elcome to the first of a new 3 part series I’ve been working on. I know from private messages and onsite in thread inquiries some of you
have been waiting patiently. This first part of the three will be about Peru. The other two main locations and related sites will be equally
interesting and as mysterious. We will be in South America once again to investigate and discuss another enigma of sorts. We will be discussing ruins
located near a well-known site that possibly date back before the Incas. A site that the Incas themselves thought of as sacred. I believe it may
sometime in the future prove to be evidence of a lost forgotten or unknown ancient culture/civilization.
As most of you already know I have written many threads on such locations often pointing out the masterful designs and
engineering of our supposedly primitive ancient ancestors. This mysterious site seems to show similarities to other locations in Peru and Bolivia but
often the other locations were considered ancient and sacred to the Inca. Often as if they recognized and acknowledged their mysterious origins with
respect for those who came before them.
I've tried to answer some serious questions as to why many of these South American locations show such dramatic similarities with other early cultures
and civilizations such as Egypt, Mexico, and Sumerian etc. in celestial alignments, stories of creation and of course stone cutting and construction
As is the case at sites such as these we find evidence of a much, much older and often more advanced culture or civilization at the lower buried
levels. Or, we find what appears to be very ancient prehistoric Megalithic standing stones. In my thread
Tiahuanaco, Puma Punku the real mystery
I tried to present the very real fact that the
site when originally explored looked completely different from how many see it to day.
As you can see in the above image from my previous thread. The site looked very much like an Ancient megalithic astronomically aligned location.
Viewed in that context it's not hard to understand the possibility of a much older now forgotten history. Are we prepared to explore and understand
that we may have to rewrite our understanding of our past?
I'm well aware that for many when viewing such ancient sites comes away with the belief they had Alien contact or influence. This is a presently
popular thought. I'll be presenting what I find mysterious and once again leave it up to you as to whether that is the case or not. I do have to ask
that when discussing a possible lost civilization why some seem to despise the idea that our ancestors may have possessed some knowledge that we have
lost or have relatively recently reacquired in the past 2,000 years.
If sites are shown to be aligned with certain locations or to have certain similarities with other ancient cultures/civilizations many will argue and
attribute it to being an accident or coincidences while others as proof of a unifying ancient Alien connection. I ask, Could this not also be proof of
these ancient people being the remnants of a much older now lost and forgotten history of man? If not our direct ancestors how about possibly another
very closely related off shoot of our hominid line? Could they have preceded Homo sapiens?
I tried to come to grips with this conjecture in Who Were the Ancient Megalithic
It's an interesting hypotheses to entertain I know. Some saw validity in the topic others scoffed. So be it.
Let us begin.
By now many are already familiar with the Peruvian site known as
. I'll include this link to a very
. I'd like you to take a moment and look at it very closely. You'll notice two types of stone work. The very large titanic
expertly worked and placed blocks and much smaller lower quality more manageable filler stones. Obviously, nowhere near the same quality. We see this
same pattern throughout Peru and Bolivia.
again, we see the same type of contrast between the larger expertly cut and
placed stones with lower quality ones either placed on top or adjacent to them. Now, View the following two High Resolution images, first this one
. If you look closely you'll notice some small filler
stones placed to fill gaps in the much larger stones. Also, I know it's hard to see but if you scroll to the very top right you'll see the extremely
large controversial carved stone that were apparently left as they were out of place. In
taken from down below you'll notice several
interesting things. First off you'll notice several things. At the very top center you can spot those very large and well cut gigantic blocks sitting
Helter Skelter. Also, if you scroll down to the bottom you'll spot some more of those older blocks which show signs of being worked scattered about at
the base. The whole area is well worked and uniform except for those megalithic much larger and better cut stones.
Now, this thread isn't just about those blocks or those sites. Hopefully what I've just demonstrated is how I view such locations and the questions
that pop into my mind as I read or learn about the supposed history of these sites.
It seems to me that many of these sites we see today were built upon and show the reworking of much older ones. When the Spanish came upon this site
they found a large tower of stone which they dismantled in search of Gold. What they unknowingly revealed was what I believe to be proof of this much
more sophisticated age.
Now, which came first? Here we have gigantic megalithic stones, expertly cut and placed. Then we see physical evidence of much lower quality stone
work and as filler. Then we have below some areas a fairly sophisticated location which the Spanish exposed. Does this wheel have astronomical
alignments? If so, do they align with present day stars and constellations? What was its original purpose before the Incas built the now removed
Now, local legend speaks of a once subterranean city which was considered sacred to the Incas and was from the 1rst time. Nearby we can see evidence
of extensive stone carving of steps, stairways and alters. The whole surrounding country side is filled with these types of stone works.
Now supposedly this subterranean ancient city suffered a titanic catastrophic explosion from some unknown force which completely blew it to pieces.
Scattering the remnants all over the surrounding area we see today. Do we find evidence of such a massive catastrophe? In the following image you'll
notice worked walls and stones which appear to be upside down or off kilter.
I ask, Why carve a wall at all on a lone block sitting among other fragmented stones lying about? To me it appears they belonged to something much
older and grander which over time has been weather worn. You may see something else and come to your own conclusions of course. That goes without
Now, I'm not saying the legend is true but I am convinced that this site is much older than is believed and that when the Incas came upon it they
themselves just as they did elsewhere revered and respected it as proof of those who came before them. I will not deny that close by are very real
signs of Inca stone work and quarrying. That's a given, but what is significant is that there again we see much smaller and lower quality workmanship
being utilized. Apparently at some point there was a slip or loss of either the knowledge of or the desire for quality...
I'd like to also point out other locations which appear to show evidence of several things really. We see possible signs of
and or signs of the Inca using the sites for their own purposes. Here we have
a few examples of possibly both.
Now the possibility of volcanic activity destroying a much older site should be considered. Which would explain how some of the Vitrification could
have occurred? But there again we find some areas appearing to be either post or pre "Volcanic Vitrification"
If you were to take a few minutes to review the images I’ve presented they do show to varying degrees smoothness not normally associated with rain
erosion or wind weathering. In my opinion this type of smoothing of the stones comes from massive amounts of repeated handling or from high
I’ll leave you with the following video of Researcher David Hatcher Childress investigates the above mentioned locations in much more detail. The
video gets into the controversial “Ica Stones” which by the way I personally feel the vast majority are fakes. But that’s the topic for another
Well I hope you’ve enjoyed this first of three. I as always end up with more questions than when I start. Such is always the case for me. I love
exploring, speculating and asking questions and know many here do as well. I’m not denying the accepted academic view jut asking how accurate is it?
Is there room for speculation? I know some here will tow the line of the accepted paradigms. So be it….
As always stay tuned and frosty
edit on 27-12-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by elevatedone because: (no reason