Sir Wearer of Hats Posted February 23, 2017 #101 Share Posted February 23, 2017 20 minutes ago, Hanslune said: I don't recall it having sails, rudder or oars. Did the monkey's paddle? In the story it was more a floating barge.....not that I believe that story! Noah put harnesses on the whales. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted February 23, 2017 #102 Share Posted February 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ashotep said: I'm trying to make a point about how cultural transfer could have taken place even earlier than the time of the pyramids. So if they were doing it earlier who is to say they didn't do it later. Unfortunately boats aren't going to last long especially in humidity. Oldest boats ever found are from 7to10 thousand years ago. And saying something could happen is fine, evidence is the important thing here. The Egyptians could have set up a Mars colony. 2 minutes ago, Ashotep said: I'm talking about the way they overlap the stones and fit them like puzzles and how they fit so tight you can't get a piece of paper through them is very similar. The Egyotians didnt do the intricately interlocked stone like the MesoAmericans did. That was a technology that evolved due to earthquakes damaging more normal block stone construction which egyptians did. And speaking of Egyptians, the paper thing is only true for surfaces exposed to viewing, where greater care was applied to giving a good finish. We're also talking thousands of years between the Egyptians and MesoAmericans. The Mayans are younger than Oxford University. 2 minutes ago, Ashotep said: Sure the sculptures could be an exaggeration but there is no proof of that. There is no proof they show dofferent races either. Its speculation to fit modern perceptions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted February 23, 2017 #103 Share Posted February 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ashotep said: I'm trying to make a point about how cultural transfer could have taken place even earlier than the time of the pyramids. So if they were doing it earlier who is to say they didn't do it later. Unfortunately boats aren't going to last long especially in humidity. I'm talking about the way they overlap the stones and fit them like puzzles and how they fit so tight you can't get a piece of paper through them is very similar. Sure the sculptures could be an exaggeration but there is no proof of that. Tell that to people who, as an example, believe that Olmec heads were patterned from Sub-Saharan African migrants in ancient times when it can be seen that many Central and South American natives (such as those from Guatemala) share those characteristics without having any close genetic affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans. cormac 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted February 23, 2017 #104 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: Noah put harnesses on the whales. No, it was sea turtles. And a lot of rum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted February 23, 2017 #105 Share Posted February 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, ShadowSot said: No, it was sea turtles. And a lot of rum. Please, turtles are gentlemen, they'd be drinking brandy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted February 23, 2017 #106 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said: Please, turtles are gentlemen, they'd be drinking brandy. Rum was the inspiration to use the sea turtles. But i suppose brandy makes sense to make them stay. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted February 23, 2017 #107 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Actually ... it might have been rum after all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vrcocha Posted February 23, 2017 Author #108 Share Posted February 23, 2017 55 minutes ago, stereologist said: It is you that are making connections that do not exist. Suppose there is salt running out of the hills.So what? You're trying to make the claim that's there's not salt underground and when I point it out you say "So what" Priceless 56 minutes ago, stereologist said: You have also been quite wrong about areas buried in mud. Everyone has told you that was wrong. Here is what you wrote. It's nonsense. Such a mud slide or whatever you choose to call this event would leave evidence which does not exist. You probably have zero idea what happens in such an event. I suggest you look up lahars, debris avalanches, avalanches, quake induced avalanches, etc. I show the evidence and you refuse to accept it. Again Priceless. 1 hour ago, stereologist said: I https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazardimages/picture/show/785 As far as earthquakes go it matters little if they happen there. You made a fantastic claims about earthquakes that you need to support. Here is what you wrote: It's just dodgy thinking without any idea what this all means. I can't believe your trying to argue if a earthquake happened 12000 years ago Prceless If you don't want to believe any of this that's fine but this is getting ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted February 23, 2017 #109 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) On 2/21/2017 at 1:08 PM, 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. 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. Atlantis was suppose to have bulls and cows running the area. There were no bull or cows in the Americas until Columbus brought them over and of chariots of which none are found in the Americas. Get over it guys as Atlantis being in the Americas:) Edited February 23, 2017 by docyabut2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vrcocha Posted February 23, 2017 Author #110 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Hanslune said: Tiwanaku was covered in mud from the river flooding. Where else would it come from? Some from the lake bottom to the south that was there at the time but mainly from a delta region that would have existed just south of there it the Lake Titicaca area had been a plain and not a lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted February 23, 2017 #111 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Vrcocha said: I hadn't ever heard that Puma Punka was built at sea level. If I had run across that I would have back away real quick. I read you're link but it doesn't explain how the sea floor got folded near the lake. . https://www.google.com/maps/@-16.1694121,-69.5414418,517m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4 It doesn't have to. The two are AFAIK only tangentially related. The formation of the Titicaca basin and the uplift and deformation of the surrounding mountains are separate though interrelated events. Quote Oh please give me a break. I've never said anything contrary to what you just said. " 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. " I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misspoke yourself but this is indeed contradictory. Apart from the rainfall, you're substituting a shallow sea for a deep lake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted February 23, 2017 #112 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Quote http://atlantis2011.conferences.gr/ Even the conferences held over the years in Greece, to not accept any theories or essays of Atlantis being in the Americas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted February 23, 2017 #113 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Vrcocha said: I believe Plato said 9000 years before. I don't see that as a real accurate date. As I've sad before, there usually some truth behind these stories" Yes, but unless you have a respectable, logical system for determining what you choose to believe and what you don't (and you've proven you don't), then all you're left with is words. --Jaylemurph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vrcocha Posted February 23, 2017 Author #114 Share Posted February 23, 2017 59 minutes ago, docyabut2 said: Atlantis was suppose to have bulls and cows running the area. There were no bull or cows in the Americas until Columbus brought them over and of chariots of which none are found in the Americas. Get over it guys as Atlantis being in the Americas:) That is the best rebuttal yet. Thank you. But Quote there is a ceremony of animal sacrifice which is traditional in the Andes. It has been for thousands of years and it continues to this very day. It is the sacrifice of llamas and we can safely say, that no word for "llama" existed in either the ancient Egyptian language or in the ancient Greek language, so the word "bull" was substituted instead. http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/bullsatlantis.htm Still, your post adds more questions. That's what I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vrcocha Posted February 23, 2017 Author #115 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Oniomancer said: " 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. " I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misspoke yourself but this is indeed contradictory. Apart from the rainfall, you're substituting a shallow sea for a deep lake. I didn't misspeak. I was talking about the evaporation taking place in the "vast inland sea" which was on the south end.and way bigger than Titicaca also not near as deep. When you said "greater surface area + less depth would mean more evaporation " is kind of insulting because that's something a child should know.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vrcocha Posted February 23, 2017 Author #116 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: No, it means it can float. To be sea worthy you need propulsion and directionabilty. also, something that can navigate a river might flounder when trying to navigate a sea, and something that can navigate the sea might struggle on the ocean. they are similar and related technologies, but they're different and require different levels of technological competency. Do you really think Noah had the only style boat at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 23, 2017 #117 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Vrcocha said: You're trying to make the claim that's there's not salt underground and when I point it out you say "So what" Priceless I show the evidence and you refuse to accept it. Again Priceless. I can't believe your trying to argue if a earthquake happened 12000 years ago Prceless If you don't want to believe any of this that's fine but this is getting ridiculous. Apparently being able to read is not one of your abilities. Your problem is that you have no idea where salt comes from. I have not stated that there is no salt underground or suggested there is no salt underground. That is something you foolishly dreamed up because you think that salt means something special. You still can't tell us what your nonsensical salt idea is all about. You showed no evidence of the mud. You are wrong about many things and resorting to lies does not benefit your losing position. And your earthquakes are as nonsensical as the rest of your malarkey. Clearly you have no idea about the geological processes that led to the area you are discussing. You clearly can't be truthful about what others and you have posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted February 23, 2017 #118 Share Posted February 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Vrcocha said: Do you really think Noah had the only style boat at the time? What makes you think Noah was real? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 23, 2017 #119 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Time for a list of the looney proposals: 1. The idea that the salt in that area was from the ocean - no evidence 2. The idea that there is much salt in the ground - no evidence 3. No evidence to support the wacko idea that salt seeping down into the ground can lead to subsidence - there is clear evidence that this does NOT happen 4. The Altiplano is an ancient sea bed - proved wrong 5. Continental drift? proved wrong nearly a century ago. The very different plate tectonics is the current theory 6. The idea that the beds were folded as not been shown to be correct - it is nothing more than a weird guess by someone that knows nothing about geology 7. The idea that a city sitting on bed rock can crumble and sink is simply delusional 8. The idea that a violent earthquake raised the Andes by feet is nonsensical on energy issues 9. The idea that a massive amount of water and mud buried the area is against the evidence - there is no evidence of such an event 10. The idea that dating is wrong is as brain dead as the rest of the looney ideas Edited February 23, 2017 by stereologist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted February 23, 2017 #120 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Vrcocha said: That is the best rebuttal yet. Thank you. But Still, your post adds more questions. That's what I was looking for. And what of the chariots? Critias And of the inhabitants of the mountains and of the rest of the country there was also a vast multitude, which was distributed among the lots and had leaders assigned to them according to their districts and villages. The leader was required to furnish for the war the sixth portion of a war-chariot, so as to make up a total of ten thousand chariots; also two horses and riders for them, and a pair of chariot-horses without a seat, accompanied by a horseman who could fight on foot carrying a small shield, and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses; also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships None of these type chariots were ever found in the Americas and don't tell me like some have said , a flood washed them all a way:):):) Edited February 23, 2017 by docyabut2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted February 23, 2017 #121 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) "So what do we call those things?" "Well they called them lamas." "Yeah, but I mean, who know what those are?" "I mean, we can draw them out. I'm pretty handy on a vase." "I think I'll call them bulls." "Bulls?" "Yep." "But they dont look anything like bulls." "Exactly." "... I don't follow." "Well see, bulls are big right? Horns? Bad temper?" "Right." "But those things, those Lamas, they aren't. See?" "...no." "Right, well its like Cockney rhyming slang see..." "What's a cockney?" "Bunch of football hooligans." "What?" "Don't worry about it. It'll be big one day." "Its 9000 BC, man! We havent even invented Britainia yet!" "Eh, its fine. They'll get it. " *sometime later* "You know Georgeus Lucastus, I've been thinking. Those lamas sort of look like humpless camels. We should call them that. You know, κάμελος. Just describe them missing their hump." "No, no. I have my vision and it must be carried out. Bulls it is. Plus itll be cooler. Camels are lame." "But..." "Hey, wait. How do you know what a Britania is?" "Touche." *this moment beought to you by nicotine withdrawl theatre* Edit. Well i thought it was funny. Edited February 23, 2017 by ShadowSot 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted February 23, 2017 #122 Share Posted February 23, 2017 57 minutes ago, Vrcocha said: Do you really think Noah had the only style boat at the time? WELL two things. firstly, Yes. God inspired Thr design within Nosh for His reasons. secondly, and perhaps FAR more importantly, it's an allegorical punishment/hope story used to act as the foundation myth of God's first covenant with man (specifically the people who will one day be called Hebrews/Israelites). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted February 23, 2017 #123 Share Posted February 23, 2017 3 hours ago, ShadowSot said: I have the mental image jolly old Noah surfing a huge tidal wave standing on top of the Ark. Thats a flash back to '2012' the movie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted February 23, 2017 #124 Share Posted February 23, 2017 4 hours ago, ShadowSot said: And taken from older Sumerian and Babylonian myths around the time of captivity. And there it was a coracle, not a sailing vessel either. You mean a drum ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted February 23, 2017 #125 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Quote That's what hard, people in these forums going off in so many different directions , instead of focusing on the topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts