Evidence of an Ancient Advanced civilization that spanned the Globe

originally posted by: Harte
Yet there is NO ancient myth similar to Plato's allegory, and Solon's contemporaries wrote things too. Funny they (and all the earlier literate Greeks) never said anything about this. I mean, there was most definitely a long oral tradition there - that cannot be denied.
Yet nothing at all that's even the least bit like Plato's allegory.
And somehow you don't let this keep you from positing an entire cadre of Solon's contemporaries believing this mythical myth.

I most certainly don’t have to inform you of the fact that most ancient documents were destroyed in antiquity, and what we have is just a tiny fragment.

originally posted by: Harte
Perhaps you should look into what era Viracocha appeared in. You think he showed up still crying about Atlantis 10,000 years after it sank?

That is if you choose to pertain to a narrow perspective, which isn’t that great for a debate. I see you are a knowledgeable person, and I’m convinced of the fact that you know that like many other gods Viracocha most likely came from pre-Columbian oral traditions that came from the Olmecs and Toltecs, and who knows how far back in time.

Viracocha was already portrayed on the Gate of the Sun at Tiwanaku, which I agree with Posnansky was built millennia before modern archaeology suggests. I’m too lazy right now to go into detail here, but as I’ve said before, you probably are aware of the calculations made by Posnansky in collaboration with the Potsdam Observatory and Muller, that were confirmed recently with much more modern tools.

Here you can believe any theory, and they will all remain theories. I just stick to the one that seems more logical and plausible to me, which is that Tiwanaku is very, very old, 14.000 years and older. Even the indigenous people themselves told the Spaniards that those structures were already there.

But we think we’re smarter than the people who lived there themselves and had their oral traditions because they were “just myths”. But those myths logically show that they didn’t know who built those since they gave them a mythological origin. If you build something by yourself or your immediate ancestor did so, that would surely be acknowledged and there would be no need to attribute a mythological origin to it.

originally posted by: Harte
I don't find the acknowledgement of occasional total disasters to be particularly relevant to belief in a cyclical existence, especially among people that believe the Earth was covered with water in a big flood (but the animals were saved, thank the Lord!)

This piece shows that ancient historians such as Josephus reported the fact that ancient civilizations believed in such catastrophes. Like you said and confirmed in your sarcastic peroid, these people believed these catastrophes were worldwide, and such do the other myths. They weren’t, at least in their belief system, just little floods in their area, like you seem to suggest they were.

originally posted by: Harte
Gilgamesh contains a slightly different version of a much older myth. That myth was about a disaster, not the end of the world. Same disaster I just mocked above.

So, you're still talking here about a flood. A flood in the mythos of a river valley civilization. Is that supposed to mean something?

This is what I was writing above. You will always justify the arguments about a flood to be nothing more than local flooding that a civilization smart enough to discover advanced mathematics, geometry, and engineer somehow believed was a worldwide mythological catastrophe.

originally posted by: Harte
See, you can't paint this with such a broad brush as you did earlier. Compare this to the Hindu beliefs, and the Mayan as well. Those aren't disaster stories; they are end of the world stories.

So, yeah. People tell myths based on disasters. I mean, disasters happen. But there aren't any Atlantis myths. That doesn't seem odd to you?

There are enough identical and similar mythologies and traditions that Atlantis alone would just be the tip of the iceberg. Anyways, you may know better than me that there many myths about sunken cities in ancient times, Hindu and Egyptians ones, too.

They were just considered mythological, and people were just as skeptical as you about them.

But then they were discovered, for instance, Dwarka and Heracleion, and suddenly all the “debunkers” were debunked.

originally posted by: Harte
Maybe you should read the thing.
Solon was a Greek statesman (known for his reforms) that died a hundred years before Plato was born. He also was a highly respected poet. He certainly wasn't any kind of priest, much less an Egyptian one. Solon was actually run out of Athens by the people.
Given that last fact, Solon is an interesting source for Plato to claim in an allegory about the fall of the ideal republic aimed squarely at Athens, the murderers of his mentor (who is also one of his characters.)

