"Remember the Alamo" (but forget it was a Masonic treasure hunt in Mexico)

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocha123
NOW FOR YEARS ive read the history of the Alamo battle,I still dont accept the fact that somebody with a kniffe and a few soldiers went into battle and won fair and straigth against thousands of mexican militia!!...NOW THAT IS PRETTY FAR FECHTED TO ME.


For years you've read that the Mexican military lost the battle of the Alamo? Show me one source that says anything other than Santa Ana and his troops won the battle.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
This OP is sitting back and watching everyone debate the topic. He's obviously a child with a magnifying glass and we are the ants fighting over a pinch of sugar. This OP is garbage.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
While there were no sources provided in the OP, I found it quite provocative, interesting and intriguing. It is the kind of slant, perspective and insight into a prominent historical event that can make a person wonder what all has gone on (and is going on) behind the scenes.

As history unfolds, the internet (sites like this) and other information sectors continually illustrate to us “masses” that a lot more is going on (again) behind the scenes than we were taught and conditioned to perceive, consider and believe. We have been taught to ignore, dismiss and ridicule. Many here on ATS are out-of-the-box thinkers, people who do not necessarily accept the official story force-fed to us by the mainstream media (MSM) and governmental sources (from the US or any government).

A statement about sources: it is a necessity in academic writing, in which there seems to (perhaps rightfully) be a mindset that there is no original thought unless a person has done the basic research personally. Every “fact” must be source. It is tedious, yet provides substantiation to a certain degree. And, accordingly, the sources should have sources (unless part of an original study, and so on).

However, ATS is by far not an academic forum. Not to “down” ATS on this. ATS was not ever **conceived** to be an academic forum requiring sources. It is what it is: a place where people who think outside the proverbial box gather to share ideas, and in this sense, ATS has accomplished its mission grandly, perhaps even working as a change catalyst and effecting Butterfly Effect-styled changes that might develop in downstream chaotic patterns dramatically altering unfolding historical events. With as many complaints and rants about a lack of sources for the OP, one might get the impression that ATS was an academic forum. Sure, sources are nice and provide a touch of substantiation, but (as we all should know), sources do not necessarily equate to validity for anyone can surely find “sources” and “links” that have little substantiation themselves.

Just because something is sourced does not mean that it is valid. In fact, it can be argued that if someone discovered some disturbing (or well-hidden) truth, there may be no valid sources. The truth about an event might have been passed down through a family via oral history with no official/internet “source.” Consequently, a *lie* might be meticulously sourced to lend it validity, yet still remain a lie. Examples of this might include the official story of 9-11 or the justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or –you get the idea. There are many “sources” that “support” the official stories for those events (or “cover” stories some of us/you might prefer).

Just because the OP provided no sources does not necessarily mean that what was originally posted is not true or valid. Just because the government provided “sources” for information regarding 9-11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq does not mean that those explanations and rationalizations and official stories are true.

Back to the topic of the OP. I, personally found it quite interesting. Because of this potential historical windfall of perspective, I will most likely look into the topics of freemasonry, 33 degree masons, the Alamo, “treasure rooms” and secret codes/messages built into missions and churches.

You see, the OP was so intriguing, that it inspired me to look into all of this for myself. There is nothing wrong with that. Sure, the OP might have posted 18/19 threads, provided no sources for any of them, and/or never engaged in the discussion. No big deal. WE have the power to engage in discussions about the original post, right? Instead, the majority of what I read (before I got tired of reading the ridiculous complaining and debating about everything except for the actual topic) was pointless, meaningless and/or threatening. A “super moderator” even made comments early on that sounded threatening until I read the context.

(--cont'd next post because of 5000 character limit--)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 

(--cont'd)

Why don’t we talk about the idea that the events of the Alamo might not have taken place because of the reasons we were taught in elementary, middle and high school? Even college. The thing about history (that we seem to be learning lately) is that it was far different than what we were taught. Many of these topics have appeared on ATS. Many have been covered by prolific modern researches such as J.P. Farrel, Mike Bara, Richard Dolan, Graham Hancock, Richard Hoagland, Stanton Friedman, Michael Moore and a host of brave journalists who risk their careers to cover “unconventional” topics. Academics who attempt to study some of the subjects discussed on ATS usually find a lack of funding and/or grant money dries up. These academics can end their careers this way, and thus, there are far fewer “sources” from which posters on ATS may draw from. You see, the people with the money who fund such grants apparently *do not want* such things to be studied, and evidently they do not wish us to know about alternate energies, alternate sciences and the true nature of certain historical events.

The history we have been officially taught to believe has repeatedly been proven to be wrong. Simply look into the anomalies surrounding the “battle” of Little Big Horn, the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the financial crises that have plagued the US (and the world) almost every decade like clockwork after the S&L scandals of the 1980s, the meeting of eugenicists on Jekyll Island to discuss global population control and desired racial traits, project MK Ultra, etc.

What you may find is that events were terribly distorted or simply *removed* from historical consciousness. Facts have been changed to bring us into war, or to attempt to annihilate a native population. Facts have been changed to suppress technologies, or to hide embarrassment. Facts have been changed to keep those in power still in power, or to hide the acquisition of wealth (many times these reasons go hand-in-hand).

It can easily be seen that secret codes in architecture and decoration inside of missions and other structures might be facts that “those in power” wish to conceal. After all, it follows the deception tenant of “hiding in plain sight.” If people (the masses) were to realize this fact, then one or two or some few of them might decode such facts (like author Dan Brown), put the pieces together and discover such things as treasure rooms or secret caves/caverns filled with ancient riches and who-knows-what-else.

Therefore, posts like this will be attacked, either out of ignorance or intention to suppress ideas considered unsuitable for the masses.

I found it highly enjoyable, except for the nitpicking about sources and how much wasted space that actually took-up in this thread. Instead of nitpicking, perhaps do some personal research and post it on this forum, in this thread. If/when I find such “sources” I may post them here myself. Then again, perhaps not, because my post would possibly be lost in a sea of itching-bay ---to use the term as dictated by Pig Latin.

Some of the deepest truths might have no official sources. That does not mean they are not true. Some of the biggest lies might have thousands of sources. That does not mean they are true.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by juggernaut0907
This OP is sitting back and watching everyone debate the topic. He's obviously a child with a magnifying glass and we are the ants fighting over a pinch of sugar. This OP is garbage.

This is exactly the kind of thing moderators should not allow. Calling the OP garbage adds absolutely no value to this thread and actually detracts because it takes up space better used for something meaningful and perhaps insightful. Instead, this person tries to say things "INCITEFUL" --not insightful. Bad form to you and bad form for allowing such.
edit on 4-4-2012 by GhostLancer because: Typo



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
[mor THERES ONLY THE VERSION IN SAN ANTONIO TEXAS THAT THIS FEW GOOD MEN WON AGAINST SANTA ANNA the battle of the Alamo,,,,And they have inside the alamo the famous kniffe.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

lol
i'd be careful dude,
the Anti-masonic Brotherhood has its own system of 33 degrees
at least ascertain what the OP's rank in the Brotherhood is before starting a fight

reply to post by Pinocchio
 

funny you should say that, is that meant to be a hint?

even funnier is that many of Santa anna's boys were Gatling-gunned in their sleep
by these so called "heroes" {houston and crocket}

SOP for so called "injun fighters" they'd also wait for the men to be away
to massacre the women and children.

but then most of the US "historians" here still celebrate The Feast of Thanksgiving,
originally celebrated every time another tribe was wiped out.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rocha123
 


It's too bad no one told Sam Houston....he never would have had to say "Remember the Alamo" nor spend so much of his time running for his life from that defeated Army, or have to defeat it again.....imagine how much could be fixed historically if people in history had the better understanding of current students of this fine education system.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

even funnier is that many of Santa anna's boys were Gatling-gunned in their sleep
by these so called "heroes" {houston and crocket}



Hahahaha! You quite literally have no friggin' clue what you're bloviating about!

The Battle of the Alamo ended March 6, 1836. The Gatling Gun, which uses prepared shells rather than black powder, was invented in 1861.

Are you claiming that the Gatlin Gun was used by the LOSING army at the Alamo, 25 YEARS before it was invented? And the Texians still lost????

Have you been getting your history from Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tovenar

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

even funnier is that many of Santa anna's boys were Gatling-gunned in their sleep
by these so called "heroes" {houston and crocket}



Hahahaha! You quite literally have no friggin' clue what you're bloviating about!

The Battle of the Alamo ended March 6, 1836. The Gatling Gun, which uses prepared shells rather than black powder, was invented in 1861.

Are you claiming that the Gatlin Gun was used by the LOSING army at the Alamo, 25 YEARS before it was invented? And the Texians still lost????

Have you been getting your history from Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure?




books.google.com.pr... e=bl&ots=zyiR7OfsXV&sig=R01YsDr56emyK4DhajzsLMgmaws&hl=en&sa=X&ei=khB9T9_RIYmC8QSL3uH-DA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sam%20houston%20had%20santa%20ann as%20soldiers%20killed%20while%20sleeping%20in%20their%20tents&f=false

L
L so i was mistaken about weapons, my bad, at least my history is STILL more accurate than yours


care to debunk the main arguments of my post,as well?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dign4it

Somewhere in time the Catholic Church, in its constant upgrading of the secret treasure codes, came up with this idea where secret treasure signs and symols would be incorporated into the actual structure of the Mission, using acrchitectural designs and paintings to relay the locations of the mines and treasure rooms to the new in-coming priest. NOW the only way to lose these mine/treasure sites is if the entire structure was demolished.



This view makes a number of assumptions that don't fit with realityl

1. The Chapel of the Mission San Antonio De Valero was in fact never completed. So, how could it have been a complete treasure map when it was abandoned by the Roman Catholic Church before being completed?

2. The Mission was abandoned because it was a financial drain on both the Church and the Spanish Crown. Surely, they would have used any treasure to pay the bills and keep their "map" intact.

3. The mission had constant additions and alterations to it, both before and after the famous battle. Was the original mission part of the treasure map? If so, it is gone forever---the original mission was destroyed in the Hurricane of 1724, and the mission relocated to it's general current location. .So, are the barns and dormitories that were then built by and for the indian laborers (made from temporary adobe) part of the "treasure map"? or were the barracks that were built when it was used as first a Spanish, and later a Mexican Fort?

4. After the Battle, it the structure was abandoned, and eventually rebuilt as a US Army fort after Texas became a US state. The fort became Confederate in the Civil war, was later used as a warehouse, and eventually as a grocery. By 1904, much of it was barely even an outline in the grass. The building there now is a reconstruction beyond the first few feet of limestone, rebuilt after World War I.

5. The layout of the Mission Chapel was identical to buildings designed by Spanish priests and built by Indian hands throughout the Southwest: A cross-shaped structure with the nave (pews) as the lower part of the cross, and choir in the apse and and arms of the cross. There were to be two towers on the south-facing entry, but only one was ever begun. Unlike European churches, Indian built churches had the altar in the north, as is the case in countless examples on the Texas Mission Trail. So, is every mission in Texas pointing to the same treasure, since they have identical outlines? If so, why are they the same while being scattered across several provinces of Mexico? Again, the facts point to the conclusion that there is no treasure map built into the Alamo, or any other spanish mission in the southwest...



The OP blithely assumes that the edifice we see in SA today is identical to the mission as it existed in 1836. But the Alamo then wasn't the Catholic mission built in the 1718, or the one moved and rebuilt in 1724.

Outside of Movies like Thirteen Days of Glory and National Treasue buildings are constantly repaired and renovated; they are only changeless in fiction.

edit on 4-4-2012 by tovenar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger


L
L so i was mistaken about weapons, my bad, at least my history is STILL more accurate than yours


care to debunk the main arguments of my post,as well?


I'd be happy to.

The page you sampled isn't the Battle of the Alamo. It is the Battle of San Jacinto. Obvious because Houston was not present at the Alamo.

Wrong gun. Wrong general. Wrong battle.

What was I supposed to be debunking, again?

That you don't think Houston and the Texians were heroes? Because Santa Anna didn't post any lookouts before his entire force lay down for their afternoon siesta?

Santa Anna had a long record of massacring people who surrendered to him, 342 Texians, only weeks before in the Goliad Massacre.

Probably helped stiffen the Texian resolve, and make them not settle for anything other than the arrest of Santa Anna. In fact, Houston refused to execute Santa Anna, despite the shouts of his victorious army. Some veterans hated Houston forever after for not killing Santa Anna when he had the chance.

