Another hit for the C's -- Native Americans?

[shijing]

Toltecs are not a myth, they were real, they culture influenced Mayans in the Post Classic era.

The Toltec empire is believed to have been destroyed around 1200 AD by the nomadic warriors of the Chichimecs. The ruling family of the Aztecs claimed to descend from Toltec ancestry via the sacred city of Colhuacán.

Leon Portilla, on his works, explains that in Nauha legend, the Toltec were the originators of all the civilization, so Toltec was synonimous with artist, or artisan, and their city "Tollan" was described as full of wonders. When the Aztecs rewrote their history, they tried to show they were related to the Toltecs. Unfortunatelly this means that much of the tradition of the Toltecs is legend, and dificult to prove. Stories say that after the fall of Tula some of the Toltec retreated to Cholula, which did not fall until centuries later when it was burned by Hernán Cortés and the Spanish Conquistadores.

I think we are inadvertently at cross-purposes -- 'mythological' doesn't automatically imply 'fictional', it merely means that something is part of a narrative tradition which has not yet been independently substantiated. Anything mythical has the potential to be proven either true or false, but until either of those happen it is ambiguous in terms of its factuality -- I think that is consistent with what you describe above (and which could be entirely correct, but as far as I can tell there is still quite a bit of debate about the Toltecs) . My point earlier in the thread was merely that the groups mentioned by the C's were all of the kind that are independently verifiable, either because they actually exist in the here-and-now, or because of clear historic evidence. As a side-note, however, the transcript segment that cholas quotes directly above does indicate that the C's validate the factual existence of the Toltecs.

 

[journey]

Not much on the Teotihuacan folk Journey, but have you seen this in regards to the Toltec?

Cholas:
Sorry I do not understand this one.
Please, explain

From what I understand the Toltec's utilized Mayan temples/palaces in the Yucatan and elsewhere after they had 'disappeared' and partook of strong STS pasttimes.

Yes indeed, but this happened during the Mayans Postclassic era (900 ad. Till the arrival of the Spaniards)
The postclassic period came after the collapse of the Mayan civilization.
There was influence from Teotihuacan to Mayans, as well, possibly during the preclassic period (c. 2000 BC to 250 AD)
The same goes for Olmecs, possible creators of the famous calendar. The Olmecs are an even earlier culture than Teotihuacan's and Mayans.

Q: (BP) They did not?! (L) I think that's an archaeological
fallacy. (TM) Yes. (BP) Isn't that fascinating! (TM) I am
going to be looking into that in the next couple of months.
(L) You ain't heard nothing' yet! (TM) Wasn't there another
group... the Toltecs, were they the ones who engaged in
human sacrifice?
A: At some point.

It is possible that Toltecs were the Teotihuacan's decadents remnants, corrupting a part of their heritage, and for that reason they started human sacrifices.

shijing

I think we are inadvertently at cross-purposes -- 'mythological' doesn't automatically imply 'fictional', it merely means that something is part of a narrative tradition which has not yet been independently substantiated. Anything mythical has the potential to be proven either true or false, but until either of those happen it is ambiguous in terms of its factuality -- I think that is consistent with what you describe above (and which could be entirely correct, but as far as I can tell there is still quite a bit of debate about the Toltecs) . My point earlier in the thread was merely that the groups mentioned by the C's were all of the kind that are independently verifiable, either because they actually exist in the here-and-now, or because of clear historic evidence. As a side-note, however, the transcript segment that cholas quotes directly above does indicate that the C's validate the factual existence of the Toltecs.

Okay.

But why C´s mentioned Aztecs? they were a very late culture, a consequence of earlier cultures closer in time to Atlantis.
So my question would be. What mesoamerican culture is closer in time and have a direct cultural connection to Atlantis?

 

[shijing]

But why C´s mentioned Aztecs? they were a very late culture, a consequence of earlier cultures closer in time to Atlantis.
So my question would be. What mesoamerican culture is closer in time and have a direct cultural connection to Atlantis?

I think I understand more clearly what you are getting at now. The only answer I can think of to why the C's stuck to contemporary or recent cultures is that either (1) the answer was given in this way in response to the context of the question (which may not come through completely in the transcripts, since it may depend on what people at the session were thinking, had recently read, etc), and/or (2) the C's are sometimes oblique with their answers because they prefer to give clues that need to be followed up on with our own research, as a means of honing our ability to learn and discern information for ourselves.

 

[Laura]

When considering dating of any of the NA cultures, one has to take into account a rather serious problem. As I wrote in Secret History:

Radiocarbon dates for Pleistocene remains in northeastern North America, according to scientists Richard Firestone of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and William Topping, are younger as much as 10,000 years younger than for those in the western part of the country. Dating by other methods like thermo-luminescence (TL), geoarchaeology, and sedimentation suggests that many radiocarbon dates are grossly in error. For example, materials from the Gainey Paleoindian site in Michigan, radiocarbon dated at 2880 yr BC, are given an age by TL dating of 12,400 BC. It seems that there are so many anomalies reported in the upper US and in Canada of this type, that they cannot be explained by ancient aberrations in the atmosphere or other radiocarbon reservoirs, or by contamination of data samples (a common source of error in radiocarbon dating). Assuming correct methods of radiocarbon dating are used, organic remains associated with an artifact will give a radiocarbon age younger than they actually are only if they contain an artificially high radiocarbon keel.

Our research indicates that the entire Great Lakes region (and beyond) was subjected to particle bombardment and a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that produced secondary thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions. The neutrons produced unusually large quantities of Pu239 and substantially altered the natural uranium abundance ratios in artifacts and in other exposed materials including cherts, sediments, and the entire landscape. These neutrons necessarily transmuted residual nitrogen in the dated charcoals to radiocarbon, thus explaining anomalous dates. [Ö]

The C14 level in the fossil record would reset to a higher value. The excess global radiocarbon would then decay with a half-life of 5730 years, which should be seen in the radiocarbon analysis of varied systems. [Ö]

Sharp increases in C14 are apparent in the marine data at 4,000, 32,000-34,000, and 12,500 BC. These increases are coincident with geomagnetic excursions. [Ö]

The enormous energy released by the catastrophe at 12,500 BC could have heated the atmosphere to over 1000 C over Michigan, and the neutron flux at more northern locations would have melted considerable glacial ice. Radiation effects on plants and animals exposed to the cosmic rays would have been lethal, comparable to being irradiated in a 5 megawatt reactor more than 100 seconds.
The overall pattern of the catastrophe matches the pattern of mass extinction before Holocene times. The Western Hemisphere was more affected than the Eastern, North America more than South America, and eastern North America more than western North America. Extinction in the Great lakes area was more rapid and pronounced than elsewhere. Larger animals were more affected than smaller ones, a pattern that conforms to the expectation that radiation exposure affects large bodies more than smaller ones.

The evidence that Firestone and Topping discovered is puzzling for a lot of reasons. But, the fact is, there are reports of similar evidence from such widely spread regions as India, Ireland, Scotland, France, and Turkey; ancient cities whose brick and stone walls have literally been vitrified, that is, fused together like glass. There is also evidence of vitrification of stone forts and cities. It seems that the only explanation for such anomalies is either an atomic blast or something that could produce similar effects, which we will get to soon enough. [pp. 135-37]

When this paper was written, Firestone and Topping thought that the problem was due to a supernova. In Firestone's later book "The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes", he has developed his ideas to discuss the cometary bombardment of the planet that occurred about 13,000 years ago and which also created the Carolina bays.

There are further problems with assigning dates even with TL dating. Again, from Secret History:

The most widely used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the “known age” of the rock strata in which they are found. At the same time, the most widely used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the “known age” of the fossils they contain. In this “circular dating” method, all ages are based on uniformitarian assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved. Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so called “absolute” methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens - not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an “age” determination.

The problem with all radiometric “clocks” is that their accuracy critically depends on several starting assumptions, which are largely unknowable. To date a specimen by radiometric means, one must first know the starting amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen’s existence. Second, one must be certain that there were no daughter isotopes in the beginning. Third, one must be certain that neither parent nor daughter isotopes have ever been added or removed from the specimen. Fourth, one must be certain that the decay rate of parent isotope to daughter isotope has always been the same. That one or more of these assumptions are often invalid is obvious from the published radiometric “dates” (to say nothing of “rejected” dates) found in the literature.

One of the most obvious problems is that several samples from the same location often give widely divergent ages. Apollo moon samples, for example, were dated by both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods, giving results, which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years. Lava flows from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon (which erupted after its formation) show potassium-argon dates a billion years “older” than the most ancient basement rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Lava from underwater volcanoes near Hawaii (that are known to have erupted in 1801 AD) has been “dated” by the potassium-argon method with results varying from 160 million to nearly 3 billion years. It’s really no wonder that all of the laboratories that “date” rocks insist on knowing in advance the “evolutionary age“ of the strata from which the samples were taken -- this way, they know which dates to accept as “reasonable” and which to ignore.

More precisely, it is based on the assumption that nothing “really exceptional” happened in the meantime. What I mean by “really exceptional” is this: an event theoretically possible, but whose mechanism is not yet understood in terms of the established paradigms. To give an example: a crossing of two different universes. This is theoretically possible, taking into account modern physical theories, but it is too speculative to discuss its “probability” and possible consequences.

Could such an event change radioactive decay data? Could it change the values of some fundamental physical constants? Yes, it could.

Is it possible that similar events have happened in the past? Yes, it is possible. How possible it is? We do not know. We do not know, in fact, what would be an exact meaning of “crossing of two different universes.”

I am currently reading a rather interesting book: "The Origins of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer wherein he attempts to connect some dates via linguistics and genetics tracking/dating. Of course, he too, never mentions anything like catastrophes, (except the ice ages which he notes can be sudden and puzzling, but takes it no further than that), and the effects that such events might have on his ideas. Nevertheless, he is proposing that English is a lot older than has been thought, being a deep split from a very ancient German, and has possibly been spoken in England (with some slight variations) for well over 5,000 years or so. In fact, I think he may be intending to date it even further back, I just haven't gotten to that part in the book.

He trashes the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion theory which was based on the semi-mythical writings of Gildas and the Venerable Bede and shows how, genetically, it just ain't so.

I don't know how correct he is about any of it, but he sure is doing some thinking out of the box and backing it up with data.

I should mention that Firestone makes a remark, en passant, in "The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes" that really raised my eyebrows. He pointed out how type O blood - a recessive gene - was dominant in North and South America (exclusive in South America) and only here and there in the Old World so it would seem that it originated in the "New World" rather than the other way around. Of course, there are possible explanations for that... but it was a curious remark.

 

[shijing]

The overall pattern of the catastrophe matches the pattern of mass extinction before Holocene times. The Western Hemisphere was more affected than the Eastern, North America more than South America, and eastern North America more than western North America. Extinction in the Great lakes area was more rapid and pronounced than elsewhere. Larger animals were more affected than smaller ones, a pattern that conforms to the expectation that radiation exposure affects large bodies more than smaller ones.

What's interesting about this paragraph is that when you look at a map of North American native languages, eastern North America is a lot more homogeneous than western North America (especially the west coast), and homogeneity usually indicates more recent population expansion, making it look like there was a general west-to-east spread (which fits in with the mainstream out-of-Africa model where modern humans entered North America from Asia and then spread eastward):

Pre-contact distribution of Native American languages north of Mexico: From Wikipedia

(sorry that is so huge -- I have size issues when I insert my images)

However, another explanation for this could be that there was some sort of significant cataclysm that affected eastern North America, wiping out the original population there, and leaving it open for recolonization from the west. Since the southeast is a bit more linguistically complex than the northeast, it might be assumed that the epicenter of this cataclysm was in the northeast.

I should mention that Firestone makes a remark, en passant, in "The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes" that really raised my eyebrows. He pointed out how type O blood - a recessive gene - was dominant in North and South America (exclusive in South America) and only here and there in the Old World so it would seem that it originated in the "New World" rather than the other way around. Of course, there are possible explanations for that... but it was a curious remark.

Yes, what you are describing is this map of type O here:

from _http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm

It certainly does look like it has an American origin, doesn't it -- quite in conflict with the out-of-Africa hypothesis since, as you say, it is a recessive trait. This is usually explained as a bottleneck phenomenon, but then one wonders why O is not better represented in North America (the bottleneck explanation seems to be kind of stretching it no matter what, anyway...)

 

[Laura]

Yeah. There is a whole lot more we don't know than we do know. I'm a firm believer in doing as much work on your own (with friends helping) before you hit the brick wall and feel like you have to ask the Cs for help. They have been enormously helpful in providing clues, but the real labor falls on us. Because, as they said, if they just answered our questions like passing out candy, we would not grow. And of course, it is even worse if a person believes some mythical explanation as "truth" and doesn't bother to do the real work.

With all the reading about Paleolithic times, I'm getting more of a picture of this "Atlantean" civilization and actually, it appears to be a lot like our own with the exception that the technology was VERY different. And here I should say that just because these people used stone tools does not mean that they were backward or that their tech was "less" than ours. For all we know, they had lots more "stuff" that we don't know about and the only reason we know about the stone stuff is because stone has a longer shelf life. We don't know what they did with fabrics or wood or even metal, for that matter. If you consider the stresses the planet may have endured at various intervals, the likelihood of finding good artifacts is pretty small.

BUT, there ARE artifacts of surpassing strangeness that HAVE been found. The problem is, even when you consider those in the context of global cataclysm, you can't assume that they are exactly as ancient as some alternative researchers might like to think (like Cremo and millions of years, etc.) Just because a metal vase is recovered from solid rock where it was encased, doesn't mean that it is millions of years old because, when you consider cataclysms, that vase could have been buried in melted rock that was turned over by crustal displacement within the past 15 to 20 K years, too!

In short, in terms of "time," we really ARE in the dark! You can't rely on "slow and gradual layering of sediments" except within a narrow framework and context. You can't rely on dating methods beyond a certain point either because, if you are aware of cosmic interactions, the question of what may have changed (or not) in the cosmic environment hasn't been adequately addressed.

When considering DNA or language tree mapping, you face the same problems: was everything always as it is observed today? What about events that could mutate DNA that would throw of the averaged-time mapping? What about language and whether or not it changes at a given rate in a given way? We don't know all the processes involved. In short, most of what has been written about our past, both mythical and scholarly, is ludicrously inadequate and probably mostly wrong.

Geeze, I thought we were on fairly solid ground with English, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, Gildas and Bede and now, with this new evidence of the DNA tracks and the language problems that Oppenheimer highlights, have to toss that on the heap too!

It really makes one wonder about that funny book written by Abbe Boudet "The True Celtic Language" - and his conclusion? English.

Well, that's crazy, isn't it? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on who you define as "celtic" and where and when.

 

[journey]

I think I understand more clearly what you are getting at now. The only answer I can think of to why the C's stuck to contemporary or recent cultures is that either (1) the answer was given in this way in response to the context of the question (which may not come through completely in the transcripts, since it may depend on what people at the session were thinking, had recently read, etc), and/or (2) the C's are sometimes oblique with their answers because they prefer to give clues that need to be followed up on with our own research, as a means of honing our ability to learn and discern information for ourselves.

Okay.
So, maybe we can ask C´s more specific questions, in order to clarify the information.

[quote author=laura ]Yeah. There is a whole lot more we don't know than we do know. I'm a firm believer in doing as much work on your own (with friends helping) before you hit the brick wall and feel like you have to ask the Cs for help. They have been enormously helpful in providing clues, but the real labor falls on us. Because, as they said, if they just answered our questions like passing out candy, we would not grow. And of course, it is even worse if a person believes some mythical explanation as "truth" and doesn't bother to do the real work.[/quote]

Laura:
We probably know more what we think we know, all we need, is validate the information.
Despite the work made by the conquistadores and jealous fanatics missioners, in destroy every piece of written legacy from the Native Americans, they could not destroy the oral traditions passed thru generations.
This information is in hands of living guardians of every surviving tradition, some information has been released already, but most of them are still waiting for the proper time.
Some of this information released has led to important archaeological discoveries.
However, what guardians have told about the origin of the people in America, I mean the whole continent, is hard or near impossible to validate.

 

[shijing]

Hi journey --

This information is in hands of living guardians of every surviving tradition, some information has been released already, but most of them are still waiting for the proper time.
Some of this information released has led to important archaeological discoveries.
However, what guardians have told about the origin of the people in America, I mean the whole continent, is hard or near impossible to validate.

How certain are you about the existence of these guardians and what their intentions are, and what are your sources? I don't mean to imply that such guardians don't exist -- quite frankly, I don't know if they do or not. If this could be confirmed, though, it would be a valuable source of information.

