LDM, OZ, & CALALUS

[Oroblanco]

Roy

That war/fight was not for the gold . The gold still to be somewhere there . This fight was for prestige . When the colony had banished the King Israel the third , made him a smart and angry enemy . He had the Toltecs with his side and after few years he organized that fight . He didn't want the gold because he couldn't go back to Europe . After the Israel the third none King was recorded in the colony 's history . So , there was an anarchy , a very bad situation . I believe Iisrael the third , after that fight , remained in the region and helped the Toltecs to update the knowledge in their
survival activities .
I believe the city was close to the Dinosaur Mountain near Phoenix . And about how many were , don't forget how they lived there about five generations . If they were in the beginning a few hundred , maybe the number of three thousand is possible .
I believe was a secret expedition and remained secret .

Think about it Marius - a few hundred men, with only swords, spears and bows-arrows, against up to 40,000 Toltec warriors! Yes the Spanish were able to defeat the Aztecs, centuries later with but a few hundred men, but don't forget that they had a couple hundred thousand Indians allied with them, especially the Tlaxcalans, all hating the Aztecs, so the Spaniards were only the "point" of the army that conquered the Aztecs. Who or whom were the "allies" of the Calalus colonists? None are mentioned in the inscriptions so we must presume there were none.

The Norse, considered the most fearsome warriors of Europe in 1000 AD, fought against Indians when they tried to colonize Vinland, and even though they were able to win the fighting, decided not to stay because they could never overcome the sheer numbers of Indians. The Byzantines were no better warriors than the Norse, so a few hundred of them against a huge Toltec army? It does not make sense - remember, the Calalus people had no gunpowder, and apparently no horses either. Cactusjumper's point about a few hundred, or even 3000 Byzantine soldiers, could NOT have enslaved the tens of thousands of Toltecs, whom by the way were also considered the fiercest warriors of their time in Mexico.

The Byzantine navy had been almost entirely shifted into the Black Sea in the 760s AD, so for an expedition of ships to leave and pass through the Arabs blocking the straits of Gibraltar? This would have been a harrowing experience if it ever happened, and yet it is not mentioned in the Calalus artifacts. Why?

If Calalus colonists had a city near Dinosaur mountain, shouldn't there be ruins left to see? What about their weapons, armor, pottery, or for that matter the fact that they were able to write; shouldn't they have left some writing on stone, to be found today, as most adventurers have done? How could they vanish so completely? I do not buy that anyone was "erasing" their evidence, for even if this happened, the ruins of a city are a hard thing to erase! Remember you pointed out they were supposedly living there for five generations (or more) - over that span of time, they should have built something that we could see today, and not be limited to some odd lead cast items all found in one spot without any kind of Byzantine pottery shards, coins, etc.

Bottom line - don't be too quick to accept every story that comes down the pike.

Good luck and good hunting to you all, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

As I have written, the story of OZ, like many of the stories that pop up on these sites, are long on story and short on any historical or archaeological evidence. What they all have in common is that they skirt real history and known archaeology. BB, Arum and a few others were pretty good at melding historical reality with their own brand of fiction.

It takes a real knowledge of history and a great imagination to do that, and keep us interested in the story.......for years. Our own personal history in searching for treasure in the Superstitions, as well as our interest in Mexico and in its people and history have made a terrific source of material to entwine into their stories. Much of the story of OZ can be found in the old posts on the LDM Forum, long before LATE 49er came along.

Hopefully a book will be published soon. It's a great story.

Take care,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Clive Cussler already did so,to some degree....see "SERPENT" 1999.

Serpent: A Novel from the NUMA Files - Clive Cussler - Google Books

The story begins on pg. 203

He even adds a "ranch" near Tucson, which holds other artifacts.
As did "klondike" or "eldorado" or "dog" some time ago.

 

[Springfield]

... Bottom line - don't be too quick to accept every story that comes down the pike.Good luck and good hunting to you all, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

Great advice, Oro - a lack of supporting historical evidence for wild stories is the bane of most believers.

 

[markmar]

Marius,

Can you tell me what books, manuscripts or papers you have read to form your opinions on Calalus and the Toltecs?

Just trying to understand where you are coming from on this topic.

Thanks,

Joe

Joe

Ok , I will play with your cards , but be careful because I am a good player .

You are a believer of what the History books write . And now , I am wondering why you don't believe a written History on some artifacts which you can see and touch , and you believe a written History about the Toltecs which is based on assumptions . Why assumptions ? Because the Toltecs have not a written History . How do know the historians how many Toltecs were in their empire and where was the borders ? Assumptions and a very big dosage of imagination .

So , you call real History , a History based on assumption , and a ghost story , a story which is based in existing artifacts on which is written a section of the American History .

Is nice when the History was written by the people who lived in that era . Is the most accurate History .

" Take care "

 

[sgtfda]

The artifacts in my opinion are modern. So where is the history. Is there other examples of items of this type made of lead?
Marius I hope all is well with you. There is a noticeable change in your posts

 

[markmar]

Oroblanco

Think about it Marius - a few hundred men, with only swords, spears and bows-arrows, against up to 40,000 Toltec warriors

We don't know how many Toltecs warriors were there or how many were in all the Empire . I believe was a little part because a smart leader never will send all the army in a remote region leaving his " back " uncovered .
I don't know how the Byzantines defeat the Toltecs , but the artifacts show how they did it .

The Byzantines were no better warriors than the Norse, so a few hundred of them against a huge Toltec army? It does not make sense - remember, the Calalus people had no gunpowder, and apparently no horses either. Cactusjumper's point about a few hundred, or even 3000 Byzantine soldiers, could NOT have enslaved the tens of thousands of Toltecs, whom by the way were also considered the fiercest warriors of their time in Mexico.

The Toltecs would been the fiercest warriors in Mexico area , but where and how ? They were the best in the jungle and their tactics were by surprising the enemy .
The Greeks and Hebrews were the masters in open land and mountain war tactics . Each of them have to kill in every fight 2-5 Toltecs to defeat completely the Toltec army . I believe the Toltecs stopped to fight the Byzantines because they had understood how The Byzantines had no plans to extend their city/colony to the Toltec capital town .
The Toltecs defeat the Byzantines only when the King Israel the third helped them using the same or smarter Byzantine war tactic .

The Byzantine navy had been almost entirely shifted into the Black Sea in the 760s AD, so for an expedition of ships to leave and pass through the Arabs blocking the straits of Gibraltar? This would have been a harrowing experience if it ever happened, and yet it is not mentioned in the Calalus artifacts. Why?

I believe had not so big matter to wrote this on the artifacts . The Byzantine Empire were in a period of peace with the Arabs . They paid the tolls and passed .

If Calalus colonists had a city near Dinosaur mountain, shouldn't there be ruins left to see? What about their weapons, armor, pottery, or for that matter the fact that they were able to write; shouldn't they have left some writing on stone, to be found today, as most adventurers have done? How could they vanish so completely? I do not buy that anyone was "erasing" their evidence, for even if this happened, the ruins of a city are a hard thing to erase! Remember you pointed out they were supposedly living there for five generations (or more) - over that span of time, they should have built something that we could see today, and not be limited to some odd lead cast items all found in one spot without any kind of Byzantine pottery shards, coins, etc.

Roy , you can use your logic to answer to some of your questions , but I see how you don't try .
The traces of a small city- fortress could be vanished if the rocks were carried somewhere in other place or still to be there under some feet of dust . You don't run so fast . Maybe one day the evidence will come to the light .

Bottom line - don't be too quick to accept every story that comes down the pike.

I accept all the stories which have evidence until will proven unacceptable with REAL evidence , not assumptions .

 

[markmar]

The artifacts in my opinion are modern. So where is the history. Is there other examples of items of this type made of lead?
Marius I hope all is well with you. There is a noticeable change in your posts

Sarge

I am well . But I believe the doctors in the " Rubber room " gave me instead the tranquilizer , a big dosage of caffeine . I hope is not an extract of Oro's sock coffee .

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe

Ok , I will play with your cards , but be careful because I am a good player .

You are a believer of what the History books write . And now , I am wondering why you don't believe a written History on some artifacts which you can see and touch , and you believe a written History about the Toltecs which is based on assumptions . Why assumptions ? Because the Toltecs have not a written History . How do know the historians how many Toltecs were in their empire and where was the borders ? Assumptions and a very big dosage of imagination .

So , you call real History , a History based on assumption , and a ghost story , a story which is based in existing artifacts on which is written a section of the American History .

Is nice when the History was written by the people who lived in that era . Is the most accurate History .

" Take care "

Marius,

While you are correct that the Toltecs had no written language, they did leave a record of their passing. Others around them had the ability to leave accounts of their history. Beyond that, they built cities and left artifacts that archaeologist's are able to read......like a book. Even though they did not write, we know a great deal about how they lived, when they arrived in the Valley of Mexico and when their power started to wane.

Do you know how old the caliche was that held the Tucson Artifacts? That's a key element pointing to fraud.

It's not so much that I don't believe the history written on the lead artifacts, it's more that I don't believe the authenticty of the artifacts.......agewise. Too many red flags. What is it about the artifacts that make you believe the story recorded on them.

Take care,

Joe

 

[markmar]

Marius,

While you are correct that the Toltecs had no written language, they did leave a record of their passing. Others around them had the ability to leave accounts of their history. Beyond that, they built cities and left artifacts that archaeologist's are able to read......like a book. Even though they did not write, we know a great deal about how they lived, when they arrived in the Valley of Mexico and when their power started to wane.

Do you know how old the caliche was that held the Tucson Artifacts? That's a key element pointing to fraud.

It's not so much that I don't believe the history written on the lead artifacts, it's more that I don't believe the authenticty of the artifacts.......agewise. Too many red flags. What is it about the artifacts that make you believe the story recorded on them.

Take care,

Joe

Joe

I don't know how old was the caliche that held the Tucson Artifacts . Maybe about 1100 years .
You want to tell me how the artifacts are fake because was in a manmade concrete ?

Ok , read this : Roman concrete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe

I don't know how old was the caliche that held the Tucson Artifacts . Maybe about 1100 years .
You want to tell me how the artifacts are fake because was in a manmade concrete ?

Ok , read this : Roman concrete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marius,

Don't know what "Roman concrete" has to do with the Tucson artifacts.

On the other hand, the caliche found at Silverbell Road, was dated to the Pleistocene era. That means it was "at least" 10,000 years old.

There are a number of tests that were done, that confirm the age of the caliche. Can you think up a good reason for that?

I will be happy to provide you with the sources for the above statements.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Oroblanco



We don't know how many Toltecs warriors were there or how many were in all the Empire . I believe was a little part because a smart leader never will send all the army in a remote region leaving his " back " uncovered .
I don't know how the Byzantines defeat the Toltecs , but the artifacts show how they did it .



The Toltecs would been the fiercest warriors in Mexico area , but where and how ? They were the best in the jungle and their tactics were by surprising the enemy .
The Greeks and Hebrews were the masters in open land and mountain war tactics . Each of them have to kill in every fight 2-5 Toltecs to defeat completely the Toltec army . I believe the Toltecs stopped to fight the Byzantines because they had understood how The Byzantines had no plans to extend their city/colony to the Toltec capital town .
The Toltecs defeat the Byzantines only when the King Israel the third helped them using the same or smarter Byzantine war tactic .

The Toltecs built cities, in central Mexico a LONG way from Arizona. If they only sent a small part of their army, how then could the Calalus colonists have "Enslaved" them? The rest of the army would quickly act to help their enslaved friends. This simply doesn't make sense amigo. The Toltecs are the fellows who carved these:



Why are there not Toltec statues like these near Tucson, if the Toltecs were really living there and fighting the Calalus colonists?

It sounds like you have no faith in history books; if you dismiss all history books, then we have no history at all for much of what is passed on the internet is pure BS.

Joe pointed out that the caliche in which these Calalus artifacts were found, is some 10,000 years old, far too old for the 775 AD to 900 AD dates on the artifacts. This is a major red flag - caliche is not Roman concrete, and for that matter where has any Roman concrete been found near Tucson?


IF the Byzantines were at peace with the Arabs, and simply paid a toll to pass the straits of Gibraltar - wouldn't there be records of this event? The Arabs would certainly notice a fleet of Byzantine settlers and soldiers passing their patrols.

Maybe some strong coffee might help?

Oroblanco

 

[markmar]

Marius,

Don't know what "Roman concrete" has to do with the Tucson artifacts.

On the other hand, the caliche found at Silverbell Road, was dated to the Pleistocene era. That means it was "at least" 10,000 years old.

