buddha. Saqqara/Saka Ra & Buddha: prince of the Indian Saka people. You do realize that Ra/Rama (some statues in Egypt have a “Rama” hieroglyph…you knew that, yes? No? Why am I not surprised?) Buddha and Hari are ALL ONE GOD: Vishnu? And Vishnu, Brahma (A Brahma/Abraham) and Shiva make up THE Trimurta/Trilogy?

        Now, go look up Vedic “Trimurta” and when you get to the part that describes JahWah, get back to us “conspiracy theorists”, wouldja? You might also see a image of Shiva’s lingum: averagely intelligent people might recognize those “unknown alters” (according to mainstream scientists/Egyptologists) found in the oldest layers in 5th dynasty “Sun Temples” in Egypt as EXACTLY the SAME as Shiva’s Lingum alters in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma….IF they bothered to OPEN THEIR STUBBORN EYES. Not “similar”: EXACT SAME.

        Tut was Jo’shua….Ya’s Shiva. Y’eshua. The “biblical “destroyer of cities” vs Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds. In Egypt, Shiva was aka “Shu”, which is EXACTLY how Shiva is pronounced in India (Wikipedia: “Shiva’, use the audio feature in opening sentence).

        It is YOU that needs to read the ancient texts in Egypt: I have. And I do not need my Baker Street Irregulars to bring additional evidence: there are TONS misinterpreted right now to evaluate and correct.

        Tell me: who was “Piyama Radu” vs “Rama II” vs “Priam?” Was “their” father Seti/Zeti????

        Duel me right here, anytime, let the readers decide.

        Now, what was that about “numerology?”

    • Randall Bryhn says:

      On the show “Fact or Fiction” it was demonstrated how the giant stones may have been placed using the primative tools of the era. For that reason it seems your rather close minded view of the whole “website” seems a bit…off.

      At least they are trying.

    • Sarah says:

      Just a small point but i’d like to correct Stephen Perino’s comment about archaeology being an arts degree. He seems to make this point in order to show that archaeologists are not scientists and therefore have less understanding. “Afterall archeology is a bachelors of art degree (not a science), and as with all art it is subject to individual taste and interpetation.”
      My degree in archaeology is a bachelor of Science degree with honours and one in which I achieved a first. I would argue that ALL scientists interpret data and many disagree with what the results show. To say that archeologists are less scientific is quite insulting and totally untrue.
      One simple point I’d like to add is that the Romans had concrete that would set under water. We didn’t RE-Invent it again till the 1700s, sometimes technology is lost and sometimes we regain it, sometimes we don’t!

    • Robert Brown says:

      Amazing. You managed to misspell almost every word.

  • Stephen Perino says:

    Why is it that in the Art Of Archaeology it is quite common to make unproven assumptions based upon known facts?
    In all incidences of– Macchu Picchu and Baalbek and the Sphinx this body of “solid data” is based upon speculative assumptions.
    Unless “modern archaeologists” have determined a scientific means to date inorganic material such as stones with uncanny accuracy. Thereby able to assign a “build date” to a stone structure?

    to say the Romans laid the massive block trio world re-knowned as the “Trilithon”-(a row of three stones, each over 19 metres long, 4.3 metres high and 3.6 metres broad, cut from limestone. They weigh approximately 800 tons each.) this is beyond any rational thought process given what we know as fact, as the Romans did not even occupy the site until 27BCE when Emporer Augustus decided construct the Roman temple employing usual & customary construction means and methods most consistent with the Roman standards.–CONCRETE– not massive cut stones!!

    However, Alexander the Great occupied Baalbek in 334 BCE, and was named Heliopolis (Ἡλιούπολις) from helios, Greek for sun, and polis, Greek for city. The massive stones were already in place then when Alexander showed up in 334BCE.

    But before the Greeks in 334BCE there were the Persians, as previous excavations under the Roman flagstones in the Great Court unearthed three skeletons and a fragment of Persian pottery dated to around 550-330 BCE. The fragment featured cuneiform letters and images of figurines.
    And before the Persians , recent archaeological finds have been discovered in the deep trench at the edge of the Jupiter temple platform during cleaning operations. These finds date the site Tell Baalbek from the PPNB neolithic to the Iron Age.
    I am not saying neither the Persians, Greeks, Romans laid these stones. What I am saying is –you don’t have even a clue as to who did, and how these stones were cut, transported and moved into place!
    No one has ever suggested a 800-1000 ton stone can be moved even by modern engineering & construction methods and means! Only a complete fool would suggest that a system of wooden rollers could be used.
    Macchu Picchu simply because the Spanish observed the Incas inhabiting the structures is not even convincing enough to claim the Incas built the structures.

    Afterall the Spanish in their recorded observations of the Incas noted that the Incas lacked the BASIC TOOLS-
    1. complex mathematics (such as geometry, trigonmetry, alegbra) to determine lay-out the structures.
    2. complex instruments (such as transit or surveyor’s level) to lay out the structures.
    3. complex tools (made of forged metal to cut the stones or the WHEEL to move the stones)

    The Spanish did note however that the Incas had a small piece of rope with notes knots at certain increments to do simple addition and subtraction and counting.

    I am once again saying I can offer a date as to when Macchu Picchu was built . But you cannot even rationally assert the Incas built the structures.
    For you make the claim that Incas built Macchu Picchu is both absurd and irrational given what has been factually established regarding the Inca civilization.

    Sphinx – as you pointed out not a stone megalith ..more of a monument of sorts. Once again you are very misleading in your words as you chose the term “weathering”. When the correct term is EROSION. As “weathering” imples atomspheric” whereas erosion by water implies just that. The erosion at the base of the sphinx is indicative of erosion by means of water..i.e. flooding. In an area of the Sahara that has been flooded in more than 9,000 years.

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      No archaeologists have not found “a scientific means to date inorganic material such as stones with uncanny accuracy” except in a few very specific cases, which is not the case with these structures. The dating is done by context and stratigraphic association. Structures can be dated in a variety of other ways, though. The most obvious is art historical. A Greek temple does not resemble an Egyptian temple except in superficial ways. Column styles are different; the iconography is different; the layout is different; associated buildings are different. Foundation deposits can be dated. In many religious sites, there are specific types of deposit that were made before construction could begin. On Roman temples, for instance, a pit (known as a mundus) might first be dug, offerings made and placed in the bottom before backfilling it.

      I see from your mention of the “deep trench” that you’ve read the Wikipedia article I cited. But not thoroughly enough, I’m afraid. The discoveries in the trench go towards the base of the mound of Tell Ba’albek and show that the settlement began to develop no later than the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Phase B. They do not date the Temple of Jupiter, which sits on top of (and is therefore later than) this sequence; indeed, the discovery of inhumation burials accompanied by Iron Age pottery beneath the paving of the temple shows that it cannot have been built before the sixth century BCE. You would also have gathered from reading the Wikipedia article that the Roman construction sits on top of the ruins of the earlier temples, which were covered by building the great platform with its 300 ton monoliths. The trilithon sits on the Roman platform, so it cannot be any earlier. We have plenty of clues about who cut and moved the stones!

      You can call the stonemason Roger Hopkins, who tried to move blocks experimentally and succeeded, a fool if you like. I think you’d be wrong to do so: he’s someone with practical experience who has succeeded in doing what you claim is impossible and what you say that “[o]nly a complete fool would suggest”.

      I don’t know where you got the idea that we date Macchu Picchu from the fact that the “Spanish observed the Incas inhabiting the structures” when the site was never visited by the Conquistadores and was not discovered until 1911 by Hiram Bingham, the first European claimed to have visited the site (although there are a few earlier, nineteenth-century claims). No, the dating depends on comparing it with other sites of known Inka construction. Hiram Bingham excavated the site in 1912 and 1914-15, under the auspices of Yale University, which had agreed to keep any artefacts found for no more than eighteen months (their refusal to return the objects to Perú is the subject of considerable ill feeling, although an agreement in principle to return them was made in 2010). His finds were all of late Inka style: if people had lived on the site in earlier times, they had very carefully taken all trace of their presence away with them in addition to cunningly designing their buildings in Inka style.

      The incredulity of the Conquistadores in face of Inka achievements is typical European arrogance. You seem to be showing the same sort of incredulity: because the Inka lacked complex mathematics (insofar as you know), complex instruments such as the surveyors’ level and forged metal tools, you assert that some other, earlier culture that has left no remains other than puzzling structures to record its existence. That is an illogical way to proceed. We know that structures identical to those at Macchu Picchu were used by the Inka when the Spanish arrived early in the sixteenth century; we know from archaeological excavations that the people who built Macchu Picchu had a culture identical to that of the last century of the Inka Empire. The logical conclusion is the Macchu Picchu was built by the Inka (indeed, parts of it are unfinished, suggesting that when it was abandoned around 1550, it was still under construction by people whom you allege were incapable of building it); it is now up to archaeologists to determine how these structures were built. You are quite wrong to assert that “the claim that Incas built Macchu Picchu is both absurd and irrational given what has been factually established regarding the Inca civilization”.

      As for the Sphinx, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the term “weathring”. It’s not meant to mislead; indeed, it’s the very term used by Robert Schoch, who first proposed that the erosion patterns on the Sphinx and the surrounding quarry walls mean that it is older than generally believed. Weathering is a form of erosion. I’m not aware of any proponents of a very early Sphinx ever having suggested that the erosion/weathering patterns were caused by flooding: rainfall is the culprit most usually named.

      • Anon says:

        Keith dismisses folks like Hancock for failing to follow the scientific method and then, in order to prove his own point, cites a stonemason who has never moved a stone anywhere close to 800 tons. Nowhere does Keith address the problem of scaling Roger Hopkins’ solutions for moving such heavy stones. Keith is no different from Hancock by Keith’s own standards.

        • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

          People keep citing the trilithons at Ba‘albek as impossible to move using the technology available in the ancient world. I suggest you read this paper by Jean-Pierre Adam. He cites a 1,250 tonne block moved by Catherine II of Russia in the mid eighteenth century with only 64 men. Yes, that’s right, just 64 men to provide the traction, with 32 on each of two capstans. The technology used (capstans, pulleys, two pairs of wooden rails 0.49 m wide and 0.43 m deep with semicircular channels in the top of each, into which were placed 16 ball bearings 135 mm in diameter) was available in the ancient world. The block was moved six kilometres by this method.

          The stones at Ba‘albek could not be moved by ancient technology? Don’t make me laugh!

    • D_bo says:

      I’ve been to Baalbek, the site is stone from the stone quarry, I’ve stood on top of some of the blocks they did not move. The site is not made of concrete! Not all roman sites are concrete (very wierd idea) It is stone. They laid the base, very impressive it is too, from the very close quarry that probably lends itself to large blocks, and hey you have a very impressive building. Revel in the glory of Roman/local technology why try and make it mysterious and out of this world/time period. It just shows the ingenuity of man.

    • You disagree with the thought of wind blown sand eroding stonework?

  • Stephen Perino says:

    Again Sir you assume facts not in evidence and ignore the obvious.
    You’d claimed originally that in Roman times the entire temple including the platform was constructed during the reign of Emperor Augustus.
    When the only elements of the temple that resemble established Roman construction practices are the overlaid flagstones and columns.
    The platform with the “Trilithon”-(a row of three stones, each over 19 metres long, 4.3 metres high and 3.6 metres broad, cut from limestone. They weigh approximately 800 tons each.) is NOT CONSISTENT with ESTABLISHED ROMAN construction practices.
    Hence we can establish that platform pre-exists the Romans.
    And the Greeks had already established their temple on the platform prior to the Romans.
    And had the Persians prior to the Greeks.

    The stonemason Roger Hopkins claimed to have moved 300 ton stones, and furthermore that is the **established weight limit** of the means and methods of the *customary established construction practices* of the Roman time period!

    You did not care to cite that important bit of the “solid data” that archaeologist labor under, instead you choose to be vague a common practise in the Art Of Archeaology.
    Nor did you cite the fact that the “Trilithon” weigh approximately 800 tons each.

    Not the *300 tons* that Roger Hopkins claimed to have moved.

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      You really don’t read what I write, do you? The Roman temple – the big one, with the Jupiter columns, that sits on top of the remains of earlier (yes, Greek and Persian) – is the one constructed on the platform. Your objection that it “is NOT CONSISTENT with ESTABLISHED ROMAN construction practices” assumes that the same techniques were in use across a vast empire. And yes, it is quite consistent with them. You cannot use your assumptions about how a Roman period building ought to have been constructed to show that the platform at Ba’albek is not Roman, especially not when it’s built on top of earlier remains.

      Since when is 300 tons “he **established weight limit** of the means and methods of the *customary established construction practices* of the Roman time period”? Please cite your authorit for this. You chide me for not giving ”that important bit of the “solid data”” and then fail to do it yourself. Please be consistent.

      I assume that readers of this site are quite capable of reading the Wikipedia article for themselves. There is not the space to provide every bit of data (all the stuff that you claim is lacking, by the way). Again, please be consistent: either we have data or we do not.

  • Alfred Reaud says:

    One of the major problems I have with the debunking is that sometimes it tends to gloss over obvious evidence that doesn’t fit the theory of a non-advanced prehistory. There ISs evidence all over the world of an advanced prehistory, from writings like the Mahabharata to enigmatic artifacts / structures / architecture, but ignored because if found true, it would collapse the field.

    If one is going to debunk the Ancient Civilization theory then one must explain Puma Punku. Without plausibly explaining the building technology at Puma Punku, the archaeological theories are as much nonsense as any other theory, IMHO.

    As opposed to other sites, Puma Punku does show advanced features that would be very hard to reproduce non-technologically. In Peru, one does find unexplainable architecture in stone in several locations. Glossing over the data because it doesn’t fit the theory isn’t valid science nor does it help the advancement of humanity.

    • James Hosford says:

      Personally, I think “advanced features” and “unexplainable architecture” are gross exaggerations. The claims to the effect that we can’t even or can hardly reproduce them with modern technology so how could the ancients do it at all are even more so.

      I’ve been moving the earth most of my working life and I’ve been to a few of these sites and seen what they’re like first hand. Pick a site and give me your plans. I’ll call the hall for a crew and we’ll go build it. It just ain’t that hard folks.

      As has been pointed out earlier, people who are interested in figuring these things out have managed to shape and move stones as large and complicated as anything the ancients did using only the tools we have good reason to think they had and used. It’s just piking up fancy rocks, and they knew how to pile up rocks. I’ll need to see proof that a place is more than a pile of fancy rocks and maybe a wrecked contragravity transport and a handheld tractor beam as well before I can start to take seriously claims that an advanced but lost civilization or maybe extra-terrestrials built it.

      • Alfred Reaud says:

        James, you won’t be building Puma Punku, nor many of the South American megalithic structures. Those are beyond the capability of even modern constructions methods. Oh, you may make similar structures, true, but you’ll be doing those with modern technology. Propose a way where non-technicals could build the structures pictured here:
        (Sorry, but Google Images idiotic links don’t allow for much space)
        Search Google Images under “Puma Punku”

        Dr. Schoch’s theory that the Sphinx is at least (conservatively) 9,000 years old, forces one to start thinking the unthinkable. In my honest opinion, when a branch of science doesn’t look at all the evidence in equal light and tries to cherry pick to evidence to fit the theories that it is currently advancing, then such “science” does a disservice to the scientific method and to humanity as a whole.

        What is so hard about accepting the idea that a previous civilization was here that had advanced technology that is now gone? The only problem I see with such is dogma, and the inability to admit that on is wrong. Please explain Puma Punku, Nan Madol, Göbekli Tepe, Olmec Statues, to just name a few, that exist all over the world and can’t actually be explained adequately by modern archaeological theories, IMHO.

