Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Vrcocha

Atlantis in the Altiplano

513 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Vrcocha

Atlantis in the Altiplano

 

I've never heard this theory before and have  looked for it so all this craziness is mine. I think the story of Atlantis has been way over blown but like with many stories there's usually some truth to it.  I've had an interest in South America for a long time and wasn't really looking for Atlantis but after a while it dawned on me that maybe IF Atlantis really existed this is where it could be because it seems to fit everything I know about the location of Atlantis.  
btw I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination.

Since this is my first post I'll start by saying I think the megalithic structures found in the Andes and Altiplano areas are way older than the experts claim.  I know what they say but I don't think the people within the time of our known history, (few thousand years past) had the resources and ability to do the megalithic construction that we see left behind.  That's not to say they couldn't have managed to move and set a few huge stones but the amount of work done in all the locations within the time period given would of been quite a feat.


It's also plain to see that the biggest and best work is always on the bottom and in some places the work even seems to have been stopped.  I think people came along later, found it and built on top of and around what was already there. Many examples of this can be found in Peru.


Puma Punku and Tiwanaku seem to be different in their construction.  These two outlying locations may be all that's left of Atlantis and that the actual city of Atlantis may have been located where Lake Titicaca is now and it literally fell into the sea almost 12000 years ago. Just as Plato described.

 

Some points about the Altiplano

The Altiplano is an ancient sea bed that was pushed up millions of years ago trapping and collecting a lot of salt as it did. This salt can be found all over the area. A couple of good examples that show this salt to be under ground is Lake San Juan de Salinas about 20 miles northwest of lake Titicaca and the  Maras salt flats just north of Cusco.  


Today the Altiplano is a large highland plain with the exception of a few hills. Towards the northern upper center you'll find a little higher elevation than the south end.  There you'll find a few hills then north of that is Lake Titicaca and north of that you'll find the upper end of the basin which is a large plain. This is also the area where you'll find Lake San Juan de Salinas .  All things being equal Lake Titicaca shouldn't even be there much less 932 feet deep.  It's simply out of place when looking at the rest of the Altiplano.


If you look around the area of Lake Titicaca you can see where continental drift  has folded the ancient sea bed to an almost vertical position. A good example of that can be seen around  Aramu-muru, the so called stargate, and other areas near the lake.

 

Here's my theory


Before the time of the Atlantians, the Lake Titicaca area was a vast fertile plain similar to what you can find just north of the lake today. The plain was sitting on top of this folded ancient sea bed which held a lot of salt in it. Everything was stable as long as the fresh water from the mountains flowed on across the area and on south into the inland sea. After the Atlantians came to the area they upset this balance by building their city in the middle of the plain along with all the irrigation channels needed for mass farming.


After maybe a few hundred years or more with all this fresh water sitting on the plain, it seeped down and  the salt dissolved out from under them to where their fertile plain and city were basically setting on slabs of vertical sandstone surrounded by water.  


Still everything was fine. Their city was surrounded by concentric rings of fresh water that connected directly to the sea to the south. They had plenty of fresh water for their city and farms which is a must for any civilization.  With the rainfall being greater back then  and a lot less evaporation taking place from not having a huge lake on the north end, the south end of the Altiplano was a vast inland sea.  There may even of been a water route to the Pacific ocean by way of the Loa river on the south end.


Then one day it happened, the Andes Mountains made another push upwards. Violent earthquakes took place and the south end of the Altiplano rose a few feet. Since the city and most of the upper plain was now sitting on essentially slabs of vertical sandstone it began to crumble and literally sank into the sea.  At the same time a massive amount of mud and water came rushing north completely burying the city on the bottom of the new lake. This may also explain how Puma Punka, Tiwanaku and some of the other megalithic works on the islands were destroyed and buried.  


If this was the case, evidence of Atlantis may never be found.


I'd like to hear any comments pro or con, but as I eluded to before I don't believe the dates the experts are giving.
If any links are needed to some of the places referenced I'll be glad to provide them.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

Howdy Vcocha

I have not heard that particular variant for 'Atlantis' but it doesn't match well with Plato's story. Pumapunku was a surface find, it wasn't buried.

You've already stated above, "evidence of Atlantis may never be found'.

Yep

.....and you also noted, ' I don't believe the dates the experts are giving'.

Okay so what is there to discuss?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
14 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Howdy Vcocha

I have not heard that particular variant for 'Atlantis' but it doesn't match well with Plato's story. Pumapunku was a surface find, it wasn't buried.

You've already stated above, "evidence of Atlantis may never be found'.

Yep

.....and you also noted, ' I don't believe the dates the experts are giving'.

Okay so what is there to discuss?

It's a rather New Age variant on the story Hanslune and one that ignores what Plato has to say about Atlantis and its location in favor of an unnecessary and unevidenced reinterpretation.

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The source of the salt seems to be good bit off here. Salt layers in the Earth form when a salt body dries out. The amount of salt left behind is dependent on the amount of water that evaporated. The salinity of the oceans does not differ enough to be of that much concern. The depth of salt deposited is proportional to the depth of water that dried out. IIRC saltwater yields around 1-2mm  of evaporite per meter of evaporated water. To collect any substantial amounts of salt requires that a large depth of seawater dries out. An uplift does not trap and hold salt. An uplift can raise a deposit of dried seawater. Salt being soluble does not mean that the area where salt exists today is the source of the source. The salt could be transported great distances by water.

Your comments about the salt does not have anything to do with the story you present. It is an unrelated side story.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Howdy Vcocha

I have not heard that particular variant for 'Atlantis' but it doesn't match well with Plato's story. Pumapunku was a surface find, it wasn't buried.

You've already stated above, "evidence of Atlantis may never be found'.

Yep

.....and you also noted, ' I don't believe the dates the experts are giving'.

Okay so what is there to discuss?

 

 

Howdy Hanslune

I thought it was common knowledge that Puma Punka was buried. There may have been stones on the surface for a surface find but from the images I've seen it looks like the stones were buried at different levels.at the same time which would have taken a torrent of mud to have left them that way. Then a few miles away, maybe less, you have the Akapana  Pyramid and Tiwanaku  which was clearly buried.

 

ON the dates, I also don't believe the official dating on the Sphinx. .

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The source of the salt seems to be good bit off here. Salt layers in the Earth form when a salt body dries out. The amount of salt left behind is dependent on the amount of water that evaporated. The salinity of the oceans does not differ enough to be of that much concern. The depth of salt deposited is proportional to the depth of water that dried out. IIRC saltwater yields around 1-2mm  of evaporite per meter of evaporated water. To collect any substantial amounts of salt requires that a large depth of seawater dries out. An uplift does not trap and hold salt. An uplift can raise a deposit of dried seawater. Salt being soluble does not mean that the area where salt exists today is the source of the source. The salt could be transported great distances by water.

Your comments about the salt does not have anything to do with the story you present. It is an unrelated side story.

Of course I'm not talking about a salt dome.  It's more like if you took the salt flats to the south and folded them vertically. I think the inland sea millions of years ago, when it was collecting this salt, was way wider than what we see today. There's also evidence of a lot of underground salt in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

 

1 hour ago, Vrcocha said:

Howdy HansluneI thought it was common knowledge that Puma Punka was buried.

 

Oh really so who dug it up and when?

 

Quote

There may have been stones on the surface for a surface find but from the images I've seen it looks like the stones were buried at different levels.at the same time which would have taken a torrent of mud to have left them that way.
 

Oh please reference the PRP that states that, some of the stone did end up partially buried but the site was above ground the Inca knew it was there because the Spanish asked them about it.

xdQfVb3.jpg

Quote

Then a few miles away, maybe less, you have the Akapana  Pyramid and Tiwanaku  which was clearly buried.

Yes parts of those complexes had to be dug out as they are located in the flood plain of the local  Desaguadero River.

Quote

ON the dates, I also don't believe the official dating on the Sphinx. .

That's nice but lets stay with your first claim

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Salts in and around the Altiplano are the natural result of the local climate combined with a lot of endorheic lakes dotted all around the region.

Endorheic lakes are technically lakes that don't flow (eventually) into the sea. But the endorheic lakes in this region don't flow into anything at all. Water level is maintained, more or less, through evaporation (some seepage will occur as well.)

What that means is the lakes in the area concentrate salts from the soils. When a lake's source dries up, the lake dries up and leaves a salt bed.

Regarding your statement that all this craziness is yours, I'm right now not believing that, since the idea of Atlantis in Bolivia has been around (and made fun of) for decades now, there's at least one book solely based on that idea, and the idea has been repeated in dozens of books and crockumentaries over that time period.

There's no reason at all - none - to believe Atlantis, or anything like it, ever existed. So this idea is kaput from the start without even going into how it doesn't match Plato's allegory.

Harte

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
55 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

 

Oh really so who dug it up and when?

 

Oh please reference the PRP that states that, some of the stone did end up partially buried but the site was above ground the Inca knew it was there because the Spanish asked them about it.

xdQfVb3.jpg

Yes parts of those complexes had to be dug out as they are located in the flood plain of the local  Desaguadero River.

That's nice but lets stay with your first claim

Maybe it was that guy in the photo who dug it out. B)

 

Puma Punku and Tiwanaku are only about 3/4 mile apart in the same area. Maybe you would like to explain how the Akapana was buried and some of the stones at Puma Punku were found on different levels of the hardened mud.

0.jpg

 

Of course the Inca knew it was there. They're probably the ones that found it and had been quarrying it.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
5 hours ago, Vrcocha said:

Atlantis in the Altiplano

 

I've never heard this theory before and have  looked for it so all this craziness is mine. I think the story of Atlantis has been way over blown but like with many stories there's usually some truth to it.  I've had an interest in South America for a long time and wasn't really looking for Atlantis but after a while it dawned on me that maybe IF Atlantis really existed this is where it could be because it seems to fit everything I know about the location of Atlantis.  
btw I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination.

Since this is my first post I'll start by saying I think the megalithic structures found in the Andes and Altiplano areas are way older than the experts claim.  I know what they say but I don't think the people within the time of our known history, (few thousand years past) had the resources and ability to do the megalithic construction that we see left behind.  That's not to say they couldn't have managed to move and set a few huge stones but the amount of work done in all the locations within the time period given would of been quite a feat.

One reason earlier building used large blocks and later small ones , was the newer cutting technologies used to cut blocks. Sure a giant block is harder to move but the work required to cut that up into smaller  easier movable blocks is massive .  As new ways of cutting  blocks became became easier, the work load shifted , easier to cut small blocks and  they are easier to move .  

5 hours ago, Vrcocha said:


It's also plain to see that the biggest and best work is always on the bottom and in some places the work even seems to have been stopped.  I think people came along later, found it and built on top of and around what was already there. Many examples of this can be found in Peru.

see above 

5 hours ago, Vrcocha said:


Puma Punku and Tiwanaku seem to be different in their construction.  These two outlying locations may be all that's left of Atlantis and that the actual city of Atlantis may have been located where Lake Titicaca is now and it literally fell into the sea almost 12000 years ago. Just as Plato described.

 

Some points about the Altiplano

The Altiplano is an ancient sea bed that was pushed up millions of years ago trapping and collecting a lot of salt as it did. This salt can be found all over the area. A couple of good examples that show this salt to be under ground is Lake San Juan de Salinas about 20 miles northwest of lake Titicaca and the  Maras salt flats just north of Cusco.  


Today the Altiplano is a large highland plain with the exception of a few hills. Towards the northern upper center you'll find a little higher elevation than the south end.  There you'll find a few hills then north of that is Lake Titicaca and north of that you'll find the upper end of the basin which is a large plain. This is also the area where you'll find Lake San Juan de Salinas .  All things being equal Lake Titicaca shouldn't even be there much less 932 feet deep.  It's simply out of place when looking at the rest of the Altiplano.


If you look around the area of Lake Titicaca you can see where continental drift  has folded the ancient sea bed to an almost vertical position. A good example of that can be seen around  Aramu-muru, the so called stargate, and other areas near the lake.

 

Here's my theory


Before the time of the Atlantians, the Lake Titicaca area was a vast fertile plain similar to what you can find just north of the lake today. The plain was sitting on top of this folded ancient sea bed which held a lot of salt in it. Everything was stable as long as the fresh water from the mountains flowed on across the area and on south into the inland sea. After the Atlantians came to the area they upset this balance by building their city in the middle of the plain along with all the irrigation channels needed for mass farming.


After maybe a few hundred years or more with all this fresh water sitting on the plain, it seeped down and  the salt dissolved out from under them to where their fertile plain and city were basically setting on slabs of vertical sandstone surrounded by water.  


Still everything was fine. Their city was surrounded by concentric rings of fresh water that connected directly to the sea to the south. They had plenty of fresh water for their city and farms which is a must for any civilization.  With the rainfall being greater back then  and a lot less evaporation taking place from not having a huge lake on the north end, the south end of the Altiplano was a vast inland sea.  There may even of been a water route to the Pacific ocean by way of the Loa river on the south end.


Then one day it happened, the Andes Mountains made another push upwards. Violent earthquakes took place and the south end of the Altiplano rose a few feet. Since the city and most of the upper plain was now sitting on essentially slabs of vertical sandstone it began to crumble and literally sank into the sea.  At the same time a massive amount of mud and water came rushing north completely burying the city on the bottom of the new lake. This may also explain how Puma Punka, Tiwanaku and some of the other megalithic works on the islands were destroyed and buried.  


If this was the case, evidence of Atlantis may never be found.


I'd like to hear any comments pro or con, but as I eluded to before I don't believe the dates the experts are giving.
If any links are needed to some of the places referenced I'll be glad to provide them.

 

 

That sounds  okay  ....  but not for Atlantis . 

I am sure some  other posts  say why . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
1 hour ago, Harte said:

Salts in and around the Altiplano are the natural result of the local climate combined with a lot of endorheic lakes dotted all around the region.

Endorheic lakes are technically lakes that don't flow (eventually) into the sea. But the endorheic lakes in this region don't flow into anything at all. Water level is maintained, more or less, through evaporation (some seepage will occur as well.)

What that means is the lakes in the area concentrate salts from the soils. When a lake's source dries up, the lake dries up and leaves a salt bed.

 

While that maybe true to a point I don't think that's the way all this salt got in the basin.

The ancient inland sea was many times wider than the Altiplano is now. When the Altiplano area first started forming the western mountains.  It probably started as a string of islands  way out in the Pacific.  Then as time went on they continued to push up and east to formed an inland sea cut off from the ocean.
There would have been a period of time  as it rose where this inland sea would have taken in ocean water under high tide or storm surges and not be able to release the water back to sea. This is what collected all the salt. As time went on it stopped receiving any water from the ocean and became a vast salt flat. Then as the mountains kept pushing east it folded this ancient sea bed into what we now see as the Altiplano.

 

1 hour ago, Harte said:

Regarding your statement that all this craziness is yours, I'm right now not believing that, since the idea of Atlantis in Bolivia has been around (and made fun of) for decades now, there's at least one book solely based on that idea, and the idea has been repeated in dozens of books and crockumentaries over that time period.

 

 

If you have a reference stating that Atlantis fell into Lake Titicaca then I would most certainly like to read it. I've seen the stories about it being down around Lake Poopu but I'm not buying that story. for a number of reasons. 

 

1 hour ago, Harte said:

There's no reason at all - none - to believe Atlantis, or anything like it, ever existed. So this idea is kaput from the start without even going into how it doesn't match Plato's allegory.

Harte

I never said I completely believed it but I do think there's usually some truth to these stories.

Of course if you don't think there's even a remote chance that Atlantis existed then why even bother responding. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

To correct your mistaken view that it did   ?    ( just guessin '  )  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
8 minutes ago, back to earth said:

One reason earlier building used large blocks and later small ones , was the newer cutting technologies used to cut blocks. Sure a giant block is harder to move but the work required to cut that up into smaller  easier movable blocks is massive .  As new ways of cutting  blocks became became easier, the work load shifted , easier to cut small blocks and  they are easier to move .  

 

It seems if the cutting of stone became easier then there would be no reason not to keep doing the precise work they had done previously on the bottom portions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
3 minutes ago, back to earth said:

To correct your mistaken view that it did   ?    ( just guessin '  )  

Not sure what you meant by that but as I said at the beginning

" I think the story of Atlantis has been way over blown but like with many stories there's usually some truth to it."

" after a while it dawned on me that maybe IF Atlantis really existed "

If there was any proof of it then it wouldn't be a mystery.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Why make the leap to South America when there is good reason to believe the myth was inspired around numerous civilizations that did exist in the Mediterranean and were destroyed or damaged through volcanic and resulting oceanic activities? 

 To support your hypothesis you have to disprove that, prove major pre-Columbus travel, and overturn what Harte has pointed out over the local geology. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

Yet another instance where someone's theory relies on them understanding Plato better than Plato himself did.

And it's just as un-compelling a position as ever.

...but props to Harte for pointing out this isn't even original un-compelling material. (And I do love my "they repeat it so often they forget it's not original" theory getting proved to the letter here.)

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
3 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Yet another instance where someone's theory relies on them understanding Plato better than Plato himself did.

And it's just as un-compelling a position as ever.

...but props to Harte for pointing out this isn't even original un-compelling material. (And I do love my "they repeat it so often they forget it's not original" theory getting proved to the letter here.)

--Jaylemurph

There is nothing new from the minds of the fringe. 

 I'm sure that the fact its not a new idea will be support for the idea itself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
50 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Why make the leap to South America when there is good reason to believe the myth was inspired around numerous civilizations that did exist in the Mediterranean and were destroyed or damaged through volcanic and resulting oceanic activities? 

 To support your hypothesis you have to disprove that, prove major pre-Columbus travel, and overturn what Harte has pointed out over the local geology. 

There's no good reason to believe some place in the Mediterranean.was Atlantis.

Did Plato not say that Atlantis was way out in the Atlantic past the pillars of Hercules? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
34 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

There is nothing new from the minds of the fringe. 

 I'm sure that the fact its not a new idea will be support for the idea itself. 

If it's not a new idea then show me where it's been talked about before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
1 hour ago, Vrcocha said:

Not sure what you meant by that but as I said at the beginning

Try giving it a really simple meaning .

1 hour ago, Vrcocha said:

" I think the story of Atlantis has been way over blown but like with many stories there's usually some truth to it."

" after a while it dawned on me that maybe IF Atlantis really existed "

If there was any proof of it then it wouldn't be a mystery.

exactly !    we have the proof of what  Atlantis is .... its in Plato's writings  and the understanding that arises from studying them and related material , a little more in depth.    So therefore , it is not a mystery . 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
1 hour ago, Vrcocha said:

It seems if the cutting of stone became easier then there would be no reason not to keep doing the precise work they had done previously on the bottom portions.

The cutting of stone   into smaller blocks that were easier to move        became easier .  

many other dynamics were present as well that changed things .... its still happening  .... ever wonder why stone masons no longer decorate modern buildings with hand made sculptures of people, heroes, angels, animals  gargoyles, decorative panels  etc . 

 

Related image                       

 

Image result for modernist  architecture

 

?  

Edited by back to earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
13 minutes ago, Vrcocha said:

There's no good reason to believe some place in the Mediterranean.was Atlantis.

Did Plato not say that Atlantis was way out in the Atlantic past the pillars of Hercules? 

 

Did not Plato also indicate it was a myth and not a real place? Adress all the points please. 

 

11 minutes ago, Vrcocha said:

If it's not a new idea then show me where it's been talked about before.

You already quoted Harte. 

 Personally, I'm just pleased we already have a thread over the True Location of Atlantis. We didnt get one last year until rather late.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
1 hour ago, back to earth said:

One reason earlier building used large blocks and later small ones , was the newer cutting technologies used to cut blocks. Sure a giant block is harder to move but the work required to cut that up into smaller  easier movable blocks is massive .  As new ways of cutting  blocks became became easier, the work load shifted , easier to cut small blocks and  they are easier to move .  

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. The sloppy work was clearly built around the door way that was already there..

 

Watoto peru.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vrcocha
5 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Did not Plato also indicate it was a myth and not a real place? Adress all the points please. 

 

I don't know, did Plato claim it was all fiction?

If you're talking about Ocean travel 12000 years ago all I can point to are construction techniques. Like the blocks with those bumps on them.. They have been found in Giza  and someplace in China, I can't remember where. But to make that claim I would first have to convince you that the dating of these sites are incorrect. I don't think we're there yet

  Later in time I could point to the bowel that has the Sumerian cuneiform  writing on it that was found near Titicaca.

I don't think traveling across the oceans was such a big deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
Just now, Vrcocha said:

I don't know, did Plato claim it was all fiction?

What we spoke of yesterday as fiction...

Just now, Vrcocha said:

If you're talking about Ocean travel 12000 years ago all I can point to are construction techniques. Like the blocks with those bumps on them.. They have been found in Giza  and someplace in China, I can't remember where.

 How specific.

 

Just now, Vrcocha said:

But to make that claim I would first have to convince you that the dating of these sites are incorrect. I don't think we're there yet

 Yeah... You've got a uphill climb there. You have to disprove geology and parts of physics before tearing into archaeology. Look forward to it.

Just now, Vrcocha said:

  Later in time I could point to the bowel that has the Sumerian cuneiform  writing on it that was found near Titicaca.

 Bit of reading for you:

Fuente Magna Bowel

Just now, Vrcocha said:

I don't think traveling across the oceans was such a big deal. 

It was a very big deal until very recently, taking months and with a good chance of death. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.