Holes in the Pisco Valley

[capeo]

I think aquatus summed it up nicely. You devise a hypothesis of how it could be done, you test if it's viable (can it be done?) then you can deduce what kind of evidence such processes would leave and search for it. Sometimes evidence presents itself and it takes further discoveries to put in context. The point is, viable methods means mundane methods as there is no evidence to support that anything but masterful stone work took place in an ancient city as it has in many other ancient cities. Bear in mind serious continuous digs have only taken place in this area since the 90's. There have been forays prior but nothing to level as is ongoing today. I state this just as comparison to some other sights around the Mediterranean that have been ongoing for most of the last century. Don't forget too, that most of the city was intentionally destroyed by the spanish which does not speed up evaluation. Given time and patience Tiwanaku will give up it's secrets and I'm sure they wondrous but there's no reason to suspect they'll be anomalous.

[Orion von Koch]

My friends you can spout off all you want with the company-line from the Liberal world of Archaeology, but no one has actually done the work of testing those holes which are out of context with any concept of creation. they are eight holes wide and are uniformly created in a grid pattern — step forward four feet and get eight more holes uniformly created machine-like and reiterate that over and over and see them march over hill and dale in a uniform style not unlike the holes I once bored with a two drill unit for the Geological Survey back in the sixties. The holes cannot be determined as to how deep they are due to the cave-in of hundreds of years, perhaps thousands.

As to Tiwanaku, the site is about 15,000 years old and was occupied over the years by many other civilizations of lessor talent. The drill work in the stone is highly sophisticated and would require the percision of a powered source of high speed and extremely hard material that did not traditionally belong to the ancient according to modern Archaeology. The area is highly sophisticated and deserves more than we are willing to offer. It remains the silver bulllet.

As a former university administrator and educator, I know the BS that comes from these programs that say it is highly recent but it is just company-line. In truth, we have been had. The Ancients were highly advanced and were not necessarily alien. They were us.

[aquatus1]

My friends you can spout off all you want with the company-line from the Liberal world of Archaeology,

Liberal?

but no one has actually done the work of testing those holes which are out of context with any concept of creation.

How can you say they are out of concept in the same sentence in which you say no one has looked into them? If no one has researched the holes, why would anyone assume they are mystical, supernatural, or extraterrestrial (in short, anything other than mundane)?

As to Tiwanaku, the site is about 15,000 years old and was occupied over the years by many other civilizations of lessor talent. The drill work in the stone is highly sophisticated and would require the percision of a powered source of high speed and extremely hard material that did not traditionally belong to the ancient according to modern Archaeology. The area is highly sophisticated and deserves more than we are willing to offer. It remains the silver bulllet.

Silver bullets are for people who believe in legends and myths. No matter how much people like to claim that the various stoneworks throughout the world could not possibly have been created by the ancients because ti was too hard, the simple fact (and yes, it is a fact) remains that this 'impossible to work' stone can be worked with the tools available, and on more than one occassion (such as in Egypt), evidence showing how the stone was worked, has been found. There is no reason to believe this site will be any different.

[capeo]

The stone is not particular hard. Jean-Peirre Protzen has found stone hammers on site and tested them to fit blocks quite nicely. No laser beams needed. As far as transport not only is there the lake itself (which has huge quarried stones in it) but quite a few extremely polished cobbled roadways that show every indication of heavy stones being dragged across them. The cobbles function almost like ball bearings by limiting the weight to smaller points. David Canal pulled a fifteen ton block up an eight degree incline with the help of a village (250 men women and children) on Nova. Once it started moving it traveled quite easily. No advanced technology, just brains and brawn.

[Orion von Koch]

Indeed, I have lifted a two ton pickup also by myself, but it is the condition of the site. Too many here were born yesterday and non are very ancient in mentality. I will wait for those who can see the reality and let the others continue with what is in reality impossible.

[ShaunZero]

You can either choose to believe that aliens came down and planted the underwear at your location, or you can choose to believe that the underwear got there through more mundane means.

These are theories in the way the task could have been accomplished using what was available at the time. Extraterrestrial help was unlikely to be one of those things. If your underwear is on the lawn, your first choices should include manners in which we know that they could have gotten there (not necessarily 'did', but 'could'). Aliens are very far down on that list.

Wich is somewhat my point. People think differently. When it comes down to underwear in my backyard, I'd think it was nothing supernatural. But when it comes to something more, I keep my mind open, and I'd never argue with someone and tell them "this is how it's happened" just because I've found a possability. Skeptics like to shove that down people's throats, and if we disagree "you're wrong, it didn't happen like that". And they don't even know how it happened!

