User talk:150.195.97.43

May 2021

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Arthur Posnansky, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SunDawn (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

There are several things going on with this edit. 1) The article write says the subject of the article (Posnansky) has been discredited.The writer then cites 4 sources that I have reviewed to learn that none of the sources discredit him, and some don't even mention him. SO my edit says the word discredit should be changed to disputed. No one has updated the references with page numbers to counter argue, they just erase my edit. 2) I should not need to provide new source refernce materials to make the point that the article's references do not support the contention. 3) That said, to dispute the articles "discredit" thesis see Matrejek, Enoch and the Watchers, pp519-526, "Appendix 4: In Defense of Posnansky's Dating"

It is with great frustration that I take issue with the author of this article attempting to cancel a key finding by the academic team lead by Arthur Posnansky and his team who over three years tested and supported his calculations: “Director of the Astronomical Observatory of Potsdam, Dr. Hanns Ludendorff, by the astronomers Professor Dr. Arnold Kohlschütter, of the University of Bonn, Dr. Rolf Müller, of the Astrophysical Institute of Potsdam and Dr. Friedrich Becker, of the Specula Vaticana,. The author of Posnanky’s biography makes a sweeping and unsubstantiated indictment:

“Posnansky argued that Tiwanaku was constructed approximately 15,000 BC[5][page needed] by American peoples, although not by the ancestors of those then living in the area, the Aymara. Posnansky also saw Tiwanaku as the origin point of civilization throughout the Americas, including the Inca, the Maya and others. Since the publication of the work, these ideas have since been discredited by later archaeological research.[6][7][8][9] “

The references cited are 1. Kelley, D.H.; Milone, E.F. (2002), Exploring Ancient Skies: An Encyclopedic Survey of Archaeoastronomy, New York: Springer Science+Business, p. 460 2. ^ Kolata, A.L. (1993) Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean Civilization. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 256 pp. 3. ^ Kolata, A.L. (1996) Tiwanaku and Its Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology of an Andean Civilization, vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 4. ^ Kolata, A.L. (2003) Tiwanaku and Its Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology of an Andean Civilization, vol. 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Reference 1 The Reference to the work of D.H. Kelley et al is a false claim to discredit Posnansky. The author doubts the builders of the temple could be as accurate as Posnansky contends, implying the angle built was a coincidence – but that does nothing to discredit Posnansky’s work. The author posits a couple rhetorical questions to suggest the calculations "may" be inaccurate. Inaccuracy is not demonstrated much less claimed. One of the rhetorical questions whether Posnansky compensated in his calculation for the uplift of terrain, when Posnansky’s work clearly identified his calculation made that compensation when “Taking into account the present false horizon of 2° 47' in the north and of 16' in the south” The critic does not take into consideration that the astronomical ‘proof’ was not the basis for his claim.Posnansky wrote (from Chapter 3 of Tiahuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Volumes I-II.) “in any event, even leaving aside the calculation by astronomical methods, the age of Tihuanacu, a figure somewhere beyond ten thousand years (the age of the Second and Third periods) will always be, on the basis of geology, paleontology and anthropology, very great --- no matter by what method or standard it is judged....

Reference 2 The reference to the work of Kolata says nothing of any sort to discredit Posnansky’s claim. Posnansky, his dating nor his methods are not mentioned on the page cited, nor do any of the indexed references to Posnansky in the volume suggest anything to discredit him. The page referred to discusses more recent occupants of the Tiwanaku region without any reference to Posnansky. Kolata states in the preface of her work that she does not want to cite Posnansky's work as she believes he was a racist, but does ot refer to the other distinguished astronomers on his team.

Reference 3 Kolata, A.L. (1996) Tiwanaku and Its Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology of an Andean Civilization, vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

There is no detail for finding the reference. The volume does not even mention Posnansky in the index, suggesting this to be an invalid source

Reference 4

Of the seven references to Posnansky in the index of this volume, only one discusses the population of the Tihuanacu region. Five of the remaining 6 references are benign references to carvings and stonework which have no relationship to dating the build site. The sixth comment says Posnansky was a racist and therefore his work should not be discussed, providing some insight to the open-mindedness of the editor of three of the four source materials used by the article’s author.

The article by Janusek in “Tiwanaku and the Hinterland Vol 2” suggests the Tiwanakans ( A less technically sophisticated people than those who built Puma Punku) settled the region 200BC (page 268) which is probably true, but it is no way discredits Posnansky’s original claim. Nor does Janusek claim there was no group before the group his digs dated.

Summary

The author of the article has made a totally unsupported claim and provided misleading or inaccurate references. The claim that Posnansky has been discredited should be removed as it was not substantiated. It was a broad, unspecific and unprofessional claim. The person that wrote this piece should have editing permission revoked. ````

---