has montezumas tomb been found ...?

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Desertmoons,

"Just a thought on dragons - i recently read of a pattern of thunderbird shaped rock piles out east. The common denominator was they were placed by lightning struck trees.

Perhaps dragons were the explanation for meteor showers or other heavenly events of fire death and destruction in the early days. The shape of it came later."

You are not the first to offer that explanation for the creation of mythical dragons. In "Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins" by Joseph Fontenrose, the author had this to say:

"It was easy, as Norman Douglas shows, for Typhon as a water-dragon to become a rain-dragon, and so a demon of violent storms and winds; then as hurricane-demon he easily became a demon of volcanic eruption and earthquake."

Most myths have some basis in facts, no matter how remote the connection.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear group;
Using the Bible as a possible catch-all explanation for the existence of dragons is well and good UNTIL we start examining the DATES which dragons starting appearing in various societies, then that theory falls apart. The Bibical references to dragons does not satisfactorily explain the existence of dragons in pre-Christian cultures, such as almost the whole of Europe, Upper Asia (Russia) the Near and Far East and even Australia!
Your friend;
LAMAR
(disclaimer) This is merely an attempt at clarification and in no way constitutes an intentional negative response on my part

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Seasons greetings Lamar and everyone,

Lamar wrote:

Dear group;
Using the Bible as a possible catch-all explanation for the existence of dragons is well and good UNTIL we start examining the DATES which dragons starting appearing in various societies, then that theory falls apart. The Bibical references to dragons does not satisfactorily explain the existence of dragons in pre-Christian cultures, such as almost the whole of Europe, Upper Asia (Russia) the Near and Far East and even Australia!

I am not sure how you got the impression that I was proposing the bible as a "catch-all" explanation for the existence of dragons when I was using it as one example of how "mythical" animals like dragons go from being real animals that are not well understood and passing the information through garbled descriptions, to impossible animals. The same sort of process would explain most or possibly ALL stories of "mythical" animals. Not that they became mythical through the bible, but through the process of a poor understanding of a real animal, passed through garbled translations to another people or culture. Want another NON-biblical example? Look at the case with Mountain Gorillas. Before Capt von Beringe shot two examples of these animals, they had been described (by native peoples familiar with them) to various European missionaries and traders as huge, hairy man-like beasts, that would lie in wait along trails to kill humans that passed by and would sometimes abduct human women! No European natural history textbook would include the mountain gorilla prior to 1902, as they were held to be "mythical". No bible was involved, yet a "mythical" animal turned out to be another species of gorilla, and hardly so aggressive and dangerous as the stories described.

Good luck and good hunting, and happy holidays to you and everyone reading this.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[Vox veritas]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

In the city of Madrid, March,5 1565....... Martin Cortes [son of Hernán Cortes, the conqueror of Mexico]....
I say, Martin Cortes, marquis of the Valle....... and it is hidden a great treasure of very big value that was of Moctezuma......


AGI, section Patronato, bundle #17

This treasure was in Martin's Cortes land property. There is a lot of documentation about it.

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Oroblanco;
The fallacy of your position becomes readily apparent once you attempt to look at the big picture, my friend. You seem to entertain the notion that an ancient Middle Eastern society somehow traversed the Atlantic ocean, then upon arriving in South and Central America, proceeded to teach the local natives the intricate art of pyramid construction, or perhaps that even the reverse occurred, which is the natives of the Americas somehow managed to travel to the Middle East and thus learned the art of pyramid building firsthand.

If you've had the opporutunity to visit one of the replica ships that were used during Columbus' first voyage to the Americas, then you would have been immediately aware at just how duanting a task that a transoceanic was during the late 1440s my friend. The largest vessel in the fleet was scarely larger than a modern shrimp boat without all of the modern amenities and the navigational equipment of the ear was appalling crude as well. That the fleet made land on the shores of the New World islands is no mean feat and it can be considered as a small miracle, once all of the prevailing factors are included into the equatation.

Let's assume for a moment that a society from one part of the world somehow managed to make berth on a distant shore. Then what? Then nothing, my friend. It's really as simple as this, my friend. Let's assume that a group of Eygptian explorers made landfall on the shores of Peru. Then what happened after that? Nothing happened. The reason WHY nothing happened is simply because the people of South America were not technologically PREPARED for any sort of advanced technology, my friend.

The only known ancient society which had the technology, skills, wherewithal, means and sheer cajones to travel to the Americas during ancient times were the Norse, which are collectively referred to as Vikings, which is a very incorrect label, I might add. We know for a fact that the Norse were the most widely travelled of all ancient peoples and this fact is evidenced by the myriad of written documentation and from the physical artifacts which they left behind, most notable among them being coinage and weapons.

The Norse ventured from their home ports in modern day Scandanavia to lands as far away as Africa, Russia and the Far East in their pursuit of trade goods. That they set foot on North America centuries before the Spaniards or English is becoming accepted as a distinct possibility, and why shouldn't it? The Norse had all of the necessary at their disposal to survive such a journey and most important of all, they had the TECHNOLOGY to make such a voyage a reality.

The secret to their success lay in the design of their longboats. They were the only shipbuilding society to use the lapstrake hull construction, and coupled with the long, flatbottomed design of their longboats, voyages of long durations became possible. Also, the Norse were able to travel very close to the shoreline, owing to the fact that the draft of their longboats was very shallow.

And so, we now understand that the Norsemen, because of their superior shipbuilding skills, coupled with their extremely reliable navigational skills, were able to expand far beyond their native borders and into the unknown. So, let's assume the Norse actually did set foot on the North American mainland. What happened next? Absolutely NOTHING!

The argument that the intermingling of societies begat technological achievements such as pyramid construction should also hold true if the Norse did in fact intermingle with the natives North America. The Norse had many items of a highly technical nature on their persons, such as steel edged weapons, vastly superior bows, cooking utensils, axes and chain mail armor, and yet, for all of those marvellous technologically superior weapons and tools which they most assuredly carried with them, the natives of North America were unable to make use of these marvels and incorporate them into their own societies.

There must be a reason WHY the North American natives did not take advantage at all of those wonderfully advanced tools and weapons, my friend, and the reason is simply because the North American natives were unable to grasp the technological concepts which the Norse utilized. In other words, the natives of North America had not attaineded a high enough technological degree in order to be able to take advantage of the wonders of steel production, modern shipbuilding, navigation, writing, etc.

Merely co-mingling societies was simply not enough to be able to exchange ideas of such a profound technological degree, my friend. The type of intemingling which you are proposing would have taken GENERATIONS of intermingling in order to have produced results on the scale of pyramid construction, yet we are able to ascertain that generations of intermingling did not occur.

Again, allow me to refer back to the Norse for a minute more, my friend. The Norse had a far superior hull design than any of their seagoing counterparts, and they intermingled with many, many seagoing societies for centuries, yet the Norse remained the only society in the world to use lapstrake construction. If one were to follow YOUR chain of logic, then it would make sense that at least several ancient shipbuilding peoples would have taken advantage of the Norse hull design, yet we know this did not happen, my friend, and the reason why it did not happen is because other ancient societies simply had not attained the degree of technical expertise necessary in order to grasp the CONCEPT of the lapstrake hull.

In other words, before a society could have undertaken such a monumental aritectual feat as building a pyramid, they would first had need to gain the necessary technological expertise. There are only two ways to accquire this expertise, my friend. The first way is empherically, by progressing in small steps and the second way is academically, whereas the architects and engineers are taught in a formal setting.

To sum up, in order for one society with a completely different language, religious beliefs, etc to have been able to teach another society their technology, it would have taken several generations of dedicated instruction and this could have occurred seems to be HIGHLY unlikely. The most likely reason is because the society had evolved to a technological point where it was ABLE to start constructing pyramids, and therefore it did so.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Greetings Lamar (and everyone),

This will be a pretty long reply, so I beg your indulgence.

Lamar wrote:

The fallacy of your position becomes readily apparent once you attempt to look at the big picture, my friend. You seem to entertain the notion that an ancient Middle Eastern society somehow traversed the Atlantic ocean, then upon arriving in South and Central America, proceeded to teach the local natives the intricate art of pyramid construction, or perhaps that even the reverse occurred, which is the natives of the Americas somehow managed to travel to the Middle East and thus learned the art of pyramid building firsthand.

It appears that you have misunderstood my previous posts. Nowhere did I suggest that any Middle-eastern or Amerindians crossed the oceans to TEACH people on the other side.

Lamar also wrote:

If you've had the opporutunity to visit one of the replica ships that were used during Columbus' first voyage to the Americas, then you would have been immediately aware at just how duanting a task that a transoceanic was during the late 1440s my friend. The largest vessel in the fleet was scarely larger than a modern shrimp boat without all of the modern amenities and the navigational equipment of the ear was appalling crude as well. That the fleet made land on the shores of the New World islands is no mean feat and it can be considered as a small miracle, once all of the prevailing factors are included into the equatation.

Actually I have studied ships of the "Age of Discovery" as well as those of the ancient world, your conclusions about how inadequate the ships of the 1400's were for trans-oceanic travel are well founded, but quite off the mark for earlier ships. Ships of the Classical age were larger and more seaworthy than those of the Medieval period or the age of Columbus. The grain ships of Alexandria were huge by comparison with the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria.

Lamar also wrote:

Let's assume for a moment that a society from one part of the world somehow managed to make berth on a distant shore. Then what? Then nothing, my friend. It's really as simple as this, my friend. Let's assume that a group of Eygptian explorers made landfall on the shores of Peru. Then what happened after that? Nothing happened. The reason WHY nothing happened is simply because the people of South America were not technologically PREPARED for any sort of advanced technology, my friend.

I am not proposing any Egyptians reaching Peru, though their voyages to Punt were impressive. (Punt was known to the Greeks as Panchaea, we can identify today as Sumatra.) I do not understand your point about South Americans not being "technologically prepared" for advanced technology.

Lamar also wrote:

The only known ancient society which had the technology, skills, wherewithal, means and sheer cajones to travel to the Americas during ancient times were the Norse, which are collectively referred to as Vikings, which is a very incorrect label, I might add. We know for a fact that the Norse were the most widely travelled of all ancient peoples and this fact is evidenced by the myriad of written documentation and from the physical artifacts which they left behind, most notable among them being coinage and weapons.

I respectfully disagree amigo, the Norse were hardly the only ancient society with the requisite technology, skills, resources and courage for such voyages. Phoenicians and Carthaginians certainly were capable of such voyages (and did) as were the Greeks. Even the oceano-phobic Romans made at least one attempt to cross the Atlantic, and sailed as far as "Ultima Thule" - Iceland - where Roman coins were recently found. (They are currently in the national museum in Reykyavik) (for documentation of Roman voyage, read Wars of the Jews book II, chap 16, by Flavius Josephus quote:
Hath not your army been often beaten even by your neighboring nations, while the power of the Romans is invincible in all parts of the habitable earth? nay, rather they seek for somewhat still beyond that; for all Euphrates is not a sufficient boundary for them on the east side, nor the Danube on the north; and for their southern limit, Libya hath been searched over by them, as far as countries uninhabited, as is Cadiz their limit on the west; nay, indeed, they have sought for another habitable earth beyond the ocean, and have carried their arms as far as such British islands as were never known before.

It is funny that you should mention the Norse coinage and weapons that have been found at sites visited by Norse explorers, since we also have Carthaginian and Greek coinage and weapons that have been found at sites visited by their explorers.

Lamar also wrote:

The Norse ventured from their home ports in modern day Scandanavia to lands as far away as Africa, Russia and the Far East in their pursuit of trade goods. That they set foot on North America centuries before the Spaniards or English is becoming accepted as a distinct possibility, and why shouldn't it? The Norse had all of the necessary at their disposal to survive such a journey and most important of all, they had the TECHNOLOGY to make such a voyage a reality.

The secret to their success lay in the design of their longboats. They were the only shipbuilding society to use the lapstrake hull construction, and coupled with the long, flatbottomed design of their longboats, voyages of long durations became possible. Also, the Norse were able to travel very close to the shoreline, owing to the fact that the draft of their longboats was very shallow.

The Norse had LESS technology at their disposal than the Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Phoenicians or Egyptians amigo - and their primary "compass" - the so-called Sun-compass was a Phoenician invention. The Greek explorer Pytheas used one to sail round the British isles. Your presumption about the Norse using their longboats for exploration is incorrect, the longboats were used for warfare primarily and the exploration was done with a different type of ship known as a Knarr, which is the ship they used to cross the Atlantic and was actually smaller than Phoenician trading ships two-thousand five hundred years earlier, circa 1500 BC
_________________________________________________
Norse trading ship, a Knarr

_________________________________________________
now compare to a Phoenician trading ship, 1500 BC

_________________________________________________
An average Knarr was about 54 feet long and had a beam of 15 feet. The cargo capacity of a Norse trading ship was 24 to 30 tons, while the Phoenician ship was 75 to 110 feet in length, with a cargo capacity of 100 tons or up to 500 tons for the massive grain ships.

