Nazca Lines as a Hoax

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by DrTim » Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:08 am

You've probably all heard or read about the "mysterious" Nazca Lines in Peru, a favourite of alternative researchers. Aliens built them, using humans as slave labour, to help their spaceships navigate. Well, let's see...

I can only present one citation so far, but hope to be able to do more and that others will contribute their research as well. The Journal of Julius Gabriel is a short passage in a book that you can access on Google Books:

https://books.google.de/books?id=Vj5yOb ... as&f=false

"Yet it was not until a pilot flew overhead in 1947 that modern man first discovered the mysterious drawings and geometric lines carved upon this Peruvian landscape thousands of years ago. There are more than 13,000 lines crossing the Nazca desert."

Red flags, anyone? And this is coming from a professor who spent three years studying them? Not only is the claim patently wrong, but the 1947 and 13 references suggest a hint of Intelligence. CIA, officially started in 1947, immediately embarked on constructing the UFO/alien hoax, presented as the Roswell incident. Would it be too much of a stretch, for them to also "adjust and enrich" an ancient monument to bolster interest in the alien idea?

That's all I can contribute for now, hope to add more later. I've researched Nazca for a while, found some time ago that the drawings we see today are not the original shapes. Photographic evidence exists of drawings having been altered by "restoration". I'll try and find the pictures again, but if someone beats me to it that would be even better as I'm stuck for time.

Please discuss! Thank you.

DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by DrTim » Sat Jun 13, 2015 1:25 pm

Yup, hoax is the way to describe it. Funny - and this has happened before - just after posting, I resolve the mystery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sechura_Desert

"While a desert, the Sechura has been subject to flooding from rivers and to storms driven in from the Pacific Ocean. In 1728, a tsunami generated from an earthquake swept inland, destroying the town of Sechura, then located closer to the water. Survivors moved inland and re-established the town in its current location.

During El Niño years, flooding in the desert regularly occurs. In 1998, the runoff from the flooding rivers poured into the coastal Sechura Desert. Where there had been nothing but arid, hardscrabble waste for 15 years, suddenly, the second-largest lake in Peru had developed: 90 mi (145 km) long, 20 mi (30 km) wide, and 10 ft (3 m) deep, with occasional parched domes of sand and clay poking up from the surface."

I feel stupid now that the solution is obvious. The Nazca Lines were constructed, at least in part, while the area was underwater. That it was underwater, explains the strangely even distribution of stones on the plateau, the gypsum underneath, the fossils in the area, the salt flats nearby. It explains the "Astronaut" glyph as a fisherman, the whale drawing, the pelican, lizard, and others. Search for these things if you're not convinced.

And that leads me neatly to the hoax. Try searching for "Nazca underwater" and all you will get is mainstream suggestions that the lines may be related to underground water. Yeah, maybe, but the bigger reality is neatly hidden. (Reminds me of the hiding performed in a similar manner with the "suicided nurse" in London - if you searched for "hoax" in its relation, all you got was the "Australian radio hoax". Clever.)

Amazing. Nazca bothered me for years, nothing about it seemed right. Now I know why. The truth has been carefully hidden, in plain sight.

Ataraxia
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:15 am

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by Ataraxia » Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:56 pm

What's your final position on this? Your post isn't clear. You say that they're real, but they were built while they were underwater? It'd be nice to see some of the pictures of the changes of the lines over time as well, just as more evidence of a possible fakery.

I've never really put much thought into these lines, but doesn't it seem likely they're no different than crop circles? At the very least, how do people still claim that they can only be done by some highly-gifted, ancient race of people, when the same was said about the geometrically perfect crop circles. But it's clear now that all crop circles are fake. Wouldn't the very first position to take on these lines then be that they are simply fake as well?

