Atlantis Online
June 20, 2019, 12:16:19 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Update About Cuba Underwater Megalithic Research
http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/Atlantis/bimini.htm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Atlantis Tiahuanaco

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Atlantis Tiahuanaco  (Read 1740 times)
senator Bam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 99



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2015, 07:44:56 am »


0. it is 64 views now, but was 50 then. Subtract our views from the reading/posting 18 replies.

1. The Coricancha pictiure you blew-up (&) from a different source has distorted the concentric circles in the (lower left side of the) lake in the right side of the picture.

2. I can not read the tiny bleared text in the drawing below.

3. Whether people accept that picture or not, we have also posted others some of which surely can't be disputed. Orthodox are well known for corrupt versions/copies of pictures. The Mochica/Chimu mask i posted above clealry shows the Atlas pillar motif symbol rising from the concentric city.

4. Look, the darn Atlantis account does so say "9000" years before Amasis 2. It does not say 9500 bc. I have already given my (strong) evidence that it is 900 years not 9000 years, and ca 1400s bc not 9600 bc. So we will just have to agree to disagree. Other scholars have also given evidence that it can not be 9000s bc but must be bronze age. It is not as simple as taking or not taking literaly. I have shown his date is literally true but it is not "literal". No one have proven 9600 bc/9000 yrs.

5. The pillars as Gibraltar fits our thesis (and doesn't fit Mediterranean Atlantis theories). If you don't accept that South America is opposite/facing/fronting/etc the Pillars in various maps/projections then don't. But as for me I see that the pillars as/at Gibraltar fits Atlantis as South America (eg map version with Giza/Cairo as centre), &/or the pillars might not have been exactly at Gilbraltar/Tartessos/Gades/Huelva but abit further out/down. Spain/Atlas (and Europe/Spain/Gades) matches South America/Andes/Atlantis (and North America?). The Atlantic/Erythrean/Ethiopian sea/ocean was south Atlantic. South America is ccentred further east than north America; north America is centred further west than South America (after & before the shift/"sinking").

6. (S) America is in the Atlantic (and outside the Mediterranean) as the account says. Moreover Atlantis was clearly in the South Atlantic/Erythrean/Ethiopian. Atlantic = is both sides of Atlantis (Atlantic/Pacific/Antarctic)?

7. Well of course orthodox academics always argue the negative (or say we can't argue negative), that oh it just hasn't been found yet because they haven't been able to look. But as for me it is clear that there are no large enough sunken landmasses in the Atlantic (&/or any other ocean that fits the account). But there are "sunken" as in shifted/displaced ones. We have found the capital city and the plain and many other matches all in one place that fits (despite people trying to dispute a few things). Our site is that only best match, no other place only/best matches.

8. For the last time. Our Atlantis the continent (S America) did "sink" / is "sunken". It just didn't literally sink but rather it genuinely appeared to have "sunk" becausse there was a Shift or Displacment or other catastrophe. The account doesn't even say "sunk/sank" but overwhelmed or swallowed or various other translations (like the one you posted earlier).
Tiahuanaco/Titicaca is "sunk" because the whole continent "sunk/sank".
Tiahaunaco/Andes is only a part of the whole island, so how can everyone keeping saying oh it is raised not sunk. The whole island "sunk/sank" (shifted/displaced) but in so "sinking"/shifting a small part of it was crested up higher. Only a part of whole island was raised, but the whole island did "sink".
South America/Atlantis the contient did "sink" and is still "sunken"/shifted/displaced. Tiahuanaco is on one hand sunken because the whole island/continent "sank"/shifted/displaced/swallowed/overwhelmed, and on other hand "is not "sunken"" because a smart part of the whole island was raised higher in the "sinking"/shift/catastrophe.
I am not sure of the exact correct scenario for the "sinking" whether continental shift or pole shift/crust displacement or one or two other scenarios, but let us just say it shifted so i can get you to see what i mean. Atlantis "sunk" = America shifted. Imagine the Atlantic was once upto say half the current width/distance and then there was a shift to double the previous width/distance (= the current width/distance). So Atlantis/America was once there at so many miles/kms/stadia, then it was not there at so many miles/kms/stadia but gone to double the distance away. So it shifted = it "sank/sunk"/"vanished". See? And i am exasperated because everyone just sees/says oh Andes was raised not sunk, but the whole island did "sink"/is "sunken". Just a small part was raised up in the catastrophe/shift/"sinking".
So people saying S America is above sea not "sunken" is not actually/necessarily correct, and people saying Tiahuanaco is raised not sunken is not actually correct, because people can't/won't see that there are a number of possibilities for the "sinking" (sinking, submergence, shifting, displacement, etc).
That the Andes were clearly raised suddenly in lifetime of ancient humans/civilisation clearly shows there was either a shift or a displacement or pass by of heavenly body. Also Tiahuanaco has a flood in archaeology and "mythology"/tradition.
And because I am now positive I found the capital city, we can be sure that the "sinking" scenario must fit with Andes raising in the catastrophe/"sinking".

9. The plain and city and mountains "must be"* &/or have been found in one place not in different places, and they are in Peru/bolivia not elsewhere (Caribbean etc) (and the Peru matches are too stark/many to just be "a part of Atlantis/empire").
* Whether the Account is true and they are in one place, or is not true and "could be in different places", I and you/they/anyone/everyone has to prove or give evidence not just assume/assert "may/not" be. I have given plenty of good evidence (if it is not massive enough for some people then fine, but people can't say i haven't got/given any/much good evidence at all).

10. It is sad that just one or a few minor disbelief/disputed issues like the boats/route/distance/"sank" outweigh all the text and pictures evidences from Peru/etc here and in my rough paper. Both sides fault/problem. My fault/because i am not able to more excessively prove a few things like that (though i have given some good provisional possible answers through-out this thread and in paper).

11. Yes we have (more than just) some definite possibilities (and we are only doubted/disputed by people to "not" have a few things).
Can we perhaps come up with a list of Atlantis account details in order of most important first that we can check off?
- we have the concentric land/water circles (&) city (in fact and in pictures).
- we have large island/continent. (Though people dispute that Atlantis not large &/or dispute that S America not island.)
- we have in Atlantic (and not in inner sea); and outside pillars (not inside pillars).
- we have (high) ["Atlas"] mountains.
- we have oreichalc match/es.
- we have bulls or "bulls" & *sacrifice* match/es.
- we have large/great Plain match (in fact and in pictures), plus the ditch and criss-crossing channels.
- we have the Atlas (pillar) motif.
- we have two crops a year.
- we have date match (though you dispute).
- we have "sunk/sank" / overwhelmed/swallowed / vanished [shift/displacement/catastrophe] match, and in "terrirble quake/s & flood/s" match. (Though you/people dispute.)
- we have the temple/palace matching buildings there.
- we have the "small hill" / "dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito" match [the Akapana] (in fact and in pictures).
- we have civilisation match.
- we have match for "(near) the sea" (lake Titicaca, in fact and Coricancha/etc picture/s), and we have the exact distance from the city to sea matching!
- we have large population match as you say.
- we have "facing"/beyond/opposite Pillars (but you dispute that).
- we have red white and black match (though i not sure of the exact actual rwb cliff match).
Etc.
So the issue is: we have many matches but (1) some are ignored, and (2) alot are disputed/denied as/or not excessively proven enough.


12. I'm okay either way with the 2 armies being destroyed in same or not in same.

13. "I don't see any evidence of the calamity happening in he time you set Atlantis in"?
- Inca/Peruvian king lists say long night and Tiahuanaco catastrophe happened in ca 1400 bc.
- Evidence that Andes raised suddenly in lifetime of ancient humans/civilisation. (Dates for Tiahuanaco includes 1500s bc.)
- Bible has Exodus & Joshua's sun stand still about same time.
- Stonehenge (contemp Mycenanean) damaged on southwest side.
Many other evidences. Velikovsky wrote a whole book full of them. (I am not able or willing to have to write a whole book to prove it (esp as they will just reject me like they reject his).)

14. I already answered the date in recent post above/earlier and in my blog paper.

15. I can't answer the "reed" boats any better now/yet. But to be fair to me, I have already given some possible answers in posts from the first to the previous.

16. I already listed the matches between the Coricancha picture and Atlantis account:
- the great plain (Altiplano) and surrounding ditch and crossing channels.
- the sea (lake Titicaca)
- the canal/river?
- the cliff.
- the small hill / dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito [the Akapana] (in the left side concentric city).
- the concentric circles city shown 2x (1 on left and 1 on right in the lake).
- a couple (Poseidon & Clito, or Clito's parents?) or twins?
- 2 crops a year ("sun/stars & moon/clouds = summer and winter") (sukukolus).
[- 7 islands/hills/cities?]
- maybe beyond the north wind? or shift? (the 2 star crosses).
- mountains?
- woodlands? or crop?
- gold/metal matches oreichalc "gold-copper"??
- "Vira-cocha" matches Poseidon?
The concentric circles and plain are also seen in Crespi collection. The concentric circles is also inthe Mochica/Chimu picture i posted and the Sillustani one, and Jim Allen's Pumapunku one, and Posnansky's collected Tiahuanaco gateway symbols. The Atlas (pillar) motif is common in Peruvian.
For one description of the Coricancha picture from Cuzco see Sitchin's 'Lost Realms'.


ps. I was maybe wrong about Wolf's Scheria/Phaeacia. In some ways it seems he may be right afterall, though there are still some frustrating uncertainties/difficulties that i can't yet see for sure if he is or not. But if he is right it has no disproof bearing on Atlantis because they are certainly not same site (if his is Scheria right).
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy