Tiahuanaco, Puma Punku the real mystery...

page: 5
268
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
In one of the replies a member pointed out that these places might have been next to water, and the same for egypt, stonehenge etc.

So with that, is it possible that the earth tilted at some point during all these civilisations, and so covered some up and then the water ran away from others.

If somebody who can calcualte this using software, would the be able to undo the tilt and see if the sea then comes up to the pyramids and these mayan tamples, and when put back it runs away from them, and covers up the others.

I think I explained what I mean.

If it worked out, it could possibly explain the age and possibly what happened on earth at the time.




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 





But you're saying you have evidence to argue that the carbon dating is contaminated. How? By what? What is the accurate date? What do you mean by contamination causes the results to be older or younger? You don't give a flat out opinion...You go on to talk about Egypt and Elongated skulls, you very clearly start off with:


well for one thing, anyone who lit a torch or made a camp fire since the place was destroyed or threw down trash, is contamination.

no one knew back then about C-14 dating.

1000yrs of people running around there would leave alot of crap.

eta; the skulls for me are unusual and i reserve my opinions.
edit on 26-7-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Great/Awesome thread and work Sir.

I saw this article yesterday and I thought it is important to point out (and visually demostrate) an big point that is often overlooked.

Basically, you (anyone) can only report what you see... (so-to-speak). Check out what happened when Macnu Picchu was "rediscovered" again... The Jungle reclaims quickly---just think of what we aren't seeing or found yet!

Machu Picchu, Before and After Excavation


The ruins of Machu Picchu are covered in jungle growth in this 1911 photograph taken when Yale archaeologist Hiram Bingham first came to the site a century ago this week.



Today the buildings at Machu Picchu are free of the vines and jungle growth that covered them when Bingham first arrived in 1911.




Bingham returned to Machu Picchu in 1912 with a team to begin excavation of the site, and then briefly visited again in 1915 (pictured). During his 1915 trip, Bingham wrote in his journal that he was shocked at how fast the jungle had grown to recover the excavated buildings.



Machu Picchu's ruins are seen neatly excavated in 1997.


Source: news.nationalgeographic.com...#/machu-picchu-before-after-overview-be fore_37750_600x450.jpg



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by game over man
 


But you're saying you have evidence to argue that the carbon dating is contaminated. How? By what? What is the accurate date? What do you mean by contamination causes the results to be older or younger? You don't give a flat out opinion...You go on to talk about Egypt and Elongated skulls, you very clearly start off with:

well for one thing, anyone who lit a torch or made a camp fire since the place was destroyed or threw down trash, is contamination.
no one knew back then about C-14 dating.
1000yrs of people running around there would leave alot of crap.
Please...archaeologists are not stupid. First off, they work off of the maxim "One Date is No Date". Secondly, the material is to be dated must come from a sealed context. They are familiar with the concept of contamination.


Originally posted by Red Cloak
The site has been carbon dated to an age of about 17,680 years. Don't believe any of this nonsense misinformation that gives these much more recent dates. It's just more complete BS to keep the sheeple from asking too many questions.
Considering the amount of effort that Slayer has put into this thread, It would really behoove you to cite your sources on the date you provide. 'Some guy on the net' just won't cut it.
...............

Nice post, Slayer. I don't always agree with your conclusions, but I sure appreciate your efforts. I would suggest that you try to get into some on-line academic sources such as JSTOR so that you can use primary sources instead of secondary ones. Science is not your enemy. S&F for the hard work!


In fact, here's a start...www.scielo.cl...
edit on 26-7-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   


Please...archaeologists are not stupid. First off, they work off of the maxim "One Date is No Date". Secondly, the material is to be dated must come from a sealed context. They are familiar with the concept of contamination.
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


what is a "sealed context"?

and then how the heck would they know if it was original to the site?



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
In one way, the actual date of these places doesn't matter.

The fact is we dont know who done them, why they done them and what they mean, so with that I would hazzard a guess that they are very, very old as they dont fit into any modern way of thinking, and certainly even bypasses the time of what is written in the bible etc.

Its a completely different way of life and so could be a different type of human being.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by multichild
In one way, the actual date of these places doesn't matter.

The fact is we dont know who done them, why they done them and what they mean, so with that I would hazzard a guess that they are very, very old as they dont fit into any modern way of thinking, and certainly even bypasses the time of what is written in the bible etc.

Its a completely different way of life and so could be a different type of human being.

Here's where you find out...
scholar.google.ca...



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Cheers, that shut me up didnt it lol.

Thanks for that, looks like some very interesting stuff.




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I want to thank the OP for providing a real interesting and intelligent report, amazing pictures. I will make sure to check your other threads as well once i find the time. I wish this site had more people like you.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by multichild
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Cheers, that shut me up didnt it lol.
Thanks for that, looks like some very interesting stuff.

OK, so some of it is going to be pretty dense...instead of wading through the data, read the abstract then go to the summary to get a picture of what the study is all about.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Yes will do, but I think what I was getting at is that they seem so different, and if indeed it was 2k years ago, its still very different, and in relation to texts like the bible, the life of these people seems so different.

Their ideologies are different, their way of life, their architecture, its all different.

I understand back in those days they world was a bigger place, but to have one half of the world believing and living one way, and then the other half doing the opposite, it just seems out of place.

