Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?
Greetings amigos,
Thank you Joe and Randy for the kind words - my neck is feeling weak from holding up the swelled head!

I think I was only saying what the rest of us were, all in one post. However this does mean that I have to serve the first few cups of coffee around the fire.
Blindbowman you have covered a wide set of points again, I won't try to address all of them tonight as I have to get to bed early, but do have a few questions.
You said that they found no micro-diamonds on the Moon, nor in the Lunar samples returned to Earth - this is not something I have any information on, so would appreciate if you could point me where to look to find confirmation of this statement? If there were no similar micro-diamonds found on the Moon then the whole theory of a cometary or asteroid strike causing the Younger Dryas period and using the presence of the micro-diamonds as proof then is highly suspect, OR it could be simply a case of the theorist looking at evidence that is simply un-related and has no bearing on the incident.
Blindbowman wrote:
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
My friend whether you can believe it or not, I do understand your frustration with folks who don't see things the way you do, and have received my own share of such rejection of my own theories. It is no reflection on your friendship(s) in any way, in fact the friend who will tell you when you are wrong is in some ways a more true friend than the one who simply smiles and nods in agreement all the time. No one is poking fun at your ideas, even if they were I would suspect that it is entirely intended to be good-natured, not as an attack. It is your own choice whether to stay and banter here or to go to another forum where the members SEEM as if they are less questioning etc but (just my opinion) I would say that you have a tremendous pool of experienced treasure hunters and historians here on T-net (not including me, as I am very much still learning) that you have free access to, some folks would pay for this privilege. Would your friends on another forum get you to seek out new avenues and angles of research, or just smile and nod?
Blindbowman also wrote:
this means this multi-culture was maping the earth on at lest 3 diffrent levels useing a lunar related scale of messurement .. ,
That is quite a statement but not entirely far-fetched either, for some have suggested that the ancient Sumerians used the Moon as one-half of a degree in their measurement system, making the whole of the sky to be 720 moon-widths or 360 degrees. It is also a fact that the Aztecs (like many ancient cultures including Hebrews and Muslims) made use of a lunar calender, but remember the Aztecs also used a Solar calender as well. It is an interesting sub-theory you have there, which will be interesting to follow.
Blindbowman also wrote:
these people were more addvanced then we are ..fact !
Well to this I must
agree in part and
respectfully disagree in part, for I have found no evidence to prove the Aztlan, Clovis, Folsom etc were more advanced than our civilization in MOST technology. Several of the ancient cultures were more advanced than we are today in building megalithic structures (huge stone) with a degree of accuracy that we can scarcely match today; some authors like von Daniken have proposed that the ancients even had flying machines etc and it is fascinating BUT again we need solid evidence. Remember that Plutarch accused Plato not of inventing Atlantis but of giving them advanced tech (referring to the canal systems, hot and cold water systems etc NO mention of flying machines or computers, even though mechanical computers were known in Plutarch's day.) It is entirely a modern addition to the legends of Atlantis to have them flying and using laser beams etc. Unless the ancient Indian epics tales of flying machines are related to Atlantis/Aztlan - the island of Atlas. I would hesitate to say that the Clovis or Folsom peoples were more advanced than we are, perhaps in hunting abilities?
Blindbowman you are saying (if I am getting this right) that the Clovis people were a part of an already-existing Aztlan civilization, acting as the 'field foragers'? This would then require a massive system of collection and transport, among a people who had no horses or oxen, at best dogs for pack animals, then shipping by sea; and also we ought to be finding SOME kind of evidence of the goods they received in return from Aztlan (or Atlantis) right? I am well aware that some ancient trading peoples used a very non-durable product as one of their main items of trade for instance Carthaginians traded loads of salt with primitive peoples, which leaves virtually NO trace - however we DO have the ancient salt mines and ancient texts that describe it. What do you propose that the Clovis people were obtaining from Aztlan? Basketware? Pottery? Tools? Salt? Slaves?

We know that the Clovis people
did trade in stone points and have some idea where they obtained the raw stone to make their tools so that is pretty well out of the question really. This facet of your theory requires a
lot of evidence, or at least perhaps some kind of beads that show up in excavations that are un-explained as yet - we need to have
something to point to in order to say that the Clovis people were trading in this way with an off-shore civilization, or with
any civilization for that matter. At the moment I do not know of any evidence that might support this trading-system idea for Clovis-Aztlan.
I don't mean to constantly be the '
wet blanket' to your theories amigo, just trying to understand your theories and "push" you to obtain the necessary evidence you will need in order to present your ideas to the world. You will face much tougher criticism from 'academia' than you have or will here, as they have a pretty good collection of evidence to support the accepted version of history. As for myself, I don't require that you show me photos of whole ruined cities, but I do need to see SOME kinds of evidence. This is why I have repeatedly asked you about whether you have some artifact or inscription etc that you have found that led you to believe it is 'Aztec' etc and got the distinct impression that your identification and conclusions are in large part due to the information you obtained by remote viewing. Didn't you say that you actually communicated with Montezuma himself, beside his mortal remains? To me, the only way that would be possible would be through some kind of remote viewing, or if one were already deceased!
I have still more questions my friends but will close here. I would LOVE to see someone find the tomb of Montezuma, but like the old Missourians would say...
show me. Is that asking too much?
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco