Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Monday, March 10, 2014

Landbridge Evidence: Big Cats, additional

Ancestral Puma from Tet Zoo above: skulls of European  Jaguars and Pumas below

In the previous article (required reading) we looked at European leopards. But the leopard wasn’t the only big spotted Panthera species that lived in Europe during the Pleistocene: it was joined by a second, far less well known animal: Panthera gombaszoegensis (originally Leo gombaszoegensis Kretzoi, 1938). This cat seems to have been very jaguar-like and in fact the name ‘European jaguar’ is often used for it. In fact, it may actually be a jaguar – that is, a member of the species Panthera onca – and some cat experts classify it as an extinct Panthera onca subspecies (Hemmer et al. 2001, 2003, 2005) 
The European jaguar makes its first appearance in the fossil record about 1.5 million years ago, where it’s recorded from Italy, and it then persisted into the Middle Pleistocene, at which time it’s known from Germany, Spain, France and Westbury in England: in fact, some of the best fossils of this subspecies come from the cavern site of Westbury-Sub-Mendip in Somerset (Bishop 1982) [see map below, from here]. European jaguars and leopards lived alongside one another during the Middle Pleistocene: remains of both species have been reported to occur at the same stratigraphic levels in the Czech Republic, France and Germany (Agust� & Ant�n 2002, Garc�a & Virg�s 2007).
(Owing to Tet Zoo policy I am not allowed to reproduce more than this) 
So we do have landbridge evidence that put cheetahs and lions (thought to be typically African) in Ice Age North America, and Jaguars and pumas (thought to be typically American) in Europe also in the Ice age (Also tapirs along with the jaguars)

Above: Lions and Jaguars (Panthera)
Below: Puma and Chetah
                                                                                                                                                                           Incidentally it does turn out that Jaguars and Leopards are related after all.                                                     

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Rob Roy Menzies Bigfoot Art Gallery

Bigfoot Art Gallery

Rob Roy Menzies has a page on Facebook to show off his Bigfoot art. One of the more admirable things about his art is that he is not afraid to illustrate different types of Bigfoot experience. I have arranged some samples here that seem to be more in line with Harvey Pratt's work, which is the kind of Bigfoot that I am familiar with in my neck of the woods in the Midwest.

                       Closeup portrait of Deer Hunter Bigfoot, last one on this page, with the "Big red eyes"

Bigfoot drumming on a tree using a dead branch club

                            I had a drawing I did once of a Eurasian "Wildman" in much this same position.
                                 I mentioned it to Rob Roy and I said I'd like to reprint his version.

                                       Bigfoot Fishing Above, Burly Alaskan "Bush Man" Bigfoot Below

Rob Roy's conception of how it looks when a Bigfoot takes down a deer.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Some notes on Gunter Bischoff's Articles

[Celtic Hill Fort ca. 1500 BC]

I still am not certain as to whether the evidence for the Phaethon body favors more a large meteoroid circling the Earth several times as Gunter Bischoff has it, or a smallish comet that flew too close to the earth and broke up, with smaller meteorites splitting off and falling in different places. The latter may be the better alternative if there were multiple impacts resulting from the encounter, in the North Sea, in Continental Europe and in the Atlantic Ocean to the West of Europe. Different versions of the Phaethon story can be produced which resulted in any one of those scenarios.

Herr Bischoff and Jurgen Spanuth make a good case for Megalithic Europe being the brotherhood of the "Ten Kings of Atlantis" (other Kingdoms would also be in the New World and possibly from the Mississippi Valley to Peru) and that the Megalithic peoples were displaced by the Phaethon incident, turning up throughout the Mediterranean as the "People of the Sea" (A brotherhood of Mercenaries and Pirates) Herr Bischoff says these ten kingdoms comprised the area of Megalithic Europe between 5000 and 1220 BC. In this I judge both Spanuth and Bischoff to be absolutely right: these are the remnant, postflood Atlanteans, survivors of Megaflood 3 at 5500 BC, at which time they moved inland. However that does not make them the original parent-culture Atlanteans necessarily. The recent flurry of activity which says Tartessos was Atlantis also points to their own city ruins in the shape of Platos' description and their own shields found archaeologically which match the pattern. This is not really surprising or contradictory-both areas were connected to each other by a common culture and a common heritage. And many cultures have reproductions of the City Of Atlantis on different scales. Every Castro, Castle, Dun, hillfort, burgh, Broch, Urbs and settlement of early Europe followed some variation of the concentric-circular-walls-and-moats(ditches) and the earliest versions of the plan go back to the oldest cities at 8000-9000 BC. They are all copies of one lost original. I believe that original to be at the bottom of the sea and it is possible that we already have made sonar and satellite contact with it.

But that the Ten Kingdoms of Atlantis were an international brotherhood that lasted up until Phaethon and then fell back as a displaced brotherhood of Mercenaries and Pirates I have not the least doubt of myself. So for this much of the story I do say that Spanuth and Bischoff are right and are speaking the truth.

But not the whole truth: I also see evidence for a Pleistocene Atlantis now at the bottom of the North Atlantic. So Otto Muck and Lewis Spence and Ignatius Donnelly were also right, too, in the basic sense (Donnelly's Bronze Age culture and Diffusion would be going on in the time of the postflood "Ten Kings of Atlantis" rather than in the Pleistocene, for another example)

That the original capital city of Atlantis was intended to be a model of the Solar System there can be no doubt as the choice of the specific metals used to adorn each successive wall makes quite clear by the Astrological correlations of those metals. The succesive copies of that city no doubt also included some which had the same Astrological coding in successive walls: Lewis Spence mentions this as well. Incidentally, as Gunter Bischoff points out (And I don't know if anyone else has before) the part of Atlantis that was necessary to disappear in a "Single night and day" was only the capital city and its environs and not the entire Empire of Atlantis at the time. That much is a considerably more palatable proposition rather than saying the mountains and the valleys, the entire Geographical area, disappeared all at the same time.

Surface of a Vitrified Fort close up. As well as being found extensively in Ireland and Scotland, they are sometimes found in France, Germany, Hungary and Central Europe. They have all been exposed to extreme heat which has melted the stones of the wall together in a single glassy mass.

Best Wishes, Dale D.

Glacial America Traffic Cop

I noticed something interesting on the series of maps from this site:

Returning glaciers cut off further ingress into the Americas for a while. The early immigrants sustained themselves in a few isolated refuges in Alaska and the northeast US.

[This is the Solutrean period in Europe.-DD]

 The beginning of the end of the ice age marked migrations from the northeast US southwards along the east coast. Humans entered South America for the first time.
[The caption in the original, Emphasis Added-DD]

This is what that means.        The circle in the Atlantic represents Atlantis.

As the glaciers retreated, the passage across the Bering Strait reopened, leading to more waves of people. These were possibly Clovis people, who spread along the west coast to South America.

Well, NO. The Clovis people were your basic East-Coast population and it seems as though they advanced southwards along BOTH coasts of South America. But the Pacific Rim theorists notice a different kind of a projectile point which went by the Pacific route.  However the map is OK for indicating Clovis spread, they just were not West Coast Asiatic Immigrants at all.  They were  First Americans.

The next map (not shown) adds the Inuit and Na-Dene (Eskimo and Athabascan) populations but those are actually using a postglacial entry into North America. However in the next time period of 12500 to 10000 years ago, the Archaic cultures spread over the Americas and the similar Mesolithics spread over Europe.

Tiahuanacu a New Proposition

At Tiahuanaco you get several scattered C14 dates and what look to be several different styles of ruins. At one level there is an old culture along the lins of Egypt and Babylon, with an associated tradition of erecting standing stones. At some time this was destroyed and a more Roman type civilization took over. When this was deposed and the Barbarians were in occupation was when the "Tiahuanaco Empire" was in evidence, about in the European Dark Ages or about contemporary with the Maya. It is then that the "Decadent Tiahuanaco" culture was spread.
let's look at what some have artistically created what Puma Punku/Tiwanaku could have possibly looked like when it wasn't broken, buried and scattered. 

The truth of the matter is that we don't know what the site looks like. It appears to have been destroyed in some great upheaval in ancient times. Then later the Incas, Spanish and some in much more recent times have scavenged building blocks to use in homes and churches etc.
[On to more about deformed heads ]

The area around Tiwanaku may have been inhabited as early as 1500 BC as a small agricultural village.[5] Most research has studied the Tiwanaku IV and V periods between AD 300 and AD 1000, during which the polity grew significantly in power. During the time period between 300 BC and AD 300, Tiwanaku is thought to have been a moral and cosmological center to which many people made pilgrimages. Researchers believe it achieved this standing prior to expanding its powerful empire.[1] In 1945, Arthur Posnansky[6] estimated that Tiwanaku dated to 15,000 BC, based on his archaeoastronomical techniques. In the 21st century, experts decisively concluded Posnansky's dates were invalid and a "sorry example of misused archaeoastronomical evidence."[7]
  1. Jump up5. ^ Fagan, Brian M. The Seventy Great Mysteries of the Ancient World: Unlocking the Secrets of Past Civilizations. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2001.
  2. Jump up6. ^ Posnansky, A. (1945), Tihuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Vols. I - II (Translated into English by James F. Sheaver), J. J. Augustin, Publ., New York, 1945; Vols. III - IV, La Paz, Bolivia: Minister of Education
  3. Jump up7. ^ Kelley, D. H., and E. F. Milone (2002) Exploring Ancient Skies: An Encyclopedic Survey of Archaeoastronomy, New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., 616 pp.

Actually just after 1500 BC would have been the END of the earlier culture and the end of the local Megalithic age, about contemporary with the end of Megalithic Europe. Since this about coincides with Velikovsky, there is a pretty good possibility that the Andean Sea catastrophe was at that time, the andes were raised and the sea drained out, and this would NOT have had anything to do with the Younger Dryas age because the area would have be locked in ice then (The Inner Andean sea could well have formed in the postglacial along with the deglaciation)

 Internally it is possible that there was a settlement in 15000 to 9000 BC which could have left the Archaeoastronomical stone ALIGNMENTS which were incorporated by later cultures (I use this same argument in the case of ancient Egypt). This would be in the period contemporary with Toxodons and Macrauchenia. And you can see some evidence in the layout of the site itself:

Immediately it can be seen that the more famous and better preserved structures at the site have an East-West orientation while the Akpana Pyramid is skewed relative to them. This is actually very significant.

The Main structures at Tianhuanaco align with the true north and with the modrn East and West references. This is to align properly with the sun. They were thus obviously all built in the postglacial period although many show signs of recycling older stones from previously built and previously destroyed structures.

The Akpana pyramid is skewed relative to the rest and it has been suggested that it aligns to a Pleistocene Ice-age position of the North Pole. It is also a very peculiar structure and it is reminiscent of Gunung Padang, a pyramid in Java that is thought to have been built in the last stags of the last Ice Age, starting from between 10000 and 20000 years ago. Which would make sense as an earliest date for Tiahuanaco now (using only the Akpana Pyramid now and not the Gate of the Sun or any of the more usually represented structures.

 And in fact the Gunung Padang site in its current run-down status resembles some of the more disarrayed parts of Tiahuanaco with megalithic stones lying all over the place and piled on top of one another.

So it looks to me as if we have a direct trans-pacific late-Pleistocene "Lemurian" connection which is evidenced by the pyramids in both  Gunung Padang and Tiahuanaco.

But after that in the usual times of the Old World Pyramid builders, there is a successive survivor culture at Tiahuanaco which is destroyed by catastrophic upheavals at about the point Velikovsky said there were cataclysms, or possibly at the same time as the Phaethon incident from the European perspective, the end of the Megalithic age. And that would be when Tiahuanaco was smashed and in ruins. Later on, about the time of the European Dark Ages, the usually-recognised Tiahuanaco culture arose, but aside from recycling some of the older stones (and their Ice-Age Astronomical markers) there was no connection between the later culture and the Ice Age one. But it does seem that any remains that are actually sunk in Lake Titicaca would belong to the older, Egyptian and Babylonian contemporary culture.

That would account for it!

Above Top Secret Tiahuanaco

Sometimes fact is
stranger & more mysterious
than fiction

Tiahuanaco, Puma Punku the real mystery...

Let us begin...

The above two images are fairly drastic in both appearance and context. The upper one is from 1903 when the first real "Modern" exploration of the area occurred. I said exploration not excavation. There is a difference IMHO. A real archaeological excavation attempts to not only reveal but to put the site in question in it's proper historical context. 

The major issues with Tiahuanaco {Tiwanaku} and the other closely located and related site of Pumapunku (Puma Punka) is the age and it's history. So, the big question, just how old are they? This is an interesting question with no easy answer. Before I get into the controversy over that aspect let us begin with what the prevailing paradigm of modernAcademia has to say about the site...

Tiwanaku (Spanish: Tiahuanaco and Tiahuanacu)
The area around Tiahuanaco may have been inhabited as early as 1500 BC as a small agriculturally-based village. Most research, though, is based around the Tiwanaku IV and V periods between AD 300 and AD 1000, during which Tiwanaku grew significantly in power. During the time period between 300 BC and AD 300 Tiwanaku is thought to have been a moral and cosmological center to which many people made pilgrimages. The ideas of cosmological prestige are the precursors to Tiwanaku's powerful empire.

Yadda Yadda, Blah Blah Blah... 

I'm trying not to use Wikipedia as a source as often as I have in the past but in this case I've checked out their referenced links and they check out as far as Modern Academia's Paradigm is concerned. The issue I have with the "official" story is the time-line and suppositions with which they use to support it. There has been C-14 dating. 29 such testing of the area if I'm not mistaken. All coming back with a fairly recent dating of around A.D. 400 to 1200. However, the site had been known for thousands of years to the indigenous peoples. Now when discussing those people one group in particular always enters into the topic. 

The Incas
The Inca people began as a tribe of the Killke culture in the Cuzco area around the 12th century AD. Under the leadership of Manco Cápac, they formed the small city-state of Cuzco (Quechua Qosqo). The first step in the expansion of the Inca Empire was the defeat of the Hanan Chankas...


Here we go... 

So we know of the Incas and their impressive history and accomplishments from what the Spanish as well as the physical archeological evidence tells us. Here in lies where the controversy begins IMO. When the Spanish were in the New world conquering {Hence the Spanish name of Conquistador} were looking for and looting peoples and sites of Gold. The story goes as the Spanish were gallivanting about the countryside searching for treasure they came across Tiahuanaco. When confronted with such a site they stopped and asked the Incas if they had built it. The Incas laughed and said no. They explained that it was from before their time. 

I want to stop here and discuss an often quoted fallacy. At this point it is widely believed that the Spanish systematically destroyed the site in search of treasure and to destroy an obviously "Pagen" site. It is widely accepted they used many of the smaller blocks from the site to build a church nearby. Now I've read several references that supports this supposed event, while simultaneously I've also read quite a few other versions and references that tell us a completely different story. The site/sites in question were first recorded in written history by Spanish conquistador and self-acclaimed "first chronicler of the Indies" Pedro Cieza de León. Leon stumbled upon the remains of Tiwanaku in 1549. It's at this point we need to stop and think long and hard about the age of the site. 

It was already a wreck with massive exquisitely carved megalithic stones tossed about like some gigantic Lego blocks that had been tossed about and strewn all over the area by an angry giant. With huge multi-ton carved stones and slabs strewn about Helter Skelter. The Spanish may have dug around and possibly moved some of the massive stone slabs and blocks about but nothing on the scale of the destruction they are often given credit for. Now the Incas knew of the site as being Ancient even by their standards. So herein lies the first of many issues with the dating of the site. So just how old is the site? 

What I've found while tooling around online and my local library are many inconsistencies regarding that question. It is a controversial subject for many reasons. First off it isn't just the hard to piece together Prehistorical record but even the post-Colombian/Spanish era is also a bit confusing as well. 

So the sites in question were ancient by Inca standards, and they used it for ceremonies because they believed the site to be sacred in doing so possibly contaminating the site. {Archeologically speaking} Then the Spanish came along and molested the site further in their search for gold. I want to take a moment here and give a comparative history of the other recently found culture civilizations in the area. Caral Supe... 

When we stop and look at a comparative time-line between the ancient Egyptians and the Ancient South American peoples we can find several dramatic parallels. According to accepted Egyptology Snefru was the first king of the 4th dynasty (2613 - 2589 BC). He ruled for an estimated 24 years. Now in that very short period of time he is credited with the construction of not just one but three pyramids! 

Snefru is credited with building the step pyramid at Maidum, the Red and Bent Pyramids at Dahshur

His son Khufu is the one who built the Great pyramid followed by his son Kefre who built the second largest pyramid at Giza. Now we are to believe that the Pharaohs went from building a much lessor quality step pyramid to building a perfect one in only 45 years? 

Meanwhile, over in Peru at Caral Supe we find a similar styled and quality construction and or supposed development in this part of the world. That's supposedly about as far as they got with no further development and then faded away. Yet, they were just as active and were Ancient Egypt's contemporaries.. 

Which also included ancient megalithic standing stones. 

Of course, there is no direct connection between Caral Supe and Tiahuanaco. There doesn't appear to be any continuity. However it might be helpful if we look at the bigger picture of the region. Peru and bordering countries all seem to be blessed with many ancient sites. Remember, during the period in question there were no artificial imaginary lines drawn on a modern day map. 

Now unlike Egypt which was able to maintain power and control even between upper and lower Egypt. The area in question does show signs of massive upheaval. It appears that these ancient people faced a massive cataclysmic destruction of their civilization and the survivors were forced to begin again. Posnansky thought the Ancient Bolivian Tiahuanacans were flooded out. Hence the amount of drastic destruction of their ancient monuments. 

The age controversy really begins with Arthur Posnansky 

Prof. Posnansky summed up his 50 year study in a 4 volume work entitled Tiahuanaco, The cradle of American Man first published in 1945. He explains his theories, which are rooted in archeoastronomy, as follows. Since Earth is tilted on its axis in respect to the plane of the solar system, the resulting angle is known as the "obliqueness of the ecliptic" (one should not confuse this with another astronomical phenomenon known as "Precession", as critics of Posnansky have done). If viewed from the earth, the planets of our solar system travel across the sky in a line called the plane of the ecliptic.

At present our earth is tilted at an angle to of 23 degrees and 27 minutes, but this angle is not constant. The angle oscillates slowly between 22 degrees and 1 minute miminum to an extreme of 24 degrees and 5 minutes. A complete cycle takes roughly 41,000 years to complete. The alignment of the Kalasasaya temple depicts a tilt of the earth's axis amounting to 23 degrees, 8 minutes, 48 seconds, which according to astronomers, indicates a date of 15,000 B.C.

Between 1927 and 1930 Prof. Posnansky's conclusions were studied intensively by a number of authorities. Dr. Hans Ludendorff (Director of the Astronomical Observatory of Potsdam), Friedrich Becker of the Specula Vaticana, Prof. Arnold Kohlschutter (astronomer at Bonn University), and Rolf Müller (astronomer of the Institute of Astrophysics at Potsdam) verified the accuracy of Posnansky's calculations and vouched for the reliability of his conclusions.

What exactly was Arthur Posnansky looking at? When we turn back the clock and view the site from his perspective it appears to be a much older megalithic site. To me it resembled the great standing stones of Europe/UK. 

Now I'm not saying that I agree with the extreme age he came up with. However, if we look at how the site originally appeared to him and then compare it to the modern era misrepresentation it's obvious that in the last two hundred years or so there have been massive amounts of work in it's badly done excavation, exploration and down right contamination of the site. For this reason any C-14 dating should be called into question. The site has been picked at and gone over, gone over and picked at since before the Incas. Not to mention the Spaniards, then much later when the Bolivian Government attempted an ill-advised reconstruction attempt all based on pretty much their imagination as the photos in this thread shows. 

Now some of the earliest images we have are from 1877. They show an area in massive disarray obviously much more than what the Spaniards could have accomplished. I highly doubt the Spaniards would have dragged massive blocks and slabs half way up hills and into ravines while looking for gold just for the hell of it! 

Now for those of us who are more familiar with the site will recognize many of these resting places for the massive slabs/stones. Many of those massive & exquisitely carved blocks/slabs still lay where they were back in 1877 

The following two images are some of my favorites. The first is from 1908 the second is modern times. 

Notice the huge multi-ton block on the hill behind this now famous statue? We are to believe the Spaniards tore the place apart looking for Gold and dragged these huge blocks and slabs half way up a hill for no better reason than to simply reposition them in their searches.. 

The argument about it's date seems to be still a matter of interest to many. If we again look back to 1908 and the following decades worth of horribly conducted excavations in the area we can immediate tell the site has been contaminated. 

Now here is another fairly well known statue from the site. Notice something? No temple complex surrounding it. As a matter of fact I don't see a single sign of other blocks surrounding him, Yet in the modern era it is placed and surrounded by what was perceived as how the site originally looked. All based on what? Also, when the following images were taken C-14 dating wasn't around yet. So the site IMHO was again contaminated. 

I wonder if the original placement of the statues and standing stones and blocks had some sort of astrological alignments? Apparently we will never know.. 

It doesn't take somebody with an engineering degree to see the contradiction between the modern misrepresentation of how it is believed the site once looked and the quality of the stones from the still half buried ones. Here are a few modern images. If you look closely you will spot the original megalithic standing stones mixed in with the much lower quality blocks from what I believe to be form a much more recent period. 

Now compare the above travesty to the other nearby site of Puma Punku. In one location we have what originally looked like a vary ancient megalithic Stonehenge type astronomically aligned site. Then there appears to be an intermediate period of rough cut stones and construction followed by expertly cut and engineered gigantic multi-ton blocks and slabs. 

I'm not sure of the age of the site as per Posnansky and I also call into question Academia's findings as well. Is it possible that what we are seeing is the remnants of an ancient peoples who struggled to recover from a massive environmental, geological upheaval which floundered and eventually made it resulting in who we know of as the Incas? 

Side note. Many of the ceramic/pottery found in the area over the locations vast history often show races which are not considered endogenous to the continent. I have another thread in the works about the Olmec of Central America in the works which goes into this controversial possibility of a prehistoric connection. Stay tuned 

Controversy: Does this carving remind you of Easter Island? 

Now I know for a fact that many members here at ATS believe in an Ancient Alien Scenario when discussing the site. This cannot be avoided. I'm still on the fence. I'll accept Modern Academia's belief in the simple head binding technique that over the early developmental years of a persons life from that period would create such oddly misshapen head scenario {For now} 


What happens when a very young child's skeleton is found with an already fully formed and perfect elongated skull? 

[Actually when you are deforming the heads of infants the infants begin to show some deformation early on.The skulls are just not as deformed as they would get later-DD]


This thread wasn't about that! 
Now was it!?