Even in warship design there are striking similarities,
_________________________________________________
Norse longship

_________________________________________________
Phoenician bireme

_________________________________________________
A key difference between Norse warships and those of the Phoenicans, Greeks, Romans etc is that Norse ships were NOT designed for ramming enemy vessels, being more flexible, but far less sturdy than the ancient Phoenician etc ships.

I would repeat that traveling close in to shorelines is not a practice that most seafarers would practice. Most trading ships of the ancient world carried along a smaller boat which served as a landing craft, "lighter" (for transferring cargo ashore), life-boat and riverboat as the occasion called for.

The Norse shipbuilding method is called "clinker" and is used for house-siding even today, referred to as "shiplap" - while Phoenician shipbuilding was by mortise and tenon joining all the planking of the sides, which is a far stronger method.

Lamar also wrote:

And so, we now understand that the Norsemen, because of their superior shipbuilding skills, coupled with their extremely reliable navigational skills, were able to expand far beyond their native borders and into the unknown. So, let's assume the Norse actually did set foot on the North American mainland. What happened next? Absolutely NOTHING!

Do you make note of the types of interactions that Norse had with new peoples they discovered, compared with the types of interactions that ancient Phoenicians, Greeks, or Carthaginians had? The Norse had very little interaction with Amerindians, most of that being violent confrontations with few exceptions, while the ancient Phoenicians were traders first and foremost. Based on the quite different cultures of the Norse compared with Phoenicians, we should not have much evidence of any exchange of technology where the Norse are concerned. Besides, I am not trying to say that Middle Eastern seafarers actually TAUGHT any Amerindians how to build pyramids (or any other technology with a single exception, sorry but am saving this exception for my own book project) rather that just the idea to build such structures was transmitted. Or do we write off as "coincidence" the fact that the base measurements of the Great Pyramid in Egypt are nearly identical with the base measurements of the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico? We have a similar situation with other subjects such as the aforementioned dragons - IDEAS are transmitted very easily, without any need of actual technological interchange.

Lamar also wrote:

The argument that the intermingling of societies begat technological achievements such as pyramid construction should also hold true if the Norse did in fact intermingle with the natives North America. The Norse had many items of a highly technical nature on their persons, such as steel edged weapons, vastly superior bows, cooking utensils, axes and chain mail armor, and yet, for all of those marvellous technologically superior weapons and tools which they most assuredly carried with them, the natives of North America were unable to make use of these marvels and incorporate them into their own societies.

There must be a reason WHY the North American natives did not take advantage at all of those wonderfully advanced tools and weapons, my friend, and the reason is simply because the North American natives were unable to grasp the technological concepts which the Norse utilized. In other words, the natives of North America had not attaineded a high enough technological degree in order to be able to take advantage of the wonders of steel production, modern shipbuilding, navigation, writing, etc.

Merely co-mingling societies was simply not enough to be able to exchange ideas of such a profound technological degree, my friend. The type of intemingling which you are proposing would have taken GENERATIONS of intermingling in order to have produced results on the scale of pyramid construction, yet we are able to ascertain that generations of intermingling did not occur.

Again, allow me to refer back to the Norse for a minute more, my friend. The Norse had a far superior hull design than any of their seagoing counterparts, and they intermingled with many, many seagoing societies for centuries, yet the Norse remained the only society in the world to use lapstrake construction. If one were to follow YOUR chain of logic, then it would make sense that at least several ancient shipbuilding peoples would have taken advantage of the Norse hull design, yet we know this did not happen, my friend, and the reason why it did not happen is because other ancient societies simply had not attained the degree of technical expertise necessary in order to grasp the CONCEPT of the lapstrake hull.

In other words, before a society could have undertaken such a monumental aritectual feat as building a pyramid, they would first had need to gain the necessary technological expertise. There are only two ways to accquire this expertise, my friend. The first way is empherically, by progressing in small steps and the second way is academically, whereas the architects and engineers are taught in a formal setting.

To sum up, in order for one society with a completely different language, religious beliefs, etc to have been able to teach another society their technology, it would have taken several generations of dedicated instruction and this could have occurred seems to be HIGHLY unlikely. The most likely reason is because the society had evolved to a technological point where it was ABLE to start constructing pyramids, and therefore it did so.

It is readily apparent that you have quite misunderstood what I have proposed here, on several points. I have not proposed ancient Egyptians traveling to Peru to teach Amerindians how to build pyramids, rather that the IDEA of building pyramids got transmitted, very much as the idea got transmitted to Nubia, China, Korea, etc. There was no ocean to cross for any Egyptian to reach China (and we do have documentary evidence of contact between China and Egypt in ancient times) so they could have walked there, yet we find pyramids in China. They are built differently from those in Egypt, with different materials, but no historian (that I am aware of) will debate the fact that the IDEA of building pyramids in China came from elsewhere. It is not a case of "all or nothing" - that we MUST have massive proof of contact in ancient times or it did not occur, in fact we MUST have NO evidence of any kind of contact in ancient times if we are to hold with the Isolation theory, which is the version we find in our history books. Unfortunately for that theory, there is quite a fair amount of evidence that contact was in fact taking place in ancient times, contact that was by no means large nor sustained, but rather sporadic and quite small scale. I am presenting a fair amount of the evidence in a book I have been working on for over eight years now, and includes not just a few coins, amphoras or passages in ancient texts but even ancient shipwrecks here in the Americas. For one example (out of several) a Phoenician shipwreck was found by scuba divers off Bimini island, (they were examining the so-called "Bimini road" formation) which ship was examined by a Yale professor who dated it to at least 1500 BC. Contact on the level we have evidence for would not leave us with huge stone ruins, in fact it seems a certainty that at least some was purely accidental. In fact Diodorus tells us that the Carthaginians discovered America quite by accident, very much as Cabral discovered Brazil, Jean Cousin or Bjarni Herjólfsson found America - however both Jean and Bjarni failed to go ashore so are a footnote to history.

My apologies for such a lengthy reply, just hoped to explain things a little better. Good luck and good hunting amigo (and everyone reading this) I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

***** oro, especially interesting from an itirant, sheep lovin, would be prospector. Who once claimed that he wasn't good enought write the Tayopa story.


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Real de Tayopa wrote:

oro, especially interesting from an itirant, sheep lovin, would be prospector. Who once claimed that he wasn't good enought write the Tayopa story.

HOLA amigo - and I recall our discussion well. I did very seriously consider it and even wrote up an "intro" before realizing that only the man who actually FOUND Tayopa could really tell the whole story. If you were not an excellent communicator, I would have been more than happy to tell the story "for" you, but you have demonstrated repeatedly that you are more than capable of telling the true story of Tayopa. Besides, having never even been to Mexico, I feel quite un-qualified to write of Tayopa anything more than article length.

I look forward to reading your book amigo, and hope that will be soon?

Real de Tayopa also wrote:

<snip>...would be prospector...<snip>

"Would-be" prospector? Hmm well I must respectfully take exception to this part of your statement, I feel quite safe in claiming to be a prospector. If memory serves, the requirements go something like this:

• 1: You can't claim to be a real prospector until you have panned out an ounce of gold
• 2: You can't claim to be a real gold miner until you have filled a Mason jar full of gold.
• 3: You can't claim to be a real Sourdough until you have spent a full winter in Alaska and/or Yukon.

There are other "requirements" of course, but of these three I can honestly say I am a prospector. I can't say I am a true gold miner or true Sourdough - yet.
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Hey you have to taste my sourdough bread, biscuits, and especially my hotcakes & waffles. There is never anything leftover.

Incidetnally, just how big a Mason jar is needed?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

HOLA amigos,

I have wondered about that myself - after all those little "jelly" jars are small enough it would not take SO much time and labor, but what I was shown at the time was a rack of full quart jars, all mined from an ancient Nome beach (well inland) and even without any sizable nuggets, it was enough to do the trick. (I was duly impressed) I have been working on the assumption that it takes a quart jar, but if a little jelly jar will do then by god...I can make another claim!

Don Jose' wrote:

you have to taste my sourdough bread, biscuits, and especially my hotcakes & waffles. There is never anything leftover.

I look forward to it, even if the place has to be north of the border. I should tell you about my first experiment in trying to get a sourdough starter going... (I thought the top of a hot-water heater would be an excellent place to keep it warm!)
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

ORO the gentlemsn sheepherder : you posted -->

I should tell you about my first experiment in trying to get a sourdough starter going... (I thought the top of a hot-water heater would be an excellent place to keep it warm!)

~~~~~~~~~~

Still waiting, and gettng hungry.

Don Jose de La Mmancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Real de Tayopa wrote

ORO the gentlemsn sheepherder : you posted -->

<sigh> If only it were just sheep, or even MAINLY sheep. Maybe I am mis-identifying livestock however, Don Jose', Dueno de Real y Minas de Tayopa, what would you call these critters?

If these are indeed sheep, then they have the worst wool imaginable, leave rather disagreeable manure, are VERY large as sheep go, not to mention their rather "grouchy" temperaments! I will sure try to convince them they are "sheep" next time I have to work with them however, perhaps I have been doing this all wrong treating them as beef.....
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

WELCOME TO TREASURENET Littlejohn!

Littlejohn wrote:

am new to treasure net.and am no way as smart as u guys are.
i read a treasure story long time ago about a pyramid found out in the California desert.

Speaking for myself - you are very probably as smart or more. I read about this find too, and have been trying to track down the site for some time. The story ran in a newspaper, and could have been false, but one detail mentioned in it stuck in my mind as something with a ring of truth - it was described as being a truncated pyramid - one with a flat top rather than a pointed top. Truncated pyramids are the most common type found in the Americas, a detail that someone making up a fake story might well overlook.

If you recall any information about that pyramid discovery, I would appreciate if you would share it? Thank you in advance, and again welcome to Treasurenet!

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

hi LIL John, I too would love to hear more, not that I will ever hunt for it, but love treasure stories. And welcome to the b.s. group, just bring coffee. hehehe.

Incidentally "smart" ?? you must be thinking of another group?

On a few maps I saw "Small People" mentioned ??

Don Jose de La Mancha formerly "Tropical Tramp"

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

The artist formerly known as "Tropical Tramp" wrote:

the b.s. group, just bring coffee

What? You doubt our (collective) veracity amigo?

Ditto on the need for coffee Littlejohn - you have joined a group of java addicts, and the extra caffeine does help with those extra-long-winded posts put up by some members like Oroblanco.

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Mountain Dew? Nothing wrong with that! When not guzzling pots of coffee, I turn to the good Doctor, Dr Pepper that is!
Oroblanco

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

i read it at
http://www.losttreasure.com/
it been a few years ago,and i look for it but could not the info. on it.

Is this the story you were looking for?

File: LT19860936
Summary: 5 Near Fisher Gulch, above the Canyon Creek Bridge, about 20 miles northwest of Weaverville, there is believed to be a cache of gold worth $125,000, hidden in 1898. Keenan buried his own chest of gold near his cabin near the end of the ditch. 8 Treasure hunters who like to search for bandit loot might find it worthwhile to search near the Riverside-San Diego County line, about halfway between Temecula and Pala, for it is rumored that gold is buried here.
Highlighted Summary: ... than an immense stone pyramid, composted of layers or courses from 18 inches to nearly 3 feet in thickness, and 5 to 8 feet in length. It has a level top of more than 50 feet square, though it is evident that it was once completed, but that some great convulsion of nature has displaced its entire top, as it evidently now lies a huge and broken mass upon one of its sides, though nearly covered by the sands. "This pyramid differs, in some respects, from the Egyptian pyramid, it is, or was, more ...

Go to the Lost Treasure site you posted and go into the archives. Type in the file# above (LT19860936) and you can order a reprint of the article.

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

THANKS for the tip Cubfan! I owe you one!
Oroblanco

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

THANKS for the tip Cubfan! I owe you one!
Oroblanco

Anytime - just remember me in your will

Oh - fwiw, this is an excellent site for treasure magazine article information.

http://www.losttreasureusa.com/CD/INDEX.htm

 

[512Climber]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Well this past Monday I hiked up the "heart mtn" that Blindbowman showed in his pictures early on in this topic. Unfortunately didn't find the LDM or any tomb. Darn. Ok, actually, didn't expect it to be easy. Did find the following image. It seems like there might be some type of writing or carving here...I'm just not as familiar with the Jesuit symbols as many on this list. Wanted to see what you guys thought. Thanks for any feedback you might have.