Atlantis Online
October 15, 2019, 11:28:06 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Hunt for Lost City of Atlantis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3227295.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Atlantis Tiahuanaco

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Atlantis Tiahuanaco  (Read 1785 times)
senator Bam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 99



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2015, 01:07:05 am »

Can we just deal with one detail (like say concentric circles (&) city) &/or one picture at a time? Is too much. Though i will just reply to your more than one points.

Some of us have been searching for Atlantis for years and we have our own views on it, we also read the dialogues a lot more literally. Maybe that is a mistake, but I have yet to come across an Atlantis theory that does not do its share of fudging many of the details to fit a particular point of view and yours is no exception.

If you want to assert every single detail has to be Totally Litteral Modern English Interpretation then you will never agree with our find and will never find a site that matches. World history proves that authors/sources do not always have exact modern interpretation meaning.

Authors/sources sometimes have not entirely "literal" words/phrases/etc. I can't think of any example except:
Do you say Joshua literally halted the sun? Why is Plato/Sonchis any more True than bible?


I am offend that you say i am not taking literally and/or "fudging". I do not fudge the Atlantis account. I do take the account very seriously/literally. There are just a few things that are not completely "literal" in the way you like. You can not assert that every single detail is absolutely literal modern interpretation. We have proved each detail is literal or "almost-literal". Each detail has to be proven/disproven not/"literal". The account fits our findings, our findings fit the account in each detail and in general/interconnections. I am not making it fit a point of view. In and since 1999 we read and studied and thought and searched/investigated/analysed and deducted, and finally about 1-2 years ago for the city we were forced to accept it was that site.


Look as you say everyone has their own pet theories and wants to find Atlantis themselves. I am sorry. Perhaps it is better for everyone to find it (there) themselves by coming to it in their own way & time. I myself didn't like that David Fasold was right about Tiahuanaco (and Jim Allen was almost spot on), but i was forced to accept the stark evidences (listed in previous post).
I have provided tons of evidences but seems is not enough or not written good enough (and not good enough pictures).
Why should i care anyway? Let everyone believe what they want about Atlantis and/or about me/my thesis. It is not worth it (I have other things i need/want to do, can't recover forever lost hours (for ages) replying/proving to people).


I'm not seeing any concentric circles there, where are they..?  The grid-like structure looks like it might be the flat plain, and I take it the two figures are supposed to be Poseidon and Cleito. You do know that orthodox archaeology has a whole different take on the relief, right?

The circles in Coricancha picture are shown two times. See the very first post of this topic. Click on the attached picture thumbnail for larger. First time is on the left (the "rainbow/arch"). Second time is in the lower left side of the lake on right, though i am abit unsure about this 2nd one now because some versions don't show it while my version/s does.

We can discuss the "whole different take" of orthodox on the Coricancha picture if you wish. I am confident we are right about half/dozen matches with Atlantis Account details.


I hate to say it, but your pics are so small, I can't make out any of the details on them, which is why I am looking for better images of them.

All the pictures i posted are thumbnails that can be clicked on (i couldn't find how to attach pictures that way you do, may require posting links not uploading.) Some are small but some aren't. (Can also try using magnify.) Some of the pictures say/said Zero views.



And I am not seeing anything in South America that resembled the capital city. Remember, Plato said it was close to the sea, a five and a half mile canal cutting through the concentric circles to the Citadel. It should look like a bullseye on any map and should only be about five miles from the sea.

My sources say 9.2km. Both the Account distance and the Tiahauanaco (now/then) distance vary between sources. But some i saw seem to be almost exactly the same km/miles.
This is what i mean about things being ignored.
 I'll just repost from my previous post:

* 9.2 km distance from city to sea:
- roughly the exact same distance from Tiahuanaco to Titicaca. (The figures of sources vary. One says Tiahuanaco 10 miles from Titicaca, another says "Tiahuanaco [now] 12 m sth of Titicaca"? Another says a few / 13 miles from Titicaca.)
- "vast area" / "several square miles in area".

