Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?
HOLA mi amigos,
Cactusjumper wrote:
Our first real clue was the five gallon glass containers of nitroglycerin that lined the entrance of bb's find/cave. There could be no serious discussion after that story.
Well Joe that one struck me as an
odd thing for him to perceive and a
strong clue that Blindbowman is probably MIS-interpreting the information he is obtaining by remote viewing. If the alleged jugs of nitroglycerin were actually supposed to be taken (by him) as SYMBOLIC in nature and meaning something dangerous in the cave, something perhaps life-threatening or even “explosive” in some sense (a term so often mis-used by media reporters) then it starts to make some sense. I get the impression that Blindbowman, ironically a man who is so intrigued by “codes” and hidden symbolic meanings, is taking every image or information he gets via remote viewing LITERALLY instead of looking at it as something symbolic.
On the other hand, considering the number of early Dutch-hunters who did resort to the use of explosives in their quest to find the lost mine, it would not be all that big a shock if some stray dynamite or blasting powder or even nitroglycerin (even though this particular explosive had been largely replaced by dynamite by the time the Dutch-hunters were at work) should have been left behind in a hidden safe spot. I would not attach too much importance to finding some old explosives, other than it would be wise to contact the Forest Rangers and show them where it is so that it can be safely disposed of before someone gets hurt with it. Of course Blindbowman appears to have taken no such steps for the public safety, which makes me believe that what he reports of the jugs of nitroglycerin is something he obtained by remote viewing ONLY and that it really was symbolic, but that he is taking it literally, like he appears to have done with so many different clues.
Blindbowman wrote:
what do think well happend when the force of the two rotations meet ,,.....?
we didnt find it because no one under stands it to start with ......
1000 years ago there was few records of these things kept in a clear recorded histroy let alone under stood what was happening at the time ...if the event happend in the day time , no one would even know what took place other then floods and volcanic activeies... the sun cause have moved back wards a and few would under stand it if it had happend at night ... would they know what a 37 degree movement of the cellerial shpere would even look like from one hour to the next most likely not ..IMHO
Hmm well amigo this I have to agree with in part, and respectfully disagree with in part – for some civilizations were keeping pretty good and accurate records of events 1000 years ago. (The Chinese, specifically, and India as well, plus many Muslim countries were keeping good records too. Remember that in that time period the world of Islam was really the “center” of higher learning – they preserved much of the ancient wisdom of the classical Greeks etc for us, luckily.) In Europe and North America the records range from poor to non-existant for the period, which is why I agree in part. Did you look into ancient Chinese, Tibetan, Hindu or Arab chronicles for the period to see if any such cataclysmic events are recorded?
Then there are some ancient texts that might well be referring to such events, that do not coincide with your time-point, but MIGHT be just what you describe – check Joshua 10 (Old Testament) in which the Sun and Moon
appeared to “stand still” long enough for the Israelites to defeat their enemies. What kind of celestial event could make these sky-objects APPEAR to “stand still”? Then you mentioned the Sun moving “backward” – well in Isaiah 38:8 we have a description of just such an event – quote:
“
Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.” (Isaiah 38:8)
Again we have to ask, what sort of celestial event would result in this type of description as it would appear to witnesses standing on Earth? Would it make more sense that the Sun should actually move from its’ place, or that the actual rotation of the Earth shifted slightly? However the timing of these events does not coincide with 1000 years ago, more like around 3000 years ago. We already mentioned the strange report in Herodotus about the Sun switching directions twice, resulting in no notable damage in Egypt, hinting that
possibly some bad effects resulted in other lands.
Blindbowman also wrote:
you tell me what event took place in that time span . between 990AD -1012AD ...who saw the shift and what did they see . it happend . and i know it did ... that was only a shift the next one well be a shift and a maga shift at the same time . the ehco will make a nother event like the Younger Dryas ....dont beleive me ,, its your choice ...
There are many events in that turbulent time span, including Norse ravages of western Europe and
the Norman invasion of England, (WHOOPS that was 1066, mea culpa boo-boo but still a very turbulent historical period in Europe) Leif Eriksson is believed to have discovered America, etc. As I understand it, this was not a period of a “little Ice Age” but rather the opposite, a period of unusually warm climate, enabling agricultural crops to be grown even in such frigid areas as Greenland. It is not a matter of “belief” but of history amigo.
Blindbowman also wrote:
,you people can t even under stand the pictures when they are setting still ...
thats funny to me ....
What makes you think that we do not understand this whole area of your theory? It is not difficult to understand,
what I fail to see is the solid evidence to prove it up.
Blindbowman also wrote:
i get it its like a two year old trying to do basic math .. OK , let me explan it . in basic
While I appreciate your effort to explain things “in basic” I do find this a little insulting. Do you really know the IQ of the folks you are discussing here? Perhaps you are just irritated so I will drop it.
Blindbowman also wrote:
dose any one under stand me at all .. its not the planet that is going to shift its the rotation axis ,the rotational spin of the earth well remain the same .but the axis well change and shift from tilted to none tilted,and the new axis well be string up and down . <snip> (and)
<snip>
dose anyone here speak addvance wisdom ...
bowmen to earth ,bowmen to earth , awake up earth .....its time to safe your selfs before its to late.
I think you are quite under-estimating your ‘audience’ here amigo, and “advanced wisdom” is not beyond the ken of several of your friends here. This condescending attitude is not going to help convince folks that your theories are correct, in fact it will have a quite
negative effect.
The attitude aside, there are scholars who believe that the tilt of the Earth has changed in history, but nothing on the order of 37 degrees amigo, more like a couple of degrees. The basic laws of physics makes such a magnitude of change extremely unlikely, if you doubt this take a toy gyroscope and try to change the axis while it is spinning – the centrifugal forces tend to resist any large changes, but are less resistant to small or tiny changes. The phenomena of “precession” has been known since the ancient Babylonians figured it out, a wobble in our rotation that causes the poles of the Earth to describe circles (actually spirals as the whole Solar System is moving) over LONG spans of time.
Blindbowman also wrote:
i wish i as wrong this time ,,, but i am not ... the red line on the bottom picture is the new equator . its the rotational spin thats going to change from their known axis ... <snip> and…
do you under stand what this is going to do to the earths evironment ....?
It is not difficult to imagine the effects if this event did occur, but the effects might be less catastrophic than one might think too – for the powerful effect of gravity may cause this strange event to be not-so-detectable to a person standing on the ground.
All of this is very much circumstantial to your original claim to have located the tomb of Montezuma, and only
slightly more related to the claim that the Superstitions are in fact Aztlan. To my eye (apparently so utterly ignorant in your view) this appears to be more attempts to quickly shift the subject matter away from the core subject, which has raised questions that you apparently do not wish to answer. I am becoming tempted to simply give this up amigo, it sure looks to me as if you do not wish to address some of the complex factors involved in your theories, such as, if the Clovis people were working with the Aztlan civilization, where is the evidence of such trading interaction, where are the trade routes, what did the Clovis people use for pack animals etc and what solid evidence is there to show that the Superstitions are in fact Aztlan?
Good luck and good hunting to you all, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco
