This intriguing article was sent to me by Mr. V.T., a regular reader here, and it's significant enough that I simply have to comment about it. It seems that the lost Incan Emperor Atahualca's tomb has possibly been discovered:
I suspect that by drawing attention to the lost and executed Emperor Atahualpa's tomb, we may be witnessing the birth of another possible "coverup". While I readily can accept that Incan artifacts may be present at the site, use of a site does not mean that the site, or this construction - whatever it is - originated with them. Here's why; I want to draw your attention to these two pictures from the article:
If one looks at the construction evident here, it shows the same irregularly cut blocks of stone, joined and fit snugly together, that other megalithic constructions in South America, and for that matter, the world show. Incan construction, on the other hand, is of the typical modern regularly cut brick variety, and though constructed much more recently, is decaying much faster than the megalithic, irregularly cut sites, a fact that I pointed out in Grid of the Gods, and that others have likewise commented upon. The technology evident at sites such as Tihuanaco and Pumu Punku with their highly machined stones, cut to fit snugly together, could account for this construction. Inca brick style construction cannot account for such sites. Indeed, the method of construction by fitting irregularly cut stones precisely together is similar to sites in Greece and elsewhere, half a world away, and is no more Hellenic than this is Incan. One need only compare Sacsayhuaman in South America:
...to what is really typical Inca construction methods, and the difference is plain and obvious (at least to all but academic archaeologists):
We are looking, in other words and in my opinion, at the archaeological remains of something and of a site used by the Incas, but not created by them, and with that, we're at the heart of yet another mystery: another site that confirms, rather than denies, the persistence among various world legends that their high civilizations were the declined legacies of something else, something far older, and more sophisticated. And suppose, for a moment, that indubitable proof of Atahualpa's remains were found at (or even in) this site. The real question would still remain: why was the site lost, and why is it still called Incan, in spite of the construction differences, and, if one looks at the pictures of the article closely, one that has evidently undergone some weathering suggestive that it is older than Inca.
I suspect the answer is as obvious as the picture. Sites such as Tihuanaco, Pumu Punku, Sacsayhuaman and so on, can only have been constructed by means of some rather sophisticated technology and technique, technologies and techniques clearly lost by the time the Incas came along, and clearly implying something old and sophisticated, and possibilities of human origins and history that "they" do not wish to be discussed. To do so, would be to validate, to some unpleasant degree, those ancient myths and stories about giants, gods, wars of the gods, their interventions in human affairs, and so on. Emperor Atahualpa is much "safer."
See you on the flip side.