reply to post by SteveGarcia
Also, about the dating, you are asking good questions and leaving it at that. I have no qualm with that. If you don't know, admit it and let it go
- but DO leave the question out there with your thoughts on why you aren't happy with the current thinking. I agree with that presentation.
On GE, the alignment of the Kalasasaya appears to be right on 0° with the North Pole (as far as GE can show). The Akapana pyramid seems to be
aligned about 1.75° to 2.00° east of north. This may indicate a crustal shift between the times of their being built. Why they would be right next
to each other and not aligned square to each other makes little sense, though who knows the minds of architects and planners? But if one is aligned
to north, the other should be, too. (The sketch on the linked page is WAY off on the skewed-ness of the Akapana pyramid. The obliquity of the
ecliptic would not affect these, not that I can see. North is still north, and east is still east. The OE only ties to the stars, not to the
geographical rotation of the planet. We can have the same point on the planet as the North Pole, while having a different tilt to our daily
If we consider a 2° shift, that is a small shift, about 90% smaller than what Hapgood or Velikovsky proposed. Is that much shift possible? We
don't know at the present. Science ignores that as a possibility, so those with the tools and infrastructure to research it won't do so. Alternate
researchers can't get permissions for real digs. But as you show, at Tiahuanaco digging may not tell us anything, anyway. I'd like to have been a
fly on the wall when they decided what samples to get for C14 testing. I agree that the chances of the samples being compromised is quite large.
I don't think we presently have an adequate mental framework for dating these sites. There are three bases upon which to date sites - lab tests
(objective, as long as they don't throw out results they don't like - which happens), ceramics (comparative and relative dating), and if they ever
get to it, other technologies (which will be a science of its own some day). Still, too many features and artifacts have yet to be discovered. Too
much is still buried under dirt or sand.
Neither alternate researchers nor archeologists have enough facts available to come to any conclusions. Certainly, though, the technology was beyond
what the western world could have done 200 years ago (and in some cases not even today). This 100% indicates that there was an advanced technological
culture long ago, better than the Romans or any other culture included in "ancient civilization" as taught in our schools. I include the Romans in
modern cultures, but not Egypt, because there was a disconnect between Egyptian pyramid building and the Romans. And any site that predates a history
that ties directly with our own has to be considered differently. And if their technology was higher than 200 years ago, it has to be considered as a
relative equal to our own. Be aware that the original archeologists and Egyptologists thought of them as coming from a superior technological
culture, when in reality the ancients DID HAVE more advanced technology than them, at least in many ways. So, on a scale of technology, the ancients
would be between that of 1800 Europe/America and 2010 Europe/ America. That says a lot for them. Whoever they were.