HOLA amigos,
I have been re-thinking my previous set of questions and the latest developments in the discussion. I beg your indulgence once again for another long-winded post; the first and largest part is addressed to my amigo Blindbowman, followed by a reply to Cynangel, Thom, Gossamer etc. So please bear with me.
Blindbowman I don't imagine that you are thinking of posting any photos of the "ball court" here for everyone to see, correct? It was a surprising twist to toss in there amigo, I got to hand it to you for that; and even more so I must hand it to you that your method of reaching conclusions by leaps of logic never fails to amaze me and I find myself posting time and again - "I respectfully disagree" and trying to point out that your stream of logic is making assumptions on points that are not proven. I am sure that you find this habit of mine to be irritating, or at least frustrating, and it is equally frustrating from my end too, to be going from one possibility on to a whole string of them to arrive at absolute "facts". For instance in this latest
bombshell you let slip here -
the ball court. You have never mentioned this
"little" feature before, which is just a wee bit astonishing in itself, but this is not
too shocking in itself; trying to put myself in your shoes I would have thought that finding a ball court would have been quite a discovery in itself, worthy of contacting at least one trusted archaeologist and dragging them to see it (if necessary) and I would be "crowing" about the find right off the bat. After all a ball court is not exactly the kind of "treasure" that a treasure hunter is looking for, but does have a
LOT of value to historians and archaeologists. Such a site deserves to be protected from destruction, and would be a sure-fire draw to attract more tourists to see it, photograph it and study it. I would imagine that the archies would want to do an official 'dig' on it too.
Then there is the problem of just what is it? You have already concluded that
it IS a ball court, even though you, yourself stated that you never dug down to see if it had any kind of floor surface, there were no ball rings or goals visible, and you made no mention of any kind of grandstands for the spectators who would have been watching the games. We need only look at any other ball court to see that they were all built with some kind of grandstands for the spectators, for the games were very much a public spectacle, yet this one you found either has no place for spectators or....? How do we
KNOW it is a ball court, and
not something else, such as perhaps some kind of terraced agricultural plot? This rather LARGE question (to me) does not seem to be of
any hindrance to you amigo, you appear to be content to just conclude that it IS absolutely a ball court without any need to question that fact or study the site, just to be sure.
From there you seem to have zero problem in dismissing any and
all possible OTHER cultures that might well have such a ball court, such as the Hohokam (which I didn't even know had ball courts, until now) on the basis that the ball court you have found is different from nearby examples. The fact that ball courts are varied among the different tribes and even among different cities within one culture is no hindrance to your logic, this one you have found and positively identified can NOT be related to any of those,
it has to be Chicomoztoc. The fact that we don't even know if the early Aztecs even played any kind of ball game is
no stumbling block, for that matter is any ball game or court even mentioned in the Aztec codices which tell of Chicomoztoc and Aztlan? I don't know, but this apparently large question again
is no problem for you amigo.
Continuing on with your progression - even though most historians put the origin of the ball game FAR to the south, in regions where rubber plants are native, and that they have several sites which have been accurately dated to at least 1400 BC, pretty strong evidence that the game originated THERE - you have
zero problem with taking the position that this is all wrong,
the game must be invented and originate in the Superstition mountains of Arizona, and all those other ball courts are but poor imitations of the one you have so located. To put a date on it you have reached well back past what the historians say, not 1400 BC but
5000 to 10,000 BC, which particular date, (10000 BC) is actually during the last
Ice Age.
I have noticed our apparently very different methods of research, and our
very different methods of saying things amigo, which differences have led to many misunderstandings between us (and others) and
I hope that none of our disagreements will have any affect on our friendship. Blindbowman I consider you to be a friend, as well as a number of other good folks here on T-net whom I only know through the internet and some rare phone calls, but in a way this kind of 'friendship' is perhaps more 'intimate' (not as in romantic-huggy-kissy,
REAL DE TAYOPA! 
Sheesh
you really are a romantic, amigo!
