SSilhouette Posted January 15, 2016 #1 Share Posted January 15, 2016 There's this: the theory that Lake Titicaca has only marine life because the land was uplifted when it was at sea level. We all know to lift a piece of land from sea level to 12,500 feet would take millions of years. Yet is there evidence that the species in the lake have diverged that far from their marine counterparts? Something's not right.. ... Lake Titicaca was once at sea level ... raised to its present 12, 500-foot elevation.....Though today considered a fresh-water lake, it still has significant salt content, and evidence of its drainage basins suggests it was once completely salt water.It has salt-water flora and fauna in and around the lake, with millions of fossilized sea shells scattered about its shores. The marine fish and seahorses in the lake are all oceanic types found only in salt water, and skeletons of salt-water, ocean-dwelling fish have been found there...Sixteen miles away, and 100 feet higher in elevation, lies a huge set of wharves and piers within the ruins of an ancient city, devastated by a cataclysmic event. These rock wharves bear tribute to a once flourishing shipping business of significant size, with several of the docks and piers so large that hundreds of ships could dock comfortably....Water lines along surrounding hills suggests that a salt water sea once occupied the area.... http://www.aquaticfl.com/LeafySeaDragon/seahorses-of-lake-titicaca But then there's this: Claims of the discovery of a submerged 1,000 year-old temple beneath the waters of Lake Titicaca have sparked controversy in Bolivia.An international group of archaeologists say there is evidence of a temple 200 metres long and 50 metres wide, along with signs of a paved road. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/976880.stm Was a civilization able to breath under water? Or is the bottom of the "ancient uplifted saltwater lake" much much younger than people believe. And if so, what event deposited ocean water and ocean life at 12,500 feet above sea level? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 15, 2016 Popular Post #2 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) There are no marine fish or seahorses in Lake Titicaca. That information is false. The lake is freshwater and is fed by no less than five major rivers coming from glaciers and numerous other inflows. Best I can find is that this "info" comes from a book called "Uriel's Machine" which is a great bastion of scholarship that tries to argue that the earth was hit by two comets in 7640 BCE and 3150 BCE. As for the "temple".... it was supposedly discovered in 2000. In 16 years there has been zero new information on it. That is rather telling as to the legitimacy of the claim. There are, however, many temples and ruins on the many islands of the lake. The name of the lake, in fact, is derived from the feline shaped rock on one of the islands. It is not unknown where the name comes from as the linked article suggests. So basically, the entire OP is fiction. Edited January 15, 2016 by Imaginarynumber1 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubblykiss Posted January 15, 2016 #3 Share Posted January 15, 2016 There are no marine fish or seahorses in Lake Titicaca. That information is false. The lake is freshwater and is fed by no less than five major rivers coming from glaciers and numerous other inflows. Best I can find is that this "info" comes from a book called "Uriel's Machine" which is a great bastion of scholarship that tries to argue that the earth was hit by two comets in 7640 BCE and 3150 BCE. As for the "temple".... it was supposedly discovered in 2000. In 16 years there has been zero new information on it. That is rather telling as to the legitimacy of the claim. There are, however, many temples and ruins on the many islands of the lake. The name of the lake, in fact, is derived from the feline shaped rock on one of the islands. It is not unknown where the name comes from as the linked article suggests. So basically, the entire OP is fiction. You left our the most important part about Lake Titicaca. And that is its awesome name. Now we just need somebody light the Great LA methane leek on fire and scream Lake Titicaca into a massive wall, no a tower of amps while the guitarist from Fury Road bleeds metal into the air. Did I mention Titicaca? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 15, 2016 #4 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) guitarist from Fury Road bleeds metal into the air. His name is Coma the Doof Warrior. Get it right, dude. Jeez. This is an OSCAR nominated film we are talking about here. Edited January 15, 2016 by Imaginarynumber1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 15, 2016 #5 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Sorry, Ssilhouette, but they are correct. The marine species claim about Titicaca is not supported by evidence at all. It's an urban myth that has been repeated a lot over the years - but if you actually check the documented species in the lake it is not true at all. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted January 15, 2016 #6 Share Posted January 15, 2016 so basically .... its a load of ca-ca < someone had to do it > 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodnite Posted January 15, 2016 #7 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) so basically .... its a load of ca-ca < someone had to do it > Now that made me chuckle. Edited January 15, 2016 by Goodnite 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma_Acid Posted January 15, 2016 #8 Share Posted January 15, 2016 His name is Coma the Doof Warrior. Get it right, dude. Jeez. This is an OSCAR nominated film we are talking about here. Not calling Immortan Joe's leadership into question, but personally, if I was going to give someone a guitar full of fire and put him on top of a moving vehicle, I'd make sure that individual could see what he was doing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 15, 2016 #9 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Not calling Immortan Joe's leadership into question, but personally, if I was going to give someone a guitar full of fire and put him on top of a moving vehicle, I'd make sure that individual could see what he was doing. The Doof Warrior is blind on account of having no eyeballs. Never question Immortan Joe again if you ever wish to be witnessed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 15, 2016 #10 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Dang... I was just about to start looking this up. I'd never heard of such at thing in this lake. I'll look anyway just to see what kind of woo I can find. EDIT: OP article also says Pumapunku has stone docks/wharves and traces of ships. But I can't find that verified anywhere either. Weird... (Not!) EDIT: Apparently the whole thing is based on one dried seahorse that was received from a titicaca fisherman. Yet trade in dried sea fish, starfish and seahorses is not unknown, and it seems much more likely that the fisherman was trying to offer medicine rather then a biological specimen from the lake. EDIT: WOW! Apparently a lot of idiots believe this "uplifting" of titicaca happened only 2000 years ago. I'm not going to bother with