 

[shijing]

When considering DNA or language tree mapping, you face the same problems: was everything always as it is observed today? What about events that could mutate DNA that would throw of the averaged-time mapping? What about language and whether or not it changes at a given rate in a given way? We don't know all the processes involved. In short, most of what has been written about our past, both mythical and scholarly, is ludicrously inadequate and probably mostly wrong.

Well, it is true that trying to infer absolute dates (and spans of time in general) from either linguistic or genetic data is currently problematic, although some recent progress has been made in glottochronology (the linguistic equivalent of carbon-dating), especially in the Austronesian world when it has been reified with archaeological dates. But remember, the rates of language change or DNA mutation aren't the only objects of study if you have linguistic or genetic data. Another large part is just figuring out the relationships (trees) themselves, in relative time -- who is most closely related to who, and so on. This alone has the potential to provide quite a bit of information which can in turn lead to some novel hypotheses, and these can stand apart from the problems encountered with absolute dating techniques.

I think the Oppenheimer information you summarize above is actually a really great example of where we have the potential to go -- our foremost problem isn't really with the facts themselves (although this is occasionally so), but with the interpretations of these facts that have become cemented in the mainstream. In a sense, it is very exciting, because we have the certainty that much of history has been written wrong, and much of that purposefully -- we are therefore in a position to start undoing that, really analyzing the facts objectively, and rewriting without an agenda (much like what has already been done in SHOTW). If undertaken, it will no doubt be slow-going and sometimes frustrating, but potentially also very rewarding.

 

[journey]

How certain are you about the existence of these guardians and what their intentions are, and what are your sources? I don't mean to imply that such guardians don't exist -- quite frankly, I don't know if they do or not. If this could be confirmed, though, it would be a valuable source of information.

I am as certain as I have spoken with some of them. Their intentions is to maintain the information secure until the time to liberate it comes.
Living persons are the source mostly, but it is possible to find some written sources from information already released, but I do not know if such information is available in English.
However, even in Spanish the books are not best sellers, hard to find and some times they are not easy to understand because of the symbolic language used, specially when topics are of spiritual matters.
But, three books are the exception, they were written based on contemporaneous historical events witnessed by the authors.

First book: "La Mujer Dormida debe dar a luz" (the asleep woman must give birth) written by Ayocuan. this is a pseudonym, his real name was never made public, Antonio Velazco Piña inherited the copy rights.
If you are able to read in Spanish, here is the book.

_http://rapidshare.com/files/79963510/La_mujer_dormida_debe_dar_a_luz_-_Antonio_Velasco_Pi_a.rar.html

Second book: "Regina" by Antonio Velazco Piña.
Sorry, I can only provide you this synopsis, good news, it is in English

_http://seekersofwisdom.freehostia.com/SeekersOfWisdom/articles/awakening.htm

I can tell you with all honesty that the events occurred in Teotihuacan happened just as described in the article. And I say it to you with all certainty, because we participated in the second ceremony in 1990.
For the third ceremony in 1992, we participated in a different location in anticipation for the events described in the article.
For the ceremony in 1993, we did not participate.

Third book: "Tlacaelel" by Antonio Velazco Piña.
Sorry again, no information in English for this one.
What is in this book, is totally based on oral tradition., Tlacaelel was a real personage (Regina was real too), as a matter of fact a very important one.
The Supreme Priest of Quetzalcoatl, he was the power behind the power.
He was responsible for the human sacrifices, but when he realized his mistake, he was murdered before he could stop them by a jealous noble warrior.

In my opinion, Tlacaelel understood very late, that sacrifices would bring very serious consequences for his people, maybe they led into the fall of the Mexica empire

I can also tell you that Mr Velazco piña is a complete man, whom I personally did meet almost twenty years ago.

 

[shijing]

Hi journey --

I am as certain as I have spoken with some of them. Their intentions is to maintain the information secure until the time to liberate it comes.

So this is so basically because they say it is -- is that it?

What is in this book, is totally based on oral tradition., Tlacaelel was a real personage (Regina was real too), as a matter of fact a very important one.

How do you know that Tlacaelel was a real personage, outside of the fact that the oral tradition says so?

I can also tell you that Mr Velazco piña is a complete man, whom I personally did meet almost twenty years ago.

