A (114:21)
It gets strange because there's so the modern first. The modern dating for it comes from a handful of carbon dates, right? They found some carbon dates and they go, okay, 1100 A.D. but they've also found carbon dates that go back to 1500 BC and they just dismiss them as being unreliable. I literally think the only these carbon dates could literally be the last person someone lit a campfire there or was buried there. There's a guy named Arthur Poznanski who's a Polish professor that lived, he spent 50 years on this site, died in La Paz. Published his works 1945. I have a copy of his books. The Cradle of American man, it's called. He spent 50 years investigating this site. He, he dated it at 15,000 BC based on a whole range of other like geological data. Astro archaeological dating, which is, it has these alignment properties. We can talk about it. You know, he found the skull of a Toxodon there, which Toxodon is an extinct Pleistocene era mammal that went out with the young in the Younger Dryas, 13,000 BC. There seems to be depictions of saber toothed tigers and smilodons in some of the artwork there. So you have some poo. They also, they say they're all pumas, but some of them have smiling small canines, some of them have really big canines. I mean, why is there a difference here? He dates it culturally in terms of it being the origin point for not only other cultures in South America, but also Central and North America through the symbology, the Chicanas, the Incan cross, there's all these other feats. So he used a whole raft of scientific techniques to date that site and to support his conclusion that it was vastly ancient. And then that's kind of all been thrown aside because they found a few cars, carbon remains that were at the, you know, 1100 A.D. mark. Why would you build a civilization there at that altitude? You wouldn't. You just wouldn't. It's too hard. It's above the tree line. There's no natural trees. And this is, it gets wacky because today Tiwanaku was a port, like they admit, like this. Even the archaeologists, they talk about Puma Punku, it's like a port. There was something industrial happening there. The stone, if you look at Posnansky's original images with the. There's all sorts of interlocking bits of stone and sluice gates and hydrogen dynamic features on this place is this giant step pyramid that had this reservoir in the center. It's crazy, but they tell you it's a port. And it was a port on, on Lake Titicaca, which today is about 10 miles away. The shoreline is about 10 miles away. H.S. bellamy in the 1800s discovered a strand line that runs basically through where Tiwanaku was. So strand line is like, you know, basically the shoreline of an ancient water body of water. And it can be formed through just gentle wave action over a long period of time. It can be formed from like a high intensity period of, of waves, you know, something hammering a shoreline. But he, he measured this, he found this shoreline that runs about 400 miles. So it's like across the altiplano from Silastani in the north, way down south towards La Paz. But he's, he documented this strand line. What's really weird. And, and at that strand line Tiwanaka would have been been at the shores of Lake Titica. It would have been a small island or a peninsula. The lake level would have been right there when it was and it would, that fits it being a port. However, the strand line is today it's tilted. The strand line's tilted. So obviously water, when it makes, you know, a body of water, when it makes a strand line, it's flat like it's, it's finds its level, but only geological processes. And I assume over a fair amount of time, time can give it this tilt of a couple degrees, which is what they measured. There's no doubt there is a strand line, but it's tilted. So I question whether in the period that they say tiwanaku was built, 1100 AD, less than a thousand years between then and now, that there's been enough geological upheaval in the Andes to tilt this strand line a couple of degrees. I don't think it can happen anything like that fast? I think, I think. I think this strand line and the evidence that it was a port shows us that this city was, in fact, vastly more ancient than that, and that it was destroyed by. By cataclysm, by flooding from the melting of the glaciers in the Andes. There's been, there's strong evidence there that it's seen several. It may have seen multiple cycles of glaciers and the climate would have been different during this period. Like, the climate changed to make it this arid sort of inhospitable place that it is today. Like, where it's just tough to exist, exist at 12 and a half thousand feet above the tree line, where hardly anything except, like, free varieties of potato grow. They must have had better climate or, I don't know, lower altitude, but a better climate at least.
