Some monuments correlate with a certain ancient pole, and show no signs of solstice-related use. This means that it is harder to prove the antiquity that we claim. For example, if an ancient monument is oriented to one of the ancient poles, we can express this “hit” in a certain probability and therefore also the probability of the claimed age.
When a site is reoriented after each crustal deformation, we can track this back with a correlation factor. This means that newer buildings are oriented in a slightly different angle, to the newer pole position. The higher the correlation factor, the higher the probability that the site indeed follows the already proven pole positions.
The probability of one monument may vary between 75% and 95% depending of the location of the site. The probability of one site with multiple monuments can go up to 99.9999% correlation.
When a monument holds more keys – like clear stone arrangements that point to solstice angles that specifically belong to another latitude, hence to the pole it is oriented to – we have found a much higher probability of its true age. We can also express this in a probability factor and that depends on the complexity of the stone arrangements. This has to be looked at for every specific site or monument. For that we need reliable and accurate plans of a site, to study them thoroughly, and to perform our method in all details, and publish our conclusions.
This time we will be looking at Bonampak in Mexico. Bonampak is a small site in Mexico. The orientation pattern of this site seems chaotic and this seemingly chaotic orientation pattern has always been a mystery for archaeologists. In our database Bonampak is only mentioned once. And that is the main structure that is oriented at +33°. Nevertheless, Bonampak appears to correlate with the migrating pole in the same way as Chichen Itza does.
Typical Building Style
Graffiti Made by the “Overtakers”
Fact Sheet
| Country | Mexico |
| Location | 16.7040N, 91.0650W |
| Orientation | +33°, orientation of the largest monument on the site. However, archaeological maps show a wider range of orientations between -43° and 43°. The site was reoriented after a series of crustal deformations. |
| Pole correlation (I to V) | Yes, Pole III, IV and V |
| Probability of Pole correlation, 1st analysis | 99.9881%[1] |
| Current solstice angle | ±24.6° |
| Solstice angle Pole III, IV and V | ±27.2° (III), ±28.7° (IV), ±31.8° (V) [2] |
| Solstice related constructions? | Not examined. The claim of age is sufficiently proven. |
| Probability of Pole correlation, 2nd analysis | Not increased: 99.9881% |
| Age | The original age of the construction is between 210,000 and 345,000 BCE. Probability of the claim 99.6%.[3] |
| Excavated? | Partially. Some parts of the site were excavated between 1993 and 1997. However, the site had until recently been in use by the “Mayans.” Because of this intensive use of the site during all of its existence, most of the structures are left clear of soil coverage. The site was probably also renovated on top of the older constructions by later peoples. |
Map of Bonampak
Correlations With Very Ancient Poles
| Orientation (°) | Number of Monuments oriented like this | Which Pole? | Number of Monuments oriented to this Pole |
| -43 | 1 | – | |
| +16 | 1 | Pole III | 1 |
| +20 | 1 | Pole IV | 1 |
| +24 | 1 | Pole IV | 1 |
| +26 | 1 | – | – |
| +27 | 1 | – | – |
| +31 | 1 | Pole V | 1 |
| +33 | 3 | Pole V | 3 |
| +34 | 1 | Pole V | 1 |
| +37 | 2 | Pole V | 2 |
| +40 | 1 | – | – |
| +41 | 1 | – | – |
| +43 | 1 | Pole VI* | – |
| 16 | 10 |
Strong Correlation With Very Ancient Poles
The asterisk denotes that Pole VI is still unproven. We cannot claim that this building is pointing to an ancient Pole VI, because we still don’t know for sure where this pole was located. So, this monument is pointing to “nowhere” for now, thus keeping our probability calculations “honest” by suppressing the total.
The orientation pattern of Bonampak is overwhelmingly clockwise, a phenomenon that cannot be attributed to chance simply because the odds are too small. This begs the question – why is that so and what happened? The answer is simply incredible: it follows a periodically migrating geographic pole. Because the crust probably deforms due to a highly eccentric orbit around the Sun, the spin axis (the geo pole) migrates because of these crustal deformations. There might be more causes involved in this crustal deformation process. We have a small team of experts who are working on understanding this deformation mechanism.
There are some monuments here that are oriented between fixed pole positions. What is our answer to that? The migration of the pole proceeds so slowly that there is plenty of time, centuries or maybe even millennia, to built a monument that was pointing to a pole that was not yet stabilized.