Good ol' reliable Wikipedia says: "On the ground, most of the lines are formed by a shallow trench with a depth between 10 and 15 cm (4 and 6 in). Such trenches were made by removing the reddish-brown iron oxide-coated pebbles that cover the surface of the Nazca Desert. When this gravel is removed, the light-colored clay earth which is exposed in the bottom of the trench produces lines which contrast sharply in color and tone with the surrounding land surface."

Doing it that way apparently produces something like this. But think of the months spent walking hunched over, picking out each and every single piece of stone along the way, making certain the path is absolutely clear and clean of stones:
Image

Image

Image

They should've come to me, or any other sensible person. In ten minutes I came up with a better solution that would save them months and maybe years of labor.

Image

(Not to mention these rocks apparently are pushed along by the wind itself, which might explain all of the straight lines in the Nazca Valley, but who the hell really knows anyways.)

I can imagine the scene 1000 years ago, some Incan jokester says to the high priest, "Why can't we run the rock over the ground and produce the exact same result? We might be done tonight rather than spending weeks toiling away here in the desert, with our water supplies so precious and vital." And the high priest says, "No, young Jokesipedia, you have much to learn. It must be done this way, because our gods demand each stone must be removed by hand, to show our reverence and dedication. No more questions. You must never question." You know, the same old mystical flummery even scientists now use to answer any question of doubt.

pov603
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by pov603 » Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:29 am

Ataraxia wrote: Image

(Not to mention these rocks apparently are pushed along by the wind itself, which might explain all of the straight lines in the Nazca Valley, but who the hell really knows anyways.)
I remember hearing about a possible answer to what made the rocks move, but was under the impression it was the sun heating one side of the rock, causing it to 'creep' along.
Either way, wind or sun, I would expect the rocks to at least move in a similar direction, not haphazardly in the directions shown in the photo.
All in all, it does cry 'fake'.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:33 am

What's your final position on this? Your post isn't clear.
I agree, Ataraxia. DrTim, are you just going to flood our forum with this kind of post? You meander and wander around but you don't explain anything. What the fuck is "hidden in plain sight" and why would you even use such a cliche without explaining it?

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by Selene » Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:21 am

DrTim (are you really a doctor? In what, if I may ask, I missed your intro),

You state in your Opening Post that the Nazca Lines were "discovered" (who do you count, DrTim?, maybe the Nasca (not Inca :rolleyes: ) people themselves?) in 1947, just in the year of that Roswell-thingy, which appears to be off by a quite surreal 400 years...

That is, if you give Wankerpedia any credibility, but in your second post, starting with "yep, it's a hoax", you make use of the 'source' yourself, so you shouldn't have any problem with it, and I wonder how thorough your Ph D. might have been, DrTim, see below.

That aside, the "Official History Of Nasca Mysteries By Wikipedia" says:

History

Contrary to the popular belief that the lines and figures can only be seen with the aid of flight, they are visible from atop the surrounding foothills.

The first mention of the Nazca Lines in print was by Pedro Cieza de León in his book of 1553, where he mistook them for trail markers. Interest in them lapsed until the Peruvian archaeologist Toribio Mejia Xesspe spotted them while he was hiking through the foothills in 1927. He discussed them at a conference in Lima in 1939.

Paul Kosok, a historian from Long Island University, is credited as the first scholar to seriously study the Nazca Lines. In the country in 1940-41 to study ancient irrigation systems, he flew over the lines and realized one was in the shape of a bird. Another chance helped him see how lines converged at the winter solstice in the Southern Hemisphere. He began to study how the lines might have been created, as well as to try to determine their purpose. He was joined by Maria Reiche, a German mathematician and archaeologist, to help figure out the purpose of the Nazca Lines. They proposed one of the earliest reasons for the existence of the figures: to be markers on the horizon to show where the sun and other celestial bodies rose. Archaeologists, historians, and mathematicians have all tried to determine the purpose of the lines.


This is not information (?) from some obscure (?) website, but the Wikipedia article of the Lines itself. DrTim, you would have found it immediately and check your info, right?

You give one example from the Sechura Desert, which is huge and starts all the way from Piura. Nasca is farther south than Lima. How relevant is the posted example of a natural event as clue for a hypothetical hoax hundreds of kilometers to the south?

With lines possibly created some 500+ years before this very occasional 18th century flooding in Sechura.

And with what motive? Some prank? To boost tourism? Cusco and Machu Picchu are not beaten by it, so a pretty poor hoax? To get people to like NASA*? To believe in aliens? Did Pedro, Teribio or Paul mention any aliens?

*just drop the C :P

I don't know if the lines are a hoax, I have wonders about them since childhood and being a geologist interested in the archeological mysteries of the Earth, I will finally get to visit them soon, so tell me DrTim, how could you be so convinced of "the hoax", in your second post, and more importantly, how are you going to convince me of it?

Have you been there yourself? Any fieldwork, results and preliminary conclusions to share, DrTim?

I look forward to your answers as you see my interest in these mysterical lines is skyhigh.

Selene

In every branch of knowledge the progress is proportional to the amount of facts on which to build, and therefore to the facility of obtaining data
James Maxwell (1882)

DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by DrTim » Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:33 am

To elaborate, my position is that the hoax is largely in lying by omission. One of the first things any report on Nazca Lines should mention is the high likelihood of the area being under water at some point in the past, or a number of times. But as far as I'm aware from what I have read and seen, the Lines are invariably evaluated in view of the dry, arid conditions. This then fuels the alien mystery and other aternative theories, the idea of the lines being perceived from the air only (some can also be seen from hills but not all). If the lines could be constructed while the ground was under water, there would be no need for the outlandish theories. In addition, as I alluded with my first citation, the Intel signature is there.

That said, it is also possible, in my view, that some of the lines and curvy drawings are fake, modern additions. In particular, the largest of them, the frigate bird, some 400 meters long. I find it suspicious that this object contains a smaller version of itself. If this were fake, wouldn't that be just the kind of signal that may be left? Note that no other drawing has this feature of "smaller version inside".

I've already established that the drawings are easy to alter, as evidenced in "reconstruction" work, but I need more time to back this up. I didn't keep notes when I made this discovery, and it's not the easiest of things to track down.

Anyhow, I'm glad to have started the discussion. In particular as we have a geologist on board. I hope to read Selene's research when it's done. I'm just a layman researcher, no expert in anything.

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by Selene » Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:20 pm

DrTim wrote:To elaborate,
Well, that's the problem. You do not elaborate. You just post something, conclude at the beginning of the second post "Yup, hoax* " and then run off more or less. I asked you a list of questions, just like Ataraxia and hoi.polloi did to you. You have all the Greeks in front of you, but does not seem to know how to even respond to the simplest question.
my position is that the hoax is largely in lying by omission.
Your position is that you claim "Nazca Lines were 'discovered' in 1947" quoting some Google Book.

The funny thing with history is, that usually things do not get younger. If there are 3 (or many more if you count the conference where this was presented, 8 dry years before your alleged year of discovery) reports from sightings before, then ususally the latest is not the most correct.

Now, Cluesforum has a lot of content where The Official History Carved In Stone By The Mainstream is disputed and revised.

Does that mean any other remarkable historic place is a hoax*? No.

"Lying by omission"? That "is" not "the hoax* " as you phrase it. Omitting an explanation that you state is only the case if that explanation is valid. You give no explanation for that so far. Why would rocks removed to show a line pattern in the shape of various animals and other, be suddenly more logical or "proof of hoaxing* " 'under water' than if that'd happen in an arid environment?

And if "lying by omission" is the crux, why do you "lie by omission" of the earlier years of discovery and omission of your explanation for the under water environment you claims "solves the hoax* ".
One of the first things any report on Nazca Lines should mention is the high likelihood of the area being under water at some point in the past, or a number of times. But as far as I'm aware from what I have read and seen, the Lines are invariably evaluated in view of the dry, arid conditions.
Well, the idea is that these lines were created in an area which doesn't get flooded.

I see you do not know the (paleo)climate of large parts of Peru, where rain is almost absent. Even in Lima it never rains, yet a coastal grey mist is formed which obscures the city for months.

The omission of a piece of information is not a hoax*. It could only point to a hypothetical hoax*.
This then fuels the alien mystery and other aternative theories,
Who, who, whoh, how do you get from a statement (without explanation) "the lines could be formed under water" to "this then fuels the alien mystery"? And aliens are not a theory, DrTim, they are at best a hypothesis, unpredictive on present and future 'sightings'.
the idea of the lines being perceived from the air only (some can also be seen from hills but not all).
It makes sense that large extensive flat structures are best seen from the air, anywhere in the world, both in terms of time efficiency and in angle of field view, so no surprise here.
If the lines could be constructed while the ground was under water, there would be no need for the outlandish theories. In addition, as I alluded with my first citation, the Intel signature is there.
What do you mean with "under water", then they could be constructed?

- What is the sequitur? How does a water flooded area relate to the construction of the lines?
- How much water? The lines are "10-30 cm high" or better said; "10-30 present day (!) centimeters are removed from the surface"; a way of surface geological 'etching', how much water "removes the need for outlandish theories"?
- How is it easier to make drawings in the desert sediments (pebbly, cobbly, not "Sahara sandy") under water than on the dry soil with mountain hikes to check your drawings from the highest possible viewpoint?

I may be hallucinating but I do not see any "allusios" of "Intel" (the processor company?) "signature".
That said, it is also possible, in my view, that some of the lines and curvy drawings are fake, modern additions.
That's a wholly different idea or hypothesis. There is room for it, certainly, and the age of the drawings is hard to estimate because of the lack of physical elements; removing rocks does not leave fingerprints which are used in archeology.

That makes them so mysterious and to some that appeals to aliens or other "outlandish hypotheses" (I'll help you brushing up your scientific language, DrTim).
In particular, the largest of them, the frigate bird, some 400 meters long. I find it suspicious that this object contains a smaller version of itself.
Suspicious, why? Suspicious, so fake? How short are your lines of reasoning, DrTim?
If this were fake, wouldn't that be just the kind of signal that may be left?
If my aunt would be my uncle....What is your argument? The second part I don't understand any of it. "Kind of signal, that may be left"? By whom? The hoaxers*? Pranksters living day and night in a harsh Peruvian desert to make fake geoglyphs, virtually perfectly shaped? And why? To have a laugh? To have "us" "debating" this?
Note that no other drawing has this feature of "smaller version inside".
Uniqueness may be suspicious, it may also be intentional or even coincidental. And if the odd one out is faked, does that prove to you the others are real? Why move the goal posts so suddenly in your "discussion"?
I've already established
Well, you may have done that for yourself, but the idea of a forum is that you can work together, check each others observations, agree with them or not and discuss possible explanations eventually possibly concluding that something is a hoax*, not in the second post without presenting any of your "establishments"....
that the drawings are easy to alter, as evidenced in "reconstruction" work, but I need more time to back this up.
Not only time, rather matter. Arguments. There is none. You present a possibility as the subject of your "research", without having done a minute of fieldwork yourself, and then cherry-pick some facts from probably far away and in 1729 to "back-up" your postulated non-sequitur possibility which you claim rests on the discovery in 1947 which is far too late compared to the other and most easiest to find sources. :wacko:

I've pointed that out and you didn't even blink to react to your flawed "research".
I didn't keep notes when I made this discovery, and it's not the easiest of things to track down.
Well, either you open this topic to discuss, share, present, amaze and reason, or you just dump an idea, call it a "discovery" and just keep going with fingers in your ears thinking you have argumented a hoax*. I'd call this trolling behaviour not suitable for Cluesforum, but that's up to others to decide.
Anyhow, I'm glad to have started the discussion.
Whut? Started the discussion? You haven't started anything, that's the whole point. No explanations for your hypothesis, no cause and effect, a 400 year diachronous motive, nothing substantial.
In particular as we have a geologist on board. I hope to read Selene's research when it's done.
Hahaha, you funny troll. It's up to everyone to read what I said and to quote Nigel Farage: "who the hell do you think you [...] are??" by hoping to read my research? To think there is a "we", that you "have me on board"? I have not even mentioned that I would do that, I merely said I am going to visit the Lines.

It's you who claims, so you who does need to do the research to convince others of the point you think to have and bring across to the wider audience (there are many more readers than contributors @ CF).
I'm just a layman researcher, no expert in anything.
That's clear and not necessarily a problem and may even be a more objective fresh advantage. In this case it is definitely not the latter.

And why do you call yourself "DrTim" then?
If it were Dr. Who, Dr. Zhivago or Dr. Pepper I wouldn't ask this question... :rolleyes:

Selene

* In order to be a real hoax, the lines should be non existent, yet shown only on photo and film to fool us. Compare the nuclear bombs.
To maintain the Nazca Lines are a hoax is an impossible stance if you can visit them. They can still be faked, partially faked or real, but they cannot be a hoax.

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:03 pm

DrTim wrote:Red flags, anyone?
Yes, DrTim, red flags galore.

DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by DrTim » Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:41 pm

Selene wrote:Hahaha, you funny troll.
Now now... You're entitled to say whatever you like with regard to the points I make (and I'm entitled to ignore you), but you're not entitled to call me a troll without a strong reason. You're baiting, no more than that. It's clear I posted sincerely, provided citations in both posts, and elaborated my own position as requested in third. No trolling that I can see. That said, I'm sorry I mentioned you in my third post, won't make that mistake again.

BTW, I stand by my assessment of Nazca as a hoax. Because it is part of the greater alien hoax. And quite a central part at that. There was no other monument besides the pyramids that fueled the alien speculation as much as Nazca, with as much promise for the validity of the alien idea. I suggest Nazca is a central component of the alien hoax.

About the reconstruction changes to the drawings. It doesn't look like I'll be able to find the pictures I saw, can't find them. They might have been in one of the Google Books I went through (went through a lot). But, I think it was the Condor, the faint sixth feather on the bird's right wing, cut out from the "restored" version. I need to do more research to confirm this.

Ataraxia
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:15 am

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by Ataraxia » Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:58 am

I should've added this to my earlier post, but for those not too familiar, the Nazca Lines are not only the famous line drawings of the animals, but they also include thousands of lines running through the desert. A picture like this shows a nice mixture of them all:

Image

In the top right, you can see one of the so-called ancient astronaut landing strips, but there are numerous smaller lines running top-to-bottom and left-to-right. There are also quite a few car tracks in the upper half of the image. Apparently you're allowed to drive right through ancient landing strips now. That might even be a pair of car tracks running straight through the spider's head. Without damaging the spider! Some of these tracks seem to be recent enough too, for in the top-middle of that picture you can see a set of S-shaped car tracks (just left of the L-shape of the landing strip), not visible in the below one. So if these lines are indelible and exist forever, they've just added to it and who can ever tell the difference? I've seen moon buggies that make cleaner tracks than that. There's also a less-clear sideways set of S-shaped car tracks in the top half of the first picture (they cross the above tracks) running left-to-right not visible either in the beneath picture. These also run right through the landing strip.

Image

I know the following here too comes down to a perspective and shadow issue, but the second picture seems to be embossed, meaning that all the lines stick out from the ground like a stamp, while in the first picture they appear like more traditional paths at least. To see what I mean, look at the L of the 'alien landing strip,' the whole thing looks raised like a mound, with the shadows coming from the left side. In the top photo, the left side is flat and it appears there is nothing there to even create such a distinct shadow from. Also compare the long set of double lines running from the spider through the alien landing strip. To me, that whole spider is raised up from the ground. It's possible they bump mapped the second picture to really try and bring out the detail (to make it more granular and deserty looking,) but they went overboard with the effect.

Here's an attempt at embossing the top photo, to try and show the effect of the lines coming up from the ground:
Image

There was also the fake outrage only a few months ago from a Greenpeace campaign which supposedly disturbed some of the dirt near the hummingbird image.
The following is an image of the destruction, in the large open area above the long beak of the bird. Not really much to see. To me, the car tracks visible in the spider images are way more glaring and intrusive. Somebody better call up Unesco World Heritage. And that's just two random images. Imagine what could be found if you scanned hundreds of photos.

Image

For a real laugh though, look at this post from the loathsome Daily Mail: Gales and sandstorms reveal geoglyphs of a 'snake and llama' in the Peruvian desert.

Here are some of the new animals that were revealed by this magical storm:
Image

Think of the absurdity of all this. According to those who know how it's done, the lines are made by removing the rocks by hand in order to create the paths. But if these animals were not visible it suggests that over the course of time the stones moved back into the cleared paths, at least in enough places so that while the animals were still there they were not clearly recognizable as such. Which seems to imply the lines do not last forever anyways?

Yet the storm then comes in and moves the rocks back out of the once-cleared paths, in exactly and only the places that would then reproduce the perfect image of the animal. No other rocks or stones were moved during the process. And note that there is nothing special about these paths other than that they are the specific areas cleared of stone: they're not dug or grooved or painted. So it seems the wind itself knew where to move the stones to recreate the pathways. Plus, unlike the other line drawings (does any better word truly describe it), the animals in this image are double-lined, meaning that two entire sets of lines had to be miraculously recreated by the wind.

I mean, you really have to be a sucker to believe something like this. This sort of thing gives them the freedom to add whatever they want, whenever they want. They tell us there are 700 of these images, so I guess expect more down the road as they make them.

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:33 pm

Seems like engraving stupid shit on the rocks is very popular in Peru :)

Image

source: I took this picture in Peru in 2010

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by Selene » Tue Jun 16, 2015 9:15 pm

Ataraxia wrote: For a real laugh though, look at this post from the loathsome Daily Mail: Gales and sandstorms reveal geoglyphs of a 'snake and llama' in the Peruvian desert.

Here are some of the new animals that were revealed by this magical storm:
Image

Think of the absurdity of all this. According to those who know how it's done, the lines are made by removing the rocks by hand in order to create the paths. But if these animals were not visible it suggests that over the course of time the stones moved back into the cleared paths, at least in enough places so that while the animals were still there they were not clearly recognizable as such. Which seems to imply the lines do not last forever anyways?

Yet the storm then comes in and moves the rocks back out of the once-cleared paths, in exactly and only the places that would then reproduce the perfect image of the animal. No other rocks or stones were moved during the process. And note that there is nothing special about these paths other than that they are the specific areas cleared of stone: they're not dug or grooved or painted. So it seems the wind itself knew where to move the stones to recreate the pathways. Plus, unlike the other line drawings (does any better word truly describe it), the animals in this image are double-lined, meaning that two entire sets of lines had to be miraculously recreated by the wind.

I mean, you really have to be a sucker to believe something like this. This sort of thing gives them the freedom to add whatever they want, whenever they want. They tell us there are 700 of these images, so I guess expect more down the road as they make them.
Great points and I observed the same.

The Daily Grail you linked states:

The new lines were revealed following gales and sandstorms in the region and researchers believe this geoglyph shows a camelid (outlined left) above an unidentified bird (outlined right). Some 700 geoglyphs are thought to have been drawn by the ancient Nazca people between the first and sixth centuries

The discovery was made by pilot Eduardo Herrán Gómez de la Torre as he flew over the hills of El Ingenio Valley and Pampas de Jumana, as reported by El Comercio [see below].

Archaeologists are now working to confirm the authenticity of the lines. .... :mellow:


El Comercio

Image

http://cde.3.elcomercio.pe/ima/0/0/9/3/ ... _image.jpg"??[/u][/b] :blink: :ph34r: Are you f*cking kidding me?? :o

Very different from the pimped (non-base (!)) image you showed...

Los fuertes vientos y las tormentas de arena que se registraron la semana pasada en la región Ica develaron un conjunto de geoglifos en las pampas de Nasca. Por el diseño y trazo que presentan estas figuras, corresponderían al período de transición Paracas-Nasca, destacaron ayer estudiosos consultados por El Comercio.

Las figuras fueron descubiertas por el piloto e investigador Eduardo Herrán Gómez de la Torre, durante un vuelo de inspección que realizó esta semana sobre el desierto de Nasca.

"The strong winds and sandstorms that were registered last week in the Ica region revealed a series of geoglyphs in the pampas of Nasca. Because of the pattern and stroke that these figures present, they would correspond to the transition period Paracas-Nasca, informed the experts consulted by El Comercio.

The figures were discovered by pilot and investigator Eduardo, during an inspection flight that he made over the Nasca desert this week"
- so, these figures were allegedly from an early (transition) period (some 1500+ years old).
- covered by sand and never discovered from 1939-2014?
- located on a hill (topographical differences) and thus experiencing different wind patterns
- the southeastern wind could clear the bird 'drawing' on the right very nicely but not the "llama?" on the hill to the left of that...
- 1 week (max) of sandstorms reveal the complete 'drawings'. For 100%. That makes no sense at all. If they'd taken a photo of a half-covered, half-exposed drawing then it could have been caused by natural circumstances. It appears in the second photo better, but still the winds blew the south face (partly) and the north face clean...

Imagine a thought experiment; you hide (your) child's toys in the sand pit in a certain configuration and cover them with some 1 feet/30 cm sand. You install a fan that blows the sand away, but not too much, not too little and let it blow as the sandstorms did during that week.

Would anyone expect that all the toys would stick out nicely and equally or would some be stuck in more sand and some others stick out more and be 'cleaner'?

Homogeneity gives away hoaxing. See 9/11 "plane" "behaviour".

Selene

DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by DrTim » Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:27 pm

OK, I'm just about ready to call BS on the whole damn thing! Not the lines, but the drawings. The source of my problem? Maria Reiche.

The woman who "devoted her entire life" to the study of the lines. And yet, I cannot find a single photo attributed to her. All I find, the more I look, is red flag upon red flag.

Site dedicated to her, her bio page: http://www.maria-reiche.de/leben.html

"Wenn mein Vater nicht im Krieg gefallen wäre, wäre aus mir eine kleine, deutsche Spießbürgerin geworden."

Translation: "If my father had not died in the war, I would have become a small, German Spieß-citizen." (Spieß unclear) What does that say to you? To me, it says what it says - war.

Then there's a picture of a desert drawing, but not an original. It's a drawing of spectacles, on a face, caption: " Portrait Maria Reiches als Bodenzeichnung in der Pampa von Nasca in Peru von einem unbekannten Maler". "Portrait of Maria Reiche as a ground-drawing in the Pampa of Nazca in Peru, by an unknown artist". Are you reading this like I am? Most wondrous pile of dung about "an unknown artist". Are we being signalled something? I bet we are!

Then, Maria's life. Born to a judge, after studies starts work immediately for the consul in Peru. Nice.

Let's take a look at "Bilderbuch der Wüste". It's a biography, and as far as I can tell from the few pictures on the net, photos are by Viola Zetsche. Funny, Zetsche is also the surname of a wonderful gent who happens to be the CEO of Daimler-Benz, maker of fine Mercedes cars. Hmm... Anyway, let's take a look inside the book on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.de/Bilderbuch-Wüste-M ... eichnungen

Page 12. Maria meets her helicopter pilot. "Der Pilot legte einen Schraubenschlússel beiseite und wischte sich das Öl von den Händen. Er hatte sie aus der Ferne sehen. Maria Reiche setzte sich im Schatten der Kanzel neben ihn und sprach ihn an. Irgendwann fragte sie: 'Kann ich mit Ihnen fliegen?'"

