Our Cosmic Ancestors (24 page)

Some people think it was the planet Venus that passed very close to Earth in the past. It certainly does seem true that Venus has not always been a part of our solar system. Some think that the phenomenon was caused by a moon, not necessarily the first one that our planet had. Both of these theories may be right and it is even possible that both Venus and our Moon combined forces to raise the highest tides the world has ever experienced. But let's discuss the Moon first.

As I said before, the theory of a very close and very big moon explains the marine sediments at the 13,000 foot elevation most logically. Such a super moon would have enough pull to nearly balance the gravity of the Earth. Together with the spin of the Earth, it would cause immense tides in the tropical zone; and if this moon created four tides during one day, as would be the case with a moon spinning twice faster, there would be no time for the tides to ebb away. The high-water belt on the equator would become a stationary and permanent feature with the resulting accumulation of marine sediment at this high level.

Since it is impossible that our present Moon could have been at any time closer to Earth than it is now and since it is also improbable that
it would have been much bigger in the not so distant past, we have to assume that there must have been another moon, bigger and closer to Earth, before we started serenading our present little one. And, if there could have been two moons, why not three or four? The theory of the four moons is not so crazy after all. It seems to be quite sane, because it is in harmony with all of the legends and especially with the mysterious stories about giants who lived at the time of the big moon. Even the Bible tells us about them.

We now have another mystery to solve. What's the relation between the existence of giants on the Earth in the past that no one, including the Church, has ever doubted, and a closer and bigger moon? In my opinion, there is a clear cause-and-effect relationship. While our official science still dismisses the multiple-moon theory, it is not quite so sure that there isn't a direct influence of gravity, among other factors, upon the size of the human body.

The Watusi of East Africa are much taller than the Eskimos, and it could be that this difference is caused by dissimilar gravity, which is lower at the equator than at the poles. But the aborigines of Australia who live close to the equator are very small and so are the people in Borneo and Sumatra, who live right on it. There must be other causes that determine our size, like radioactivity or availability of food. Disregarding these contradictions, we must, however, recognize that there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between gravity and human size, that seems indeed to be limited by the weight of the body that our limbs can carry.

A powerful, close, and big moon would have reduced the weight of the human body more in the tropical zone and on the equator than in the temperate or polar zones. It so happens that in Tiahuanaco, which is the tropical zone, giant human skulls have been discovered that must have belonged to men nine to ten feet tall. In China, Java, Morocco, Tunisia, and Syria archaeologists have found flint tools and weapons weighing ten to twenty-two pounds which only giants could have made and used.

No one denies the existence of giant animals in the past. We have the bones to prove it. Even if at the present we have only a few skulls and tibias of giant men and not too many of their tools, there is little reason to dismiss the theory of closer moons and giants upon the Earth. It is only natural that first there were giant animals and then huge men. The theory of evolution of the species still has its validity, but with a correcting factor of gravitation.

Until quite recently, the theory of the four moons was supported only by the findings of Bellamy and Allen, whose book
The Calendar of Tiahuanaco
caused much discussion in the scientific world. Some doubted the conclusions of the authors because the hieroglyphs on the Gate of the Sun were only partially deciphered. That is true, but in my opinion the interpretation of Allen and Bellamy, apart from some slight errors, is quite exact and their data from the Gate of the Sun has been confirmed by numbers that I have found from other sources.

The ancient builders of Tiahuanaco, who are still unknown to us, apparently feared that the Gate of the Sun, which carries the hieroglyphs constituting their calendar, might be destroyed in a catastrophe. It was not destroyed although the disaster did come about. By the greatest of miracles, the stone gate was found face down in a dried-out bed of clay about 300 ft. from its foundations. The clay cover saved the mysterious markings on the stone face from erosion; and so to this day, the hieroglyphs are in an excellent state of preservation.

However, to be prepared in case the Gate of the Sun and its engraved calendar might be destroyed, the architects and astronomers of Tiahuanaco built a huge monument that also incorporated their calendar and the relative positions of planets and their satellites known at that time. This superb and unique monument is the Temple of Kalasasaya, inside which the fallen Gate of the Sun was found. No one, so it seems, ever realized that the dimensions of Kalasasaya Temple duplicated the Tiahuanaco calendar.

According to my calculations, which differ only slightly from those made by Bellamy and Allen, the relationships between the Sun, our planet Earth, and the Moon at the time Tiahuanaco was built were the following: the Moon circled the Earth 36 times faster than now. According to the laws of Kepler, the distance from the Earth of the fast orbiting Moon was only 51/2 terrestrial radii, or about 35,250 m, 10.903 times closer than our Moon is now.

This proximity of the Moon and the enormous tides it produced slowed the rotation of the Earth down to 288 turns per year, compared to our present 365 turns, so that the year then had only 288 days. However, the time our Earth needed to revolve around the Sun was not affected and remained at 8,766 hours of 3,600 seconds each. All other time periods were, naturally, quite different.