There was a reason that 3 other states rebelled from Mexico when Texas did.


edit on 4-4-2012 by tovenar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tovenar


What was I supposed to be debunking, again?





funny you should say that, is that meant to be a hint?

even funnier is that many of Santa anna's boys were Gatling-gunned in their sleep
by these so called "heroes" {houston and crocket}

SOP for so called "injun fighters" they'd also wait for the men to be away
to massacre the women and children.

but then most of the US "historians" here still celebrate The Feast of Thanksgiving,
originally celebrated every time another tribe was wiped out.



i see you're nit picking again, or is it bloviating?
and where did i mention the alamo?
but hey troll on....


toodles



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
My reply in the post above.

If you actually bothered to read up on the story of Texas statehood, you'd find it really interesting. You also might see that Santa Anna was no saint.

He was an "injun fighter" tho. Houston was not.

Funny how so many of your stereotypes are actually at odds with the historical record.
edit on 4-4-2012 by tovenar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
i see you're nit picking again, or is it bloviating?
and where did i mention the alamo?
but hey troll on....


toodles


Uh, you DID mention Crockett…

even funnier is that many of Santa anna's boys were Gatling-gunned in their sleep
by these so called "heroes" {houston and crocket}
and Crockett DID die at the Alamo, so he couldn't have Gatling-gunned anyone at the Battle of San Jacinto alongside Houston a month later…

So the assessments of your inaccurate history still stand.
edit on 2012.4.4 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
i see you're nit picking again, or is it bloviating?
and where did i mention the alamo?
but hey troll on....


toodles


Uh, you DID mention Crockett…

even funnier is that many of Santa anna's boys were Gatling-gunned in their sleep
by these so called "heroes" {houston and crocket}
and Crockett DID die at the Alamo, so he couldn't have Gatling-gunned anyone at the Battle of San Jacinto alongside Houston a month later…

So the assessments of your inaccurate history still stand.
edit on 2012.4.4 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



i have admitted to error regarding weapons

my assessment of these folks character and tactics stands
[the point you and tovernar keep missing, or ignoring]

that said this former Inner Sentinel finds great disappointment in your post
i've come to expect better from you josh

good night



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
i have admitted to error regarding weapons
But not concerning the parties involved. Again, you're claiming Crockett was responsible for actions that happened over a month after his death.
edit on 2012.4.5 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger


my assessment of these folks character and tactics stands
[the point you and tovernar keep missing, or ignoring]



What was your assessment? That Crockett was an "injun fighter?
Crockett did fight in the Creek War; but he opposed President Jackson's "Indian Removal Act" and it cost him his seat in the U.S. House.

Santa Anna was an "injun fighter" himself, and promoted to Captain in the Army because of it.

Or maybe you objected to Houston' surprise attack on Santa Anna's force?

Santa Anna bragged about the fact that he executed all prisoners of war, including those who surrendered. Just weeks before the battle of San Jacinto, he had executed all the survivors of the siege of Goliad, killing 342 in the Massacre of Goliad.

Besides slaughtering prisoners of war and granting himself the title "the Napoleon of the West," he had already staged multiple coups against the various governments of Mexico. When the Battle of San Jacinto turned into a route, he forced a private to switch uniforms with him, and then hid in the swamp.

Fighting a man like Santa Anna, whose promises were worthless, it is indeed surprising that Houston freed him and allowed him to return to Mexico.

When The US invaded Mexico in 1849, Santa Anna had been exiled to Cuba by his own country. While vowing to defend Mexico if allowed to return, he secretly communicated with Washington and promised to sue for peace if he would be aided to return to Mexico. He reneged on both sets of promises, seized the presidency of Mexico and immediately raised an army to fight the US, only to be defeated repeatedly until he lost the Capitol and had to surrender to the US.


If you want to talk about character, then compare men like Crockett and Houston with the likes of Santa Anna.


edit on 5-4-2012 by tovenar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheGuyFawkes
reply to post by emberscott
 


ive noticed that as well anytime someone posts something anti masonic at least 3 or 4 masons come in saying his claims are false...


And how. It's the equivilent of a masonic gangbang here, thread after thread. It was something that ATS was going to deal with at one point, but apparently it continues unabated and alot of the staff are proudly masonic. They don't let up until the thread is either discombobulated or gets heated enough for one of them to step in and close it down.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 

Yea, your right twitchy. We should just sit back and enjoy the lies.

BTW, how is that terrible disease you contracted over in Thailand a few years ago? I hear those bumps can be painful. And especially down there. Don't bother to defend your position and claim I am lying. It would only seem like you were ganging up on me.
edit on 5-4-2012 by network dude because: Augustusmasonicus won't share his beer





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join