Edited February 2, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[fantazum]

Here's one way:

http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/tiw...experiment.html

This is the home for the dig:

http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/research/E...questions.shtml

Here's some further reading that may illuminate you:

“The Gateways of Tiwanaku: Symbols or Passages?” in Andean Archaeology II: Variations in Sociopolitical Organization, edited by Helaine Silverman and William H. Isbell, Plenum Press, New York, 189-223 (2002) (with Jean-Pierre Protzen).

“La cantería de Pumapuncu” in Wari y Tiwanaku: Modelos versus Evidencias, edited by Peter Kaulicke, PUCP Pontifica Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Perú, 5:309-336 (2001) (with Jean-Pierre Protzen).

“On Reconstructing Tiwanaku Architecture.”Journal of the

Society of Architectural Historians, 59 (3):358-371 (2000) (with Jean-Pierre Protzen).

"Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A

Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 56 (2):146-167 (1997) (Jean-Pierre Protzen, with S. Nair).

I don't know what is meant by suddenly because the site dig shows slow and steady development and occupation for thousands of years. The earliest dedicated stone construction of the city was around 400bc but its pinnacle wasn't until around 500ad and continued to 950ad (newest estimate). More than a thousand years conservatively. Nothing too sudden. Another thing not mentioned often is there is a lot of mortar inlay at the site. Not everything was on the technical grandeur of the gates. Everyday construction was probably conducted quite quickly but for things that held stupendous spiritual significance it would completely understandable if they spent years to move the largest stones as some monuments remain incomplete. The 10,000+ year old civilization camp consistently devalues the amazing ingenuity and accomplishments of ancient cultures by ignoring evidence to make their conclusion and rely instead entirely on speculation.

the tihuanaco site has been dated using the established carbon dating method. Archeologists dug beneath the stone monuments and found signs of earlier settlement. It was from these remains that they dated the construction of tihuanaco to 400bc. And herein lies the rub: an amazingly sophisticated society suddenly appeared in the region and on top of existing stone age settlements built a marvel from unimaginably large perfectly cut stone and around it they developed the world's most advanced agri-society using techniques that we have only just rediscovered and still do not fully understand.

You have to be kidding.

[capeo]

There's nothing sudden about it. I don't understand why you would suppose it was. The construction took place in a period of over a thousand years. To be sudden every structure there would have had to spring up in an instant and that is simply not the case. The site shows the expected variation in age, technique an architecture exactly as one would expect and has been observed at other ancient sites. Most ancient cities have evidence of the cities or settlements they were built upon. Every settlement starts as a simpler settlement, obvious I know, but this is the case here as well.

[aquatus1]

Wich is somewhat my point. People think differently. When it comes down to underwear in my backyard, I'd think it was nothing supernatural. But when it comes to something more, I keep my mind open, and I'd never argue with someone and tell them "this is how it's happened" just because I've found a possability. Skeptics like to shove that down people's throats, and if we disagree "you're wrong, it didn't happen like that". And they don't even know how it happened!

The point is, however, that regardless of whether we are talking about underwear in the backyard or of 40 ton Sun gates in the Peruvian mountains, the first ideas to merit attention are the ones that could have occured with the resources available, as opposed to resources that not only were unlikely to exist there, but haven't even been shown to have existed anywhere (such as aliens).

[ShaunZero]

Never forget, that no matter how sure you are, there are things that some truths are the least likley explainations. And at those times, scientists are probably wrong, because I've rarley seen them even consider unlikley explainations.

This is how I look at things. Even though we're 98% sure about something, there's still a 2% chance we're wrong. And who's to say that 2% isn't where the truth lies? And if someone disagrees with mainstream science's opinion, there's no reason to tell them they're wrong if you're not 100% correct yourself. If everyone was to agree with mainstream science 100% of the time, we'd all stop thinking for ourselves. Different opinions are wonderful.

Edited February 3, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[capeo]

Never forget, that no matter how sure you are, there are things that some truths are the least likley explainations. And at those times, scientists are probably wrong, because I've rarley seen them even consider unlikley explainations.

This is how I look at things. Even though we're 98% sure about something, there's still a 2% chance we're wrong. And who's to say that 2% isn't where the truth lies? And if someone disagrees with mainstream science's opinion, there's no reason to tell them they're wrong if you're not 100% correct yourself. If everyone was to agree with mainstream science 100% of the time, we'd all stop thinking for ourselves. Different opinions are wonderful.