You’re right here, perhaps it was because I was really tired of writing. I basically wrote “Solon” anytime I wanted to refer to the ancient Egyptian priest who originally told the story.

This may surprise you, but I actually have a degree in Philosophy and I’m now a PhD in ancient cultures. So yes, I’ve read the thing multiple times even though I miserably fail to quote it, haha.

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
Yet there is NO ancient myth similar to Plato's allegory, and Solon's contemporaries wrote things too. Funny they (and all the earlier literate Greeks) never said anything about this. I mean, there was most definitely a long oral tradition there - that cannot be denied.
Yet nothing at all that's even the least bit like Plato's allegory.
And somehow you don't let this keep you from positing an entire cadre of Solon's contemporaries believing this mythical myth.

I most certainly don’t have to inform you of the fact that most ancient documents were destroyed in antiquity, and what we have is just a tiny fragment.

And you are basing your position on a text that doesn't exist?
Stop and think of all the other things that "might" be true but lost to posterity and never written about in any surviving text.
You can pretty much make ANY claim that way.

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
Perhaps you should look into what era Viracocha appeared in. You think he showed up still crying about Atlantis 10,000 years after it sank?

That is if you choose to pertain to a narrow perspective, which isn’t that great for a debate. I see you are a knowledgeable person, and I’m convinced of the fact that you know that like many other gods Viracocha most likely came from pre-Columbian oral traditions that came from the Olmecs and Toltecs, and who knows how far back in time.

More myths that don't exist. Though these nonexistant myths are a little more likely to have existed in some form, considering we have a Viracocha myth. Remember - there IS no Atlantis myth.

originally posted by: Nihil0Viracocha was already portrayed on the Gate of the Sun at Tiwanaku, which I agree with Posnansky was built millennia before modern archaeology suggests. I’m too lazy right now to go into detail here, but as I’ve said before, you probably are aware of the calculations made by Posnansky in collaboration with the Potsdam Observatory and Muller, that were confirmed recently with much more modern tools.

That gate went up in around 800 AD.

originally posted by: Nihil0Here you can believe any theory, and they will all remain theories. I just stick to the one that seems more logical and plausible to me, which is that Tiwanaku is very, very old, 14.000 years and older. Even the indigenous people themselves told the Spaniards that those structures were already there.

And they were telling the truth, and we know that from the fact that Tiwanaku is basically the most studied site in South America.
The structures there date to well past the date of first occupation (which was around 100 - 200 AD). The sandstone and andesite stones placed there are from around 800 AD.

originally posted by: Nihil0But we think we’re smarter than the people who lived there themselves and had their oral traditions because they were “just myths”. But those myths logically show that they didn’t know who built those since they gave them a mythological origin. If you build something by yourself or your immediate ancestor did so, that would surely be acknowledged and there would be no need to attribute a mythological origin to it.

And the Inca did exactly that - told the Spanish what they DID build. And they didn't attribute any mythological origin to that.
Also, once again, there IS no myth of Atlantis. There IS a myth of Viracocha, and there IS an oral tradition myth about Tiwanaku. No need to invent one that is unknown to us because texts didn't survive, which is exactly what one does when asserting the Atlantis myth.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
You may think this because all the pics of these stones are from the front.
But, no. See, the quarry is not behind the camera taking those pictures, it's on the other side of the temple.
The big stones are in a retaining wall. Behind them is the higher elevation.

The Trilithon stones were placed on top of other quite big blocks. Either way you put this, to place a block on top of another block you have to lift it up in the process I’ve described in the comment that you quoted. You don’t simply slide it on top of other blocks, and plus at that height, there is no land. Again, they had to be lifted up in the air and carefully placed on top of the other blocks.

originally posted by: Harte
So, they could drag them hundreds of feet, but couldn't move them after that? How so? Do you think they couldn't move their capstans?

Dragging something ground level and lifting it up in the air is A LOT different. I could drag an heavy object on the ground, but I wouldn’t be capable of lifting it, it’s quite basic logic. Also, you know for a fact that the capstans were hundreds of times lighter than an 800 ton stone, right?

originally posted by: Harte
The did not meticulously record every other work. They did document a lot of the work that took place IN ROME.
Also, you neglect the monoliths in the Jerusalem Temple that were placed the same way and weigh double what that obelisk weighed.

They did record almost every work even outside of Rome, and I can absolutely confirm this. Moreover, building that Temple would be such a great achievement that I find it ludicrous to even think they wouldn’t record it. Mostly because they actually recorded the building of the remaining parts of the Temple. So that would be even stranger.

The monoliths in the Jerusalem Temple weren’t put into place by the Romans either. Historical sources state very clearly that different temples were built on top of the original one, including Islamic sources.

Anyways, there is lots of extensive research showing that the Romans didn’t even build the polygonal walls in Italy by eminent geologist Dr.Roberto Mortari, which you can find here:

www.terradegliuomini.com...

Also, if the Romans built structures with stones weighing hundreds of tons because they reasonably believed a structure was much more sound with those, they would’ve built the structures in Rome in that fashion, too. Instead, there are literally no other structures like that. On the contrary, there are thousands of them built in a normal way.

originally posted by: Harte
So now the Jupiter Temple isn't Roman because you think there is no reason for them to build a temple there?
Maybe you need to step back. There's another one a few hundred miles away - also Roman - with comparable stones.

Exactly. The Romans were far from stupid and, especially in those times, didn’t have to invest their energies and tools to build something incredibly tiring like the foundations of the Temple of Jupiter. The Romans renovated and expanded the pre-existing site, and turned it into a temple to Jupiter. If you have striking evidence about the contrary, please post it as I've been studying this matter a lot, and as much as I'm willing to discuss my positions, I most certainly don't need to step back on this. There is evidence that the Romans did not have any interest in building a structure from scratch in that area. That is extensive and a bit tiring to go into detail and discuss politics and historical routes.

And I know for a fact that everything I may write would still not convince you, I've debated with enough people in academia to know when someone isn't going to change his mind even if you present them the most striking evidence possible. I have nothing against you personally, but I already know the mood and spirit in which you read my comments. Like someone already said to me before in this forum, I better not debate with people who are here to debunk every argument, because of course someone always finds a reason or something to grasp onto if they want to debunk something, in either way.

Therefore, a discussion like this only becomes a tedious back on forth of arguments which, in the end, are all theories and speculations (even the most rational theories are nothing but historical reconstructions through speculation without any final answer). So, this is not constructive for anyone, as I highly doubt any other user would read our debates.

In the end, I believe what I already believe, and you still believe that the existence of a previous human civilization is too crazy to even speculate.

I didn't find any reasons to change my mind in your arguments and the arguments for my beliefs are so vast that we barely scratched the surface here, but I don't intend to go into depth, I already have too much to write for my job

originally posted by: Harte
Click the quote button on any of my above posts to see the structure.
Keep in mind there is a character limit, which is why my response is broken into parts.

Thank you for helping!

originally posted by: Harte
And you are basing your position on a text that doesn't exist?
Stop and think of all the other things that "might" be true but lost to posterity and never written about in any surviving text.
You can pretty much make ANY claim that way.

That is exactly what you do, too. You already leveraged speculations to make your assumptions in other comments here. Anyone can do that, and huge parts of history and archaeology were reconstructed through speculation.

Nonetheless, I'm not basing my position on a text that doesn't exist. I'd say a text that does exist, and that could've been confirmed in other documents that were lost or traditions that were never written down.

originally posted by: Harte
More myths that don't exist. Though these nonexistant myths are a little more likely to have existed in some form, considering we have a Viracocha myth. Remember - there IS no Atlantis myth.

They don't exist in written form. Do you remember what the conquistadores did to their sacred texts?

Also, it would be silly not to think that pre-Columbian civilizations didn't have myths. Since we have extensive evidence that
Inca, Aztecs etcetera took their traditions from them, it's basic logic to make speculations in that sense.

originally posted by: Harte

That gate went up in around 800 AD.

