This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is my concern that you have (as of yet) provided no sources for your information (other than that citation from one of Posnansky's books). To keep this article from being nominated for deletion, it'd be advised that you add outside references as soon as possible. In the mean time, I'll try to help you with the article as much as I can. OverSS ( talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The 4 references listed as discrediting Posnansky, when checked by me, do NOT support the statement that Posnansky has been discredited. In some cases they don't even mention Posnansky. If you're going to say a man's chief work is discredited (especially 4 volumes worth) you need to be specific about what is being discredited, and exactly where it is being discredited. Repeating someone else saying he has been discredited is not a proof. The proof I offer is the references cited by the author of the article. I pulled all 4, read them, and found nothing of the sort suggested.
Once again, restating the word discredit does not improve the argument.As for radiocarbon samples, having reviewed the research 'cited' all it does is demonstrate another group of peoples lived at the site after it was built, and that the temples were repaired by them. The same can be said for Sacsayhuaman to the north. No one has determined when it was built or by whom, but they know the site was used by subsequent peoples. The radiocarbon argument does not address the fact that the 6 meter depth of the canals used to move the blocks of stone are completely useless unless the depth of the lake is at a level prior to 10,000 BCE. It ignores Posnanky's discovery of wooly mammoth remains under the site - critters that disappeared from South America before 10000 BCE. I have reviewed all the radiocarbon studies of the site. There is one radio-carbon sample often cited from the center of Puma Punku, in a dissertation that "may" challenge the age of construction, but the sample control did not follow protocol and the description of the material sampled has been changed by the author three times in three different published works. It is a very unreliable reading. As for the criticism on race, what is discredited?? He did find two different types of skulls. Are you suggesting he didn't find two types of skulls? Are you saying that one of the two groups was not dominant, and if so what is that source. As for saying my claims about your sources are 'false', I suggest arbitration on this. I am fairly confidant an independent review will demonstrate your sources are both ambiguous and do not support your claim.I got the volumes from the library and checked them thoroughly. 2604:2D80:6812:A500:C95B:5084:2DA7:9F6E ( talk 08:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Pete M
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
page citation needed note 5: <ref>Prof. Ing. Arthur Posnansky, F.R.A.I, Tihuanacu: The Cradle of American Man, Volume II, J.J. Augustin, New York, 1945, English Translation by James F. Shearer, page 70, note 69.; Chapter 3 of Tiahuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Volumes I-II; Zecharia Sitchin, The Lost Realms, Harper Collins, 1990/2007, pages 222-224; E.P. Matrejek, Appendix IV: In Defense of Posnansky’s Dating, in -- Pmatrejek ( talk) 17:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Enoch and the Watchers: Chronology of the Primeval Gods and the Western Sunrise, 2016.<ref> Pmatrejek ( talk) 17:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is my concern that you have (as of yet) provided no sources for your information (other than that citation from one of Posnansky's books). To keep this article from being nominated for deletion, it'd be advised that you add outside references as soon as possible. In the mean time, I'll try to help you with the article as much as I can. OverSS ( talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The 4 references listed as discrediting Posnansky, when checked by me, do NOT support the statement that Posnansky has been discredited. In some cases they don't even mention Posnansky. If you're going to say a man's chief work is discredited (especially 4 volumes worth) you need to be specific about what is being discredited, and exactly where it is being discredited. Repeating someone else saying he has been discredited is not a proof. The proof I offer is the references cited by the author of the article. I pulled all 4, read them, and found nothing of the sort suggested.
Once again, restating the word discredit does not improve the argument.As for radiocarbon samples, having reviewed the research 'cited' all it does is demonstrate another group of peoples lived at the site after it was built, and that the temples were repaired by them. The same can be said for Sacsayhuaman to the north. No one has determined when it was built or by whom, but they know the site was used by subsequent peoples. The radiocarbon argument does not address the fact that the 6 meter depth of the canals used to move the blocks of stone are completely useless unless the depth of the lake is at a level prior to 10,000 BCE. It ignores Posnanky's discovery of wooly mammoth remains under the site - critters that disappeared from South America before 10000 BCE. I have reviewed all the radiocarbon studies of the site. There is one radio-carbon sample often cited from the center of Puma Punku, in a dissertation that "may" challenge the age of construction, but the sample control did not follow protocol and the description of the material sampled has been changed by the author three times in three different published works. It is a very unreliable reading. As for the criticism on race, what is discredited?? He did find two different types of skulls. Are you suggesting he didn't find two types of skulls? Are you saying that one of the two groups was not dominant, and if so what is that source. As for saying my claims about your sources are 'false', I suggest arbitration on this. I am fairly confidant an independent review will demonstrate your sources are both ambiguous and do not support your claim.I got the volumes from the library and checked them thoroughly. 2604:2D80:6812:A500:C95B:5084:2DA7:9F6E ( talk 08:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Pete M
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
page citation needed note 5: <ref>Prof. Ing. Arthur Posnansky, F.R.A.I, Tihuanacu: The Cradle of American Man, Volume II, J.J. Augustin, New York, 1945, English Translation by James F. Shearer, page 70, note 69.; Chapter 3 of Tiahuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Volumes I-II; Zecharia Sitchin, The Lost Realms, Harper Collins, 1990/2007, pages 222-224; E.P. Matrejek, Appendix IV: In Defense of Posnansky’s Dating, in -- Pmatrejek ( talk) 17:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Enoch and the Watchers: Chronology of the Primeval Gods and the Western Sunrise, 2016.<ref> Pmatrejek ( talk) 17:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)