>>12035773
(Please read from the start)
I’m going to attach 2 videos about this portal because the information given to us by main stream history is insufficient. I’m going to comment on what was said in the 2 videos – and what we see:
In the first video, the guy seems to be American, wearing black cap and shirt:
1 – He first gives the location of the site and its name. Then he said this rock reminds him of Moab, Utah; which is the first notable = geological similarity.
2 – He appologizes for the wind. We can hear the sound of wind in the video. And this is super important anons. Why you may ask? Because that’s the invisible erosion factor I’ve been wondering about. What am I talking about here? Well, remember my comments about the geoglyphs, mostly me saying the Nazca geoglyphs explanation given by the main stream history doesn’t add up? It feels to me like there is something missing, or it’s incomplete, or something was kept hidden from us. And I did mention the erosion factor to be taken into consideration, not just water, but we also take into consideration the wind erosion, and also humidity and frost erosion, which are usually invisible to the normal visitor’s eyes; us old dogs in archaeology know about it. If anons remember what was written about the Nazca geoglphs, they said there was NO WIND there. Really?! So why is there wind in the area of Lake Titicaca in this video? If there is wind here, it also means there is wind in other places in the region, right? For me, this means the possibility of wind erosion is there on the entire geography of Peru. I don’t know about you anons, but I haven’t been to a place on earth where the wind doesn’t blow, not yet anyway. This is concrete proof that there is something wrong about the information presented to us about the Nazca lines. The real question is: why hide some silly thing like wind blowing in the region?
3 – He mentions the 2 channels on both sides of the portal: if anons notice, these channels are semi circular and they lead straight into what I call canalization. This is water drainage system we see anons. A very good one. The slight inclination of the canalization on the floor is to let gravity naturally drain down the water. Smart old useful trick. So why is this only limited to the façade of the “portal”. Well, I’ve seen this type of drainage before. It’s to diverge the water flow, mostly rain water, from coming down directly on the façade and make it go down to the sides. Slight inclinasion, most of the time, undetected to the naked eyes can help the water chose another path to flow down on. Using this method, will stop the façade from looking like a waterfall and clear it of most of the accumulated water on top of this structure. It’s like telling the water go down from here and not there, sort of speak anons ^_^
4 – He talks about the portal and first thing he notices is the T shape of the portal and he notes its similarities with what we have in Gobelik Tepe.
5 – He talks about who carved it and who used it. I believe this predates the Incas, but was later on used by them as well. I think we shouldn’t ignore it’s geographical closeness to Lake Titicaca; which is making me go in the direction that this might have been carved and used at first, by the builders of Tiwanaku. But I would like to point out that there are 3 construction stages (if I remember this correctly) in Tiwanaku, so it’s important to determine to which phase of construction this portal correspond to. Nearly at the end of the video, he points his camera in the direction of Lake Titicaca and say it’s there. See how close it is anons? This portal is linked to Tiwanaku, not Incas; it was only re-used by them later because of its spiritual importance.
6 – Last thing he does is notice the existence of what he calls a notch and the edge.
I want to bring attention to this video because it’s what NORMAL visitors see when visiting a site. This is what usually the public sees, knows and notices about any site they visit. I’m drawing attention to this because I want you to compare it with the next video: what you see with different eyes, the eyes of a researcher, explorer…..and the eyes of an archaeologist are even more different in what we see on a site. I’ve talked about this before anons, we are like crime scene investigators, but, we don’t explore murder scenes, we explore ancient scenes. It’s like the site talks to us, it tells us a story.