        Mystery of the Sphinx, 1 hr, 34 min. Propounding the theories of Schoch and West


        BTW, to the site master, it would help to be able to preview posts…

        • James Hosford says:

          We sure will, and do it with the same materials using tools and techniques the original builders could have used. Otherwise, what’s the point? Consider the block with a vertical slot near the left hand edge and round holes drilled along the bottom of the slot. Sure I’d like to take a powered diamond bladed wet saw to do the slot, then grab an electric hammer drill to do the holes and finish in a few hours instead of weeks. That’s generally the biggest difference in doing something with hand tools as opposed to power tools: It takes more people longer.If you really think someone who is practiced at it can’t shape stone, even big chunks of it, precisely into very complex shapes by tapping and scraping it with a few simple tools, masters Phideas, Michaelangelo, Rodin, and all their buddies would like a word with you.

          I have done a feww things in this area myself. When I was in fifth grade, I discovered “Let There Be Light,” “The Birth and Death of the Sun,” and the rest of the astronomy books in the library. After that, I could not rest until I had a telescope of my own. I couldn’t afford to buy anything very good so I took the proceeds from delivering about five thousand newspapers and ordered a mirror making kit from Edmund Scientific. Grinding the mirror for an astronomical reflecting telescope is not something fundamentally hard like hitting big league pitching or coming up with the insight to prove Fermat’s last theorem. It’s just a matter of effort, patience, and perseverance. You set up a solid work table that you can walk all the way around. I used an oil barrel filled about a third full of water. After that it’s just lay your blank and tools out and have at it. Count your strokes, step to your left, count you strokes, step to your left, round and round the barrel. It took every free moment I had for three weeks to grind that first six inch mirror, then about two more weeks to gather the rest of the pieces and assemble them into a working telscope. I eventually built eight more. The largest was a twelve inch (30 cm) my junior year in high school. I figure if an eleven year old nerd could grind a precise mathematical shape accurate to within a quarter wavelength of light just by spooning wet sand between two pieces of glass and rubbing them together, grown men ought to be able to make rocks as smooth as they need to.

          There’s nothing inherantly impossible about advanced antediluvian civilizations or uplifting extra-terrestrials. I’ve read gobs of science fiction with those themes. It’s just the hard way of doing it: We’ve found no structural steel trusses, no ceramacrete foundations, no colapsium plated doodads lying around. These things are just piles of rocks. Shaping and stacking rocks are about as low tech as it gets. What do they need E. T. for?

          • Sim says:

            Stone building appears high tech to me. My parents live in a stone house from 1850 and it stands perfectly and 100 years from now my modern house will be good to go while this house will be just as it is today. It also stay incredibly cool during daytime to the point you would think its has advanced air cooling system. Not to mention it resist fire and is ‘echo’ and many other great features. The problem is the cost, a stone house like that would cost way too much today, otherwise I would have one.

          • mark Bender says:

            I have to agree with you on the arrogance of people who think that ancient people couldn’t accomplish simple tasks without modern tools or survey equipment. I’ve laid out many a building witth string and stakes with amazing accuracy and a plumb bob works pretty good, as well as water levels and other old technology. Mechanization is the result of increased labor costs, when labor is cheap muscle can accomplish a lot if applied in large quanities. Just because people lived a long time ago and didn’t record the details of common practices doesn’t mean they were stupid or unable to improvise.

          • helena says:

            I entirely agree. People who have done no physical work seem to think that they are qualified to tell those who have what can and cannot be done. Take pyramids for example. They developed. Many of the early ones collapsed. They just kept improving the technique until they got it right. The builders of Stonehenge were descended from people who had been building monuments in stone for over 1000 years.(West Kennet Long Barrow springs to mind). You can learn a lot about moving stone in 1000 Years. that is not to say that it was not hard work but mankind is an ingenious animal. By the way James, I’m impressed with your telescope making.

        • Charles Alban, Florida says:

          Puma Punku is clearly Vedic…there’s a carved swastika, a well known Vedic symbol. The whole world was populated by Vedic seafarers who brought their technology with them from India. all these sites in south and central america were built by these vedic peoples, and in egypt and south east asia. that’s why there are pyramids built according to vedic principles at all these sites. all the names are sanskrit.

          • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

            Swastikas are not merely Vedic in origin. They are a relatively commonplace symbol (unfortunately now demonised in Western culture thanks to their association with Nazi ideology) and can’t be used to claim a connection between disparate manuments. You would need a great deal more evidence than the use of this one symbol. The names are not Sanskrit, but have meaning in the indigenous languages.

  • Craig Butler says:

    This actually seems believable, a lot more so than the stories we are force fed and told is true. The huge structures weren’t built without some sort of advanced intelligence.

    Piri Reis map lends credible evidence towards advanced civilization existing long before we currently accept.

    http://www.7wonders.org/wonders/america/peru/cusco/sacsayhuaman.aspx Sacsayhuaman? come one now. “built with giant pieces of stone, which can reach until 8 meters high and 361 tons weight. Many of the stones used in the temple were brought to Sacsayhuaman from a quarry, located around 35 Kilometers from the temple.” That’s up a mountain. Can’t roll on trees up a mountain. Possibly pulleys, but did they even have rope of any sort of strength or did they tie together ox intestines to lift stones weighing close to a million pounds up a mountain from the quarry 35 km away? Also, when you attribute work to one group because of similar styles of construction in other works, it could be that they learned this style and mimicked it. Most reasonable answer I see is that an intelligent group moved into the area and used the natives as their labor and subsequently interbred with that population. The intelligent group moving in would then be accepted as gods, and would bring the ideals of advanced civilization with them. Which seems to be the case in many places including Egypt. If we thought about it for a minute, this is usually exactly what that civilization tells us in their history, yet we choose to ignore that for some reason time and time again. Why is that? The theory that the natives all of the sudden just accomplished these great architectural achievements with rudimentary tools and skills is actually much more far fetched, but it is the story that we are told to accept.

    Even King Tut’s DNA according to this video isn’t Egyptian but Western European or Atlantean but they aren’t allowed to reveal it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL-ZY-ithLM

    You can find a lot on the internet and a lot is BS, and you have to sort through it try to corroborate what you think to be true or not. One thing is certain from my point of view, there is a massive coverup as far as the history of man and the purported evolution from the apes. The “evidence” we are told to believe is a joke. Cro Magnum and Neanderthal man both had larger brains than we currently have. Not the hunched over ignorant beasts we are told they are in history books. We have likely regressed in intelligence since then. This is not about religion or anything like that with me, I merely seek the truth and its sure not in our history books. Darwin’s theory of evolution holds no proof and is just something that has been shoved down our throats. Anything found to the contrary of the accepted version of our history is covered up. I could put many instances of that here with links if there is any interest. Here is one.
    Interesting and strongly disagrees with accepted version of history of man

    Like I said, I just want the truth and I am not out to prove my point of view is the correct one. Keith, it sounds a little like you are trying to make the square fit into the round box. I have just now begun looking at the site, that is just my opinion from the posts on this article.

    Would like to hear any rebuttals or refutes to my claims. Like I said, I am open to the truth whatever that may be and I am wrong in a lot of instances, and I don’t have a “side” to argue.

    • helena says:

      You say, ‘The huge structures weren’t built without some sort of advanced intelligence.’ i agree. it is called homo sapiens sapiens.

      ‘Cro Magnum and Neanderthal man both had larger brains than we currently have. Not the hunched over ignorant beasts we are told they are in history books.’ 2 points. 1. there is no evidence that a larger brain equals higher intelligence. This is from research among modern humans with different sized brains. 2. I suggest you try reading modern history books. I was taught way back in the 60′s that Neanderthal man was a rather stocky, sub human animal. Since then, though, research has proved this to be incorrect. That is the beauty of science and research in general. new information comes along which challenges a previous view so you change that view, this is happening all the time in archaeology.

  • Craig Butler says:

    Saw your post on aliens “Or are we the aliens? Could humanity have arisen on another planet to be transplanted here at some time in the distant past? Might our ancestors be the result of genetic manipulation of hominin ancestors? Might we be a race of mutants, half alien, half terrestrial? Of course not, but we have have a giggle at these ideas along the way.”

    Giggle? Why would you giggle at something that actually has evidence backing it up. Your theory the we “evolved from the apes” yet we have no fossil evidence to back it up is the thing to giggle at. It looks to me like either A) You are very close minded and not capable of formulating your own opinions based on evidence and want to push your same close minded ideals on others for the sake of proving you are right or B) You actually know you are wrong and are part of the conspiracy of cover up that does in fact exist. My theory is strongly B because if you have this website, you must have checked into things along the way and you would have found out the truth along the way. Anyone saying we have to giggle at the thought of aliens is an imbecile.. We are the only planet amongst what trillions with life? Hmm.. Ok. Yeah you must be right. I am going to make my own blog to help stop the misinformation blogs like yours spread to the unsuspecting public just looking for answers. Also, do your homework if you aren’t purposely spreading misinformation.

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      It’s not “my theory” that humans and apes share an ancestor (a subtly different concept from your “evolved from apes”: it’s the only way of accounting for numerous strands of evidence. Your claim that “we have no fossil evidence to back it up” would be laughable if it were not so ignorant. There are thousands and the numbers grow year on year.

      At what point have I claimed that Earth is the only planet with life? Nowhere. You are putting words into my mouth for rhetorical effect, setting up a straw man. I find it inconceivable that this is the only planet with life. The universe is mind-bogglingly huge. It would be bizarre if life developed only on this one unremarkable, slightly wet rock. That doesn’t mean that there are millions of intelligent life forms cruising interstellar space on missions to “boldly go” in exploration, insemination and education. DNA evidence and fossil evidence make it perfectly clear that we humans are very much of this Earth.

      As for being “part of the conspiracy of cover up”, I’m not. Not that you’ll believe it. There is no cover up. However, there is a venial “conspiracy” by peddlers of nonsense to part you and like-minded people from their money. They write books, produce television programmes and create websites peddling stuff they either know is untrue or are too gullible to questions. It’s because there are these frauds out there, misleading people like you, that I feel the need to present the real data.

  • Craig Butler says:

    Where is the fossil evidence that we evolved from apes? Better yet, where is fossil evidence of anything evolving? Why is there a missing link? We find dinosaur fossils but we can’t find the evidence we evolved from the apes? Instead we make it up. You have been duped by the system into believing what you are told. If you aren’t willingly part of the misinformation machine that does exist, then open your eyes and your mind. Lockheed Martin makes anti gravity propulsion now. We, as modern day humans, only learned how to fly what 100 years ago? It won’t be long before Earth humans will be populating other planets, and our technology is still very limited. If you believe in the existence of life on other planets, you would also have to believe it is likely they have advanced technology on these other planets that exceeds ours by millions or billions of years. They would surely have developed the anti-gravity technology to visit other planets.

    During the Disclosure Project below he references that most of the aliens we are currently in contact with us resemble us. How could that be if your theories hold true? Tesla published papers on his communication with Mars in 1901. Up until recently it was called “The Red Planet” and all the pictures the public was allowed to see were colored red by the government. Why is that? Turns out now there is water on mars and the moon. We were told before water didn’t exist and it was necessary for life. The evidence of a cover up is around you. It is funny when you say there is no cover up. If there was, how would you know? Its a cover up.

    If you really are interested in the truth, at least check out the links I post and attempt to discredit those links if you can. You should want to know if the opinions you so strongly represent are true or not. Clear your mind of the fact the government has already told you what to believe so it must be true and just look at your theories and beliefs about the rapid evolution of humans. It isn’t even remotely possible in the time frame which we have been given. Did you consider that at all? I commend you for printing my comments before and not just rejecting them because they are of an opinion which opposes yours.

    Disclosure Project

    NASA Tether Incident

    • Amanda says:

      The original Viking pictures of Mars were not callibrated properly so the images appeared redder than they should have been. The colour of Mars is obvious with the naked eye. Its not deep red,more an orangy red.Hence the name Red planet which has been the alternative name for Mars for at least the last few thousand years. It is only recently with more advanced technology that evidence of water has been found on the Moon and Mars and this in the form of ice. There is evidence of water ice on Mercury too. No secret there.

  • Craig Butler says:

    Here is the conspiracy you say does not exist. It is impossible to believe all these people, including former astronauts, are lying and the footage is directly from NASA and is conclusive. If you do take the time to watch the video you would at that point understand the conspiracy does in fact exist. Same stuff goes on in the UK. Has been for a long time. There are people that know and are let on in the secret and people that don’t. The problem is that sometimes the people that know and are let in on it, tell others that don’t. That info hits the internet and voila, soon everyone knows or the internet gets turned off.

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      Arguments from incredulity and arguments from authority (“[i]t is impossible to believe all these people, including former astronauts, are lying”) hold no water. There is no conspiracy other than the conspiracy to make money being perpetrated by those telling you that there is a conspiracy. Either these people are liars, which makes them contemptible, or they are deluded, which makes them pitiable.

      • CortxVortx says:

        I’ve learned that it saves time to skip the bonkers verbiage of Stephen Perino and Craig Butler, and read Keith’s replies. He summarizes the gist of their arguments in his rebuttals, and saves me the headache of wading through their histrionics.

  • Bill says:

    The comment here are hilarious – all of them.

    BTW, most ancient megalithic structures were poured, like concrete. It’s pretty obvious with some, like Puma Punku. The Great Pyramid was only partially poured, i.e., the blocks in the top half.



    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      I wouldn’t say it’s obvious at all that “most ancient megalithic structures were poured”; have you actually visited any? The blocks in the Great Pyramid are very clearly the local Giza limestone, with a casing of Tura limestone quarried from the other side of the River Nile. The geology of the structure is pretty obvious, even to a non-geologist like myself. There is not the slightest indication of “pouring”!

      I’ve not visited Puma Punku, but I have personally seen several dozen European megalithic sites, from Stonehenge to Tarxxien. Not one of them appears to be anything other than stone blocks shaped by pounding.

      The idea that the blocks in the Great pyramid were poured has been around for some years now, but to my mind, it suffers from a pretty major drawback: lack of evidence. The Giza plateau is littered with quarries, from which the materials used to build the pyramid and its complex of related structures were extracted. Occam’s Razor suggests that the blocks were then manoeuvred into place. On the other hand, if the limestone was then ground up, mixed with water and set into reconstituted blocks, where are the sites where this happened? They ought to be nearby, but a century and a half of exploration on the Giza plateau has not located anything remotely like a stone grinding area. It’s not even as if the blocks of the pyramid are that precisely shaped and placed: they aren’t. People get muddled with the precision of the outer casing stones: they were the stones that Sir Flinders Petrie was astounded by and which were shaped and laid so precisely that there is virtually no gap between them, but there is a tendency to extrapolate that precision to the rest of the structure (well over 99.9% of it, in fact), which is just plain wrong. Perhaps the outer casing blocks might have been cast, but as for the rest of the pyramid, there is no trace of what would have had to have been a huge processing area to create the stone slurry.

      It’s an ingenious but unnecessary hypothesis, lacking any supporting evidence.

  • Bill says:

    There is actually planty of evidence:



    The stones at Puma Punku, which I have not visited either, but have seen pictures and video, do not look anything BUT cast! They are just too perfect. Our ancestors were more clever than we give them credit for.

  • Craig Butler says:

    Carved stone block at Puma Punku. This precision-made 6 mm wide
    groove contains equidistant, drilled holes. It’s impossible that this
    cuts were made with use of stone or copper tools.
    There were cuts made on some of the stones, where there are numerous grooves, like they missed their cut, and had to do it again. THEY WERE MACHINED. HELLO.
    These weren’t made with the crude tools that Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews claims. This thing was built very intricately. The other thing is these stones were floated. Again, I will be called an idiot, blah, blah, blah. But, in all actuality I am correct.
    Here is the info on that http://www.alexpetty.com/2009/11/24/the-secrets-of-edward-leedskalnin/
    Many times in search of the truth, you will run into pushy disinformation agents like Keith. Always stick to your guns, if you are right, you are right. People like him are too close minded to accept truth or are purposely pushing a false agenda for some reason.
    Aramu Muru http://www.labyrinthina.com/amaru.htm Come on… If these ancients built this stuff, they had electrical machining technology, and they had some way to move massive stones. No primitive tools did this stuff. NO WAY, NO HOW.

  • Helena says:

    Mr Butler, why is it ‘impossible’ that these cuts were made with bronze or stone tools? The people who made these things had generation on generation of experience in handling stone, heavy weights etc. They did not learn it all overnight. There are plenty of mistakes or bad designs along the way. At Stonehenge there is a fallen lintel stone with ‘mortice’ holes half made on what would have been the upper surface. They were in the wrong place and had to be re-started on the other side. Not very extra-terrestrial at all.
    I remember, in the 60′s, being told that we did not know how some of the paints used in the rennaiscance had been made, no one suggested that they were from outer space though, just that we had forgotten. (I believe that modern technology has overcome this now).

  • William Boyde says:

    Keith, you remind me of any high school student told to “read the text” and regurgitate the correct answers for a test. Moreover, your tone is condescending – a tool used almost exclusively by those who want to stifle discussion or debate. Your “religion” is your taught “science” and you are as stuck to that perspective as the alien astronaut theorists are stuck to theirs. Where does that leave the rest of us? Between rational science (you) and the undiscovered truth (aliens & what-not)…..exactly nowhere. What strikes me most though, is your derisive tone towards those looking for explanations of problems that stare us all in the face, and have for generations. Where one “researcher” postulates an other world possibility, you state with certainty that they are wrong because of…..”X”. Most times YOUR answer to the question is “We don’t know, but YOU’RE STUPID for trying to think alongside us…we’ll get back to you.” Weak, and again, the type of intellectual bullying that insisted the Earth was ‘flat”. Remember that do you? Or how about, “Negroes are genetically inferior” or “The Earth is only 6000 years old”?
    I’m not going to purport to know EXACTLY how we arrived at the 21st century on this planet, but one thing I DO know is this: Your kind are the reason people hate “egg-heads” who’ve done and discovered nothing, yet heap criticism on those searching for answers. In conclusion, please shut up :)

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:


      It is because of people like you that I will not shut up. If you think my tone is condescending, you are wrong: I am trying to keep my patience in the face of utter stupidity and it is difficult to do it politely. Most of the “problems” are problems of your own making: the things you do not understand in the past are, for the most part, not problems for the mainstream viewpoint because there is all the other evidence – the evidence of settlements, manufacturing sites, burial grounds, farms and so on – that the mystery mongers never mention (other than to dismiss derisively).

      This is not intellectual bullying. This is asking those who want to promote “ancient mysteries” to be fair to their audience and present all the evidence.

      Insults are a very weak form of “debate”, so I won’t be drawn into returning them.

      • Stephen Perino says:

        Seriously Keith..?
        Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:
        4 September 2012 at 12:19 pm
        It is because of people like you that I will not shut up. If you think my tone is condescending, you are wrong: I am trying to keep my patience in the face of utter stupidity and it is difficult to do it politely. Most of the “problems” are problems of your own making: the things you do not understand in the past are, for the most part, not problems for the mainstream viewpoint because there is all the other evidence – the evidence of settlements, manufacturing sites, burial grounds, farms and so on – that the mystery mongers never mention (other than to dismiss derisively)…”
        “This is asking those who want to promote “ancient mysteries” to be fair to their audience and present all the evidence…” [end]

        Lets for a moment accept your premise that-, the skilled scientists (modern archeologists) have a time tested, and scientifically verifiable means of pinpointing the evolutionary development of man from beginning to now.

        And the skilled scientists/archealolgist carefully and un-prejudically examine all the artifacts, and after deliberate thoughtful scientific consideration reveal the undiluted facts.

        So here is a fact from the archealogical record..
        Table Mountain in Tuolumne County, California.
        According to modern geological reports, the rock in which the miners found the bones and artifacts at Table Mountain is about 50 million years old…”
        The California discoveries were very carefully documented and reported to the scientific world by Dr. J. D. Whitney, a geologist for the state of California. His work (The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevadas) was published by Harvard University in 1880. So why do we not hear anything about these discoveries today?
        Whitney’s work was dismissed by Dr. William H. Holmes, a very influential anthropologist who worked at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. He said in the Smithsonian Institution’s annual report for 1898–99: “Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated [that humans existed in very ancient times in North America], notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted.”

        But as we know this does not happen as you are as selectful to determine the “mainstream viewpoint” as the prejudicial “scientists and their theories” that are contained in textbooks today, and dismissing the valid evidence that presents just the opposite to the “mainstream viewpoint” (case in point read from the website I cite above and then your own utter stupidity and stubborness to accept the fact you are boing lied to over and over again by the scientists you so faithfully trust)

      • jdorion says:

        This might be scraping around in an old pile of dirt, but I just can’t help commenting here, in response to the following comment by Keith:

        Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:
        4 September 2012 at 12:19 pm

        It is because of people like you that I will not shut up. If you think my tone is condescending, you are wrong: I am trying to keep my patience in the face of utter stupidity and it is difficult to do it politely. Most of the “problems” are problems of your own making: the things you do not understand in the past are, for the most part, not problems for the mainstream viewpoint because there is all the other evidence – the evidence of settlements, manufacturing sites, burial grounds, farms and so on – that the mystery mongers never mention (other than to dismiss derisively).

        This is not intellectual bullying. This is asking those who want to promote “ancient mysteries” to be fair to their audience and present all the evidence.

        Insults are a very weak form of “debate”, so I won’t be drawn into returning them.

        End quote.

        And my comments:

        1. Keith, you insult people constantly throughout these conversations. Why? You created the site, so I guess you’re allowed any stance you like. In my opinion, given your credentials (which I’m assuming rather than knowing for fact, since I haven’t come across that information) and experience as a real archeologist, this kind of site is a waste of time for you. Real data, rather than insulting people, will conquer ignorance eventually . . . no?

        2. Given that you seem to be quite devoted to your mission to cure the world of ignorance regarding archeology and related topics (since you commonly speak about topics that seem to me would be outside the scope of your profession), I would suggest that you take the stance that this is an opportunity to educate. Don’t dwell so much on how stupid everyone is. You have the gift of a solid education and real world experience as an archeologist. I believe you mentioned elsewhere that you teach as well (I’m not sure what level or to what extent teaching and other scholarly activities is part of what you do). Being able to teach is a gift. Being in the position to illuminate complicated and seemingly impossible phenomena is a gift. The stupid people responding to these conversations, as you often refer to them, are curious people, many of whom have not been blessed with the gifts you possess. Teach them, rather than belittling them.

        3. I challenge you to ignore people’s attacks on your character, rather than counter-attacking by calling everyone stupid. And coupled with the last tactic, you commonly and completely deny criticisms directed at yourself. Just ignore the personal criticism. Your insights on archeological themes will be more appreciated by all if you could withhold your obvious frustration and disgust. You’re the professional. Redirect insults and “ignorance” and come up with creative teaching points.

