I have just started reading Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock. In it he mentions the ruins of Tiahuanaco in the Andes mountains. I had never heard of them so i was wondering if anyone new anything about them.

Hancock's book said that only 2% of the site had been excavated and according to radiocarbon dating the site is only about 2,000 years old but some people believe it to be much much older.

Probably the Incas... Or Space Aliens... But most likely the Incas...

Lol. For a moment Athenian, I thought you were about to say "Probably Aliens... Or maybe the Incas... But most likely Aliens.."

Oh my...I've been spending too much time around here lately

That site was founded about a thousand years before the Incan civilziation came into being. They don't know much about the people who built it.

There is a documentary about that civilization, seen it on the Discovery channel before, Hard to remember anything from it, other than they were acctualy trying to make a case for it being Atlantis, it's full off human water ways man made channels, just go to Discovery channel's web site maybe you can find more about it there.

This Link seems
okay......I don't know if it's what your looking for but at least it's something..

I have been a big fan of Graham Hancocks work, I also saw the special on the site, it was on the Learning Channel. Tiahuanaco is amazing, the advanced means by which it was built, including the use of metal I-bars linking building stones. The metal worked as a clamp and the idea was also used in Egypt over four thousand years ago.

Graham Hancock has his own website and its a great resource for information.

www.grahamhancock.com and be sure to check out the forums, they also have great information

Learning Channel huh? my bad I thought I seen that on the Discovery channel

//////////////////////
Here we go again!!

Actually its 1000 years before our current records of the Incas civilization. It could have been the Incas ancestors.

I also seen a documentary, where they were trying to prove the first civilization in South America came from Australia, "Aboriginals", there are only two ancestors from that bloodline left in South America to this day in.

Hey,
Just find the following link:
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/sc-harry.htm

and also

http://www.crystallotus.com/Lemuria/03Kuma...duorLemuria.htm

its so exiting

H

[quote=Blake2kuk,Nov 30 2004, 06:23 AM]
Hancock's book said that only 2% of the site had been excavated and according to radiocarbon dating the site is only about 2,000 years old but some people believe it to be much much older.

Change your spelling to Tiahuanacotas

On one of the sites I read they lived as far back as 1300 BC. You'll probably get better hits you haven't seen since most will be in Spanish. Found four pages full of sites. Only sites in English listed below. Few are travel agencies for setting tours but a couple of them are good hits.

Check him out too - Robert Langstroth, a cultural geographer of the University of Wisconsin

http://www.loslagos-beni.com/earthmovers.htm
Looks good but didn't go in.

http://www.balesworldwide.com/bolivia--200...e-holidays.html
Gate of the Sun -- also a tourist thing but go in anyway

http://www.enjoy-machu-picchu.org/history-...e-new-cusco.php
heirs of the art of Tiahuanaco - Tourist thing and mainly about Cusco

http://www.enjoybolivia.com/english/guiade...EDORES_IN.shtml
archaeological remains - looks good

I have read somewhere that Tiahuanacotas could be from the same civilization as Machu Picchu. There is a building in Machu Pucchu that is aligned to have the suns rays shine thru a aligned window on the summer solistist. And thru researching ancient star charts dates Machu Picchu at around 18,000 years old if I remember correctly.

Has anyone heard of Immanuel Velikovsky? He published an interesting book called “Worlds in collision”? He brought up many controversial topics 5 of his theories have been vindicated. Mysteriously, his books have been discontinued due to the fact that it “rocked the boat” of the conventional science. Before Haddock, Buaval or Alan Alford, there was Velikovsky. You should check out his letters to Albert Einstein as well.

http://www.varchive.org/

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/

Immanuel Velikovsky may have been a great psychiatrist, but he was not so good at astronomy or physics...I don't understand the great interest in him. He made some really wild claims that were based on speculation without(it appears to me) any attempt to scientifically justify his speculation. He kind of gives me the david icke feeling...

Have read somewhere before that there is an unknown race of people before the Incas. They were taller and fairer, the Incas themselves do not know much about these ppl it seems.

Tiahuanaco is popularly considered, in Peru and Bolivia anyway, the first city built in that region. The people who built it would eventually go on to found the Incan Empire. The archeology of the city is remarkable in that within the city itself we have a complete timeline of the learning curve of these ancient people, much like you can see the progression in knowledge in the Roman colosseum. It starts from the very beginning to walls that were mortared together and are now almost falling apart, to shaped stones stacked carefully on top of one another, to engineously cut and interlocked stones making up incredibly strong walls, to even taller walls reinforced with molten steel poured into staple holes, and to the grand culmination of their technology, and multi-ton, monolithic stone gate standing proudly in the center of the city.

It is truly a city worthy of a people who would then go on to found one of the greatest and most advanced empires of the world. Unfortunately, due to some event, the water level dropped dramatically at one point, and the city, once close to a lake, was left high and dry in the mountains, and was eventually abandoned.

I see no way that city could have been built by the native people there. I don't agree with all of Hancock's theories or reasoning, but he's right about this one, IMO, the workforce that would have been needed to build it just simply could not be sustained at such a high altitude.

Well, there is a little problem with that theory.

The city is actually there.

It's a little bit like future people finding the lost island of Manhatten and claiming it was impossible for people to have built a city there. The simple fact of the matter is that an entire population did, and there is a city there to prove it.

Incidentally, what kind of workforce are you thinking about, when you say it couldn't have been sustained at such a high altitude (don't forget, Tiahuanaco is not the highest city in the world. Other cities at that altitude are sustaining themselves just fine).