There are a number of tests that were done, that confirm the age of the caliche. Can you think up a good reason for that?

I will be happy to provide you with the sources for the above statements.

Good luck,

Joe

Joe

The " Roman concrete " has relation with this text at http://www.migration-diffusion.info/pdfdownload.php?id=98&file=1 page 108 :

" Marshai Payn adduced another geologist, James Quinlan who, assisted by a paleontologist (neither of whom knew the rate of caliche deposition and did not compare Snaketown), concurred with Hayden ["TheTucson Artifacts: Case Closed," New Eng/and Archaeological/ Research Association Journal/ XXXl3 &4 (1996), 80].
Quinlan found no mastodon tusks, Clovis points, or extinct diatoms either, but mixed some lime with sand, water, and small rocks that hardened overnight. Voila! "

" IF THE LEAD ARTIFACTS are not hoaxes but exactly what they appear and profess, then the caliche is not even ancient-a possibility that fair-minded scientists might consider. Taking evidence at face value is one way to take it."

The link shows the presence of the Toltecs in Arizona and many other discoveries which you will enjoy .

 

[markmar]

Roy

The same link for your questions about Toltecs presence FAR AWAY from their capital town

http://www.migration-diffusion.info/pdfdownload.php?id=98&file=1

PS

And for your statement :

IF the Byzantines were at peace with the Arabs, and simply paid a toll to pass the straits of Gibraltar - wouldn't there be records of this event? The Arabs would certainly notice a fleet of Byzantine settlers and soldiers passing their patrols.

Have anyone searched the Arabs records for that passage event ? I don't think so . Is more relaxed to call the artifacts fake .

 

[Cubfan64]

I've tried to read through papers related to caliche deposition and the ability to use different techniques for dating them, and to be quite honest, despite my having a science background I often find myself scratching my head trying to understand all the terminology and science behind the information.

What I will say is that there seems to be a pretty consistent belief in how caliche can form (although there are multiple ways it can be formed), but when it comes to dating the deposition, the jury appears to be out. For every paper that claims one method of dating is the correct way, you can find another paper that contradicts that and suggests a different way.

Personally I have a hard time putting much faith in any of those dating techniques as it appears to me that the scientific community has yet to completely understand the process. I think trying to discuss and argue caliche dating under those circumstances on a forum when none of us are even close to being experts in the matter is an exercise in futility.

The biggest "red flag" for me in regards to the lead artifacts is the apparent plagiarism of more than a few of the lines of text. I've seen the arguments from both sides of the issue, but despite keeping an open mind in the matter, it seems far more likely to me that the "copying" was done by whoever made the artifacts, and not the other way around.

I found a couple references to lead artifacts having possibly been found in that same area in the 1884 time frame, but can't find any original sources for that information.

As an aside, I'm reading Jason Betzinez's book "I Fought with Geronimo" and found in the very beginning of the book a thought provoking paragraph. I don't have it in front of me at this time, but the gist of it was that Mr. Betzinez (and other Apache) find it odd how white people will tend to believe a written story, but generally consider oral history to be nothing more than "folk lore." Most all of Native American history has been passed down orally from generation to generation so I just found that to be a very interesting and thought provoking statement by the man. The argument from the "white perspective" of course is that the written word is exactly that, WRITTEN - meaning one can go back to that original written source over and over again even centuries later and see the original story, while oral history has a much greater possibility of being changed by the person telling the story from one to the next. Still, it's an interesting perspective, especially when you don't really know how much exageration may have taken place in that original written story.

In reading some Native American stories that have been shared with and then written down by authors such as Eve Ball, often they will say something to the effect that "I've heard this story told exactly the same way many times since I was a child..." - perhaps Native American culture is such that oral history is not "edited" over the years? If that's the case, maybe we should be listening to those stories more closely?!

 

[Springfield]

... Is more relaxed to call the artifacts fake.

You are correct, Marius. "We may wonder why the find threatened the sanity of so many intelligent people, who could not bear the incongruous reality of a medieval Jewish colony on the floodplain of an Arizona river." (Quoted from your link to the Covey paper)

Well, it's traditional to trash ideas that threaten dogma. The artifacts' provenance is controversial, and despite conflicting opinions from various 'experts' from various fields (pick the ones that suit your personal belief), IMO the question has not been resolved. Diffusionists rock boats, and are not usually welcomed.