Again, pure speculation that is simply based on the latest pottery and remains found there. No actual or factual evidence that the gate was erected in a certain period of time. If you have evidence, I'd gladly read it.

originally posted by: Harte
And they were telling the truth, and we know that from the fact that Tiwanaku is basically the most studied site in South America.
The structures there date to well past the date of first occupation (which was around 100 - 200 AD). The sandstone and andesite stones placed there are from around 800 AD.

Again, you cannot date the time in which andesite or sandstone stones were placed. There is no tool capable of doing so, we'd have to rely on organic remains which again include speculation and not a certainty.

originally posted by: Harte
And the Inca did exactly that - told the Spanish what they DID build. And they didn't attribute any mythological origin to that.
Also, once again, there IS no myth of Atlantis. There IS a myth of Viracocha, and there IS an oral tradition myth about Tiwanaku. No need to invent one that is unknown to us because texts didn't survive, which is exactly what one does when
asserting the Atlantis myth.

They did not? I'd suggest you read the myths and folklore of the Andes about the building of Tiwanaku and more generally Lake Titicaca, Sacsayhuaman, or the Nazca Lines, and see if they didn't attribute those a mythological origin.

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
I don't find the acknowledgement of occasional total disasters to be particularly relevant to belief in a cyclical existence, especially among people that believe the Earth was covered with water in a big flood (but the animals were saved, thank the Lord!)

This piece shows that ancient historians such as Josephus reported the fact that ancient civilizations believed in such catastrophes. Like you said and confirmed in your sarcastic peroid,

Dude, I'm still IN my sarcastic period.

originally posted by: Nihil0these people believed these catastrophes were worldwide, and such do the other myths. They weren’t, at least in their belief system, just little floods in their area, like you seem to suggest they were.

Several years ago, the Mississippi flood was so great that it without levees, it would have covered an area larger that Mesopotamia proper (between the rivers.) Floods like that happen about ever 200 years, IIRC. Much larger ones occur at lower frequencies. You call them "little floods in their area." You don't consider that people actually saw ice dam floods, which are MUCH greater than any river flood.
I'm not talking about any "little flood." Deposits at Ur confirm multiple instances of major flooding there. These people lived in floods. Big floods couldn't be forgotten there; not while they were swimming down the streets every 20 years or so.

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
Gilgamesh contains a slightly different version of a much older myth. That myth was about a disaster, not the end of the world. Same disaster I just mocked above.

So, you're still talking here about a flood. A flood in the mythos of a river valley civilization. Is that supposed to mean something?

This is what I was writing above. You will always justify the arguments about a flood to be nothing more than local flooding that a civilization smart enough to discover advanced mathematics, geometry, and engineer somehow believed was a worldwide mythological catastrophe.

"Local" has several meanings.

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
See, you can't paint this with such a broad brush as you did earlier. Compare this to the Hindu beliefs, and the Mayan as well. Those aren't disaster stories; they are end of the world stories.

So, yeah. People tell myths based on disasters. I mean, disasters happen. But there aren't any Atlantis myths. That doesn't seem odd to you?

There are enough identical and similar mythologies and traditions that Atlantis alone would just be the tip of the iceberg. Anyways, you may know better than me that there many myths about sunken cities in ancient times, Hindu and Egyptians ones, too.

Yes, land actually sinks, and it turns out a lot of it in India is sinking right now.
Plato also knew that land sinks. Helike sank right into the ground in his lifetime (soil liquefaction.) Helike is not far from where Plato was born.

originally posted by: Nihil0
They were just considered mythological, and people were just as skeptical as you about them.

I note you state that there are myths that are identical and myths that are similar to Plato's allegory. I also note that you don't cite any. Do you believe I haven't looked for one?
You claim Hindu and Egyptian. There is no Egyptian flood myth, nor is there any ancient Egyptian cyclical world myth. Regarding Hindus, you should remember that before Hinduism even existed, there was close contact between Indians and Mesopotamians, and the latter already had their flood myth at that time.

originally posted by: Nihil0
But then they were discovered, for instance, Dwarka and Heracleion, and suddenly all the “debunkers” were debunked.

The majority of sunken ruins at Dwarka sank during the European Medieval period. Heraklion had been known, but the exact location itself had been lost. No debunkers were debunked.

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
Maybe you should read the thing.
Solon was a Greek statesman (known for his reforms) that died a hundred years before Plato was born. He also was a highly respected poet. He certainly wasn't any kind of priest, much less an Egyptian one. Solon was actually run out of Athens by the people.
Given that last fact, Solon is an interesting source for Plato to claim in an allegory about the fall of the ideal republic aimed squarely at Athens, the murderers of his mentor (who is also one of his characters.)

You’re right here, perhaps it was because I was really tired of writing. I basically wrote “Solon” anytime I wanted to refer to the ancient Egyptian priest who originally told the story.

Plato never had Critias say that Solon had named the priest. Names given to the priest were given in later years by commentors - both pro and con - on Plato's works.

originally posted by: Nihil0This may surprise you, but I actually have a degree in Philosophy and I’m now a PhD in ancient cultures. So yes, I’ve read the thing multiple times even though I miserably fail to quote it, haha.

Good to know. It's amazing how many people will argue about Atlantis that have never even read Plato.
Have you used this site?
www.perseus.tufts.edu...

It's helping me to learn to read it in Greek. I haven't kept up with the learning though - maybe two or three weeks out of a year. Too busy.
You gotta play around with the settings on the right side to see what I mean.

Harte

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
And you are basing your position on a text that doesn't exist?
Stop and think of all the other things that "might" be true but lost to posterity and never written about in any surviving text.
You can pretty much make ANY claim that way.

That is exactly what you do, too. You already leveraged speculations to make your assumptions in other comments here. Anyone can do that, and huge parts of history and archaeology were reconstructed through speculation.

Nonetheless, I'm not basing my position on a text that doesn't exist. I'd say a text that does exist, and that could've been confirmed in other documents that were lost or traditions that were never written down.

How exactly can you say this text exists when we don't have it and we don't have any text that refers to it?

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
More myths that don't exist. Though these nonexistant myths are a little more likely to have existed in some form, considering we have a Viracocha myth. Remember - there IS no Atlantis myth.

They don't exist in written form. Do you remember what the conquistadores did to their sacred texts?

How does that matter to my point? After all, the MYTH exists. We still have it. We can't say the same for Atlantis. There was no mention of anything like what Plato wrote until Plato wrote it. No oral tradition, no ancient reference. And we're talking here about a force that conquered all the land surrounding the Mediterranean, not just some culture that kept to themselves on some island.

originally posted by: Nihil0Also, it would be silly not to think that pre-Columbian civilizations didn't have myths. Since we have extensive evidence that
Inca, Aztecs etcetera took their traditions from them, it's basic logic to make speculations in that sense.

I think I already made that point, though we don't actually know (at least in the case of Viracocha) if they did.

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte

That gate went up in around 800 AD.

Again, pure speculation that is simply based on the latest pottery and remains found there. No actual or factual evidence that the gate was erected in a certain period of time. If you have evidence, I'd gladly read it.

Before you talk about this particular angle of Tiwanaku, I suggest you do some reading. The dates are VERY firm, and based on C14 dating of organic material there.
Here's a link to the results in an older assay of the entire region. I understand the dates in this report have since been refined a few times (this study is 20 years old and thus is waay obsolete.)
www.scielo.cl...

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
And they were telling the truth, and we know that from the fact that Tiwanaku is basically the most studied site in South America.
The structures there date to well past the date of first occupation (which was around 100 - 200 AD). The sandstone and andesite stones placed there are from around 800 AD.

Again, you cannot date the time in which andesite or sandstone stones were placed. There is no tool capable of doing so, we'd have to rely on organic remains which again include speculation and not a certainty.

Turns out you can. A couple of the dates were from organics taken from underneath the sandstone platform there.

originally posted by: Nihil0

originally posted by: Harte
And the Inca did exactly that - told the Spanish what they DID build. And they didn't attribute any mythological origin to that.
Also, once again, there IS no myth of Atlantis. There IS a myth of Viracocha, and there IS an oral tradition myth about Tiwanaku. No need to invent one that is unknown to us because texts didn't survive, which is exactly what one does when
asserting the Atlantis myth.

They did not? I'd suggest you read the myths and folklore of the Andes about the building of Tiwanaku and more generally Lake Titicaca, Sacsayhuaman, or the Nazca Lines, and see if they didn't attribute those a mythological origin.

Gish Galloping.
The Inca told the Spanish that they built Sacsayhuaman. I already said there was an oral tradition about Tiwanaku. Regarding Nazca, they were making those lines while the Olmec were at their height, well before the Inca even were a culture. If you have any information about what the Inca said about Nazca I'd be interested in reading it though.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

You cant do it, can you?

We both know how precisely everything is documented in situ.

It means they lied.

Which means we can not trust archaeology as a whole.

a reply to: Nihil0

Like the Mayan Codices​, Sibylline Books, Zoroastrian Avesta, Yongle Encyclopedia, Ibn Al-Haytham’s Treatises, Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, writings of Hipparchus, work in mathematics before Euclid, combinatorics, polymath Posidonius, Philosopher (logician) Chrysippus, founder of scientific medicine Herophilos, great engineer (mechanic, hydraulic, pneumatic) Ctesibius,
Tesserakonteres, Leontophoros, Democritus of Abdera, to name a few destroyed.

Harte ALWAYS ignores the stuff he can’t answer. Haven’t you noticed that yet?
He prefers to pick amd choose his weaker victims as that makes him feel better about quoting Wikipedia to the world .
I’ve been on here donkeys years and it’s his M.O .
Take a look at my posts in many recent threads and then see how many he has replied to.
Trouble is, no one here should care what he thinks - a pseudo-academic is no ‘barrier’ to get past or try to convince of anything .
His silence is often very telling.
a reply to: XipeTotex

Still, we always have the words of the Spanish chronicler , words straight from the mouth of the Inca , and documented for us , such a wonderful read :


“ THE TRAVELS OF PEDRO DE CIEZA DE LEON. A.D. 1532-50

Tiahuanaco is not a very large village, but it is celebrated for the great edifices near it, which are certainly things worth seeing. Near the buildings there is a hill made by the hands of men, on great foundations of stone. Beyond this hill there are two stone idols, of the human shape and figure, the features very skilfully carved, so that they appear to have been done by the hand of some great master. They are so large that they seem like small giants, and it is clear that they have on a sort of clothing different from those now worn by the natives of these parts. Near these stone statues there is another building. Their antiquity and the want of letters, are the causes why it is not known who built such vast foundations, and how much time has since elapsed; for at present there is only a wall very well built, and which must have been standing for manyw ages. Some of the stones are much worn. At this part there are stones of ecwA awwwwwfq such enormous size that it causes wonder to think of them, and to reflect how human force can have sufficed to move them to the place where we see them, being so large.
Q a a




But what I noted most particularly, when I wandered about over these ruins writing down what I saw, was that from these great doorways there came out other still larger stones, upon which the doorways were formed, some of them thirty feet broad, fifteen or more long, and six in thickness. The whole of this, with the doorway and its jambs and lintel, was all one single stone. The work is one of grandeur and magnificence, when well considered. For myself I fail to understand with what instruments or tools it can have been done; for it is very certain that before these great stones could be brought to perfection and left as we see them, the tools must have been much better than those now used by the Indians. It is to be noted, from what now appears of these edifices, that they were not completed, for there is nothing but these portals, and other stones of strange bigness which I saw, some of them shaped and dressed ready to be placed on the edifice, which was a little on one side. Here there was a great idol of stone, which must have been placed there to be worshipped. It is rumoured that some gold was found near this idol; and all round there are more stones, large and small, all dressed and fitted like those already described.

The famous ruins of Tiahuanaco, generally considered to be long anterior to the time of the Yncas, appear, like those at Ollantay-tambo, to be remains of edifices which were never completed.





There are other things to be said concerning Tiahuanaco, which I pass over, concluding with a statement of my belief that this ruin is the most ancient in all Peru. It is asserted that these edifices were commenced before the time of the Yncas, and I have heard some Indians affirm that the Yncas built their grand edifices at Cuzco on the plan which they had observed at the wall near these ruins.