) in that we often open our hearts through the written word considerably more so than we would in ordinary, face to face conversation or even phone calls. Our written "conversation" allows us to read and consider carefully what each of us has said, and to take the time to try to put our own views into the right words. So rather than run any further risk of a disagreement over what is in fact largely speculation, which could lead to an end of the friendship - I am happy to drop the questioning amigo. You know I do try to put myself in
'the other fellows shoes' and IMHO the sites and discoveries you have made
are for you exactly what you say they are. I don't know why I didn't see it earlier, but you have said repeatedly that
your reality is not just the 3D version most mortals experience but includes the Spirit World, and since I have no such ability to enter the Spirit World how can I question what you experience there? When you simply touch an object, you experience the whole of the history of the object - while to someone like me, it is possible to
imagine the history but that is the limit of the experience. For you,
those sites you found, are in fact an Aztec Ball Court, Aztlan and Chicomoztoc, the tomb of Montezuma and treasure of the Templars, the lost mines of the Peraltas and Gonzales, even the infamous lost gold mine of Jacob Waltz the original Dutchman, all rolled into one. I only hope that you will publish your finds as it should become a best-seller overnight. I hope to be one of the first to buy a copy and look forward to reading it.
Cynangel wrote:
Oro, you definitely made some good points with your post. I am very glad you found time to get away from work to check the thread. The idea of ancient ballgames is very intriguing and I am enjoying all the posts exploring the different possibilities of the origins of these games.
And yes, there are some who have horses who do not necesarily love them! lol I once was involved with a horseshoer that detested them. Strange man! lol They definitely can end up owning you too when there are that many of them. I can remember our horses getting sick and having to give them each combiotic shots 3Xday.....as you can imagine me being a young teen giving horses shots....that many horses....I was sure glad when they were done with their shots because I did not do much but give shots all day!
(BLUSH) 
Thank you for the kind words amigo - though if it sounded good then I probably just got lucky! (You know the old saying -
"Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while" ! heh heh) It was no 'effort' to tear myself away from work, a lazy guy like me
can find all sorts of excuses that will do! I only thought of the folks who have and use horses that DON'T like them after remembering what the son of a rancher friend once told me - "Why in the world would anyone get on a horse if he didn't HAVE to?" There are quite a few ranchers who now use 4-wheelers, which has resulted in many more serious injuries and a few deaths than would be likely had they used horses - after all, a 4-wheeler has no eyes or brain and will blindly carry you right over a cliff, and is
much less able to get out of the way of a bull on the fight or angry mother-cow trying to protect her baby calf. That said, I have had a few horses that I would happily have sent to the Alpo plant, (I didn't, don't have the heart for that) so I can easily see how someone could grow to hate the critters if they had to deal with a real knothead for a horse. As for mules - well they were bought as an experiment, and after my molly mule killed two of my own dogs I decided I would stick with horses. The equation
Dogs + mules = Trouble is yet another that I had to learn the hard way. Gosh your mention of the combiotic shots reminds me - we once had an epidemic of pinkeye break out and had to blow some kind of medicated powder into all of the horses and mules eyes, and they did NOT like that! What a chore that was, hope I never have to do that again!
Thom that is pretty country you got there amigo, I am jealous! Old Dog wrote:
I do like the horses and dogs and children more than anything else I think,
They either love you or hate you and there is no BS about a middle of the road stance.
And never let anyone kid you...
The stallion doesn't rule the herd.
They are definitely very emotional creatures, and have very pure emotions - no half-measures. They never seem to forget a wrong or a favor either. You are absolutely correct about the lead mare too! When you see the stallion off away from the herd, seeming to be "on the alert" - one reason is that the lead mare didn't allow him to be any closer! (heh heh)
Gossamer wrote:
Could the nova event been the catalyst?
I am speculating here but it is conceivable that when the nova appeared in the sky it could have been interpreted as an important sign of an upcoming event, and when that event failed to occur (or crops failed due to drought for a possible answer) wholesale abandonment was in order.
Gossamer also wrote:
If you find copper, is gold nearby?
While I am no geologist, it is safe to say that if you find copper, it is almost a certainty that gold is either present in with the copper as a natural alloy, and/or VERY near by, perhaps in the same ore vein. That doesn't mean there will be a LOT of gold however, one look at the copper deposits of the Great Lakes region will demonstrate that the gold can be quite minimal in relation to the copper.
I had not considered the idea of Medicine wheels (solstice-circles) in this equation to be honest, and don't know of any in the Superstitions. I was never looking for any so could have walked right past one for that matter - I am sure that others here with MUCH more intimate knowledge of the Superstitions could say with authority however.
That theory of the latitude 33 is one I have only read about once, can't make an informed opinion as to whether this would be a factor or feature concerning Blindbowman's sites. What do you make of the connection Janiece? Thank you in advance,
Good luck and good hunting everyone, I hope you all find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco
)
Sure glad you survived the cactus!