Mainstream science isn't some great cabal where a bunch of guys sit around long black tables and decide protocol. Within mainstream science there is endless fascinating opinions and ongoing debates. All scientists are free thinkers, thinking well outside the box (I mean, have read any current paleontology or new quantum theories?), the difference is they know that their ideas must stand up to scrutiny and eventual testing and proof so they are not going to come up theories that are not presented to them through study of evidence. Looking for unlikely explanations? What sense does that make? Why would one do that when completely likely explanations present themselves. That's just making stuff up, not research, that's Hancock territory. Despite what you think, no archeologist has jumped on the Atlantis/super civilization bandwagon not because they're stuffed shirts or afraid of anything (because there would be nothing they would be afraid of contrary to what a few people keep repeating) but simply because they have never found any compelling evidence to support such an idea. They seek mundane causes because they see mundane results (as beautiful and accomplished as they may be). Unlike the Cayces' and the Hancocks' they seek actual truth, not book sales. We all live in a world that scientific method has made for us. We're communicating right now through a medium created by people thinking outside of the box. The most poignant and potentially influential conversations concerning our past and our future are going on right now in the many fields of science. Science is a constant conversation, a constant evolution of ideas and thought, the furthest thing from a stagnant paradigm, as Orion would like to suppose, that could be. I'd suggest, (because I think you would enjoy it and maybe be a little surprised) checking out the science mags at your local bookstore (Scientific American, Nature, Science) to give you an idea of the constant exchange of ideas and the constant flow of new ideas. I'd say make your leaps based on logic don't make leaps of logic.

[aquatus1]

Well said, Capeo.

[ShaunZero]

I read up to this point [i'll read the rest later]

Looking for unlikely explanations?

I thought I only said consider them as a possability, and don't tell someone they're wrong because they beleive the least likley explaination. Why'd you go off rambling about something I didn't even say?

If there are more than one explaination for something. The one with more evidence is only the one that simply seems more obvious. Things are not always what they seem. Keep the mind open...

Good journey.

Edited February 3, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[aquatus1]

In the same way you get annoyed when you think someone is referring to believers as weak or needy, skeptics get annoyed when they think you are saying scientists refuse to consider all possibilities.

[Abramelin]

Hello Orion,

I had this question, maybe you'll remember : in an earlier post you talked about 'giant pyramids' in the Amazonian jungle. Can you give a link to a site with pics? Up to now I've only read about them in a book about Colonel Fawcett and in a book of Karl Brugger (Chronicle of Akakor - a hoax, btw).

Abe.

BTW: I will keep repeating this question to you untill you answer it.

[Abramelin]

Hello Orion,

I had this question, maybe you'll remember : in an earlier post you talked about 'giant pyramids' in the Amazonian jungle. Can you give a link to a site with pics? Up to now I've only read about them in a book about Colonel Fawcett and in a book of Karl Brugger (Chronicle of Akakor - a hoax, btw).

Abe.

BTW: I will keep repeating this question to you untill you answer it.

You know, I can be quit annoying. But hey, you are too.

[capeo]

I read up to this point [i'll read the rest later]

I thought I only said consider them as a possability, and don't tell someone they're wrong because they beleive the least likley explaination. Why'd you go off rambling about something I didn't even say?

If there are more than one explaination for something. The one with more evidence is only the one that simply seems more obvious. Things are not always what they seem. Keep the mind open...

Good journey.

I think I rambled about precisely what you said. Following your thinking I could say the sun is made of oranges, that's why it's the color it is. That's no explanation, but is one of a billion I could come up with. Obviously it's not, but some things are obvious for a reason.

[dani10]

It's funny how I saw this thread one day after the Pisco day in Peru :-p

[Orion von Koch]

aaaaannnnndddd???

[aquatus1]

Ahh, the beauty of Pisco is that, given enough time, nothing is mysterious anymore! The world becomes one, wonderful, unified place.

[ShaunZero]

I think I rambled about precisely what you said. Following your thinking I could say the sun is made of oranges, that's why it's the color it is. That's no explanation, but is one of a billion I could come up with. Obviously it's not, but some things are obvious for a reason.

No, I ment that the real evidence makes it more obvious than the other. Anyone would agree on that, that's why we consider the best explaination [the one with the most evidence]. I'm just saying that if someone beleives it's the least likley explaination, don't scoff at them.

[capeo]

No, I ment that the real evidence makes it more obvious than the other. Anyone would agree on that, that's why we consider the best explaination [the one with the most evidence]. I'm just saying that if someone beleives it's the least likley explaination, don't scoff at them.

I wouldn't scoff at you, my friend. We're just talking. I guess all I'm saying is that as far as I can see, an explanation that lacks evidence is really no explanation at all, it's fiction.

[dani10]

Ahh, the beauty of Pisco is that, given enough time, nothing is mysterious anymore! The world becomes one, wonderful, unified place.

LOL that's soo true! Maybe it was created by the gods as a gift to humanity.

[Orion von Koch]

Sad. Are there any graduates here in engineering who would know from experience how the US Geological Survey tests for substances from below??? To many kids just come here to court or hold court.

[aquatus1]

Sad. Are there any graduates here in engineering who would know from experience how the US Geological Survey tests for substances from below??? To many kids just come here to court or hold court.

Depends on what you are looking for. There really isn't any generic test that can determine a wide range of underground things. You have to have a good idea of what you are trying to detect.