Archaeologica.org

This term, the obliquity of the ecliptic, refers to the angle between the plane of the earth’s orbit and that of the celestial equator, equal to approximately 23 degrees and 27 minutes at the present. The tilt of the obliquity, however, changes very slowly over great periods of time. Its cyclic variation ranges between 22 degrees, 1 minute and 24 degrees, 5 minutes over a period of 41,000 years or 1 degree in 7000 years (this cycle is not to be confused with the better known precessional cycle of 25,920 years or 1 degree of movement every 72 years). The figure that Posnansky determined for the obliquity of the ecliptic at the time of the building of the Kalasasaya was 23 degrees, 8 minutes, and 48 seconds. Based on these calculations, Posnansky was thereby able to date the initial construction of the Kalasasaya and Tiahuanaco to 15,000 BC. This date was later confirmed by a team of four leading astronomers from various prestigious universities in Germany.

This initial construction date, being vastly older than that deemed possible by the prevailing paradigm of history, was (and still is) ridiculed by mainstream archaeologists and prehistorians. But it is not so easy to dismiss Posnansky’s findings as there are other mysteries concerning Tiahuanaco that seem to confirm the great antiquity of the site. Among these are the ancient myths of Tiahuanaco (from throughout the Andean region) that tell of its founding and use in a pre-flood time; the scientific studies that prove a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur some twelve thousand years ago; the utensils, tools, and the fragments of human skeletons that are mixed in with the deepest layers of the flood alluvia (indicating human use of the site prior to the great flood); and the strange carvings of bearded, non-Andean people that are found around the site (replete with sculptural and iconographic details that are completely unique in the western hemisphere).

The ruins of Tiahuanuco have been regarded by all students of American antiquities as in many respects the most interesting and important, and at the same time most enigmatical, of any on the continent. They have excited the admiration and wonder alike of the earliest and latest travelers, most of whom, vanquished in their attempts to penetrate the mystery of their origin, have been content to assign them an antiquity beyond that of the other monuments of America, and to regard them as the solitary remains of a civilization that disappeared before that of the Incas began, and contemporaneous with that of Egypt and the East. Unique, yet perfect in type and harmonious in style, they appear to be the work of a people who were thorough masters of an architecture which had no infancy, passed through no period of growth, and of which we find no other examples. Tradition, which mumbles more or less intelligibly of the origin of many other American monuments, is dumb concerning these. The wondering Indians told the first Spaniards that" they existed before the sun shone in the heavens," that they were raised by giants, or that they were the remains of an impious people whom an angry Deity had converted into stone because they had refused hospitality to his viceregent and messenger.

Beagle wrote:Hawaii?? Why would anybody wanna go there?

Anyway - send pics.

Minimalist wrote:North Carolina to Hawaii?

You'd best bring a second book.

Hancocks theory was that the south american settlements were the result of travellers from the old world to the new
as the dates get pushed back on both sides of the earth its still not true

"If so, we may be gazing at faces from a much more rmote past that we imagine when we stare into the almond eyes of one of the negro heads or into the angular, chiselled Caucasian features of "Uncle Sam" ( the name for one of the figures on a stele). It is by no means impossible that these great works preserve the images of people from a vanished civilization which embraced several different ethnic groups.

That, in a nutshell, is the 'hypothetical thrid party' theory as applied to Central America: the civilization of Ancient Mexico did not emerge without external influence, and it did not emerge as a result of influence from the Old World; instead certain cultures in the Old World and in the New World may have both received a legacy of influence and ideas from a third party at some exceedingly remote date."

Minimalist wrote:

Hancocks theory was that the south american settlements were the result of travellers from the old world to the new
as the dates get pushed back on both sides of the earth its still not true

Hmm, I don't know about that marduk...

On page 137, in my edition, Hancock plainly states:

"If so, we may be gazing at faces from a much more rmote past that we imagine when we stare into the almond eyes of one of the negro heads or into the angular, chiselled Caucasian features of "Uncle Sam" ( the name for one of the figures on a stele). It is by no means impossible that these great works preserve the images of people from a vanished civilization which embraced several different ethnic groups.

That, in a nutshell, is the 'hypothetical thrid party' theory as applied to Central America: the civilization of Ancient Mexico did not emerge without external influence, and it did not emerge as a result of influence from the Old World; instead certain cultures in the Old World and in the New World may have both received a legacy of influence and ideas from a third party at some exceedingly remote date."

(underlining added.)

Minimalist wrote:I see nothing about 'aliens or atlanteans' mentioned.

You talk to Arch too