I always recognise your posts from your avatar, and you get a lot of respect from the other members, so thank you for replying.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks



Please...archaeologists are not stupid. First off, they work off of the maxim "One Date is No Date". Secondly, the material is to be dated must come from a sealed context. They are familiar with the concept of contamination.
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

what is a "sealed context"?
and then how the heck would they know if it was original to the site?


Basically, archaeology is based upon 'The Law of Stratigraphic Superposition', which holds that barring outside interference, layers on the bottom are older than layers on the top. A sealed context is when that which you have excavated has been there since it was laid down, sandwiched between other identifiable layers, and has not been contaminated by other contexts. Good question, though.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
What can I say but another great thread S&F of course.

Who built it and when it was built is a very interesting question. I do have other questions to add, who destroyed the site, why did they destroy it, what weapons were used in its destruction it, and was it destroyed over time or all at once?

I know the Conquistadores are given credit for the destruction, but more than likely most of the destruction had been done prior to their arrival, though this is only speculation on my part. If it was not the Conquistadores that were the original destroyers of the site, than what was the reason behind the destruction, was it war with another tribe/group? What weapons could have strewn the heavy blocks in the way that they were? If it was by a warring tribe/group, was the destruction done in one battle or over several different occasions?

I have looked up answers to these questions only to find conflicting answers and most just seem to be opinions of people commenting rather than that of experts in the field, if anyone can point me in the direction of expert opinion, it would be greatly appreciated. I will continue my efforts in looking around as well.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
Who built it and when it was built is a very interesting question. I do have other questions to add, who destroyed the site, why did they destroy it, what weapons were used in its destruction it, and was it destroyed over time or all at once?

Has one considered earthquakes? And archaeology can certainly answer questions about the timing and sequence of the destruction.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


The earthquake idea could be right if the fallen pillars havent moved much from their original place.

I dont think an earthquake though would toss a 100 tonne boulder a long way from its original point, as pointed out in some of the images.

I might be wrong though.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
it was created by the giant humanoids that ruled the andes at that point in time. thats if you were to rule out alien technology. then the only other possible reason anyone could have moved or formed those massive megaliths was power and strength they had.

Here is a link that deals with the book 'There were Giants on Earth'.

it may not be word for word but it has a lot of the same scientific research as the book.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


That was certainly one of my considerations, and I am in no way ruling out earthquake activity as a possible inclusion to the destruction, I did not read that in any of the sources I came up with as a possibility. Most of the information I have dug up has to do with who and when it was created, only a few of the ones I came up with delved into it’s destruction, and as I said most of those were opinions on the people who were commenting, not actual experts on the matter. Most of the opinions centered around flood waters causing the damage, but I have not noticed any comments from researchers about erosion on any of the blocks at the site, I may have missed those comments, but without water erosion on the blocks, flooding of the area does not seem a reasonable answer.
Of course the reason for lack of discussion on erosion may be because it would be difficult to determine erosion from rain as opposed to erosion from flood waters, though I am not an expert on erosion, so I am not sure about this.
edit on 7/26/2011 by AlienCarnage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
nice work and while i do not post here much i did a lil extra few hours of research to look at ice ages , water levels and even plate tectonic movement and oddly i come with a conclusion for htose places that are 8-10 miles inland having docks and such that you would need higher water levels. THERE are only TWO periods in the past 130000 years that have these. ONE is aobut 5000-6000 years ago ironically around the time they say the first pyramids were built and then you have to travel back to a period BEFORE the last ice age when water levels were even higher and this coinciding with plate tectonic movement of the south american nazca plate means that its still off by 3-4 miles.

I don't like feeding conspiracies but either the data we have of these high periods is off a bit OR maybe the plates movement was different. BUT if you look into it you will see what i mean, and taking into consideration all facets you can see that any place with a port inland has to be VERY VERY old in fact removing tectonics the last time water levels would have reached either the quoted Egyptian OR south American areas was literally 25 million years ago and man did not even exist.

160 mm nazca movement per anum and 5000 years - 6000 years ago sea level was about 10-15 metres higher 30-45 feet , it don't fit BUT 130,000 years comes awful close only out by a few miles.IT does however literally fit the Egyptian places oddly....NOW one idea might be that on top of horizontal movement we need to think about vertical movement and i haven't yet looked at that and how the mountain rages and heights would be different
SO in conclusion its possible that if the area was LOWER and closer you got that solved and some civilization lived there and perhaps when the super volcano went off and almost destroyed all life ( we got down to as few as 10-30K humans ) that may have really been the event we all are looking for that wiped out a lot of the civs of the past.

One has to think how far we have come in the past 10,000 years of written knowledge. WHAT if an asteroid or another super volcano had of happened 5000 years ago , and there were only 30000 people left , would we be having this discussion?

the piris reis map , new finds of our species existing in china and africa as far back as 300-400,000 years? LIKE you all realize that there at that time was 2 other races of humans as well. OUR ability to get along and build larger communities is what saved us all. THE greek legends of titans and the South Americans of giants may have been remnants of neanderthals ....THEY did eat others and were often said to be canabalistic ( aka the myth of cronus eating zeus ) oddly that myth kinda resembles what we now know that both races intermixed and took the best parts of each.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


SLAYER69

You need to bring back your proper title.

I dont like the simple, Writer.

You sir have taught me more about Ancient history than all my years combined at school.

You are a treasure to this site.

I thank you for the time you take to keep people informed and educated.

I pray for all my relations.

Peace and love.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Love your threads! you always have pics. that i have never seen..along with some that i have! Thank you and excellent job as always!






top topics



 
268
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join