During periods of crustal unrest, the geo pole moves between 8 and 14 m/year. Seen from the perspective of Bonampak, that would be an average orientational movement of (their ancient) True North of around 0.1° per millennium. That is slow but in the long term it is incredibly disruptive. If this would be happening today, with humanity’s fancy tools and satellites, there would be a lot of confusion (and theories).
The current scientific community has convinced itself to believe that Homo sapiens has built monuments only for some 10,000 years. But Homo sapiens has been walking around on this planet for more than 300,000 years. And then suddenly they did everything during 3% of their existence? We have proven with our method that humanity was very active during their entire existence on this planet. We are certain that they encountered multiple cataclysms which led to an almost eradication of our species.
A stable crust creates an environment in which civilizations can develop very slowly, but an unstable crust disrupts civilizations also very slowly, almost unnoticeably. The processes are so subtle that neither archaeology nor geology have found any of the clues that we have found. The best traces are ancient monuments. They work like compasses, not only a handful, but hundreds of them – all around the world.
Powerful Mathematical Method
Mathematically speaking, there is as much a chance for a monument to be counterclockwise-oriented as there is a chance for it to be clockwise oriented. But that is obviously not the case. Bonampak is overwhelmingly clockwise oriented, hence, it is pointing to pole locations that are no longer in existence.
Additionally, it appears that the seemingly chaotic orientation pattern follows our discovered pole locations, not all, but the majority is, and that is a major jackpot. We found the same reorientation pattern already at Chichen Itza, also in Mexico. The chances for the orientation patterns of Bonampak to follow coincidentally the pole locations are very small: 1 to 8,400. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The site was also reoriented during periods of crustal unrest. That again is a great discovery!
Bonampak has very ancient roots. We are 99.6% certain that the site of Bonampak is originally between 210,000 and 440,000 years old. The city has been in use for more than 200,000 years. Bonampak appears to have been abandoned after the last reorientation to Pole III. That is really much different from the archaeological claims that the city is not older than some 2,000 years. Our claim is backed up by indisputable mathematics, a feat that time after time may surprise many.
Global View on the Situation
[1]: In our method we have proven that a square or rectangular building can be only uniquely oriented 45° clockwise and 45° counterclockwise. From the perspective of Bonampak there is a 18.7% chance for one monument to “hit” one of the five poles by coincidence if the builders just oriented a monument haphazardly or to conform to local geography. That would mean that coincidentally only 3 of the 16 monuments on Bonampak would correlate with the Poles I to V. Yet, we have found 10 monuments that correlate with the 5 poles. The probabilities are calculated with the binomial formula: 1÷(16!÷(16−10)!÷10!×(16,8÷90)¹⁰×((90−16,8)÷90)⁶) = 1 to 8,398. This means that the orientation patterns of Bonampak that match with the Poles I to V can be the result of coincidence but the chances are incredibly small, only 0.0119%. We are 99.9881% certain that Bonampak indeed correlates with our proven pole locations.
[2]: The distances between the location of Pole III, IV, and V and the location of Bonampak results in another solstice angle from what we have today. That means, according to our method, that the solstice angles should be checked with key dimensions of a structure. The solstice angle is calculated from the ancient latitude with the formula: asin(sin(tilt spin axis)÷cos(latitude)) = asin(sin(23.5)÷cos(40.8)) = 31.8°±10% (23.5 is the average tilt angle of the spin axis of the earth, and 40.8 is the ancient latitude of Bonampak for Pole V).
[3]: Where does the number 99.6% come from? This is the most conservative probability for the pole sequence I to V to match the ice core data. We have presented higher numbers than this, but because this is the most careful number, we decided to use this probability. We have calculated the ages of the poles by using ice core data from Antarctica.
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.
Contact: buildreps@gmail.com
2 Responses
Hi Eric, thank you for your proposal. There might be a little glitch in your reasoning.:) Building -2° is oriented at an angle of +47° in the direction close to Pole VI. But our method does not support larger than +45° or smaller than -45°. The difference in orientation between both buildings is 4°. If you look closer to the map you can see they are not similarly oriented. Thank you very much for thinking along with us. Much appreciated.
There was a little error in our data. The structure that was mentioned as -2° is oriented at -43°. That might have led to your interpretation, Eric. The error is now corrected. It has no consequence for the other data.