They even say that the first Yncas thought of establishing their court at Tiahuanaco. Another remarkable thing is, that in all this district there are no quarries whence the numerous stones can have been brought, the carrying of which must have required many people.


I asked the natives, in presence of Juan de Varagas (who holds them in encomienda), whether these edifices were built in the time of the Yncas, and they laughed at the question, affirming that they were made before the Yncas ever reigned, but that they could not say who made them. They added that they had heard from their fathers that all we saw was done in one night.

From this, and from the fact that they also speak of bearded men on the island of Titicaca, and of others who built the edifice of Vinaque, it may, perhaps, be inferred that, before the Yncas reigned, there was an intelligent race who came from some unknown part, and who did these things. Being few, and the natives many, they may all have been killed in the wars. “

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Harte ALWAYS ignores the stuff he can’t answer.
...
a reply to: XipeTotex

How is it possible to say this when, for example, Harte has posted the following reply?

originally posted by: Nihil0

... No actual or factual evidence that the gate was erected in a certain period of time. If you have evidence, I'd gladly read it.

(Harte)
... Tiwanaku ''' The dates are VERY firm, and based on C14 dating of organic material there.
Here's a link to the results in an older assay of the entire region. I understand the dates in this report have since been refined a few times (this study is 20 years old and thus is waay obsolete.)

Also, there's more on radiocarbon dating at Tiwanaku here (scroll down).

How is it possible to say this when, for example, Harte has posted the following reply?

It’s completely possible to say it.
I have been on here donkeys years and it’s his M.O.
He’s just as selective in his replies as he claims others are with facts and the truth .
Except he’s generally ruder , revels in it, and gets away with it.

a reply to: Hooke

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Harte ALWAYS ignores the stuff he can’t answer. Haven’t you noticed that yet?
He prefers to pick amd choose his weaker victims as that makes him feel better about quoting Wikipedia to the world .
I’ve been on here donkeys years and it’s his M.O .
Take a look at my posts in many recent threads and then see how many he has replied to.
Trouble is, no one here should care what he thinks - a pseudo-academic is no ‘barrier’ to get past or try to convince of anything .
His silence is often very telling.
a reply to: XipeTotex

Haha, i know, i know.. Just like calling people out on the subject of liquid mercury. I think its important because it reveals how modern archaeology is not what its claims to be.

This is why this is relevant to this subject also, that an ancient civilization that spanned the globe existed. Mainstream archaeology is against this idea, but it does not matter, because they are liars who only are interested about their funding, not the actual research.

Yeh , just waiting for old Pedro to be labelled as a 500 year old ‘fringe’ writer ..
funny how he asks the same questions ‘fringe’ thinkers are asking .
Except the words from the actual Inca themselves bring this ‘fringe’ concept into the realm of truth .
a reply to: XipeTotex

a reply to: Harte

What about the THE EMERALD TABLETS OF THOTH THE ATLANTEAN or Tabula Smaragdina? It has the Flood in it.

I know it is “myth” but it was mentioned in the 8th century Book of Balinas the Wise on the Causes by Pseudo-Apollonius of Tyana, known as ‘Balinas’.
Newton said many of his ideas came from reading it.
Should it be the case that all the mysteries and principles set forth within the Emerald Tablet harken all the way back to the ‘First Time’, then it would not be far fetched to assume that it influenced all the early religious figureheads, including Moses, Abraham, and the earliest Hebrews.
And the hieroglyphics that describe Thoth reference a 3 points in the sky called the Triangulum Galaxy because it’s the shape of a triangle or pyramid. Hmmmm…. Interesting.
Plus this is where Diffused interstellar Bands are found which is suspected as being the creators of life.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. 🤯

Everything seems to fit with being built by the Nephelim, the ancient giants who were destroyed in the Great Flood, after which humans ruled over Earth, not the giants who hunted and ate human flesh, which was why God flooded the Earth, to remove them forever from Earth, but that's a whole different issue, itself!

After the flood, the giants who built all these monuments were gone from Earth. That explains why we didn't know who built them, because they were gone from Earth by then.

It also explains how they COULD be built, by such giants. They could build them, but not humans. No way.

What tools they used would be lost in the flood, but they must have been massive, compared to those of humans.

We think the stones are too heavy to use and build with, but not to giants.

The stones seem too hard to carve, but not to giants, with massive tools to carve them with.

And it also explains the huge entrances, and so forth, too.


The flood would remove all their tools, their remains, their records, and we have no idea who built them, why no trace of them remains, no records of them, or anything at all.

While the Bible, and other ancient texts, describes a lost race of giants, called the Nephelim, and never realize that it might solve one of the greatest mysteries of all time, perfectly!

I used to work with a 'giant' human, who could lift more than TWO humans could, with ease!

I remember when he told me how people were amazed by his strength, but said it's not that he's so strong at all, he's normal strength for his size, that it's all RELATIVE to one's size.

I thought about that with the huge monuments on Earth, like the great pyramid, etc.

To us humans, we see it as impossible that humans built them, yet never consider they were NOT built by humans at all, but by a race of giants, who once ruled Earth, and were destroyed by the great flood.


We're like ants, to such massive giants, by comparison.

A 30 ton stone isn't heavy to a massive giant, it's all relative, in fact.

a reply to: mcsnacks77
The last Sumerian King before the flood, Ziusudra, is the Greek Xisuthros and Deucalion, the Akkadian Atrahasis and Biblical Noah. Sumerian God Enki is the Greek God Cronus who is the father of Zeus. Zeus is the Lord or the Biblical God. The flood took place close to the Suez canal in Egypt. Zeus read from right to left is Suez. Ancient Greeks have Deucalion was the son of Prometheus and Clymene. Angry Zeus decided to put an end to the Bronze Age by unleashing a deluge. Deucalion is saved from the deluge by his father who instructs him to build a chest.
The word ark comes from Latin arca meaning ‘chest’ and is not related to a boat. The link with a kind of boat or ships dates from the 15th century AD. The word ark is also related to the old German word arahha which means arche. The triangular (pyramid) shape is found in the arc triangle and the ogee arch.

Mythology is defined as a collection of myths and myths are defined as fable, folklore and legends. We define our own beliefs as religion but define ancient beliefs as myths and legends.

Ancient religions and holy texts were referred to as mythology and were (mis)translated, vulgarised and (mis)used for religious and political purposes. The symbols and allegories became more important than their initial meaning and purpose. Names, words and meanings were changed and lost.The history of our solar system became a myth, a legend and finally a religion. The existential and astronomical knowledge of our origin was eventually lost and the symbols and allegories were misused as instruments of power.

Modern day holy texts have become instructions that serve the established order of things. Modern day religions are partly inspired on what we refer to as ancient mythology and creation myths. But originally, this knowledge was given by the Annunakis in the form of astrotheological allegories telling the history of our solar system’s origin and choreography.
The Annunakis referred to planet earth as Eridu which means home away from home. Eridu is also an archeological site in Iraq and believed to be the oldest city in the world.

Many ancient monuments are in one way or the other connected to the pyramids, some kind of monumental design. We can draw a straight line between the Easter Island, the Cahuachi site in Peru and the plateau of Giza. We can draw a straight line between the mexican site of Teotihuacan, the gizeh plateau and the Chinese pyramids of Shen-Hsi. We can draw a straight line between the Japanese underwater Yonaguni pyramids, the Giza plateau and the Bermuda triangle. You can draw a straight line between monument valley, the great pyramid and the underwater Yonaguni pyramids. Amen and Aten are also present in American civilisations: Kaminaljuyu is a Pre-Columbian site of the Maya civilisation. Saqsaywaman is a walled complex in Peru, the capital of the Inca Empire. It means the Waman eagle or falcon in Quechua language. Let us not forget the Chichén Itzá pyramid in Yucatan … Yuc-Aten.

What you seek you shall never find. For when the Gods made man, They kept immortality to themselves. Fill your belly. Day and night make merry. Let Days be full of joy. Love the child who holds your hand. Let your wife delight in your embrace. For these alone are the concerns of man.

a reply to: mcsnacks77
And the fact that most of the pharaohs had red-ish and blonde hair.