* circular/concentric land/water circles (&) city
- concentric canals/circles in Tiahuanaco/tiwanaku diagrams (Posnansky/Sitchin/Alford),
- shown 2x in Coricancha altar picture,
- Pumapunku inscription (Allen),
- shown in Sillustani inscription (wiki) [compare with Chalco glyph Mexico?],
- concentric circles shown in Chanchan/Chimu inscription (picture posted in earlier post).
- concentric circles seen in the Chimu/Mochica mask i posted in earlier post.
 - concentric circles seen in Calango stone (Sitchin 'Lost Realms'),
- concentric circles shown in Crespi collection (Daniken). Also maybe shown in head of figure in Crespi collection?
-  Posnansky has concentric circles symbols from Tiahuanaco/gateway (Sitchin).
-  "radiating cross" (Sitchin).
- The snuff tablet in wiki Tiwanaku article also possibly shows water/circles (Wiki)??
-  3 carved channels between Ilyapa temple & rainbow temple?
- 4 parts Cuzco recall Atlantis cross?
- concentric circles also in the 3 windows drawing of Salcamayhua?
-  evidence that Tiahuanaco/Akapana was connected with Titicaca (water).
- Eldorado/Manoa?
- Huinaymarka means "eternal city".
- Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku called "Baalbek of New World".
- Atlantis/Tiahuanaco city & Titicaca is (inverse) analogy of Eridu/etc city & Persian Gulf.
- "lost city of giants Ecuador"?
- Atlantis can only be in Americas (incl/excl Antarctica) or Armorica plate, and (Titicaca &) Tiahuanaco is only place in the whole Americas & in Peru & around Titicaca that it can be and that fits/matches.


* small hill / dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito:
- Akapana (Posnansky/Alford/Sitchin/Daniken drawings/descriptions),
- shown in Coricancha picture?

* temple/palace (& sizes [185mx92m])
- kalasasya 400x450ft /
- kantatayita /
(- puma pinku) /
- throne room160x130ft / [100x85ft /
- hall 45x22ft]?
- "the monolithic gateway of the temple is the largest example of its kind in the world".
- coricancha "golden palace"?

* central island 5 stades:
- central island Tiahuanaco 2x1 miles.


Like I said, 9000 years before Solon places it at 9650 BC. But let's forget about that for now and not take Plato quite so literally: let's just say it was in the distant past. We have evidence of calamities like Plato writes about in the distant past, we do not have them at 1400 BC, certainly nothing that could make a whole island vanish beneath the sea.

it seems to me that you are admant that 9000 years must only be literal 9000 years. I have already given my answer to 9000 years. We do have a match for ca 1400s bc and 900 (and 800) years. (E.g. Moses/Joshua; Hercules; Moeris; long night in Inca king lists; at least one archaeological date for Tiahuanaco; etc.)

I have already explained how the whole island vanished.
How come i can't (supposedly) "fudge"/"take not literally" but others can? Atlantis was a large island and "sank". You say can't be literal large island (& sank) / (large island &) sank. I say is large island, and did  genuinely/"literaly" "sink", just not literally "sink" in  the way you expect/insist/assume/assert/interpret/traasnlate. (The account doesn't say sank in many versions though one does say sank.) There are a number of possible scenarios for the "sinking" of the Account (literal sink, submerge, shift, displacment, etc). Perhaps a more detailed study of the whole Account on the "sinking" would provide evidence for what the "sinking" was?

He says:
But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.
So not only did Atlantis vanish into the sea (like an island would), but the sea was supposed to be impassible in those parts because of the mud. Many ancient scholars make mention of an impassible sea because of mud, I think even Aristotle did it. Plato is the lone one that gives a reason for it. Some Atlantis theorists cite that as a reason for the Sargasso Sea to have been so impassible, but it had to have been someplace near the Med, because the Greek colonies only extended as far as Spain and Gibraltar, so they weren't in the habit of venturing out that far. They sure as heck didn't get as far as South America.

See my Atlantis page/paper/notes at 2rbetterthan1.wordpress.com , Atlantis page (link top right). See in contents and then in main text the part on "muddy sea" which mentions sediments, etc. Shift or displacment would have caused it. (Also see other ancient sources quotes mentioning Atlantic mud/etc like you say. Sesostris shoal?)

 -----

Re the 2nd reply/post (no quote)

Yes i know that there are concentric circles/spirals all around the world, but we have nevertheless shown  in previous post that Atlantis large islnad and city and plain and mountains and so on only (&) best matches Tiahuanaco/Peru/South America.
Yes Atlantis & Atlanteans was known aorund the world and had empire and many other travels, but no Atlantis can't "not be one site/land". Atlantis like Hyperborea was built to mirror the spheres of heaven (&/or earth). Yes it had an empire but it was also a large island/landmass/continent, as i showed/listed many times in this topic (see previous reply/post).
Atlantis can't be in all those places. And none of those places matches all the details of the Account except for Peru/Bolivia. That is taking the Account as literally as humanly possible in almost all the details, far more than any others.

The Silustani one is certainly Atlantis/Tiahuanaco. The wedge seems to be the cliff/s?
Look at the Mochica/Chimu mask i posted it has the Atlas pillar rising from the centre of concentric circles Atlantis city/Tiahuanaco. Atlas pillar motif (spade symbol) is common in Peruvian.
The other Chanchan one clearly has 3 rings, and it is similar to "rainbow" in Coricancha picture.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 01:31:15 am by senator Bam » 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
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy