Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by SLAYER69
I think there's another one from BBC or something. Research it a bit.
Nothing has been proven. Skull morphology on a single sample (even Gonzales claims that Penon Woman doesn't resemble the Pericu tribe she's
associated with) cannot establish ancestry.
Dr. Gonzalez also pointed out in 2001 that, based on her skull measurements, the Penon woman (and by implication also the Pericu and Guaycura) were
not related to modern Amerind populations but instead had affiliations with Australians. She then announced plans to do DNA analyses of the Pericu,
saying that she thought the result "would be a scientific bomb". Unfortunately, until early 2007, the bomb has failed to go off and all parties (pros
as well as cons) are left standing aroundwith their quarrels stopped in mid-argument, waiting for the lady. Come ON Dr. Gonzalez, be speedy!
These findings support the scientists' theory that both the first Americans, who arrived at least 12,000 years ago, and the first Australians, who
showed up down under around 40,000 years ago, have a common root in southern Asia. A second wave of American settlers, the ancestors of
present-day Native Americans, immigrated from northeastern Asia a mere several thousand years ago, Gonzalez-Jose's group concludes in the Sept. 4
So, if the Pericu or Penon Woman seem Australian, it is believed that they may have a common ancestral root with the peoples that eventually
migrated to Australia. That is, they and their ancestors were not necessarily ever from
Australia. But they had family that eventually moved
there. Or something. Possibly.
Again, DNA should tell.
Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
Why is it with all these ancient sites there is always a copycat site nearby trying to back engineer, with craftsmen ship which is very much what we
would have expected for that time period, or what they "should" have been capable of back then, we don't even have cranes today that could lift most
of these stones
There is no stone that we know of that was ever quarried that couldn't be lifted by some
crane in use today in the world. I realize the claim
is a common one and that you're likely just repeating what you read somewhere.
But just because it got printed somewhere or stated on a television program, that doesn't make it true.
I've provided links to info on cranes that could do it before. If you can't bring yourself to try to find a capable crane using google, maybe you can
turn up those old links that I and others have posted here. The point is, it's easy enough to find this info and thus establish that what you read
and believed was just wrong.
Diorite bowl from Egypt predating
Tiahuanaco by 6,000 years
The Rosetta Stone is carved diorite (but much much later than that bowl)
Egyptian diorite vase from 5,000 years before Tiahuanaco
Hammurabi's Code was inscribed on a polished diorite stele
Originally posted by piotrburz
reply to post by Majestic Lumen
Ancient Aliens is pretty biased in favor of people like Daniken.
And i checked a whole topic, one member mentioned red sandstone. I also believe it have to be sandstone.
Sculpting in granite could take even several years maybe even a time of lifespan.
To discuss this further, we need to know what material was used. There must be some bibliography covering this issue.
Note that the Rosetta stone and the pic of stele containing Hammurabi's code were not just chunks of diorite that were carved on. They were sawn into
flat steles and finely polished as well.
Andesite is similar to diorite and granite. People werre carving art from diorite millenia before Tiahuanaco,
They didn't have diamond-tipped tools either.
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.
Talk about BS!
Didn't Slayer tell us where the older date came from?
Here's one report of C14 dates at the site and surrounding area:
You can find it, along with other info, HERE.
Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by game over man
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.
But the original inhabitants wouldn't have left a single trace of carbon?
You're claiming here that every single sample in the above report was ciontaminated.
It ain't New York City. Not exactly millions of people runnin' around contaminating samples.
Besides, you're also assuming that archaeologists have no idea how to perform their science. The fact is, the site has been studied intensely for
decades now and much is known of the culture of the time.
Also, no matter how many campfires the rude contaminators built, I bet none of them were built under the stones that make up the city itself,
yet some of the C14 dates come from under these stones.
I see the canuck already said all this so I'll shut up now until I can finished reading what's been posted since I was here last.
edit on 7/27/2011 by Harte because: combining posts