On Lies of Aztec Human Sacrifice

reply to post by BIHOTZ


Now there is something written I believe. They certainly did not see it fitting for humanity to have an actual record of what took place there. Else how could they construct the false matrix of lies around us and rewrite history and Hide who the planet's mismanagers are, and who they serve. Even who we really are, and that we can remember and become empowered as well.

The account of the gecko or reptilian, often connected to aryan, races demanding human sacrifices of the mayans is much like the same accounts/legends of the australian aboriginals, who surprisingly have Aryan dna themselves.

So I would go one step further and suggest that if there were human sacrifices at that time, being performed still, and at any time in the past, it was not natural for the native people to be into negative beliefs like this, but instead it would be more the Old Empire, which was throughout the world at different times, forcing this upon them.

And that is about cycles.

reply to post by Alexander2533


I enjoyed reading your OP. My concern is that you do not know the language, and are taking the interpretation of a single website (a tripod website, no less). Would you have another source that might back up some of the claims you make?

My wife is of Commanche descent. They were a war like people. But they were, and still are, a good people.

reply to post by Unity_99


Yeah the promise of the old kingdoms is what gets them every time. They think that they will be as bright as the morning star of old. In the end each time humanity falls, the first who fell stay a while longer. jumping from one people to the next. Always promising immortality, magic/ information, and power.

In the end kings end up crossing deserts just to scrape by in the next Babylon being exalted for destruction. Thats why I don't sweat it. Eventually we will remember as the cycles close. They must so as to start up again. They will fall like the rest.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by SheopleNation

 

You simply do not know

With that logic, neither do you!

Fact is, some men you just can't reach. Even when you attempt to meet them half way and show respect, they still follow up with some condescending retort as if they are the end all, all knowing last opinion on whatever the subject may be.

Hey bro, you know what? Your opinion is nothing short of reckless speculation. Just as the same goes for me. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by BIHOTZ


I have memories to previous cycle, though mainly off planet but connected. We were space age too, and earth itself, was it always here? There are many mysteries. Humans have made it out to the solar system numerous times, seems something is holding us back from truth and colonies this time. A very greedy corporate bunch.

People get free pass on to better worlds and even home, individually, but also collectively.


I Set Myself Free

reply to post by Unity_99


I dont know. There is always more to everything. The best thing to do is try to grow and become more. Earth mars or where ever. We should keep growing. That is life.

Free your mind and the mind will follow you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


UFO Light Beam Alien Contact Maya Chichen Itza Pyramid HD 720p Ovni Documentary


The hidden secrets of Egypt Pyramids (Harun Yahya)


The secrets hidden in the pyramids of Egypt wireless power (Harun Yahya)


Pyramid Power (Part 1)


Pyramid Power (Part 2)

There was advanced civilization and energy, throughtout the world, even cycles where the east dominated the Americas, world empire, so one can question, if they did conduct human sacrifice, why they did? Would it be their idea? Could it be something from another cycle, the Quetzcoatl one, and they had grown beyond this?

reply to post by SheopleNation

Hey bro, you know what? Your opinion is nothing short of reckless speculation. Just as the same goes for me.

And what exactly would be my opinion?

Is it recklessly speculative to state that the status quo mainstream version of history is revisionist?
Or is the status quo mainstream version of history recklessly speculative?

I believe that no one knows the truth of the matter and I have repeated this very thing over and over and over and over again.
I have simply stated supposed facts that are openly acknowledged by the "historical record"...
Supposed facts that are inherently contradictory if analyzed critically.

Any conclusions that I have offered have been purposefully speculative and contrary.

Methinks you got your feelings hurt.

Altars and tools found in temples are evidence of human sacrifice. Also, blood letting and sacrifices are a big part of Aztec mythology

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
Altars and tools found in temples are evidence of human sacrifice.

Are you serious?

I once put a roof on a church that had been destroyed in a tornado.

And I left my tools in the sanctuary near the alter while I worked on it.

Oh my god....

You don't think that they actually used my tools to sacrifice humans at that altar do you?

Also, blood letting and sacrifices are a big part of Aztec mythology

You know... during the dark ages blood letting was also practice by magicians as a part of their medical practice mythology.
It is a good thing that the Vatican tortured and murdered all those magicians.
If not, then they might have sacrificed someone while healing them.

reply to post by BIHOTZ


Well we have something in common then. My family lost all of their possessions, twice to communist revolutions. The first in Russia and the second in China. In both cases they barely escaped with their lives and my great grandmother was homeless and stateless for a while.

What I see here is a prejudicial assumption that goes something like this, aborigines good, white europeans and christians bad. Based on that assumption one can draw fallacious conclusions. By no means do I imply that the Spaniards were angels, but I do find it offensive to try to cover up some egregious cultural behavior, such as human sacrifice.

