once I was walking around in the woods in central park and I found a hobo cabin. the park is pretty well patrolled so I'm not sure how it managed to stay up. reminded me of the cabin in the first friday the 13th movie so I noped tf out of there.

we’ve got a large development in the outer boroughs, apartment complex with your typical 80% ami bs

its a large project so we have plenty of investment from the city and are trying to get some tax credits for low-income units

needless to say, from my understanding, this project has been in the pipeline for too long and we’re just now breaking ground in August

Everyone is highstrung and there’s a lot of shit to do in order to get moving on this, so when I come on I don’t really get much direction and if im not busy being the office bitch I’m fucking off on 4chan or something

Around October, I notice John and the construction manager, an old hardass we’ll call Bill, are acting strange

don’t get me wrong, people working at this firm aren’t exactly what you’d call the life of the party, but even for prolapsed suits these guys were much more surly and standoffish, especially to each other

it all came to a head when I heard yelling in the conference room between John and Bill and I saw John storm out. Being the nosey, sniveling, brown noser I am I peeked my head in to ‘check-in’ on Bill and he gives me dagger eyes and yells at me to gtfo and get back to work

fast forward to next Monday and an email goes out that John has left the company. All of his shit is still there, it’s like they rushed him out

everything I’m telling you from now on is from his emails with Bill and an archeologist they brought on sometime in September when they found something.

I'm posting the emails in the chain. They're edited for anonymity.

From: John
To: Bill
Mon, Aug 18, 1:47 PM Re: Regarding Development Site Finding
From: Bill
To: John
CC: Garreth
Date: Mon, Aug 18, 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Development Site Finding
John,
Saw your note come through.
Before this turns into a “thing,” we need to keep this scoped and internal. What the crew hit looks like old masonry and debris—nothing that changes the critical path unless we let it.
My recommendation:
Pause work only within the immediate footprint (Grid C-4 to C-6) for 24 hours max.


Keep the rest of the site moving (utilities trenching + staging).


No photos posted, no calls made outside this thread.


I’ll have the foreman document the obstruction as “unmapped subsurface condition” and we’ll route through standard RFI.


Garreth—happy to give you a controlled look, but we can’t have an open-ended hold. We’re under schedule and we have daily burn.
John, tell me what you want on the ground this afternoon.
—Bill
Construction Manager

From: Garreth
To: John
CC: Bill
Date: Mon, Aug 18, 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Development Site Finding
John,
Thank you for looping me in.
I want to be direct: if your team has uncovered intact masonry or structured stonework that is not consistent with modern fill, you may be looking at a significant cultural resource—possibly pre-colonial or otherwise undocumented. The phrase “unknown ancient city” is not one I use lightly, but the preliminary description you gave (coursed stone, aligned foundation edge, ceramic fragments) is enough to warrant an immediate halt within the discovery area until proper assessment occurs.
A few urgent points:
Do not disturb further. Continued excavation can destroy context irreversibly.


Secure the location. Limit access; do not allow souvenir collection.


Document properly. Photographs, GPS points, soil stratigraphy notes (even basic) are crucial.


Compliance risk. Depending on your permitting and funding sources, there may be legal obligations (state historic preservation review, municipal requirements, etc.). Even absent those, reputational risk is real.


I can be on site today within two hours with a graduate assistant and basic field kit. If what you have is what I suspect, the prudent course is a short, controlled survey to determine significance and boundaries. That does not mean months of delay automatically—but it does mean you should not “push through” before you know what you’re breaking.
Bill: I understand schedule pressures. Archaeology does not have to be the enemy of development, but “24 hours max” without assessment is not a plan—it's an accident waiting to happen.
John, please confirm:
Current site address / gate access


Whether any artifacts have already been removed


The exact grid coordinates / trench line


Best,
Garreth

>—
lol
lmao
even

From: John
To: Garreth
CC: Bill
Date: Mon, Aug 18, 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Development Site Finding

Hi Dr,

Currently, we've stopped any demolition/construction efforts and will have some workers mark down within the site where, exactly, they uncovered the structure. I am sure you're well aware of the time constraints we have on a development of this size, as you're no stranger to working with developers. I'd like to move forward with staging in the least intrusive way possible. I suggest Bill, the foreman, and I go down to the site to take a look with you. Are you able to get there by 4:00 PM today?

Best,
John

From: Bill
To: John
Date: Mon, Aug 18, 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Development Site Finding
John,
Understood.
I’ll head down with the foreman now and make sure the area is flagged and fenced cleanly. We’ll keep equipment staged outside the marked zone and continue prep work where we can without drawing attention.
Just to be clear on next steps: whatever we show Dr should be limited to what’s already exposed. No widening trenches, no “curiosity scraping.” If he needs more, that’s a separate conversation with Legal and Exec.
I’ll also remind the crew—again—no photos, no talk. This doesn’t leave the site.
See you there.
—Bill

From: Garreth
To: John
CC: Bill
Date: Mon, Aug 18, 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Development Site Finding
John,
Yes—I can be there by 4:00 PM.
I appreciate you stopping work and marking the discovery area. That’s the right first step. Walking the site together makes sense, and I’m glad the foreman will be present; firsthand accounts from the excavation team are often more informative than photos alone.
A few expectations to align us before I arrive:
I will need to visually inspect the exposed features without further disturbance.


If diagnostic materials (ceramics, worked stone) are already loose, I may ask to examine them in situ.


I will give you a preliminary assessment on site—not a formal report, but an honest read on significance and risk.


To be candid: if this is what I suspect, “least intrusive staging” will only work after we establish boundaries. Otherwise, you’re staging blind.
Bill—thank you for securing the area. I’m not here to grandstand or shut down your project. I am here to prevent irreversible loss and, frankly, to keep all of us out of trouble later.
Please text me the site address and gate instructions when you have a moment.
See you shortly,
Garreth

From: John
To: Garreth
CC: Bill
Date: Mon, Aug 18, 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Development Site Finding

Hi Dr.,

Thank you for coming out today on such short notice. I hope you found the facilities up to standard! It is my interpretation that some of the structures can be dated back to more recent development in the 1960’s? Specifically, the upper layers. It seems from initial analysis, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we should be able to continue with staging?

Best,
John

From: Garreth
To: John
CC: Bill
Date: Mon, Aug 18, 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Development Site Finding
John,
Thank you for having me on site.
You are correct that the uppermost disturbance layer shows clear evidence of mid-20th-century activity—likely related to the 1960s regrading we discussed. However, I want to be very careful about how that observation is used.
Beneath that layer, the stonework we observed is not consistent with modern construction or known historic development in the area. The masonry alignment, mortar absence, and ceramic fragments recovered from the lower context strongly suggest a much earlier occupation. At this stage, I would characterize it as previously undocumented.
To be explicit:
Limited staging may continue outside the marked boundary we walked, provided there is no additional subsurface disturbance.


Any excavation, grading, or piling within or adjacent to the exposed features should remain paused.


I strongly recommend a short (5–7 day) controlled assessment to establish extent, depth, and significance.


I realize this is not the answer you were hoping for, but proceeding without clarifying what lies beneath would be a serious mistake—scientifically, ethically, and potentially legally.
If helpful, I can draft a brief, neutral memo summarizing my preliminary findings for your internal review tomorrow morning.
Best regards,
Garreth

>>41671293
I’ve seen these bot posts before. /x/ must be on to something if they’re spending this much effort mucking up the catalog.

From: Bill
To: John
Date: Mon, Aug 18, 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Development Site Finding
John,
From an operations standpoint, here’s where we landed today:
Upper fill = junk layer, confirmed.


The deeper stuff is confined tighter than it looked this morning.


We can reroute staging and keep crews productive if we draw a hard line and stick to it.


Garreth’s right that we shouldn’t touch the exposed footprint for now, but there’s no reason the entire site needs to go cold. If we formalize the boundary he marked and treat it as a temporary exclusion zone, we stay moving.
My suggestion:
Green-light staging everywhere else first thing tomorrow.


No written memos beyond internal notes unless required.


Revisit the “assessment” conversation once we see if this actually extends past that corner.


We don’t gain anything by escalating this prematurely.
Call me if you want to talk it through before morning.
—Bill

From: John
To: Bill
Date: Tues, Aug 19, 8:53 AM
Subject: Development Timeline

Good morning Bill,

Thank you for the call last night. It seems like we might be in for more than a week delay. You know as well as I do that we need to get the ball rolling on this site development. I don't want to get into trouble with the state regarding this site but I also know the higher-ups are getting impatient with the delays. Can you loop in legal to see our options? I don't want to bulldoze any history but I'd also like to break ground before winter.

Thank you,
John

From: Bill
To: John
CC: Marissa
Date: Tue, Aug 19, 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Development Timeline
Morning John,
Understood—and agreed, we’re threading a needle here.
I’ve looped in Marissa (Legal) to get a read on exposure and options. From my end, there are a few paths we can realistically consider, depending on how conservative we want to be:
Containment strategy: Treat the flagged area as a protected anomaly, document that it’s isolated, and proceed elsewhere. This buys time without triggering a formal review unless something expands.


Documentation-first approach: Limited, contractor-controlled documentation to establish boundaries without initiating a full archaeological process.


Formal notification: Cleanest legally, but you already know that’s the slowest and most visible route.


The key variable is whether Garreth’s preliminary assessment rises to a level that requires state involvement, or whether we still have discretion at this stage. My read is we’re not past that line yet—but Legal will confirm.
In the meantime, crews are ready to move as soon as we give the word. If we want to break ground before winter, we’ll need clarity this week.
Marissa—adding context below. Happy to jump on a call anytime today.
—Bill

>>41671357
>/x/ must be on to something
/x/ is never onto anything. there's just no moderation here because they're probably all too busy jerking each other off in the nobody general, so no one deletes these barely high school-tier creative writing projects. there's a thread about the moon being made of beans for fuck's sake.