Toltecs? We don't know much about them, really. They left behind spectacular architecture and art, but no written history. Did they, or some of their minions, have business in today's Arizona? We don't know. Was it impossible? Of course not. There have always been controversies in 'history', and always will be until new evidence surfaces.

As far as the 'threat to sanity' is concerned, we know Joe bristles with every post from the main advocate on this subject and that bias may have set his jaw permanently. I too suspect that much of the advocate's seeming silliness may be self-serving, but if so, I wouldn't necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[cactusjumper]

You are correct, Marius. "We may wonder why the find threatened the sanity of so many intelligent people, who could not bear the incongruous reality of a medieval Jewish colony on the floodplain of an Arizona river." (Quoted from your link to the Covey paper)

Well, it's traditional to trash ideas that threaten dogma. The artifacts' provenance is controversial, and despite conflicting opinions from various 'experts' from various fields (pick the ones that suit your personal belief), IMO the question has not been resolved. Diffusionists rock boats, and are not usually welcomed.

Toltecs? We don't know much about them, really. They left behind spectacular architecture and art, but no written history. Did they, or some of their minions, have business in today's Arizona? We don't know. Was it impossible? Of course not. There have always been controversies in 'history', and always will be until new evidence surfaces.

As far as the 'threat to sanity' is concerned, we know Joe bristles with every post from the main advocate on this subject and that bias may have set his jaw permanently. I too suspect that much of the advocate's seeming silliness may be self-serving, but if so, I wouldn't necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water.

Springfield,

I don't bristle at all.

I enjoy the debate over the reality of the Tucson artifacts. In the beginning, like most of my research, I started out trying to find supporting evidence for the story. I have purchased and read every bit of information (I could get) that is available.......pro and con.

I do get a little tired of people who have become experts on the artifacts and the "history" of Calalus, using only the Internet to educate themselves, which would include the posts on various forums. All of that only skims the surface of what is available.

As is usually the case, Marius has declined to answer my questions as to which books.....etc he has read to support his conclusions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but when you are trying to convince someone of your side of the story, it makes things a little easier when you provide your sources.

I don't get excited, mad or bristle over these debates. It's much easier to just support your conclusions with knowledgeable sources.

Take care,

Joe

 

[markmar]

Joe

As is usually the case, Marius has declined to answer my questions as to which books.....etc he has read to support his conclusions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but when you are trying to convince someone of your side of the story, it makes things a little easier when you provide your sources.

I not trying to convince anyone for my side of the story . I have read enough about in ebooks ( William D. Conner -Iron Age America , Grant Berkley - King Arthur Conspiracy , etc . ) , internet links and American History to make my own opinion . You are free to ignore my opinion and my arguments and I will respect your choice .

But , we are treasure hunters and have to ask ourselfs : If the story is real ( IMO 90% ) , where was/is deposited the gold of Rhoda ? Is the Dinosaur a clue ?

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe



I not trying to convince anyone for my side of the story . I have read enough about in ebooks ( William D. Conner -Iron Age America , Grant Berkley - King Arthur Conspiracy , etc . ) , internet links and American History to make my own opinion . You are free to ignore my opinion and my arguments and I will respect your choice .

But , we are treasure hunters and have to ask ourselfs : If the story is real ( IMO 90% ) , where was/is deposited the gold of Rhoda ? Is the Dinosaur a clue ?

Marius,

I take it you discount the fact that the first Diplodocus fossil was discovered in 1877 by S. W. Williston. Prior to that year, it was unknown.

How do you explain the drawing of a Diplodocus on one of the Tucson artifacts? Saying it could be a drawing of a lizard is pretty weak........IMHO.

In case you are wondering, the Diplodocus went extinct around 150 million years ago, give or take 10 million years.


Drawing of a Diplodocus



Depiction of Diplodocus on Tucson lead artifact. (Sword)

Good luck,

Joe

 

[markmar]

Joe

From what you can see , the carving picture has some difference with the Diplodocus .
IMO , is what they believed would be if the Dinosaur mountain was a reptile . I believe if the author knew about the Diplodocus , he never put a forked tongue in his mouth .

And continue , is the reptile a clue to the gold ? Shows with his orientation the way ?