I also do not understand why all of the evidence, including human blood on temple knives, would not invalidate the good Aztec theory immediately.

reply to post by SevenThunders

I also do not understand why all of the evidence, including human blood on temple knives, would not invalidate the good Aztec theory immediately.

I suppose that I can identify with this argument.
I was recently in the hospital for a while and one time, when my doctor did his rounds, he had just walked out of surgery and he was covered in blood.
So naturally, the first thing that I asked him was how many people he had just sacrificed.

He got really offended and looked at me like I was a complete idiot.

I am glad that at least you understand my reasoning.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

Are you denying the fact that colonizing Europeans learned metallurgy from Africans and the recipe for gunpowder from the Chinese and used this knowledge to create explosive projectile weaponry that they then used to suppress and conquer the small populations of indigenous cultures that were left after being decimated by germs imported by the same colonizing Europeans?

I am denying that the Aztecs saw the potential of the wheel. I am not interested in correcting your confused ideas about history.

And yet somehow the absence of this miracle device known as a wheel in no way stopped the Meso-Americans from building massively complex cities, stone pyramids, and canoes.

Their cities were villages compared to those of the Old World, and a pyramid is just a pile of stones.

Though I suppose their canoes might have been massively complex.

reply to post by randyvs

Did they have paddle boats?

According to kyviecaldges, they had massively complex canoes.

Maybe they were paddlewheeled canoes.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
Altars and tools found in temples are evidence of human sacrifice.

Are you serious?

I once put a roof on a church that had been destroyed in a tornado.

And I left my tools in the sanctuary near the alter while I worked on it.

Oh my god....

You don't think that they actually used my tools to sacrifice humans at that altar do you?

Also, blood letting and sacrifices are a big part of Aztec mythology

You know... during the dark ages blood letting was also practice by magicians as a part of their medical practice mythology.
It is a good thing that the Vatican tortured and murdered all those magicians.
If not, then they might have sacrificed someone while healing them.

edit on 20/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

Specialized tools + Specialized area = Sacrifice

I don't know about you but that's a logical explanation to me.

There's even codexes depicting human sacrifices.

reply to post by Astyanax

Their cities were villages compared to those of the Old World, and a pyramid is just a pile of stones.

They did build the third largest "pile of stones" in the world, which were amazingly stacked to match astrological alignments with the "piled" stones shaped to precision.

Tenochtitlan had a population of 200,000 and Paris, at the same time, had a population of 300,000.
But hey, it's just a village compared to the big ole city of Paris.

Though I suppose their canoes might have been massively complex.

Not too familiar with the oxford comma are you?
Go ahead and look it up.
I know that you don't know what it is, but despite that fact, you will still try and convince me otherwise.
Seriously... look it up.

According to kyviecaldges, they had massively complex canoes.

No, and they weren't made out of stone either.

You really need to look up the oxford comma.

Oh yeah.... your welcome son.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

Specialized tools + Specialized area = Sacrifice

Specialized for what exactly?

So I suppose that you mean that they had an alter and obsidian knives so then they must be used for human sacrifice.
I am sure that the propaganda about them sacrificing humans had nothing to do with it.

I don't know about you but that's a logical explanation to me.

That is because you are falling victim to a logical fallacy.
This is a pretty complicated fallacy.
So pay close attention and put your thinking cap on.

You fell victim to the conjunction fallacy.

This happens when a combination of two specific events happening together is perceived as more likely than one general event happening alone.

Let me put it this way...
You stated that the altar was used for worship and where human sacrifices occurred as evidenced by blood on the obsidian knife.
The probability of two events occurring together to form an assumed event is much less likely than the probability that each general event happened alone.
It is much more probable that an alter existed that was used for worship and then an obsidian knife with blood on it existed close to the alter, but they have nothing to do with one another.

Each layer of assumption that you add to two general events drastically lowers the probability that it occurred.

Thus, the conjunction fallacy.

It's cool man. We were never taught how to think logically and employ reason.

There's even codexes depicting human sacrifices.

No... You are assuming that what you are seeing is a human sacrifice.

All you are looking at is a pictogram.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

They did build the third largest "pile of stones" in the world, which were amazingly stacked to match astrological alignments with the "piled" stones shaped to precision.

Not amazingly. Just carefully. And it's still nothing but a pile of stones.

Tenochtitlan had a population of 200,000 and Paris, at the same time, had a population of 300,000.
But hey, it's just a village compared to the big ole city of Paris.

There are slums today with higher populations than either. Population has nothing to do with it. You want to compare Tenochtitlan to Athens, Rome, Beijing, in their heyday? Or to any of the other great cities of the Old World? As well compare chalk with cheese.

Not too familiar with the oxford comma are you?

You're using it wrong. It is used to resolve the ambiguous connexion between two nouns, not to separate a qualifying adjective from the series of nouns that follows it. An intelligent stylist would have put the noun that 'massively complex' qualifies at the end of the series, with the adjectival phrase placed immediately before it; thus, for example, 'pyramids, canoes and massively complex cities'.

Speaking as a professional writer and editor, I would call your writing style sophomoric, bombastic and confused.

I think the Aztecs did practice human sacrifice, but the contexts and amounts were sometimes very altered and inflated for propaganda purposes, firstly by the conquering Aztecs themselves, to make themselves look more fearsome to any potential rivals.

Wheresoever there were ancient empires and mystery schools it is known that "death" could be symbolic, sometimes merely passing through a building, tunnel or cave, often in an altered state, and arriving at the exit was literally a "rebirth" into a new identity. Since the Aztecs proper were really just a city state, it would be strange to think at least some of their temple were not designed for this - to kill older tribal affiliations and have their former enemies "reborn" as Aztecs. This would have been a secret and unspoken practice.
All religions have a degree of theatricality, and if the Moonies can remarry hundreds of couples several times to make the pictures of mass-weddings seem more numerous of membership and thus misrepresent "the truth" to cult members via a mass public event, then we cannot assume the Aztecs may not have resorted to similar shenanigans.

That is not to say that Moonies don't marry, or Aztecs didn't sacrifice.
They probably sacrificed frequently for several reasons, but I doubt they would have sacrificed to the point of depopulation, since their riches came from vassal states.
It would be strange to study any culture without expecting a degree of cannibalism, slavery and sacrifice.
However, we cannot dismiss symbolism and theatrics.

In 1487 it was written in the codices that the Aztecs sacrificed 20 000 people.
The conquered chieftains and kings from the surrounding tribes and city-states were made to watch.
We're not sure why they had to watch - was it an Aztec show of ferocity and intimidation, or an Aztec show of self-sacrificing piety, or perhaps both?
Logistics alone were long thought to question whether this could be done.
According to an Unsolved History program it certainly could be done using Aztec technology across 19 temples in their capital of Tenochtitlan:



However, just because something could be done does not mean it actually was.
There's a third option to something actually happening or not, and that is: it appeared to happen, especially to strangers.
What happened at the top of these pyramids was obscure, and thousands of people could have walked up one entrance and down the other, and they could have left the island-capital in boats, or returned for another "sacrifice".

I think with their technology genocidal sacrifice was possible, but the local demographics would not have supported such a sudden depopulation, and the sheer risk of pestilence and rotting corpses would have been overwhelming.
Archeologists found sacrificial remains, racks of skulls and evidence of sacrifice, but certainly not of 20 000 people in 4 days.

I think the Aztecs probably played this image up themselves, with symbolic meanings being unsure of physical death and metaphoric death.

Real sacrifice probably increased during times of war, and we know some Spaniards and their horses were sacrificed and cannibalized.

However the Aztecs were an empire, and few empires flourish without cruelty.
But, did all Nahuatl speakers agree with the Aztecs and their methods?
Seemingly not.

One Native American person who hated them was Cortez's translator and concubine, Donna Malinche, and it's now increasingly thought that Pizarro or Cortez did not initially conquer anything.
They exploited local dissatisfaction, married native women as concubines to ferment allegiances, and the initial conquests were essentially Indian civil wars with some backing of Spanish terror, gunpowder and steel.
Little did those thousands who sided with the Spanish know that they would not honor any native tribe or agreement after the former rulers were vanquished.
They were lied to and used, just like all the Native American nations in the French and English wars, or eventually the Apache scouts who caught Geronimo, and found themselves shipped off to a disease ridden prison in Florida for their efforts.

The point is that the conquerors in the Americas destroyed everything, both good and bad.
The conquistadors had their own blood-lust in which it was better to torture and burn somebody to heaven rather than to leave them with "false beliefs" on earth.

Perhaps like attracts like, and the real Aztecs and Spaniards deserved each other.
But doubtlessly millions of people suffered as a result.

Incidentally, a lot of the debate reminds me of the debate about Shaka and the Zulu empire in SA.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR

So when the Spanish arrived. The other now subjugated tribes in the region were only too happy to join forces with the spanish to elliminate the aztecs. Also. Montezuma was no help in maintaining a good relationship with the spanish. He was in the middle of full blown dementia and paranoia by the time the spanish met up with him outside tenotchitlan (sp)

In other words, the Aztecs were, in modern language, a highly militarized fascist-theocratic oligarchical and exceptionally bloody dictatorship.

Thankfully they didn't develop intercontinental ship travel.