I wasn't able to read the rapidshare link -- it wouldn't download for me for some reason. I did read the second link, and it is interesting, but it has kind of a New Age feel to it in connection to the whole 2012 phenomenon that makes me a bit wary. I also found this on Wikipedia, under the entry on 'Aztec':

Antonio Velasco Piña has written three books, Tlacaelel, El Azteca entre los Aztecas, La mujer dormida debe dar a luz, and Regina. When mixed with the currents of Neopaganism, these books resulted in a new religious movement called "Mexicanista". This movement called for a return to the spirituality of the Aztecs. It is argued that, with this return, Mexico will become the next center of power. This religious movement mixes Mesoamerican cults with Hindu esoterism. The Mexicanista movement reached the peak of its popularity in the 1990s.

The part about 'Mexico becoming the next center of power' is a bit off-putting -- nothing against Mexico, but it seems to be a bit of an ego-stroke designed to capture new converts. OSIT.

 

[journey]

Hi journey --
So this is so basically because they say it is -- is that it?

What do you mean?

[quote author=shijing]How do you know that Tlacaelel was a real personage, outside of the fact that the oral tradition says so?[/quote]

Historians had documented the existence of this personage.
Here is the historic Tlacaelel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlacaelel

[quote author=shijing]I wasn't able to read the rapidshare link -- it wouldn't download for me for some reason. I did read the second link, and it is interesting, but it has kind of a New Age feel to it in connection to the whole 2012 phenomenon that makes me a bit wary. I also found this on Wikipedia, under the entry on 'Aztec':
[/quote]

The book is in Word format 928 kb size, I can send it to you if you wish.

I gave you the link to this article because it explain better what I am talking about. However, there are a very few things in the article on which I am not totally agree.

Regina's followers were not a most of the people.
What the author calls Reginos, is a movement of people named Mexicaneidad.

What it really happened in Teotihuacan in march 21 1990,1992,1993, is very hard to rationally explain.

Nobody summoned 30,000 or more people to be assisted the same day, dress in white to a ceremony, which almost nobody knew it was going to take place.
For 30,000 different reasons the people decided to go to Teotihuacan those days, but at the bottom reason was to gather the energetic quantum of 30,000 living beings to brake the seals in the pyramid.

I do not know what you qualify by New Age is good or bad, but is very healthy to be wary regarding spiritual matters.

[quote author=shijing]]
The part about 'Mexico becoming the next center of power' is a bit off-putting -- nothing against Mexico, but it seems to be a bit of an ego-stroke designed to capture new converts.
[/quote]

I can not agree or disagree with you on this, Mexico have been the center of power many times in past.
What we see now is new race, a bastard child looking for its own identity.

 

[anart]

Hi journey --
So this is so basically because they say it is -- is that it?

What do you mean?

I think his point is that it would be helpful if you could provide data to back up your claims. It appears from what you've said that there might be some 'magical thinking' going on on your part - so some clarification and data would be helpful.

 

[journey]

I think his point is that it would be helpful if you could provide data to back up your claims. It appears from what you've said that there might be some 'magical thinking' going on on your part - so some clarification and data would be helpful.

Let´s define oral tradition first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition

So the person guarding the information is..... A guardian, a guardian of the tradition.
I do not see anything magic here.

But now that you have mentioned "magical thinking", it is precisely what we need in order to understand their thoughts and perception of reality.

 

[cholas]

Not much on the Teotihuacan folk Journey, but have you seen this in regards to the Toltec?

Cholas:
Sorry I do not understand this one.
Please, explain

Here I was loosely stating that there isn't much info on the Teotihuacan people in the C's transcripts, however there is mention of Toltecs and of course Mayans.

Yes indeed, but this happened during the Mayans Postclassic era (900 ad. Till the arrival of the Spaniards)
The postclassic period came after the collapse of the Mayan civilization.
There was influence from Teotihuacan to Mayans, as well, possibly during the preclassic period (c. 2000 BC to 250 AD)
The same goes for Olmecs, possible creators of the famous calendar. The Olmecs are an even earlier culture than Teotihuacan's and Mayans

With respect, journey, I've read roughly the same thing on wikipedia but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Maybe just nitpicking here, but who says the Olmec are older than the Teotihuacan people?

Maybe a move away from the 'just got back from history class at the university' and towards the 'thinking outside of the box' that Laura mentioned would shed light on many documented yet 'taboo' clues to/from the past.