Translation: "The pilot laid the turnkey to the side and wiped the oil from his hands. He has seen her coming from afar. Maria sat in the shadow by him and talked to him. At some point she asked: Can I fly with you?"

Of course, as in any good script, the chap first laughs at her and her ideas, but eventually shrugs his shoulders and relents, will fly the crazy lady. Soon enough she's taking no doubt superb photos with a large and expensive full format camera, courtesy of the Peruvian Air Force.

Again, are you reading this the way I am? Because all I'm getting here is a most tremendous pile of crap. It gets better:

Page 16. "In dem zusammen mit Maria Reiche veröffentlichten Artikel 'The Mysterious Markings of Nazca', der im Mai 1947 in der amerikanischen Zeitschrift Natural History erschien, beschrieb Kosok seine Endrücke". In short, she wrote the published article on the 'mysterious markings' with her American collaborator in 1947. Now isn't that interesting? It brings us right back to my OP citation, and the 1947 reference, fairly explaining it. I say we have a direct link between Reiche and the CIA!

I'll leave it here for now. At this point in time I'm too pissed off to say anything more. Have we been the victims of a most daring and spectacular historical hoax? I haven't a clue, but I think I can tell where the clues are leading me...

DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Nazca Lines as a Hoax

Unread post by DrTim » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:52 pm

Let's unravel some more...

By a "happy coincidence", as Nazca Lines were about to be designated UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1994, a fellow named Carl Munck created a set of three videos, "The Code". The title is a reference to his theory, elaborated in the videos, that "the ancients" as he calls them, built pyramids, monoliths, mounds and such in a worldwide navigational grid, including Nazca. He claims that the dimensions of the monuments encode their Giza-centred longitude or latitude numbers.

Munck comes across as the most trustworthy alternative researcher you are ever likely to encounter. His manner is that of an intelligent teacher of yesteryear, a voice of genuine authoritative capability. This appearance is deceptive, as The Code is nothing but an intellectual fraud.

Take a look at his calculation of 'the code' for Stonehenge:

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw9lTB0hTNU

He claims the 21600 he calculates from aspects of the monolithic circle encodes the latitude, 51-10-42.35. If you're not watching critically, he just might fool you. The first problem is that, as stated by Wikipedia, Stonehenge is at 51-10-43.84, which could be encoded with Munck's method to 22358.4. A bigger problem is that 21600 can encode just about any latitude or longitude number you throw at it. Say 51-50-8.47. Or 52-30-13.84, or 26-54-15.38, etc. In other words, the encoded number cannot have any navigational value, it can't be decoded unambiguously.

Same for a triangle he picks out of the chaos of lines in Nazca, in his third video:

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBL-Iaa6d7M

Again, the 17280 number he derives from it can encode 14-41-30.10 as he suggests, but it also 'encodes' 14-59-20.92, or much of anything else. In short, it's cleverly misleading math. So too for 51840 for the longitude.

What of the man himself? Well, Munck reappeared, in a RedIceRadio interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6S3SANk6bU

By now he's progressed to claiming that Nazca is the product of the gods, or aliens. Further, he claims he had no interest in the subject until he was abducted by aliens and taken on an educational trip to Nazca. Later, when asked if he'd been there, he says no. The interviewer pauses, giving him space to correct himself, but Munck doesn't. To top it all, he constructs a '77' by using the number 43 a couple of times in relation to the "Bosnian pyramid", a well-known hoax following the same template as Nazca - take an existing archeological site of minor interest and turn it into a spectacle, with the help of vivid imagination.

To conclude, I suggest Munck's work is part of the alien hoax, Nazca included.

Post Reply