Theos-Talk Archives (July 2012 Message tt00045)

Morten, 

 You can't always trust what the Archeologists and Anthropologists decide is the "official" date stamp for a discovery.ÂOne prime example is Tiahuanaco,Bolivia  a very ancient if not the oldest discovered site in the world which they, according to internal agreement in order to p reserve a false time-line of their own dateÂat about Âthe same period you posted. They hate to redact previous members dating as it would invali date all of them and cause loss of professional esteem and recognition. Arthur o Posnansky ( a Civil Engineer) was the primary cataloger of Tiahuanaco spending o ver 20 years there on situ and published his finding in "Tiahuanaco --- Cradle of American Man" 4 volumes, Published by the Government of Bolivia ( Posnansky is a "Hero" of the Bolivian People by Governmental proclamation in recognitio n of his work- I ha ve his work here). Pos nansk y, using the accredited "Formula" for dating using the measurement of the ecliptic of the sun angle according to the Temple construct measurement fixed the Middle Period of Tiahuanaco at 15,538 B.C.. The Paris Convention in Europe totally accepted his finding as valid while the American Convention rejected it, instead insisted on dating it to about 1500 AD. The y completely ignore that the Gate of the Sun and much of Tiahuanaco was buried by an ancient floodÂthat had Âburied the artifacts under many feet o f flood depositions. Such floods did not happen in A.D. times. In addition none of the collective ar cheologists that lie ever succeeded in decipherment ofÂthe Tiahuanaco Glyphs which if they had, w ould also reveal the collective lying of the so-called professions.t was only Hans Schlindler Bellemy and American Professional ÂAstronomer Peter Allen in their research that found a coherent analytical decipherment whic is published in their book "The Calendar of Tiahuanaco - The Measuring System of the Oldest Civilization", Faber and Faber Limited, London. 



 If you go on Google Images and type in "Easter Island Monoliths" there is quite a lot to inspect in the Imges listing. Recently I received science newsletter that had update on the monoliths being further excavated and was focused on new views about the monoliths Glyphs that were revealed tihs year 2012. 



The history of the Easter Island people is not a pretty history, they deplated the isla nd of it trees and they split into two warring factions , the social order was destroyed in the process and there are artifact remnants that in dicated they resorted to cannibilism eventually. They are belie ved to be of Polynesion origins tracing back towards china, try searching halpoid group easter island. Â 



The links for the gallery off the monoliths you posted Âdisallow the viewing of the photos of the statues, typical of regressive professionals. 



Easter Island at thetime of real occupation may have still had active volcanic activity that could have resulted in burying the monoliths in ash that solidified over time by compaction and contraction from heat loss. 



Here is an article I receiver only yesterday in a science bulle tin about a final view on origin of both american ans south american indian peoples. it declares there were 3 migration waves from "Asia" and far eastern Siberia across the Bering land bridge . The primary first migration and two secondary migrations in ancient times coeval to Plato's final submergence of Atla ntis 12000 to 8000 B.C. 





Native American populations Âfrom t hree key migrations 



>>>http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Native_American_populations_descend_from_three_key_migrations_999.html<<< 



If these migration proceed all the way down the coast of South America then the Easter Islander may have transferred from Coastal areas to the Island. 



ÂJohn 













----- Original Message -----


From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@2nuQGLkp1fsM7bow4GwKVVafWtIQYGl9mn6Bcax1cPCW7KfyNp84Ny9e1NzbD0CFiMzWn8UGgQAGgOkMTtscuns9gGZj_Q8.yahoo.invalid> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 1:33:58 AM 
Subject: theos-talk Young or old Easter Island Statues 

 




Dear friends 

My views are: 

H. P. Blavatsky wrote: 
" "The Easter Isles in 'mid Pacific' present the feature of the remaining peaks of the mountains of a submerged continent, for the reason that these peaks are thickly studded with Cyclopean statues, remnants of the civilization of a dense and cultivated people, who must have of necessity occupied a widely extended area. On the back of these images is to be found the 'ansated cross' and the same modified to the outlines of the human form. A full description, with plate showing the land, with the thickly planted statues, also with copies of the images, is to be found in the January number 1870 of the London Builder." 
(Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. 322) 
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm 

Now has anyone ever seen this map over the number of statues in the area? 

A lot was changed in the early days of Western "discoveries" - and - statues removed. And populations died out within a few decades on these islands. 

The Cyclopean statues are by science dated to a meagre year 1250 to 1500 After this era. 
Which of course account for some of them being covered with several centimeters or rather meters of soil due to natural aging of the environment? Or perhaps not? 

Soil levels are for instance shown here "Easter Island Statue Project": 
http://www.eisp.org/category/about/letters/ 

(They still use Routledge map from 1919 it seems - http://www.eisp.org/1781/ ) 

I still wonder about the very wide margin of difference in views between ordinary Science and Blavatsky on thsi issues. 
Both cannot be right it seems. 
So who are actually right? 

M. Sufilight 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]