Roman Mystery in Elsbach Lignite Pit by Louis Hissink

Eva Hagedorn, a German scientist, studied a section of the Garzweiler Lignite mine stratigraphy and chemistry during the 1990’s and published a summary online at her website.

A captioned photograph of “Parts of the Roman Water pipeline in Profile FR126” is published, but with no comment in the text.

Figure 1 – Parts of the Roman Water pipeline in Profile FR126

Putting this in geological context

Figure 2 – Stratigraphy


Figure 3 – Longitudinal View of, one assumes, the lowest section of the cross-section

This Roman water works is not buried under colluvium, but under, ahem, Miocene stratigraphy.

It’s location in the cross section seems to be wee white features above the basal orange Devonian strata. I think, because no one seems to want to discuss this anachronism.

The Romans did not bury this aqueduct as is commonly believed.

Instead this aqueduct was engulfed in a massive deposit of sediments and lignite.

A previous discussion of this was posted here.

There’s more than a 2000 year Heinsohn Hiatus here, and my guess is that the Roman period was terminated by the Tertiary tectonic event.


A crucial fact is how one thinks.

Religious minds tend to see what they believe, and hence when confronted with the fact of Miocene sediments overlying Roman water works will, to avoid cognitive dissonance, conclude the Romans dug the water works under the Miocene sediments.

The scientific mind, on the other hand, believes what it sees, and concludes that the Roman waterworks were buried under a dumping of sediment.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Geology, Guest Authors, Heinsohn Horizon, History. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Roman Mystery in Elsbach Lignite Pit by Louis Hissink

  1. Carsten says:

    Buried aquaduct… the watermain for my house is buried under 1m of soil which is regulated by law. Guess the Romans had had the time to find how deep their watermains needed being buried to be frost free.
    Clearly a case of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil…
    Just report it and hope no silly journalist asks the obvious question…

  2. Tim,

    Oh that’s better, you have a more detailed blowup of the “white blobs” in FR125.

    Bear in mind that the aqueduct is in FR126, but as the photograph was taken at the bottom of the pit, assuming basement being Devonian, and the sediments are conventionally dated as “Holocene”, the aqueduct remains an inexplicable anachronism for the mainstream settled science mob.

    Romans would not have buried aqueducts to make them frost free but simply put a roof or cover over them. Obviously the aqueducts up source from Cologne, the Eifel system, had to cross valleys and frost problems were not present in these exposed waterways over creeks and channels?

    It’s arguing the consequent again, the aqueducts are buried hence they were put there to avoid frost effects, when the alternative is that the aqueducts were in the open and then buried by a deluge of sediment. The spectre of a deluge is too much for settled science as it revives religious fundamentalism and it’s authority the Old Testament and the short chronology, anathema to settled science. The long chronology is but the fiction of Creation stretched on the rack of politics, as case of having one’s cake and also being able to eat it.

  3. Pingback: The Miocene Mysteries | MalagaBay

  4. Pingback: Serbian Sands Shred Settled Science | MalagaBay

  5. Pingback: Academic Heresy Protocols – Ignore The Heretic | Louis Hissink's Crazy World

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.