I've actual been to the pyramids of Tiahuanaco....

There amazing...you can actually climb up both pyramids...what a view what an experience..

they say when the Aztecs found the city...it was deserted...the people just packed there bags and left....no one knows why!!!

I personally believe that the same builders who built the pyramids in Egypt were also responsible for the ones in Mexico... Maybe the Alteans helped both races...

Zecharia Stitchen talks a great deal about these things in his books. He theorizes that the Anunaki gave the ancients the knowledge to built the city of Tiahuanaco AND Teotihuacan, which many engineers today say may have operated as a giant electrical generator.

Supposedly the Olmecs, a tribe of "negroid-featured" (his quote, not mine) peoples from across the sea where the first in the region...and yes, the city is very, very old. The Olmecs left huge, helmet-clad stone heads lying all around central and south america...check it out:
http://images.google.com/images?q=Olmec%20...off&sa=N&tab=wi

"I have just started reading Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock"
This would be the same graham hancock that recently admitted that he's a drug taking anarchist.
He writes books to sell books.
He isn't an archaelogist
He's a journalist
As for zech sitchin
Are you mad
You'd have to be to believe a word he says.
It's funny you think how only Zech sitchin has translated the sumerian texts to include astronauts and spaceships. How did the thousands of other scholars who have translated the same texts miss that. Boy i bet they're all kicking themselves.
He recently claimed that the wooden horse of troy was in fact an armoured personnel carrier.
He's currently making money from the tsunami disater.
Very nice guy.
NOT

"many engineers today say may have operated as a giant electrical generator."
Yeah but i bet they're not real engineers. Just friends of hancocks. The only time Hancock ever invited a real geologist to approve his claims totally backfired. He didn't agree with a single thing he said.
Hancocks recent claim that the mahalipram temples were 9000 years old backfired badly on him too when it was discovered that they were in fact just 1500 years old. As had been claimed all along

find out about the real Graham Hancock here
http://robertschoch.net/Forum/index.php?showtopic=54

I had never thought about that... I guess in a sense it is! lol... that's funny... armored personnel carrier...

"It was only thus, I explained, that all the texts and depictions from antiquity showing men and gods can be explained and understood. The visit to Troy and its tale was affirmation of the actual presence of those whom the Sumerians called Anunnaki: “Those who from Heaven to Earth came.”

Of course you'd have to accept his assertion that the annunaki were from outer space in the first place.
Funnily enough he's the only person who provided any evidence to back up that claim
He's currently milking the system by providing hotel accomodation in florida for all his friends. Providing they have $125 of course to pay for one nights stay at a $40 hotel and for $3 worth of food.
outstanding value.
not

http://www.sitchin.com

Oh my yes. Velikovsky after all predicted that there would be remnant magnetism on the moon . . . which conventional scientists laughed at . . . until we landed on the moon and proved Velikovsky right! And then too, Velikovsky predicted that the temperature of Venus would not be the "balmy" 125 or 130 degrees which conventional scientists thought in the 1950s, but would be far hotter . . . which indeed proved to be the case. Also, Velikovsky predicted that Jupiter would be shown to emit electromagnetic radiation in the radio wave frequency . . . also poo-pooed by scientists of the time . . . but then, when someone got around to pointing a radio-telescope at Jupiter . . . sure enough, Jupiter was found to emit this radiation . . . just as Velikovsky said and conventional scientists denied. If Velikovsky was so poor at astronomy and physics, why then was he right so often and conventional scientists wrong so often? As to astronomers, please point out to me just when at all that their predictions proved true when spacecraft finally arrived to make actual measurements . . . I'm still waiting for that day.

I'm merely stating for your reading pleasure what stitchin says in his books. Interesting theories? Yes, sure. Believable? not to me, so dont attack me for repeating what I had read.

I read all these quacks from Daniken to Stitchin because I find the theories interesting. And YES, many engineers are of the idea that those cities may have operated as generators. Improbable? Sure. Do we know ALL of the technology that disaster/war/slaughter/nature may have taken from mankind? We do not.

String theory sounds far-fetched too, and there was a time only decades ago that physicists laughed at the 'crackpots' who believed in it. Now, however, nearly 80% of all college physics majors are interested in pursuing string theory.

All Im saying is: keep an open mind..thats what this site is about. And dont start on me for mentioning a guys name and pointing out his rough ideas.

[quote=Lorax,Jan 19 2005, 04:30 AM]
[quote=k_ksdad,Dec 13 2004, 03:03 AM]I have read somewhere that Tiahuanacotas could be from the same civilization as Machu Picchu. There is a building in Machu Pucchu that is aligned to have the suns rays shine thru a aligned window on the summer solistist. And thru researching ancient star charts dates Machu Picchu at around 18,000 years old if I remember correctly.
[right][snapback]401105[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I think 18000 years is a bit old for any type of strusture of this sort. but i could be wrong. That would put it some where in the ice age I think, or maybe before.

The Olmecs are probably responsible, but we know very little about them. It is an amazing structure for sure.

The people who built Tiahuanaco were the ancestors of the Qetchua, who eventually became known as the Inca.

It is obvious you have not read earth in upheavel. And so why are some of ideas being proven to be true?

So just to go off topic, can anybody recommend any decent books along the same vein? I have some book vouchers I was going to spend on "Fingerprints' but I don't think I will now.