From: Garreth
To: John
Date: Tue, Aug 19, 9:36 AM
Subject: Follow-Up from Site Visit
John,
I wanted to follow up directly after reflecting on yesterday’s visit.
I understand the pressure you’re under—timelines, capital, winter weather. I’ve worked with developers long enough to know those constraints are real. That said, I would be remiss if I didn’t put one thing on the record with you, plainly and professionally:
If heavy ground disturbance resumes before the extent of the lower-context structures is established, there is a very real chance that something of genuine historical importance will be destroyed without ever being recognized for what it is.
I’m not suggesting you “bulldoze history,” as you put it—but the margin between diligence and regret can be very thin in cases like this.
A short, controlled assessment now may feel like a delay. Discovering later—through a third party or an accidental exposure—that something significant was missed would be far worse for everyone involved.
I remain available to help you find a path that allows progress and preserves what deserves preserving.
Best,
Garreth

From: John
To: Garreth
Date: Tue, Aug 19, 10:00 AM Subject:
Re: Follow-Up from Site Visit

Hello Dr.,

Thank you for the follow-up email. As you know we are behind schedule and I know you're well aware of these kinds of situations. You're right I don't want to 'bulldoze history' but I am under pressure. I'm not exactly sure about the magnitude of the situation. I know from what I've heard at least this could be some kind of 'city' or town from the pre-colonial era? Could you give me a bit more context as to what you think this place could be? I know you mentioned a utopia of some kind. I can also meet you at the site by 11:00 AM today.

Best,
John

From: Garreth
To: John
Date: Tue, Aug 19, 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Follow-Up from Site Visit
John,
I appreciate your candor, and I don’t take lightly the position you’re in.
Let me clarify what I meant—especially the remark you’re referencing. When I used the word “utopian” yesterday, I was describing a pattern we occasionally encounter in archaeology: deliberately planned settlements that do not align with known regional models of the period we expect them to belong to.
What we saw suggests:
Intentional urban layout, not ad hoc habitation—aligned stone courses, consistent spacing, and orientation that doesn’t track with colonial or post-colonial grids.


Material culture (the ceramics and worked stone) that does not match catalogued pre-colonial traditions in this immediate region, nor early European construction.


Stratigraphic separation that indicates the structure predates the 20th-century disturbance by a considerable margin.
To be clear: I am not saying this is for certain. I am saying that, if my initial read is correct, this site could challenge existing assumptions about settlement in this area. That’s rare—and once it’s gone, it’s gone.
Meeting at 11:00 AM works for me. If we walk the boundary again, I can point out exactly what raises these flags and what wouldn’t require further attention. My goal isn’t to stall your project—it’s to prevent an irreversible mistake that neither of us could undo later.
See you shortly,
Garreth

From: Bill
To: John
Date: Tue, Aug 19, 10:31 AM
Subject: Quick Sync Before 11
John,
One quick note before you head back out there.
Garreth’s smart and well-meaning, but remember his incentives are different from ours. “Could challenge assumptions” is academic language—it doesn’t automatically translate to regulatory obligation.
Legal’s initial take (off the record) is that until there’s formal documentation or notification, we still control how this unfolds. Once something is framed as “significant,” we lose that control.
I’m not saying ignore him. I am saying be careful about how much weight you give preliminary interpretations in writing or on site. Words matter here.
Let’s talk after your walk.
—Bill

After this I don’t really see much concerning the site, I know as of now we’ve not laid any foundation and it’s basically still in pre-development.

Ehh, was kind of interested in seeing where this larp went but reading all the back and forth emails is too much effort.

slop thread

I already know friendo, NYC is new Babylon. Entrance is prob grand Central station, or under the pond in central park. I'll bring my scuba gear, I hail from cape Breton Island, Canada. Long live capital steez

>>41671307
Fuck off glowie

>>41672435
>is Namefag
>is Retarded
Every time

A lot of NY homeless live in the undreground storm drains.

>be me
>work in construction
>never seen mgmt emails typed that formally
>larp confirmed

>>41671293
Nope. The ground under new York was a big problem when the Netherlands (Holland) founder it. Clay, sand, bedrock and of course bags of water. That's why all the rubble, dirt, shit from a century of a cities waste, millions of tons of a junkyard were deposed in the ground under New-York even before the industrial era. In its nature, the ground beneath new York is a swamp area. They had to use said waste and junk to get the ground solid, to build stuff on it. Something beneath that swampy ground? A city? Forget it.

Shit larp, bro.

>>41671328
lmao nice catch

File: 1765022158732127.jpg (3.08 MB, 2500x3053)

3.08 MB JPG

>>41671293
Fun fact lots of NYC is built on trash
The pink sections around the coast are all landfill from trash and debris

>>41671293
Niggas used to post their mid-tier spooky fics here after they screamed and drank and smoked and stayed awake for 30 hours and their fingernails bled because they WROTE IT THEIR DAMN SELF.
I feel bad for young niggas, man