Since we are now living in the era of the electronic pocket calculator and many may find amusement in checking numbers, I will give here the precise astronomical periods that were the cornerstones of the Tiahuanaco calendar. These periods are indicated by three dimensions of the Kalassasaya Temple. Its length of 288 cubits corresponds to the number of days in a solar year. The width of 264 cubits corresponds to the number of days in a lunar year. The distance of 156 cubits from the observation point to the western extremity of the terrace, which will be discussed later in this chapter, gives us the number of eclipses in a solar year and, consequently, indicates the number of synodic revolutions of the Moon, which was 444 at that time.

If we divide 8,766, the number of hours in one solar year, by these
numbers, we obtain
a solar year of
288 days
of 30.4375
hours, and
444 lunar synodic periods of 19.7432 hours each. The lunar year that we obtain from these values is 264 days, or 8,035.5 hours, corresponding to 407 synodic periods of the Moon while it goes through all of its phases. The number of eclipses in one year is 156 cycles for the solar year and 143 cycles for the lunar year.

Exactly as the width of the temple represents 11/12 of its length, so the lunar year represents 11/12 of a solar year. This fact alone seems to confirm the interpretation of the Gate of the Sun numbers and the Tiahuanaco calendar; and the theory of the four moons does not seem so improbable any more. In fact, it begins to look very probable.

The Tiahuanaco astronomers worked with a small time cycle of 3,168 days, representing II solar years or 12 lunar years. Apparently, they also worked with a great cycle of 9,504 days, which was the time the Sun and the Moon needed to come to the same longitude and the same point on the zodiac after 5,148 eclipse cycles of 1.846 days each.

Some might ask how the Nineveh constant fits in with the theory of the four moons, when the intervals were of different value. So check

again with your handy calculator - it fits with precision up to the fifth decimal point. Start with the number of hours in the Nineveh constant, which is 54,432 million, or exactly 6,209,445 solar years of 8,766 hours each, or 1,788,320,160 days of 30.4375 hours of that time. Equally precise are the numbers that you will obtain from the division of the Nineveh constant into 564,495 cycles of II solar years or 12 lunar years.

Now the Temple of Kalasasaya in Tiahuanaco is built at an altitude of 3,845 m and situated at 16
^°
27' south latitude and 68
^°
41' west Ion gitude. One degree of longitude at this latitude is about 106,790 m. Dividing this by 360,000, we obtain a local foot of 0.296639 m, very close to the actual foot of 0.297234 m, which will play an important role in this story.

Kalasasaya is in ruins now. But it was built on a stone masonry terrace that has kept its form and dimensions fairly well. It is oriented lengthwise approximately from west to east as were most ancient monuments, to be in line with the sun, and measures 128.40 by 117.70 m. On its western end the temple has a gallery of eleven stone pillars made of andesite, the hardest locally available stone. This gallery is placed 4.16 m outside the western end of the terrace and the pillars, erected at unequal intervals, are of varying width. The distance between the axes of the first and last pillars is 32.70 m and the outward borders of these two are at 33.30 m from each other. The height of these stone slabs was about four metres. Nine of them are erect, leaning about two degrees westward. The fifth pillar, counting from south, has been displaced by about 200 m westward, while the tenth has been toppled over next to its foundation. The sizes and intervals of these tall stones we will analyze later, determining their astronomical values.

[Previous page] Opposite: TIAHUANACO RUINS
General map in cubits of 445.851 mm

This map shows the orientations and the dimensions of the principal ruins measured in Tiahuanaco cubits of 445.851 millimetres each. The widthto-length ratios of several buildings had astronomical or mathematical meanings. For example, 264 and 288 were the numbers of days in the lunar and solar years at that time, and 288/396 was the tangent of 36 degrees.

The north face of the terrace is in poor shape, but can be reconstructed easily because it is identical to the south side, which is better preserved. This side has twenty-nine pillars of limestone, which are more eroded than the andesite pillars on the west. The length ofthe stonework terrace on which the temple was built is divided by these twenty-nine pillars into twenty-eight equal parts of 4.60 m each. The east end of the terrace was divided into 28 equal parts of 4.20 m each. It is possible that originally, before the western outside gallery was built, the west side of the temple was divided into twenty-four equal intervals of 4.90 m, divided by twenty-five pillars.

All these numbers and divisions sound complicated, but we will see that every dimension had its reason for being and every one was a multiple, sometimes with a slight fraction, of the local foot of 0.297234 m or cubit of 0.445851 m. The cubit was divided into seven hands of 0.063693 m and each hand divided into four fingers measuring 0.015923 m each. As can be seen on the god figure carved in the Puerta del Sol, the gods of Tiahuanaco had only four digits each on their hands and their feet.

Thus the cubit was equal to twenty-eight fingers, just like the twentyeight intervals between the pillars of the north, east, and south facades of the temple. The only difference shown by the length of the intervals themselves was that the east intervals were of 264 fingers each - the count of days in the lunar year, while the north and south intervals were of 288 fingers each - the number of days in the solar year.

The same numbers are contained in the hieroglyphs of the Tiahuanaco calendar and they are nearly the same as the figures Bellamy and Allen arrived at in their calculations: 264 and 290 instead of 288. This error was caused by the proportion that they used, namely 10:11, instead of the 11:12 that I chose because 264 and 288 divided by 24 makes 11 and 12. This proportion, by the way, expressed as a trigonometric function of cosine, is very close to that of 23.450
^°
, the inclination angle of our planet, which could have been 23.556
^°
at that time.