        4. The general public, including those on both sides of the fence regarding Graham Hancock and other “bad” or “pseudo” archeologists or whatever you want to call them, want to hear other points of view. To hear the knowledge of an actual archeologist who is respected in the mainstream field who can creatively teach and educate is all the public wants. (Actually, many people just like to hear themselves talk and to create conflict, and you fall into this category at times. But many of us reading your blogs and other sources of information just like to learn stuff.)

  • Alfred Reaud says:

    “… the evidence of settlements, manufacturing sites, burial grounds, farms and so on …”

    You will not find such evidence for Dr. Schoch’s version of the Sphinx, because it predates dynastic Egypt by a long time, so says the geologic record in the Sphinx enclosure.

    You won’t find such evidence at Sacsayhuaman, Peru, because it may predate most of Meso-American history. Did you know that there are three layers there? Civilization 1, 2, and Inca on top. But what I fail to see, on either side, is hard scientific evidence made by measurement.

    At Sacsayhuaman (Puma Punku) we have absolutely phenomenal stonework, equidistant holes drilled precisley, precise channels, still precisely square interior corners, etc. Lets throw some precision measuring tools at that. The mainstream theory is that it was made by preindustrial methods. Show me that by the microscopic tool-marks, diameter and position variation, etc. The other theory is that it was made technically, with machines, lasers, whatnot. Fine, show me the microscopic tool-marks and so on. Either way the proof is in the analysis.

    If there’s no tool marks, then that has to be explained. What I find the most astounding, after the site itself though, is that a lost civilization exists in Peru that created some phenomenal megalithic architecture at Sacsayhuaman, OBVIOUSLY different and significantly more advanced than the overlaying Inca architecture, and nobody is crawling all over the ruins studying it.

  • snarftsoor says:

    What baffles me most is that archeolgists shun the opportunety to prove their theories in practise by cutting an exactly square hole out of living andesite rock, lifesize and with the known tools of the Inca period. Or fashion a block like those found at Puma Punku, but again lifesize replica. Sometimes they do, but it is always a scaled down version, sometimes even with the help of modern tools. They move a two ton block of stone and that is proof that the ancients could move heavy stones of any size ???
    Why not prove for once and for all that their theories are valid. They only have to do it once, how much money would that take. I mean tools were simple, labour is still fairly cheap in Peru, so what is stopping them?

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      If you actually did a little bit of research (a quick Google would do), you’d discover that archaeologists have taken the opportunity to show how Inka stonework was made. There’s even been a BBC television programme (Secrets of Lost Empires: Inca, made in 1994); you can even find it on DVD when it was redubbed for an American audience as part of a NOVA series. The archaeologists demonstrate exactly how it was done.

      On the subject of scale, take a look at this post by Jason Colavito. Read the comments, too!

  • snarftsoor says:

    I have been googlingand found (Secrets of lost empires I- Inca ) from PBS, but for copyright reasons they do not ship outside USA or Canada and since I live in the Netherlands I can not get it. NOVA does not stock this DVD anymore. And also no results with U-tube. Can you think of a way for me to see this program or DVD.

  • chugs says:

    love your work keith. don’t let the scammers and conspiracy theorists get you down. looks like it’s one or two people running sock puppets/pseudonyms.in some ways I see thr 21st century conspiracy author as no different to the gurus of India who claim to levitate, lie on beds of nails and other feats. again thousands of people are duped and waste their money on these cons, buying their material that purports
    to contain evidence.

    question. why is it only really in the last 1-2 thousand years that our technology has advanced when it in the previous 8 thousand years it’s remain pretty static, or is this premise false and the record shows steady advances in our technology. it just seems to me that for thousands of years we built stuff the same way across thr planet with nay a though of trying to do it fast/better.

  • snarftsoor says:

    Since i am really interested in seeing this DVD, is there anyone out there willing to sell this DVD
    Secrets of lost empires I – Inca from NOVA.

  • hobo says:

    cant let godwins law pass by.
    hitler did it.
    all fun aside, alternative theories are unashamedly advertised as revelatory and do bring a lot of people , who might not have had an interest in archeology, into a fascinating subject.

  • Matt Sharpe says:

    as to the problems of HOW any ancient culture could have laid out plans for a mega structure, please google chrichton miller’s celtic cross tool, one that has existed and been used for centuries, and has been hidden in plain site the entire time, he proves that this tool can accurately lay out plans to build any large structure, and it can also be used to navigate at sea, and the circled cross symbol can bee seen in EVERY culture’s artwork, even the cavemen….http://www.crichtonmiller.com/ and http://www.viewzone.com/crichton.html

  • jgrunwaldt says:

    The scale and techniques used in the building of Sacsayhuaman remain a complete mystery to me. Despite having read dozens of papers and explanations ranging from the most orthodox to the very imaginative ones, I still have that disturbing feeling that a great deal is missing. When was the complex built? Who built it? Were the Incas, who arrived as a tribe around Cuzco by 1200AD? or perhaps the barely known Killke who were there some centuries before? or is there a chance that construction was set on by an older culture still to be identified? What was its purpose? Military/religious/ritual/social (neither scholars nor amateurs have left behind any plausible explanation). How was it built? Were the blocks dragged by ropes and then towed up using ramps? Why bother using such massive blocks -some estimated at 200 tons- when much smaller ones could do the job as well? and last but not least, why such a precision on the fittings, the complex interlockings and the rounded corners? Just because of a possible earthquake?
    These are some of the questions lacking of definitive answers which make Sacsayhuaman such a fascinating location to me, who is not satisfied with the usual theories and presumptions.

  • Alfred Reaud says:

    There are three courses of stonework at Sacsayhuaman. The top is obviously Inca and is, in appearance, contemporaneous with other Inca architecture. The next course is more dubiously Inca. The bottom course is impossible to explain as Inca. How does one account for the marshmallow shaped stones that appear to have been melted in certain structures. Or the vitrification in some of the ruins. Or the 90 degree corners that are very hard to do today without poring. Or the little channel with the holes that appear to be precisley spaced. If one says it was done via primitive stone-cutting methods, I’m going to ask for the tool marks. In the bottom course, not the top one, LOL.

    Now I’ll admit I haven’t been there, and haven’t seen technical specifications such as one would have done with calipers, transits, and lasers. But pictures are worth a thousand words. Why this fear of ancient advanced civilization? My theory is that such a finding of ancient advanced civilization would collapse the foundation of modern archeology, rendering many of it’s findings and theories of early civilization wrong.

    • helena says:

      From what i know of the average archaeologist, both from talking to some and reading others, they would love to be able to find a completely new civilisation. They would revel in digging around in the dirt trying to unravel the evidence they find.

  • j tayanasan says:

    I am fascinated that the ancient mega structures discussed here were built with such precision. My main problem with the notion that these buildings were machine built is that there seem to be no mention of the remains of these advanced tools. Wouldn’t there be some traces of advanced machinery left behind on site or in the surrounding area? We find all sorts of less durable tools from ancient cultures. It would stand to reason that at least a few advanced tools (regardless of condition) should have survived as well.

  • Petroula Christakis says:

    I have a BSc In Archaeology… its is a science as well as an art. The science comes from the aspects of archaeology that devote themselves to research and analysis of data, and it is an art as it takes great mental dexterity to reconstruct the life ways of the past with no more than pot shreds as finger prints, so sir – Stephen Perino. before one makes a pompous conclusion that clearly hold no water, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with with the science of doing ones accurate research and the art of making a informed conclusion.

  • Just some guy.... says:

    Interesting stuff here. Just a layman myself, but I have to stand back and consider that for some time we were amazed at how well certain stones fit together; “can’t even fit a piece of paper between them” and all that. The solution was so simple it was absurd. You rub them together until they fit that well. I won’t get into a long post, because that one example pretty much sums all of it up. We, humans, CONSTANTLY underestimate things… nature, animals, each other. We often refuse to believe the most simple and obvious answers. I also find it disappointing when scientists refuse to give credit where credit is due because it simply doesn’t find into their personal OPINION of the topic. Scientists should be happy to be proven wrong because it sheds light on what really is. Isn’t that what their trying to figure out? Again, human arrogance.

  • Just some guy.... says:

    By the way… saying something hasn’t been proven true simply because we haven’t built it to scale is pretty short sighted. Should I hold that the pyramids couldn’t possibly be built by humans until they build one to scale using the same methods used originally? You got a few decades to wait on that?

  • Alfred Reaud says:

    Underestimation is a good word for some of the problems we have. It’s not plausible to have advanced ancient civilizations. Where is the evidence? What would we have left of a civilization 13-15,000 years old? But when something is discovered that is provable via technical geologic methods to be of an anachronistic age, the theory is considered idiocy by archeology, though it is accepted in his field as being valid. Who am I speaking of? Dr. Robert Schoch.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ-xh3kedW4 (Erosional evidence for a 11-13,500 year old Sphinx)

    So when somebody, an archaeologist BTW, finds even more astounding evidence, this time of man being in the western hemisphere way longer than indicated by current theories of the migration of humanity, that archaeologist is run out of the field, even though the dating techniques indicated an even OLDER specimen than was originally conservatively thought. When science starts behaving like that, it is no longer science, but dogma.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koYWznEIV50 (Hueyatlaco, Mexico find suppressed)

    @helena, I would live in a tent and eat dog food to survive if I could travel to Sacsayhuaman to study it as a green apprentice under an archeologist. That place needs the same effort given to it that has been given to analyzing the Pyramids. Or Göbekli Tepe…

  • Alfred Reaud says:

    Depends on age of site. Lets try a thought experiment. For the sake of argument take the Sphinx, and assume that Dr. Schoch is correct, and that the Sphinx date of creation is actually 11,500BCE. And lets go to Home Depot and buy the tools necessary to cut and carve sandstone and basalt. That would be cold chisels, hand sledges, a masonry saw, power chisel, etc. Lets assume the ancients had everything, including a power source. This is all just a thought experiment, so we can set whatever criteria we want.

    Poof, the advanced ancients are gone, and we run forward in time to the reign of Kufu, ~2570BCE. That span is about 9000 years. What metallic tools would be left around after that time? I’d conjecture none. The half life of exposed steel is about 100 years. This can be seen from numerous rusted wrecks of 1940′s vehicles out in dry washes in the arid west of the US. Ceramics and glass has a half-life of about 100,000 years, but neither are usually used in tools used to fashion sandstone. Plastics and rubber, don’t know. My point being is that every metallic tool that is currently used in the construction industry to fashion stone would have been long gone by the time of Kufu.

    Another point, and as somebody who has worked in the construction industry, you’re not going to find any tools left about on a site, unless accidentally. They are too valuable. I would assume the same would have been true for ancient humanity. But you bring up an interesting idea about advanced tools.

    All tools leave tool marks on the work, regardless of level of sophistication. More sophisticated tools leave finer marks. What bothers me, specifically in the bottom course of Puma Puku and with the Great Pyramid Sarcophagus, is where are the tool marks that can be attributed to primitive tools. For that matter where are the tool marks that can be attributed to tools contemporaneous to our era. Answer me that riddle, please…

  • sjperino says:

    Actually the 250,000 age assigned to the site at Hueyatlaco, Mexico and nearby El Horno were done not by archaeologists but by geologists working for the USGS namely Virgina Steen-McIntyre.
    And Ms Steen-McIntyre has stood by her findings inspite of suffering professional ridicule by the “scientific community” of archaelogist for more than 30 years.
    Only recently vindicated, Ms. Steen-McIntyre’s original findings were corroborated by two excavations at the site.
    And recent scientific samples taken and compared to Ms McIntyre’s original samples by un-biased scientists confirm the age of the site to 250,000 years ago.
    If any truly open minded individual would care to read the abstract it can be found here

  • Alfred Reaud says:

    Thanks for the correction. From the Youtube video, I thought she was an archaeologist. Wow, confirmed at least 250,000 years old… Did humanity get here at some point, disappear, then get here again with the migrations across the Bearing Sea? How can this finding be explained in the context of the migratory theories about early humanity? Archaeology has a finding similar to the finding of the Higgs boson at CERN. What’s going to be done with that finding?

    In Hueyatlaco, we again have an OOPArt (BTW, whatever happened to the little elephant statues that von Däniken photographed? Hoax, or suppressed?). These kinds of things coming to the attention of laymen, what, with our lack of education, not working, so on and so forth, make us have a lack of faith in the field. Sometimes I wonder, is this inability to contemplate advanced ancients a psychological bias we have in the sciences? “The ancients couldn’t have been smarter than us, WE are the epitome of knowledge…”

    Some here have questioned why we don’t give the credit due to our primitive ancestors and what they could accomplish. One can reverse the question easily. All of the unexplainable stuff around the world, the OOPArts, are evidence of something not being quite right in the description of the ancients. By analogy, it’s like that second order perturbation in the orbit of Mercury that needed to be explained. We would totally give credit to the ancients, where credit is due.

  • violet.313 says:

    Alfred, may i join you in the tent? It’s the only way (i might skip the dog food in favour of coca leaves)


    In fact we already do have hard archaeological evidence of high technology dating from at least 100BCE in the Antikythera astronomical device. An analogue computer that Babbage would have been proud of; and of a technology that was subsequently ‘mislaid’ for the next thousand years or so. As you correctly allude to in previous posts, the problem with technology is that the more sophisticated it is, the more volatile it seems to become. (no tools found at Göbekli Tepe either, i believe) And when our incumbent civilisation decided to send a small message into space on the back of the Pioneer & Voyager probes, it didn’t scribble it onto a piece of papyrus with a biro.

    As for science being respectable; well if only. But it’s no different to any other human practice. For example (& there are so many): In 1875, James Croll, a self-taught geologist, wrote ‘Climate and Time’. It was ground-breaking stuff but due to a bitter personal spat with William Carpenter ~president of the British Science Association, president of the Royal Medical Society & so on~ it was not until the 1970s that the importance of Croll’s theses were finally recognised by the scientific *community!

    The idea that civilisations rise and then fall-back also seems similarly difficult to grasp. & again, in evolutionary theory. There’s an unpleasant tendency to imagine that progress (however that may be defined) is somehow incremental. I dare to say this is nonsense. i doubt it’s even logistic.

    I am not a geologist or an archaeologist (not even a scientist (got a BA in maths lol)) but am given to understand that there is even plenty of uncertainty as to what might have caused an event as recent as the Bronze Age collapse. For example, why ever did people abandon superior bronze tools for inferior iron-age counterparts? Was it economics, or the need to prosecute wars more efficiently? And who were the mysterious Sea-Peoples? If we cannot answer questions such as these about our more recent past, then in the absence of another Antikythera device, going further back tends towards pure speculation. Though for my part, i think that it might be niaive to assume that human civilisation is a recent phenomenon. Furthermore, it may even be that a truely advanced *Golden Age is actually when people ‘down-tools’, abandon mass organised societies and return to a more sustainable & far less traceable way of life. Who knows.

    This site however seems a reasonably good place to debate these kind of issues. And i am enjoying reading all the comments. So thank you Keith, for your hard-work and patience!

    Last thing: i too liked reading about James Hosford making his telescope. & James makes a good point regarding technology of any kind. In Germany, i am told construction engineers are not allowed anywhere near power-tools until they have finished their apprenticeship !


  • Ghost says:

    I would advise reading into the Bosnia Pyramids, if memory serves me correctly, it’s been dated 25000 years old. Not only does it predate the Egyptian Pyramids, they’re also larger than the Great Pyramid. They are currently digging them out now – recent videos from the actual site are available on You Tube.

    There are also quite a few other interesting facts about these Pyramids that show that they were used for meditation and healing the body.

    This has already been verified by Egyptian, Italian, Bosnian researchers – this discover will completely rewrite our history books.

  • Zeinstein says:

    Hi, setting aside the techniques of construction, for which I do think that the archaeological record offers pretty strong explanations for, could you please explain to me the astronomical precision that Hancock asserts can be found in these ancient sites? Are these assertions without merit? How about the mathematical symmetry that can purportedly be observed within the Pyramids of Egypt? The repeating theme of 54 statues at Angkor Wat? Should these be dismissed outright as pure coincidence? Has Hancock stacked the deck here and these are not valid patterns? If you dismiss this line of observation, please link some sources to back yourself up.

    On that point, maybe a word or two about YOUR credentials? How was it that you became qualified to be the final arbiter of what constitutes a valid theory about what happened…several thousand years ago and no one could possibly know with certitude? Frankly, your initial write-up here is a joke as you haven’t in any way substantively addressed the core assertions that he made. I mean, that would be a bit more constructive, IMHO…

    The confusion over just what exactly you draw this absolute authority from is further exacerbated by this line here “despite what many people believe, academics do not have the time to read rubbish!”. Well, you seem to spend a lot of your time dealing with what you dismiss as ‘rubbish’, which would then seem to imply that you are no academic. Are you just a really skilled Wikipedia linker, or…?

    Really, it is quite clear that Hancock has spend a lot more time researching his ideas than you have, and reading through this site, you have yet to pen one compelling argument, but at best have merely regurgitated your understanding of others’ work.

    So yeah, something on the mathematical and astronomical knowledge that some claim can be observed at these sites would be fantastic

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      Insult me all you like. This page on Graham Hancock was intended to be an introduction to why he was wrong, but there are plenty of sites out there that go into greater detail than I do, so I simply gave up through boredom, both with his tedious and unconvincing data and with the likes of acolytes such as yourself who are taken in by his confident assertions and whose line of argumentation seems to consist of nothing more than questioning his critics’ qualifications. You really have no idea how long I have been researching (some of) the data he cites: I can guarantee it’s longer than he (or the research assistants he paid to do the hard work for him) spent on it.

      • Zeinstein says:

        How about linking some of those sites, that would be fantastic! If you read a lot of the comments here, people are saying ‘huh, some of the things Hancock said seem pretty remarkable, what is the rebuttal?’. That is great that you have spent so much time researching the assertions that he makes – how about you share some of those findings with us?

        My initial point is more, he just lays out his case, and I just don’t really see where you have done that here. Again, something refuting his claims about the astrological precision at these ancient sites would be great. Honestly, I think his case is riddled with holes in terms of the underlying logic so I would really like to take a look at some of the work that people have done refuting his claims.

        That would be constructive; that would be useful. Honestly, if you just set up a site to trade barbs with people and say, ‘man, i get it, but you just don’t’, well aren’t there better things to do with one’s time? I thought that clearly laid out refutations of ‘bad archaeology’ would be provided here, hence my visit and subsequent frustration. Silly me??? I mean, what kind of person takes the time to post up a topic on a website, then say, it isn’t worth my time to discuss this so I won’t. Please take a second to find the closest mirror and have a good luck into it…

    • Charles Alban, Florida says:

      it’s all vedic. 54 is half of 108, a vedic sacred number (54 is the number of beads on the rosary as well). ankor wat is a vishnu temple. the vedic seafarers from india built all these megalithic structures all over the world. all the names are sanskrit. ireland is land of the aryas, england is angulisthan, britain is brihatsthan, russia is land of the rishis, maya, inka and aztec are all derived from sanskrit.

      • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

        Numerology is a bit of a blind alley. Pluck any number from the ether and you’ll be able to link it with some culture that considered it (or one of its multiples or factors) significant.

  • Oregonian says:

    I’ve never been a fan of the ancient alien theory, at least not of the most popular versions of it. You know the ones I’m talking about! Those touted by Zech Sitchin, von Daniken, Giorgio Tsoukalos, etc. Some of the comments here are avid defenders of the “theories” regarding megalithic structures, presented by Ancient Aliens on the History Channel. I found this refutation by Chris White very intriguing. His perspective is a Christian one so viewers may not agree with his opinions in those regards. However the debunking of various claims made by the Ancient Aliens crowds is the meat of the film and worth watching.

    Series like The 12th Planet are great reads that spark the imagination, and I think that’s one of the reasons people are attracted to those ideas, and why they can be held onto so strongly. Unfortunately it seems to me characters like Sitchin and Daniken erode under close scrutiny and thus so do all those guys who have built their careers around them. I don’t know if this is true or not but I remember hearing somewhere that von Daniken wrote Chariots of the Gods while in prison for fraud or forgery?

    I said at the beginning of this post that I don’t believe the popular ancient alien theories, and haven’t been fooled by the evidence used to “support” them. At least not all of the evidence. For example I have been talking to people here and there about the Dogon and Sirius for years now. I never spent the time to update myself on that story and it turns out I should have because it hasn’t been a mystery for some time apparently. You won’t see me getting upset about something that played a part in my world view turned out different than I believed. Just like some of you don’t need to go on the defensive when methods of stonework and architecture from the past is shown to be perfectly capable of producing those beautiful and intriguing locations.

    I do believe there has been something interacting with humans, on Earth for a very long time. Maybe I will comment on that more elsewhere. I already have a wall of text here.

    @ Craig Butler who said: There were cuts made on some of the stones, where there are numerous grooves, like they missed their cut, and had to do it again. THEY WERE MACHINED. HELLO.

    Extremely advanced and precise lasers, that miss their cut! (Not presenting this like a refute, I’m just being goofy)

    @ I think it’s funny I’ve seen some people tell you to go start your own website to tout your ignorance (as they would put it). I thought I was on your website reading your writings… Is this the twilight zone?

    Thanks for your site and linkage.

  • Oregonian says:

    Also, have you guys (Keith & James) considered a page on ancient supposed nuclear blast sites?

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      Can you be more specific about these sites? I remember von D&aumlaut;niken (or one of his followers, perhaps Andrew Tomas) trying to suggest that tektites are evidence for prehistoric nuclear explosions…

  • spice says:

    Wow! And you call THEM arrogant? Lol.

  • Alfred Reaud says:

    Regardless of whether it’s Vedic or Egyptian or extraterrestrial, the root point is that none of us or our current civilization will be building the bottom course of of the marshmallow stonework at Puma Punku. We’re not as advanced as we think we are compared to the ancients. There are things we have lost that we have no inkling about.

    Is it easier to believe that some ancient stonemasons sat there for decades grinding on a stone with sand to get it to a precise shape that won’t allow a sheet of paper to fit in between pieces? Or is it easier to believe that they used a technology that is lost to the historical record? Did the ancients smoke the Colorado Kind and dream up vimanas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana ), or did they actually witness flying vehicles that they described to the best of their ability in the Vedic writings?

    Not Stonemasons – This type of construction, IMHO: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d54mdPcObMk/TnwshRBVY4I/AAAAAAAAAYY/jHD6eUC-awM/s1600/puma+pinku+3.jpg

    Stonemasons construction IMHO: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/uploads/3/7/5/9/3759274/5599836_orig.png

  • Phil Paine says:

    I have problems with the CN Tower in Toronto. It is well beyond the technical capabilities of the current civilization inhabiting its site. Torontonian Civilization, as it is known today, cannot manage to fill potholes or keep the subway functioning properly, and it’s mayor is so stupid that he must have difficulty buttoning his shirt. I walked all around the city and asked people how the CN Tower was built, and for what purpose. Nobody knew. I asked a civil engineer working for the city if it could be done today. He said “no way”, that a concrete tower 555.33 meters tall, which would have to have been constructed by a process of continuous concrete pouring on a colossal scale, using a moving slipform that somehow magically changed its shape as it moved — built true to vertical to within 22 millimeters! — is beyond the technological capabilities in Toronto today. Yet archaeologists claim it was built in 1976!

Agree or disagree? Please comment!