has montezumas tomb been found ...?

[the blindbowman]

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

Oro ,,i am shocked you didnt ask me why the aztlan culture was related to clovis culture ... would have been a simple question to answer , starting at the channel island site and going east to Aztlan and then clovis nm , then a site north of huston texas ,and then to a site Alabama,then to south Carolina .and then to the delware sites .., .. if you look all of these site are a rough 480 mile apart between each site .. why . that is a easy question as well because the counting boards are diffrent for a good reason . one is for day time and the other is for night time ... when we did the math for he mexico site vs aztlan we did not have enough data yet to see what they were doing ... 300 miles in 10 days . thats 15 days for roughly 480 miles ...thats not a messurement by land ..its by lunar cycle, it takes 15 days for half of one lunar cycle and it would not have tobe a given messurement , they would give a runner a scoll or message and send him to the next site down the line ,,

this culture was smarter then we think they were ...the culture had two diffrent sub-cultures within its tribes . a inland culture and a sea fiaring culture ....

and YES IMHO they maped the whole earth ,and the heavens .. the motions of te earth and the sun and lunar cycles .. who knows how much they knew .. it will take time to under stand them ...

i got some research to do ... latter...


ps you see the last red picture , that is a knife blade found in Siberia , Dennis Stanford was right it dose match the clovis pionts tooling dirrectly. it dose match the tooling of the Aztec macuahuitl (a name derived from the Nahuatl language) is a weapon shaped like a wooden club. Its sides are embedded with prismatic blades made from obsidian, a volcanic glass stone frequently used for tool making by the Aztec and other pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures.


Description
The macuahuitl (Nahuatl: mācuahuitl, other orthographical variants include maquahutil, macquahuitl and māccuahuitl),[1] a type of macana, was a common weapon used by the Aztec military forces and other cultures of central Mexico, that was noted during the 16th century Spanish conquest of the region. They also used other implements such as the chimalli (a round shield), the tlauitolli (bow), and the atlatl (spear-thrower).[2] Although sometimes called a "wooden sword", its appearance is closer to that of a club or a paddle. It was capable of inflicting serious lacerations from the rows of obsidian blades embedded in its sides.[3]

The macuahuitl was “three to four feet long, and three inches broad, with a groove along either edge, into which sharp-edged pieces of flint or obsidian were inserted, and firmly fixed with some adhesive compound”, probably rubber or chicle.[4] The rows of obsidian blades were sometimes discontinuous, leaving gaps along the side while at other times the rows were set close together and formed a single edge.[5]

The macuahuitl was made with either one-handed or two-handed grips as well as in rectangular, ovoid, or pointed forms. The two-handed macuahuitl has been described “as tall as a man”.[6]

Aztec warriors as shown in the 16th century Florentine Codex (from Vol. IX). Note that each warrior is brandishing a maquahuitl.
Origins and distribution
The macuahuitl predates the Aztecs. Tools made from obsidian fragments were used by some of the earliest Mesoamericans. Obsidian used in ceramic vessels has been found at Aztec sites. Obsidian cutting knives, sickles, scrapers, drills, razors, and arrow points have also been found.[7]

Several obsidian mines were close to the Aztec civilizations in the Valley of Mexico as well as in the mountains north of the valley.[8] In a Chichen Itza carving, a possible ancestor of the macuahuitl is shown as a club having separate blades sticking out from each side. In a mural, a warrior holds a club with many blades on one side and one shape point on the other, a possible ancestor of the macuahuitl.[9] The macuahuitl was an excellent tool for providing sacrificial victims: the design of the macuahuitl allowed the warrior to injure the opponent with the obsidian blades while the blunt top could be used to render an individual unconscious for easy capture and later sacrifice.


Effectiveness
The macuahuitl was sharp enough to decapitate a man.[10] According to an account by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of Hernán Cortés’s conquistadors, it could even decapitate a horse:

Pedro de Moron, was a very good horseman, and as he charged with three other horsemen into the ranks of the enemy the Indians seized hold of his lance and he was not able to drag it away, and others gave him cuts with their broadswords, and wounded him badly, and then they slashed at the mare, and cut her head off at the neck so that it hung by the skin, and she fell dead. [11]

The macuahuitl also had some drawbacks. It takes more time to lift and swing a club than it does to thrust with a sword. More space is needed as well, so warriors advanced in loose formations.[12]

No actual macuahuitl specimens have been found and the present knowledge of them comes from contemporaneous accounts and illustrations that date to the sixteenth century and earlier.[13]

or in this case from AZtlan !

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[the blindbowman]

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

before you can defind what is at a site , you have to defind those who made the site and why .....

think about this why your wondering if i am right or not .. thats 3 months to send a message from virigia to channel island , caost to caost ...

 

[Oroblanco]

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

Greetings Blindbowman and everyone,

It doesn't really matter whether I think you are right or wrong, I am no expert - just trying to understand your theories. And as has happened so often, your reply has raised more questions.

Here is an important date - 10,900 BC. It is important because this is the date when the Clovis people seem to have disappeared, as NO more artifacts have ever been found to trace the Clovis people AFTER that date. It is also the date of the Younger Dryas period, a period of violent climactic change in North America, and also the period when all (except one species) of the so-called "mega-fauna" of North America vanished - including the Mammoths, Saber-tooth tigers, Dire wolves, Short-faced bears etc. Then there is a period of almost two thousand years in which there are pretty much NO artifacts from ANY human culture to be found anywhere in North America, and we have the appearance of the Folsom people, around 9000 BC. They were buffalo hunters and spread all over the continent. The reason I have mentioned this is that 10,900 BC is also a moment when there was a sudden surge or flood of melted glacial waters into the oceans, raising the ocean levels and suddenly stopping the main oceanic currents.

It may be coincidence or may not, but 10,900 BC is not so far off from Plato's date for Atlantis, which was supposed to be about 9,500 BC. IF Aztlan is related to Atlantis, then it stands to reason that it might be related to this period.

I honestly fail to see how the Clovis people are in any way related to Aztlan? As the Clovis people spread pretty much across the whole of North America, there is no pattern to show that they traveled from one starting point to end up in Mexico, since they scattered all over the place. Then too the typical Clovis tools and weapons don't show much in the way of resemblance to anything Aztec. The Aztec habit of embedding small sharp bits of obsidian into wooden weapons appears to me to be much closer related to very similar wood and bone tools and weapons used by ancient peoples in eastern Siberia.

So I am asking how you see the Aztlan culture as related to the Clovis culture? I fail to see it. If you can show a Clovis point found in Teotihuacan (Mexico city) then perhaps there is a tie-in? I have more questions but will wait...
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

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

It's amazing how often theories and ideas presented here, revolve around what's showing on the history channel. Probably just a coincidence. "Journey to 10,000 BC" is just the latest.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[the blindbowman]

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

remember i said the earth shifted 10 times to make one revelution . one the last revelution it over laps the frist equator it made the effects of this would be over welming
its like spining a baseket ball on your finger , then move your finger and see if the ball loses rotational balance .. roughly every 10,000 it going to make this10th shift ...depending on how far it goes each shift and the over ball lenght it covers in 10 shifts of the earths axis ...

the mayan had more time then i have studing the shifts . so they got it down to 2012 . i sense and beleive its going to be around 2008-2010 ..

we have no one to blame other then our selfs ...

this effect is a pattern brake ,, it changes the sequece of the pattern every 10 th shift ..this in trun makes that shift worse then all the others .. as i stated the mayan and were watching and studing the earth and solor system ...


think of this , the Younger Dryas ,effected the inland part of the culture , i also beleive it effected the center of this culture Atlantis , i hink this is why chicomoztoc has the answer to the question we asking ... if any one site has those answer it would chicomoztoc ..

i dont think these sites were picked at random ....

for one i have been to the channel islands before doing war x out of SD calf. they dont say it on any map i know of but those islands have a very diffrent set of wind effects that dont take place in to many pplace on eath .. much like the superstitions . if a dust blanket did cover the earth . there may have only been a few places they could have found to inhabbit in those conditions

the delware sites are explan by the distence to Atlantis and the effects of the gulfstream .i even question if the Younger Dryas is what help develope the culture of Atlantis ,its just a theory as of yet . but if these tribes vanished from land maybe they were not destored as we beleive they were maybe the effects takeing place on the earth gave them enough time to get to Atlantis or other island location within the larger culture ..

this would explan why we dont find any evidence of them . they could have been called back to the center of the culture ...this would tell me what ever took place in the time of the Younger Dryas tokk place over a few mounths or2-3 years ,giveing them time to return to the center of their culture wich was sea fairing ...just because the folsum piont do not match the tooling of the clovis dose not mean the clove did not make develope new tooling over time as a sea faitring culture ,and then 2,000 years later we see the folsum pionts show up ... when they start to regain their lost tribes sites .. i think it makes total sene that these people reacted the Younger Dryas ..we know for a fact they did or we would not be here ....lol

i see a logic in place few under stand at frist .. yet the channel island are just that islands . i see 3 time spans in play . one is a full island culture of places like hawii and eastern island and Atlantis and other island tribes as one part of the culture , the next is the exspantion of the culture and then th destruction of the culture , we see its inland exspantion .and when things go wrong we see them vanish from land .. it dose not mean they vanish all togather ...

"we have the appearance of the Folsom people, around 9000 BC. They were buffalo hunters and spread all over the continent. "

you are proveing my piont for me thank for the wording ...

if i had called all my inland tribes and people back to the islands , when the danger had past i would send them back inland and after haveing them eatme out of house and home i would kick their ass out and make them all get out there and fend for them selfs ..

i would be the logical thing to do .. and in fact we see these effects takeing place in their culture is we under stand the true nature of the whole culture and not just the part of the culture we see on land ...

this may say the land was not enhabbitable for those 2,000 years of the Younger Dryas .... but after the Younger Dryas , we do in fact see a culture reappear...so the thoery is logical ..


if after the Younger Dryas the tribes did come ack to the inland sites , they would have send their tribes to strong holds they already knew of .. this is where chicomoztoc and the Aztlan come in to their own as we know them , once a clovis site and culture now they have developed in to what we know as the Aztlan tribes . we even see this effect in the seven caves codex . i think we are seeing the tribes come back to a secerd place and then start to move out over the land , yet then the spainish show up and we know where it goes from there ...

i think the answers are in the clovis and palo indains relationship to Atlantis and Aztlan .... now i know that Atlantis is at the bottom of the ocean ,,, now you know why i said Aztlan is so importain ...i think it was secerd place of the clovis and they returned after the Younger Dryas , this tells me this is a very very secerd place . to this culture ...i dont know what we will find there , but if there is evn a chance that i am right , we can not waste this type of chance to see real evidence of this type that has effects the human race as much as this site has ...

i dont know if we can find and recover atlanits evidence , but here we see what could be the secound secerd city of this culture , are we going totalk and think about what could be there or are we going to go look...

no one ever ask me if i think these ideas and theories are wild off the wall .. , i beleive they are ... thats why we mist them ,,.. they dont fit whatwe beleive .. but what we beleive may not fit the unknown facts of histroy ..

if it did we would not have the questions we do ....

our logic may not fit the theories , but when theories take us to facts we see a path become a raod , a few savages become a great culture . we see the vanish did not vanish at all they just were some place we could not see them ...


these are the broken plates of histroy .. .we under stan what the plates are and why they were made in the frist place . even if we never find all the missing peices ..., yet each peice we find is as valueable as the frist .no matter how small ...

you dont got to ask me if i want to go back and define these sites ...

we can only guess at the meaning of those codex , the translation is as old as the codex it self , our translations are only as clear as our ablities to see these things as if we were them ...

can we become them in the hope of under standing who and what they were ..frist we may have to under stand our selfs better then we do ...

when we focus on the Aztec culture without under standing the Atlantis culture there is no logical reason for the Siberia clovis evidence , yet when we see them as a multi sub-cultures we see the inland and seafairing ablities of this culture span the reaches of the world around them ....

we only need under stand the evironments and time that has taken place within histroy to under stand the true nature of these cultures ...

"If you can show a Clovis point found in Teotihuacan (Mexico city) then perhaps there is a tie-in? "

i would not think the Aztlan cuture left Aztlan . they would have changed over time and become faded into the 7 tribes

do you keep old out dated things around .. no not the wife .. were talking if thir were new weapons developed and the tribes inland sites had new environmental changes . they may have changed with the times , this is one of the reasons i feel chicomoztoc is so iimportain , it could be one of the oldest culture sites on earth ...

maybe the only thing that remains was those Macuahuitlhttp://www.answers.com/topic/aztec-warfare)

but we need to look at the spear ends of the people in the pictures here nd see they share the same inlay blades as those knife blade found in siberia ,, are we to beleive the
Macuahuitl: and the spears are from this culture . but the matching knife was made in siberia .. that is not very logical....

so if we draw the concluetion that the tribes coverd vast areas . we have to beleive logical they expolerd inland as well as seafairing .. thus what looks like a bunch of peice becomes parts of a much larger puzzle then we knew we were working on when we started ...

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Interesting BB, keep thinking, whether right or wrong is basically unimportant to me in general I am interested in your thinking and theory developments in regards to you your self.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

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

Cactusjumper wrote:

It's amazing how often theories and ideas presented here, revolve around what's showing on the history channel. Probably just a coincidence. "Journey to 10,000 BC" is just the latest.

No coincidence amigo - that is where I got most of the dates etc in my last post. Perhaps it is 'sychronicity' but sometimes I am surprised to see something come on the telly that is related to our discussions here, usually the History channel or the Science channel. You may not believe it but this area is one that I did research for my own project, though the dates depend on which sources you check, they do not vary that much. Personally I don't see the sudden flood that began with the Younger Dryas episode to be the historical incident that would tie in with Atlantis, just my opinion but the sudden warm-up that occurred at the END of the Younger Dryas is the best likely candidate for a natural event that could "fit" with the Atlantis legend.

Blindbowman brought up a number of points that I am not trying to address in any particular order, so I beg your indulgence.

Blindbowman wrote:

i even question if the Younger Dryas is what help develope the culture of Atlantis ,its just a theory as of yet

As the little Ice Age lasted about 1900 years, give or take a century, with the sea levels being lowered during the period, it is plenty of time for a civilization to arise only to be lost when the sudden warmup occurred about 9500 BC. Most historians will not allow that any Ice Age civilization could have existed, but we have evidence that human beings were not simple 'cave-men' by 9500 BC. Humans do seem to advance in technology and civilization when confronted with climatological challenges (or be wiped out) so it would "fit" with known patterns of human development.

Blindbowman also wrote:

if these tribes vanished from land maybe they were not destored as we beleive they were maybe the effects takeing place on the earth gave them enough time to get to Atlantis or other island location within the larger culture ..

Hmm...while it is POSSIBLE that the Clovis people MIGHT have fled to become the legendary Atlantians, what can we point to in order to support the idea?

Blindbowman also wrote:

this would explan why we dont find any evidence of them . they could have been called back to the center of the culture ...this would tell me what ever took place in the time of the Younger Dryas tokk place over a few mounths or2-3 years ,giveing them time to return to the center of their culture wich was sea fairing

I would re-phrase that to say "this COULD explain why we don't find any evidence of them" only because this is working strictly with speculation and theory. Most historians classify Clovis people as hunter-gatherers, not the type of culture that builds cities. The theory that Clovis people reached America by sea is not widely accepted by historians (though it is a reasonable theory in my opinion) so to call them "sea-faring" is using a rather wide brush - their "ships" are likely to have been boats the size of kayaks, not truly ships. Kayaks can cross open seas but usually are/were used to follow coastlines and ice-lines. How do you connect a hunter-gatherer culture like Clovis to a fairly advanced civilization as described by Plato, or at least as suggested in the Aztec codices?

Blindbowman also wrote:

the delware sites are explan by the distence to Atlantis and the effects of the gulfstream

How does this explain the Delaware/Chesapeake Bay Clovis sites? Isn't there an alternative explanation that is equally simple - that the high number of Clovis sites centered on the Chesapeake are due to several factors, including:

• That the area simply had good hunting and mild climate, which attracted large numbers of them;
  
• That the Clovis people were more successful in that region, which allowed larger families to succeed;
  
• The sheer LUCK factor involved that anyone managed to FIND these sites, considering that it is likely that many or most of the sites have long since been lost to the effects of weather;
  

So what we "see" as a "pattern" of Clovis sites is very likely just the happenstance that these sites were found at all.

Blindbowman also wrote:

just because the folsum piont do not match the tooling of the clovis dose not mean the clove did not make develope new tooling over time as a sea faitring culture ,and then 2,000 years later we see the folsum pionts show up ... when they start to regain their lost tribes sites .. i think it makes total sene that these people reacted the Younger Dryas ..we know for a fact they did or we would not be here ....lol

Hmm again...granted that the fact the Clovis points do not match Folsom points doesn't mean they are directly related, in fact the History channel program suggested this possibility - however saying it is POSSIBLE does not make it so, we require solid evidence to show this happened - and again the alternate answer works equally well, that the Folsom people are a different people who arrived later. I respectfully disagree that we know "for a fact" that the Clovis people reacted to the Younger Dryas, all we actually KNOW is that when the Younger Dryas mini-Ice Age set in, we no longer find any evidence of Clovis people. This can be explained in several ways, one of which is that they simply failed to adapt and did not survive it.

Blindbowman also wrote:

i dont know if we can find and recover atlanits evidence , but here we see what could be the secound secerd city of this culture , are we going totalk and think about what could be there or are we going to go look...

I rather doubt that anyone is going to find evidence of Atlantis since it appears that no one is looking in the area cited by Plato, or at least I do not know of anyone. Just my opinion but I think that Aztlan is one and the same with Atlantis so can only say that your theory that Aztlan is the second sacred site remains un-proven, like Atlantis. As for the question (which is probably meant to be rhetorical) I am not headed for the Atlantic ocean to search for Atlantis, for several reasons including that I cannot afford it and secondly do not have a solid lead for the exact place to search. I do not wish to discourage you from your continuing expeditions to the Superstitions, though I fail to see what is leading you to believe it to be the site of Aztlan, I suspect that you are relying on information obtained by "remote viewing". Correct? Then again, perhaps evidence of Atlantis is already found and known, such as the mysterious geoglyphs found in the Bahama islands?

Blindbowman also wrote:

"we have the appearance of the Folsom people, around 9000 BC. They were buffalo hunters and spread all over the continent. "

you are proveing my piont for me thank for the wording ...

Boy, I am slow on the uptake sometimes but can you clear this up for me? How does the appearance and spread of the Folsom people help you to prove your point? I am missing this point.

Blindbowman also wrote:

no one ever ask me if i think these ideas and theories are wild off the wall .. , i beleive they are ... thats why we mist them ,,.. they dont fit whatwe beleive .. but what we beleive may not fit the unknown facts of histroy ..

if it did we would not have the questions we do ....

Well you surprise me amigo, in that you recognize that your theories are quite unconventional. I also agree that a number of things we "know" to be history are actually incorrect, such as the Isolation theory but will repeat myself to try to be cautious when theorizing, to try to find the evidence to tie in with the theories, before taking the leap of logic. I fear that you will face strong criticism and arguments from 'academia' (the historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc) when you publish your work, unless you have lots of evidence to support it - and even if you have the evidence you will face considerable resistance to your theories.

Blindbowman also wrote:

you dont got to ask me if i want to go back and define these sites ...

I think we have discussed this before and I will say this - if it were me, that is if I had found something that I did not understand, I would try to identify it with every resource available before trying to fit a theory to explain it. This is why I have asked you in the past about why you believe your site(s) to be Aztec etc because it is possible that you may have found something that is ancient and mysterious but not Aztec. The southwest USA has several ancient cultures that are mysterious etc but for some reason most folks want to see Aztec instead of Anasazi or Sinagua or Mogollon etc. It is actually dishonoring these cultures to imply that they were incapable of building their own cities, their own observatories etc that anything that appears to be "advanced" MUST be those fierce Aztecs of central Mexico. I would love to ask you why you identify your site(s) as Aztec and dismiss the idea of Anasazi and other southwestern cultures, but have the impression that your source is again 'remote viewing', correct?

Blindbowman also wrote:

we can only guess at the meaning of those codex , the translation is as old as the codex it self , our translations are only as clear as our ablities to see these things as if we were them ...

I respectfully disagree amigo, as far as I know, all of the known Aztec codices have been successfully translated, though it appears that you are in strong disagreement with these translations. I am not sure why you reject the translations as they stand, the people who did the translation work are well educated people and we have no reason to think them to be incompetent, yet this is what you are directly suggesting.

Blindbowman also wrote:

when we focus on the Aztec culture without under standing the Atlantis culture there is no logical reason for the Siberia clovis evidence , yet when we see them as a multi sub-cultures we see the inland and seafairing ablities of this culture span the reaches of the world around them ....

Well perhaps I am mis-reading this, but as far as I know, there is no evidence of Clovis people in Siberia, not even a similar type of artifacts, though there is a culture in Europe that has very similar tools and weapons, the Solutrean people. (Look up the 'Solutrean Solution' for some comparisons, and yes Cactusjumper this was mentioned on the History channel as well, but has been around some time now.) The Science channel had a very interesting special titled "Ice Age Columbus" a while back, quite interesting as an explanation of how we find such similar artifacts ie Clovis-Solutrean on both sides of the Atlantic.

Blindbowman also wrote:

do you keep old out dated things around .. no not the wife .. were talking if thir were new weapons developed and the tribes inland sites had new environmental changes . they may have changed with the times , this is one of the reasons i feel chicomoztoc is so iimportain , it could be one of the oldest culture sites on earth ...

Yes actually I do keep old things around, and have in my own collection some items that are quite old; Mrs Oro has a particular stone point she found that dates to about 5000 BC. The idea that Folsom people are just a development of Clovis is not proven, we are speculating to say they did. Are you suggesting that Chicomoztoc, if located, would provide the conclusive proof to show that Folsom developed directly from Clovis, even though the two cultures are separated by a time span of well over a thousand years minimum?

Blindbowman also wrote:

but we need to look at the spear ends of the people in the pictures here nd see they share the same inlay blades as those knife blade found in siberia ,, are we to beleive the
Macuahuitl: and the spears are from this culture . but the matching knife was made in siberia .. that is not very logical....

I respectfully disagree amigo, this cultural practice of using embedded small shards of obsidian and other stone blade-lets would be logical if the ancestors of the Aztecs had come from the same region in Siberia, and this is the theory presented in most history books as the route taken by ALL ancestors of ALL Amerindians, across the now-submerged Bering straits land bridge. (Several problems with this idea too.)

Blindbowman also wrote:

so if we draw the concluetion that the tribes coverd vast areas . we have to beleive logical they expolerd inland as well as seafairing .. thus what looks like a bunch of peice becomes parts of a much larger puzzle then we knew we were working on when we started ...

You are not alone in this quest amigo, a number of anthropologists, archaeologists and historians are working to try to get a better picture of that un-recorded part of our history.

Thank you all for your indulgence with this very long-winded reply.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Roy,

The beauty of reading your replies, is that they are not Internet cut and paste jobs, but come from your intimate knowledge of the subjects.

While the History Channel may be something you watch on a regular basis, just as I do, I don't believe it is the catalyst for your posts. Can't say the same thing for everyone posting here.

Your understanding of history is like the light from a candle. Much of this thread, and others, is like a moth fluttering wildly around the flame, with no concept of what has drawn it there.

That was a very nice reply.

Take care,

Joe

 

[the blindbowman]

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

i get 312 channels and yes i watch anything i think maybe be in any way related to the research sorry to say i can run as many as a few hunderd pats of related data in a weeks time,...so i watch 5-6 documentarys a day some time as many as 10-12 a day ...and yes i watch very little tv for their entertainment value,, ..

there are some very good documentary tv shows out there ... but evidence builds facts and the true value of evidence maybe mis under stood and evidence can misled a investigation just as easy ...many cases have gone unsolved because of wrongl recoverd evidence by investigators ,, you only need look at the OJ case to see that ..

oro said :
"Hmm...while it is POSSIBLE that the Clovis people MIGHT have fled to become the legendary Atlantians, what can we point to in order to support the idea? "

i dont think they fled as much as they returned back to Atlantis ,we can not just beleive Atlantis was a kingdom of gods over night .. if they were a wise culture it would take time and hard work to develope the traits ,,the culture would age with time as most do . if Atlantis was the high level of this culture then it would mke sence they would send hunters and gathers out to help feed the culture i think this is what we are seeing when we look at the clovis cultures .. this was my piont .. if the clovis were hnters and gathers for the large atlantis and Aztlan was like new york city to the usa , then we see a relationship that dose explan more then what we beleive now to the excepted path .. its not to say its fact . it is to say it is posable and if it is posable is it logical and if so what other thoeries suport the logic ...my piont is we may be right at the door way of the oldest human site in north america .. if the oldest human remains were found in channel island and this site of chicomoztoc looks to be more secerd to the over all culture then it may be clovis temple mont . and it would make logical sence if the site were a tradeing piont between clovis site east and west of its location ...

i do not beleive these site were selected at random .. you are right there are many smaller sites around the areas of these main sites ,, but if you look at new york city there are many smaller towns and valliages around it , this i beleive is normal culture supplies and demands .. if you send fish and supplies inland they send back hunting and gathering goods and we have the two faces of this culture working back and forth as one culture , if they did not have a place in this large culture there presence in other countrys would be unexsplanable ...

yet here we have a thoery that dose exsplan some of the unknown facters . its not to say its the only thoery . but untill i know where the paths led i can not roll them out .. and i see evidence that could be translated in more then one way ..

i think what we need to piont to is chicomoztoc ..

i think it is a better place to start then any other location . and so far i see no one else steping up to pinpiont this location with any real logic to suport its where abouts .. i could be wrong and the site could be else where .. but as i pionted out the location came from the codex . not me . i only translated the codex with my under standing of shamaniusm ...and good navigational skills .. i didnt put the site there the codex did ...with a few legends to help define it ..

i beleive we need to get back to this site with a team of skilled people and define if this is in fact chicomoztoc , this is why i said chicomoztoc may not have vast treasures as gold or silver or rare jems .. but what it would have would be priceless evidence to the histroy of the cultures in question ...of a time we know very little about ...

Oro said
:"How do you connect a hunter-gatherer culture like Clovis to a fairly advanced civilization as described by Plato, or at least as suggested in the Aztec codices?
when the new world was found did those people need to start hunting an gathering to stay alive . yes they did and if they did not they would vanish like some did ...

we know from plato that Atlantis was more then just a sea fairing culture . they did have a vast number of ships and boats , but why ?, i beleive trade routes , and to suport their hunters and gathers ,like any job ... they did good and they were rewarded for their work ...we know from other cultures that were sea fairing often they had trade with other shore line cultures ..


we dont see this with Atlantis ...so where and who were those shore line tradeing sites .. i think we are looking at them . the clovis sites . in fact this word ."described "by plato .

makes me question the sorce , if i was right about the codex we see both the aztlan stone smiths and the sea fairing in the same codex , the next question is why and as i pionted out . to see aztlan there is one thing ,. to see them showing the direction and scaled distence back to Atlantis is something total out side of what people beleived the codex was showing .. yet i am still finding evidence that this is the true translation of this codex ...

i under stand what your saying Oro and i got to say i agree with the reasoning of your questions . anyone would ask questions when so many have been looking so far away or beleive something totally diffrent yet .. i question onew fact that still makes me wonder .. the mayan and the Atlantis cultures both study the heavens and earth , in great details , we just dont know enough about Aztlan to draw any concluetions at this piont . other then their pposable relationship to the other site they are dirrectly related to .. like chicomoztoc and the histroy of the Aztec and and the clovis posablity... its not to say that aztlan for fills clovis histroy or vise varsa .but they share many common facters between them ..

i totally agree there are some big whole here .. but lets not make the judgements others made and end up wondering where the trail vanished to .. let see where these sites take us if any where ...

but one thing is clear , the site are real and they are some where why not here ... and is there evidence or thoeries to say they could be here ...

i agree, there are alternative explanation but are they the only posable explanations , no and thats the logic i am looking at .. its not that the logical is the one path of logic but dose this logic for fill its own meanings . dose it dead end or dose it feed it self and link to newdiscoveries and new unknow dirrections and evidence we never knew was there .. this is the whole piont .. right or wrong is not the question ... if we can discover even one site or one peice of evidence about chicomoztoc or Aztlan or Atlantis . should we not try to flow this evidence trail ... it may dead end , but so far the trail is turning into a unknown highway ...lol , we must not lose sight of the prize no matter what the wraping paper looks like ...

Oro said
"we require solid evidence to show this happened "

i totally agree with you , dont get me wrong i love solid evidence and facts . saddly we dont get as much of them as we would like in older legends ...

i beleive the evidence will be at the site #4 , i also take in to acount the the dutchman stated there were ruins , yet he did not know what kind of culture the site was or if he did he didnt say that at the time .. this site is less then a mile away from site #4 ....is that site the dutchman talked about a clovis site ??

that could be why the dutchman did not know what tribe it was . he may not have known about clovis indains .. logically he did not know about them ..


Oro said
"we no longer find any evidence of Clovis people."

if they were almost destroyed and those that were left went back to Atlantis ,or ended up in strong holds like Aztlan . for 2000 years they could be the folsum culture , if we no longer find any evidence then did they just vanish , i dont think so ...there must be a logic reason to where they went and why .. if we are not finding remains , then there is a logical reason some where . if we are not finding it then its not in tha area , and the logical reason may not be what we think it should be .. as far as i know there have been no mass grave sites of clovis found as of yet . not like that would have made ...

lets say the clovis culture go back to Atlantis ,... how long would it take for their culture to change liveing with the Atlantains ...?this is my piont , 20 years pass and you may not even be able to tell them apart .... now add another 1980years to that ...logic tells me . they could hav come back as the folsum culture .. the question could be asked .. is the folsum pionts more advaniced then the clovis pionts . and if so . could those advancements take place in 2000 years . not is it posable . is it logical , if so why .. and is there any evidence to suport this theory ...if i am right there is evidence some where .. and we hve to find it to prove or disprove the theory . atlantis is a ? mark .. we may never be able to recover evidence from that site . but knowing its true posable location . tells us more then we think we know ...


to find and recover solid evidence is one thing but we need solid logic or the evidence will mean nothing...


Oro said :

"the site of Aztlan, I suspect that you are relying on information obtained by "remote viewing"

no , i dont use remote viewing, for logic ...or evidence .. it is a vissionary aid only .. it can guide me to look for something in a given area or sence a unknown path or let me see the site as it was in the past ..or define a profile ...it can led me to evidence but in no way can it be used as evidence ...


Oro said :
"How does the appearance and spread of the Folsom people help you to prove your point?

logically if there looks like there was a surge of folsum people ,in a short time span they had to have come from another location and not developed over time .. . my piont was if the clovis people vanished suddenly and then the next day the folsum appear suddenly . we would logically beleive these two events could be related .. now put 2,000 years between them . yet this makes me question the rates of how fast these events took place and where ,and what caused the events
.

what facts are there that say this happend , and if there is evidence that says it was 2,000 years how sound is that evidence . maybe the logical theory of what that evidence means may not be the only logical theory . we could find one peice of evidence that says the theory is fact yet that same peice of evidence when place else where could discover 4or 5 other peices of evidence that say a totally unknow thoery was correct . yet we already excepted the frist theory . thus changeing the out come , before all the facts are known or recoverd ..
let me say one of my greatest sayings .. " histroy is writtern in stone .matters of the heart are writtern in ink ,science and math are writtern in pencil..."

 

[djui5]

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

Your understanding of history is like the light from a candle. Much of this thread, and others, is like a moth fluttering wildly around the flame, with no concept of what has drawn it there.

That was a very nice reply.

Take care,

Joe

I agree!! I'm very glad Roy posts here

 

[Peerless67]

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

Joes, made me feel bad for watching the history channel



Gary

 

[the blindbowman]

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

"your theories are quite unconventional"

lol ow there is a under statement if i ever herd one ...lol ..

, let me tell you a little story , i was 7 and i was diffrent from most kids after my NDE , i danced to a diffrent tone then the rest of the world .. ..so they had a art contest i just set there looking at the paper and what we were told to do .. art classes was almost over and the paper was blank , so the teach said whats wrong . i said i dont feel what i should . she said you got the try harder and put something on the paper or you will get nothing to show the contest judges . in about 3 mintues . i came up with a idea and put it on paper ... out of over 600,000 kids i won that contest . and yes there is proff . crest tooth paste made the winers idea into a commercial,a tooth & a tube of crest fight each other in a boxing ring ...i lol when i see that commercial today , knowing crest gave me $1700 in art supplies for winning the contest ,. i just wanted to be me . i never wanted to win the contest .

if we are to try to under stand the true workings of creation ,we must try to under stand everything and anything ..conventional or unconventional ....


:I would love to ask you why you identify your site(s) as Aztec and dismiss the idea of Anasazi and other southwestern cultures,

the codex is tolteca,, i dont rule out anything yet ... long hours and working late defind things .i dont use remote viewing that way ...

there is no better sorce then hard work . remote viewing is a tool , knowing when to use it and how to use it make it usefull when you need it .. knowing where to use it is a skll in it self , you dont use a hammer if you need a drill ...


"Aztec codices have been successfully translated,"

here we dis agree ,, i saw another codex , the other day in the same set as the aztlan codex ... i was reading the translation and i know its a good translation but a few of the meanings are not right and i know it well change the over all vission the codex shows . so i see some codex not translated correctly .. IMHO


oro said :
"I respectfully disagree amigo, this cultural practice of using embedded small shards of obsidian and other stone blade-lets would be logical if the ancestors of the Aztecs had come from the same region in Siberia, and this is the theory presented in most history books as the route taken by ALL ancestors of ALL Amerindians, across the now-submerged Bering straits land bridge. (Several problems with this idea too.)

if we are to beleive the clovis culture is 13,000 years BC or more then they would have seen and lived threw a 10 shift of the poles , and this may be one of the best peices of evidence to show they did make it threw the ice ages can we say its not posable to use the land bridge , no so unless we find a more logical reason or prove the land bridge theory is fact .. we cant say it is fact just because everyone beleive it is the best choice ... we dont know how many more chioces are still out there ...

i can not rule out the land bridge theory . i beleive within reason i showed this culture couldcover large distences . and if the oceans were at lower levels they could have use the land bridge as well as sea fairing ... unless we find a sea fairing boat wich is most unlikely ... even if we found a better theory it dose not mean we can dis prove the others ....

 

[Zephyr]

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

~13,000 years ago was a bad time to be in North America....

http://www.livescience.com/animals/070521_comet_climate.html

 

[the blindbowman]

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

~13,000 years ago was a bad time to be in North America....

http://www.livescience.com/animals/070521_comet_climate.html

good input Zephyr this is what our Younger Dryas period data is reflecting ..

let me piont out a few things in this data , i question ,,

"Glass-like carbon is essentially carbon that’s been melted at very high temperatures,” like those from a comet impact, Firestone explained. They also found elevated levels of the rare Earth element iridium that are too high to be from Earth. '

this is one of the problems i have with this data ,"like those from a major" and "to be from Earth"

come on now , lets look at these thoeries in a open prespective .. i beleive the event took place on earth and was caused from a sub level event . you can look for bigfoot for 100 years or you can logicall question the evidence and list some paths as dead ends .. and go back later if more data if recoverd ...

. this guy firestone has to be out to lunch , why .. has he ever been at the core of the earth .. no . who knows what is down below the earths crust .. we have been guessing fo hunderds of years ....other then a few miles , the rest is all , major hypotheses—human overhunting and climate change, if i was to select one over the other it would be climate change..i dont beleive there is enough data to subport the overhunting hypotheses,, thats just a foolish hypotheses, IMHO ,that rates right in there with ," its so easy a even a caveman can do it "...LOL

this hypotheses rates in there with the earth being flat ...IMHO but under stand up untill 500-600 years ago we questioned if the earth was flat..

the funny thing about that is here is the clovis/ Atlantis culture if my hypotheses is right . already knew the earth was round as far back as the 13,000 bc ....

how an we say these event were caused by comet impact, if we have dirrect sign of this , and we ave lemited under standing of the inner earths ablities to these effects and events . we know a lemited amont about super volcanoes .. IMHO these deeper volcanic events need to be studied more be for we rule them out with out even under standing them .... a good piont is the diamont creater state park in AK .. i went there for a good reason ,it wasnt to hunt diamonds , even thou that was fun...

my research was to undr stand the creation of real diamonds at a real creater site , these dikes and much diffrent then i had beleived they were ,,...to beleive the earth could not make nano-diamonds is foolish ,in fact there are found in dozens of places on earth did dozens of major comet impact take place or did a diffrent type of event take place on earth at the time these things were developing ...and what caused them is not under stood as of yet ...

"An extraterrestrial explosion could have triggered", i dont rule it out but .. thousands of meterites hit the earth day after day and these things dont effect the earth or show any real evidence the do ...IMHO .. could a meterite hit the earth and cause a massive explosion of methane gas , now you would be talk logical...IMHO we know from ice samples that the methane levels did rise in the time of these events . and they are takeing place now ...carbon and hydrogenproduced by decaynof organic matter ,a dimondis crystallized carbon cause from vast amonts of pressure ... .if there theories were right there would be more diamonts found in meterite ..IMHO . they just is not enough evidence to suport this hypotheses. IMHO

i think even the theory of how diamonts in the earth are created match the nano-diamonds sorce better then out space UFO theories ..lol . what creates a diamond can be found in the lower depth of the earth .. i would have ruled this out before looking into space for the answer ..to me its just poor investigation and the logic is not there to soport this thoery ..IMHO

its another "its so simple a caveman could have done it " type jokes ..

what can i say the UFO theories , took place and now everyone and the brother is looking up and not down .. i say look everywhere ,, but lets start closest to home and then widenthe research area .. after we rule the earth out ...

"The comet theory could also explain the abrupt plunge in temperatures during the Younger Dryas period. Presenters at this AGU symposium argue that the comet impact or explosion would have heated up the area, causing the Laurentide Ice Sheet to melt and send massive amounts of water into the Atlantic Ocean. The input would affect ocean currents, which are responsible for keeping the atmosphere at livable temperatures"

here is a good exsample of what i am talking about ...i think these same effects can be caused by deep earth events like super volcanoes . we know almost next to nothing about these events to rule them out or say the events in question were not caused by conditions in the evironments on earth ....

if those nano diamonds are created from pressure , i beleive that pressure came from within the earth at lower levels ....

let me prove my piont .. in one question .. the moon samples , did not show nano diamonds that i know of .. WHy ? there is your answer as clear as i can exsplan it ....next they will say its the earth atmosphere that cause the nano diamonds ... , IMHO its just porr sceince ...

i guess my question would be if thats the case go to some of the islands around the world and show me nano diamonds there , then i will beleive they have some evidence that suports their hypotheses...

good input data never the less ...

 

[the blindbowman]

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

you got to check this out .

i was thinking about scale of the clovis sites vs what i knew about how they scaled their sites by the lunar cycle . look at this . the Ray Dillman site ,a unknown site , the Aztlan site ,and the murray springs site are all roughly 145 miles apart ... its a lunar scale of 5 days at 29 miles a day ...it didnt have to be 100% .. its a trade route , but its not random ,...IMHO .. this is twice i have been able to defind their routes in a set scaleing messurement . no way guys ,i am right these tribes knew this area for a long time and maped it to scale .. these sites are all inter linked to a set scale even if we did not see it ...

this just can not be random , logic has to applie to the odds ...the chance of me being wrong twice why useing the same navigational scaleing sorce is unbeleiveable odds, if I would be wrong . your talking like 1 in 200,000 thousand i would be wrong .. no way . this is got be their method of scaleing by useing the lunar cycle ....this conferms their scaleing methods

this is bad ass evidence .....!

fool me once , not twice

 

[the blindbowman]

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

let me make this prefecty clear so there is no misunder standing about what this means .

this means this multi-culture was maping the earth on at lest 3 diffrent levels useing a lunar related scale of messurement .. ,

" international , continental, and interstate travel "

IMHO ....this is out right evidence of a addvanced culture ......

 

[the blindbowman]

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

i dont know what say . if you did not beleive my thoery before . i should just walk away . because you wont beleive what i am going to show you now .. i felt if i was correct about the scale and how it was used and where ,and by who then i could translate it as far as i could and see where it went ...this is what i found . i took eacline and drew it out from the sites to their folcal pionts , it makes a vast spider web of trade routes , but thats not all it dose .mexico city was not selected at random as we beleived it was . it was a much older site ...when Atlantis was lost . they went inland to Aztlan , then used old codex to relocate a much older site in mexico and build on that site in the hopes it would not be destoryed twice ...

if you draw a line from mexico city threw the Delware site and beynd you hit the france site . the same goes for drawing a line threw the huston texas site you hit the siberia site . and another line crosses the old north pole and then hits the sites on norther japan....

there is only one logical concluetion i can make from these findings this culture dates to morethen 20,000 BC and has seen and recorded two diffrent maga shifts each at 10,000 years apart ...

we dont even under stand them yet , we are setting ducks ....

these people were more addvanced then we are ..fact !

one site is mapping the their culture and the other is mapping the earths rotation ... past present and future .......


latter ...

 

[the blindbowman]

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

what fools we are . we were so bent on conquereing the earth ,its going to conquere us....

 

[Peerless67]

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

what fools we are . we were so bent on conquereing the earth ,its going to conquere us....

The grim reaper?

 

[Cubfan64]

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

I really don't mean to offend here, but I swear whenever I see those google map images posted one after another with all the lines drawn across them I keep getting this image of Matthew Broderick in the 1980's movie "War Games" as they watch the missile simulations on all the big screens!!

I can't tell if all this is beyond me, or if I'm just not that interested - either way I don't see the connections that are so apparent to you BB.