links since this is such rubbish. Edited January 15, 2016 by DieChecker 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted January 15, 2016 #11 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Dang... I was just about to start looking this up. I'd never heard of such at thing in this lake. I'll look anyway just to see what kind of woo I can find. EDIT: OP article also says Pumapunku has stone docks/wharves and traces of ships. But I can't find that verified anywhere either. Weird... (Not!) EDIT: Apparently the whole thing is based on one dried seahorse that was received from a titicaca fisherman. Yet trade in dried sea fish, starfish and seahorses is not unknown, and it seems much more likely that the fisherman was trying to offer medicine rather then a biological specimen from the lake. EDIT: WOW! Apparently a lot of idiots believe this "uplifting" of titicaca happened only 2000 years ago. I'm not going to bother with links since this is such rubbish. Die, ya worry me son. OvanK and Co. were posting some of this exact same crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 15, 2016 #12 Share Posted January 15, 2016 In case some people are not convinced that this is a freshwater lake here are some of the species in the lake: trout, freshwater snails, frogs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Titicaca#Ecology The lake also has 27 rivers in and a river out. The latter is what prevents the lake from increasing in salinity. From the following link we learn that it drains the lake and then flows into other lakes. If Titicaca were saline then the other lakes would be as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desaguadero_River_%28Bolivia%29 Lots and lots of evidence that the website linked to in the OP is something stepped in when walking behind cattle. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted January 15, 2016 #13 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I didn't see any video of the temple and road underwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSilhouette Posted January 15, 2016 Author #14 Share Posted January 15, 2016 There are no marine fish or seahorses in Lake Titicaca. That information is false. The lake is freshwater and is fed by no less than five major rivers coming from glaciers and numerous other inflows. Best I can find is that this "info" comes from a book called "Uriel's Machine" which is a great bastion of scholarship that tries to argue that the earth was hit by two comets in 7640 BCE and 3150 BCE. As for the "temple".... it was supposedly discovered in 2000. In 16 years there has been zero new information on it. That is rather telling as to the legitimacy of the claim. There are, however, many temples and ruins on the many islands of the lake. The name of the lake, in fact, is derived from the feline shaped rock on one of the islands. It is not unknown where the name comes from as the linked article suggests. So basically, the entire OP is fiction. So just to be clear, you are claiming there are no seahorses that live in Lake Titicaca? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSilhouette Posted January 15, 2016 Author #15 Share Posted January 15, 2016 In case some people are not convinced that this is a freshwater lake here are some of the species in the lake: trout, freshwater snails, frogs Freshwater species migrated there after the lake came into being. No doubt about it. And, it would explain with all the rivers running into it, there's a layer of saltwater deeper with fresh on top. Also, men have purposefully introduced fresh water species into the lake in order to provide more reliable fishing and food supply. That all has nothing to do with why it originated as a salt water inland sea with marine life in it at 12,500 feet above sea level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 15, 2016 #16 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) That all has nothing to do with why it originated as a salt water inland sea with marine life in it at 12,500 feet above sea level. The present basin that the lake is in formed 20 to 28 million years ago. The area itself was formed when faults pulled a section of the Andes apart, creating a intermontane basin. Really, this is basic, basic geology. The lake has existed for somewhere between 18 and 14 million years, not necessarily in its present form, but always a freshwater lake. In fact, core samples drilled from the lake bed go back 390,000 years. You know what they show? The lake was even fresher than it is now! It was not, nor has it ever been, a salt water lake. Edited January 15, 2016 by Imaginarynumber1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 15, 2016 #17 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I didn't see any video of the temple and road underwater. That's because its not real. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted January 15, 2016 #18 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Eww... fact facts. So boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted January 15, 2016 #19 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Eww... fact facts. So boring. Yes, how rude - introducing facts Cheers, Badeskov 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 15, 2016 #20 Share Posted January 15, 2016 So just to be clear, you are claiming there are no seahorses that live in Lake Titicaca? Don't be so coy, Ssilhouette - it really doesn't suit you or the topic. Just provide your 'evidence'. And do you accept everything you read on the web without checking it properly? Do you *know* how to check it properly? Perhaps we could make this thread worthwhile.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted January 15, 2016 #21 Share Posted January 15, 2016 No marine life has ever been found in Titicaca. You can still claim that there is some there, I suppose. In fact, I can claim that there is marine life in my toilet. Almost true after a fish fry, after all. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted January 15, 2016 #22 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Now,mI can see the bone of contention here - marine to mean "water" versus marine to mean "in the sea". There ar, according to Wiki freshwater animals like catfish and frogs there. There are, according to Graham Hancock seahorses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 15, 2016 #23 Share Posted January 15, 2016 There are, according to Graham Hancock seahorses. The words I use to describe Graham Hancock would get me banned from this site. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted January 15, 2016 #24 Share Posted January 15, 2016 The words I use to describe Graham Hancock would get me banned from this site. And, by word of mouth, numerous other sites should you happen to be a member.....family friendly and fairly accurate descriptions of Hancock/ Von Daniken/Sibrel/Hoagland/Lazar/etc do typically not go very well hand in hand. Cheers, Badeskov 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted January 15, 2016 #25 Share Posted January 15, 2016 There are, according to Graham Hancock seahorses. How disappointing. One would expect better from Hancock. Something along the lines of "sea unicorns" perhaps. Harte 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now