Originally posted by undo
In addition, both Puma Punku and Tiwanaku have red sandstone, but Puma Punku's H stones, are not red sandstone.
As the guy mentions in the video, they are andecite and sandstone. Andecite, from what I can
tell, is a form of granite, albeit softer than granite. It's only one step below granite
gneiss on moh's hardness scale. It's about mid way the hardness scale, harder than limestone,
softer than granite.
Pumapunku is considered part of Tiwanaku because it is part of Tiwanaku, as are several other structures in the area:
The buildings that have been excavated include the Akapana, Akapana East, and Pumapunku stepped platforms, the Kalasasaya, the Kheri Kala, and Putuni
enclosures, and the Semi-Subterranean Temple. These are the structures that are visible to the modern visitor.
The source of the andesite is surmised to be an ancient andesite quarry in the Copacabana peninsula:
Based upon detailed petrographic and chemical analyses of samples from both individual stones and known quarry sites, archaeologists concluded that
these and other red sandstone blocks were transported up a steep incline from a quarry near Lake Titicaca roughly 10 km away. Smaller andesite blocks
that were used for stone facing and carvings came from quarries within the Copacabana Peninsula about 90 km away from and across Lake Titicaca from
the Pumapunka and the rest of the Tiwanaku Site. (5)
Regarding Moh's hardness scale, it is not an appropriate measure for the ease of workability for any
For example, most would agree that sandstone would be easier to carve than diorite, right? But on Moh's scale, diorite registers in at
5.5 to 6
while sandstone comes in at
6.5 to 7.
Regarding White's errors, yes there are some I've noticed as well. In his reply to (I believe it was) Philip Coppens, he states that the Great
Pyramid is made of sandstone, a egregious error. Also, like you, I never liked the "of princely blood" interpretation of the offspring of Anu.
On the other hand, no Sumerian claimed that the Anunna came literally out of the sky. The Anunna, along with the Igigi, were here from the
You're aware that the Greeks had a similar story about the sky mating with the Earth to create the Titans (I believe it was the titans - maybe their
predecessors.) This seems to be a similar myth. But the "Ki" part of "Anunnaki" can be as easily read as "In Mesopotamia" as "and Earth" in
the translation "The sons of the sky and the Earth." "Ki" was their name for the land they lived in, not for the entire planet.
For those who decry White's evangelical background, I have to say that I find it appalling that people here should think that a person should simply
keep quiet about lies that are told weekly on television. Are we saying that only atheists have any standing to refute bald-faced lies? You know,
Michael Heiser is extensively used in that film. Heiser's no evangelical. He a linguist.
You think White's motives corrupt his facts, then you need to discover the facts for yourself (not you
in particular here Undo!) On my own, I
already knew everything I've seen in the clips from "AA Debunked" so far. What will I be accused of (other than being a government shill - which
cracks me up and has already happened here multiple times.) Who will determine that my
motives have corrupted the facts i present?
The very idea is the essence of idiocy. Look for yourself, is my advice. You'll find that White's work is valid.