Ancient? history.

[Han]

I have created this thread to discuss ideas and theories regarding the falsification of History.

Here are a few ground rules:

#1 please try to be polite.
#2 please try to stay on topic.
#3 please try to keep things clear and concise.

 

[Randall]

This could be a challenge because views on history and how it's self-servingly written to suit the victors or other parties with vested interests can vary widely, to the point where simply stating what appears to be a truth is taken to be an insult by one person or another. This has happened to me around the time that Canadians hold "Remembrance Day", which tends to glorify and/or sanctify the role of the military, particularly during the World Wars, while at the same time conveniently ignoring the role that industrialists, politicians, and bankers play in selling war to all sides through the use of propaganda and/or simply forcing people into the military; not to mention the collateral damage, including the loss of civilian lives on both sides. I've been called far worse than "impolite" just for bringing these issues up. So although I completely appreciate your intent, how do we proceed to set the record straight when doing so, no matter how polite we try to be about it, is bound to offend somebody someplace?

 

[Han]

Firstly I don't think that offending people is necessarily a bad thing, in fact sometimes it causes people to check their own ideas.
Insulting people is quite different. What I am trying to say is that: if what you say causes people to think then that is a good thing.

I believe that History is about interpretation. If we take Remembrance Day for example: My interpretation is different than yours, I see it as a kind of funeral service for all people who have died in War (from all sides). It is a reminder of how easily it is for us to revert to our base instincts and kill our brothers and sisters. This does not mean that I think war is just, or that they are not partly the result of "industrialists, politicians, and bankers".
We can agree to disagree and remain respectful of each others point of view, in other words we can both be right, for we are the masters of our own minds.

Now back to this thread, I agree that it is going to be a challenge, and people will inevitably get offended along the way, so be it, as long as the discussion is civil.

From what I have read in the other thread, I seem to be in the middle, with Cat Jockey believing History started in 1000 AD and Robert Baird saying that it is far older. But again this is my interpretation based on a few post from both parties. What I would really like is to read very simplified summaries of both theories, lets not forget that the forum is also visited by people who don't contribute but are interested in learning.

 

[Randall]

Firstly I don't think that offending people is necessarily a bad thing, in fact sometimes it causes people to check their own ideas.
Insulting people is quite different. What I am trying to say is that: if what you say causes people to think then that is a good thing.

Cool.

I believe that History is about interpretation. If we take Remembrance Day for example: My interpretation is different than yours, I see it as a kind of funeral service for all people who have died in War (from all sides). It is a reminder of how easily it is for us to revert to our base instincts and kill our brothers and sisters. This does not mean that I think war is just, or that they are not partly the result of "industrialists, politicians, and bankers".
We can agree to disagree and remain respectful of each others point of view, in other words we can both be right, for we are the masters of our own minds.

I have a problem with the notion of "agreeing to disagree" because in my experience it has virtually always been used as an escape hatch or to add an unsubstantiated air of legitimacy to a weaker position. So with me, there's no "agree to disagree". There are only one option: The truth. From that our only honest positions are to discover whatever that truth is, or to say "I don't know", or "I'm wrong and am not afraid to admit it." So returning to Remembrance Day as an example, I see that there is a truth in your words. I accept that. No need to "agree to disagree" there. There's also truth in what I say. So still no need to disagree. We're good .

Now back to this thread, I agree that it is going to be a challenge, and people will inevitably get offended along the way, so be it, as long as the discussion is civil.

Cool

From what I have read in the other thread, I seem to be in the middle, with Cat Jockey believing History started in 1000 AD and Robert Baird saying that it is far older. But again this is my interpretation based on a few post from both parties. What I would really like is to read very simplified summaries of both theories, lets not forget that the forum is also visited by people who don't contribute but are interested in learning.

You've got more patience than me. I was finding CJ's initial posts fairly interesting. On the other hand, although RB makes some valid points here and there, I'm not all that interested in hearing about all the thousands of other posts and files he's created that make him eminently qualified to judge the content of other people's posts. I'd be happier if he'd stick to the issues and provide valid counterpoint rather than leaving us to assume his awe inspiring greatness is enough. Is that being too harsh?

 

[Robert Baird]

It is interesting to me that you take it upon yourself to make offensive remarks about me - a person who has done the actual WORK and lists the facts - you do not wish to inform yourself about. How anyone can find CJ rational or his sources credible is beyond me. I have shown his own statements and sources disagree with what he says - numerous times - Plato for one.

All of you would do well (if you were actual students of reality) to follow this example of discourse from one of those sources I refer you to most often.


The Golden Bough and More

Amending this post to include an appropriate response to the troll who never addresses a fact we have.

Reality for me has much to do with FACTS. Your comments are personal or ad hominem - - totally lacking in grace - learn to understand the language and comprehend what YOU do. Then quote facts or what another person says and make a reasoned argument.

On the other hand I do not care if you are impressed. You do care if people bow to your collective ignorance. Ignorance is what happens in absence of fact.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

It is interesting to me that you take it upon yourself to make offensive remarks about me - a person who has done the actual WORK and lists the facts - you do not wish to inform yourself about. How anyone can find CJ rational or his sources credible is beyond me. I have shown his own statements and sources disagree with what he says - numerous times - Plato for one.

All of you would do well (if you were actual students of reality) to follow this example of discourse from one of those sources I refer you to most often.


The Golden Bough and More

Amending this post to include an appropriate response to the troll who never addresses a fact we have.

Reality for me has much to do with FACTS. Your comments are personal or ad hominem - - totally lacking in grace - learn to understand the language and comprehend what YOU do. Then quote facts or what another person says and make a reasoned argument.

On the other hand I do not care if you are impressed. You do care if people bow to your collective ignorance. Ignorance is what happens in absence of fact.

I'm a troll.
That's new.
You are a human male who is old enough to not be so defensive, hostile, and insulting.
Oh wait I mean that you are correct in every way and superior to all of us illiterate blockheads.
If your truth of facts is couched in your hostile pontificating adulation of academia..I will pass thanks.

Question: if I can't read, why are you so keen to reply to my ignorance? A man as big as you should be able to skip it.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

I left my comments about how childish you and the person you were fussing with on the old thread because Han set this up with an eye to get away from that.
I might say: If you could read or bothered to read his post you would know that and respect it.
I might also say: You say you are interested in truth, but you seem just as interested in being contentious and insulting.
When people call me out for being childish I try to reflect on my action instead of lashing out at them.
Go ahead, react..

 

[Han]

OK so I made this thread so I suppose that I will have to be the referee.
I request that we all cease to insult each other, and stick to the topic the thread was designed to discuss.
If this is not done with immediate effect I will request that the thread be locked.

I repeat my request that: a simple and concise explanation be given on: individual positions regarding the falsification or deliberate misinterpretation of history.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Everyone just take a breath and step back and talk about the subjects that may be at hand, resist sniping at each other or getting the last word in, surely that is not why anyone comes here. I hope not anyway!

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

OK so I made this thread so I suppose that I will have to be the referee.
I request that we all cease to insult each other, and stick to the topic the thread was designed to discuss.
If this is not done with immediate effect I will request that the thread be locked.

I repeat my request that: a simple and concise explanation be given on: individual positions regarding the falsification or deliberate misinterpretation of history.

Agreed.
I only replied to this

Amending this post to include an appropriate response to the troll who never addresses a fact we have.

Reality for me has much to do with FACTS. Your comments are personal or ad hominem - - totally lacking in grace - learn to understand the language and comprehend what YOU do. Then quote facts or what another person says and make a reasoned argument.

On the other hand I do not care if you are impressed. You do care if people bow to your collective ignorance. Ignorance is what happens in absence of fact.

I left the other stuff on the other thread and I'll not reply to anything directed at me here.
Sorry Han.

 

[Robert Baird]

I have yet to see anyone in either thread make an argument - other than CJ whose arguments were full of NONsense and he could not defend against the quotes from himself and his sources which disagreed with him.

Please - lock this thread and the other thread - as far as I am concerned the incessant NONsense clogs up my e-mail inbox.

 

[Randall]

Returning to ancient history: I don't have a problem with the idea that people from the orient made it to North America in ancient times. Heyerdal proved that ancient mariners on balsa wood rafts could travel greater distances than had been previously assumed. So why not actual ships? Seems logical.

 

[Robert Baird]

Heyerdahl used many different local technologies to demonstrate people travelled the whole Earth. His discipline was botany and he makes more scholarly proofs from it than the sensational trips in these different crafts. From the Persian Gulf he went in craft using pitch and weaving of sticks (not unlike what you will find was done at Tiahuanaco high in the Andes). He used different building methods when doing his trip across the Pacific - and different again in his trip across the Atlantic.

The dug out technology used in Vancouver Island went to the Caroline Islanders who took it to New Zealand - look for Martin Doutre's work on the Moriori Keltoi. The Mayans used these dug outs larger than the ships of Columbus - there are drawings of them which a high Mayan chief showed me photos of at Tulum - with white people alongside paddling or rowing.

In the following link you will find history reports an ancient story about a year's voyage from Peru mentioning the Galapagos. The people returned with a throne made of metal and a person who is probably Hawaiian. You will find mention of Gene Savoy and Gary Buchanan who found cities with buildings nine stories high at the 8,000 foot level of the Andes. They built one of those Phoenician designed ships they found drawings of there - and almost made it to Hawaii.

The discussion about ancient Chinese coming to the Americas is a no-brainer. There is a book titled 1482 that demonstrates one era of such voyages. DNA maps prove the Ainu (like Kennewick Man) are the people who populated all of the Pacific. It is recent proof of what I wrote over a decade ago but it also can take us to a lot more interesting things including who interbred humans to make the Denisovan Man near their homeland - and the DNN (D'Ainu) or white people such as the red-heads on Easter Island's Moa.

The Incas and The Prince of Palenque

David Pratt, Gloria Farley and Dillehay, Guidon, Jesse Jennings and a thousand more all prove up to 200,000 years of travel to the Americas from all over the world. Pratt says 2,000,000. I support that but usually stick to the 1 million (I put the link to this in the other thread - not one person read as far as I can tell) which has a lot more proof, as each 100,000 years less is discussed I have ten times the proof.


The Ancient Americas (1)

 

[Randall]

Heyerdahl used many different local technologies to demonstrate people travelled the whole Earth. His discipline was botany and he makes more scholarly proofs from it than the sensational trips in these different crafts. From the Persian Gulf he went in craft using pitch and weaving of sticks (not unlike what you will find was done at Tiahuanaco high in the Andes). He used different building methods when doing his trip across the Pacific - and different again in his trip across the Atlantic.

The dug out technology used in Vancouver Island went to the Caroline Islanders who took it to New Zealand - look for Martin Doutre's work on the Moriori Keltoi. The Mayans used these dug outs larger than the ships of Columbus - there are drawings of them which a high Mayan chief showed me photos of at Tulum - with white people alongside paddling or rowing.

In the following link you will find history reports an ancient story about a year's voyage from Peru mentioning the Galapagos. The people returned with a throne made of metal and a person who is probably Hawaiian. You will find mention of Gene Savoy and Gary Buchanan who found cities with buildings nine stories high at the 8,000 foot level of the Andes. They built one of those Phoenician designed ships they found drawings of there - and almost made it to Hawaii.

The discussion about ancient Chinese coming to the Americas is a no-brainer. There is a book titled 1482 that demonstrates one era of such voyages. DNA maps prove the Ainu (like Kennewick Man) are the people who populated all of the Pacific. It is recent proof of what I wrote over a decade ago but it also can take us to a lot more interesting things including who interbred humans to make the Denisovan Man near their homeland - and the DNN (D'Ainu) or white people such as the red-heads on Easter Island's Moa.

The Incas and The Prince of Palenque

David Pratt, Gloria Farley and Dillehay, Guidon, Jesse Jennings and a thousand more all prove up to 200,000 years of travel to the Americas from all over the world. Pratt says 2,000,000. I support that but usually stick to the 1 million (I put the link to this in the other thread - not one person read as far as I can tell) which has a lot more proof, as each 100,000 years less is discussed I have ten times the proof.

The Ancient Americas (1)

If nobody is really "indigenous" then how do we look at land claims? I've heard so many conflicting opinions. I've heard it expressed by some natives that ownership of land was a "white man's" concept and that the land belonged to their great spirit(s). I've also heard that is not true and that some kind of documents exist prior to "white man" arriving that indicate land was divided up between tribes. It's not clear whether that involved ownership, or simply hunting and fishing rights. I've never actually seen these alleged documents. Does some tribe west of the Rockies get to lay claim on the rest of North America because they were there first, even though they had no idea about the scale of the continent? Should people alive now be bound by outdated contracts made by generations past that they have no relationship to? I know these are all contentious issues. What is your opinion on them?

 

[DaveM]

If nobody is really "indigenous" then how do we look at land claims? I've heard so many conflicting opinions. I've heard it expressed by some natives that ownership of land was a "white man's" concept and that the land belonged to their great spirit(s). I've also heard that is not true and that some kind of documents exist prior to "white man" arriving that indicate land was divided up between tribes. It's not clear whether that involved ownership, or simply hunting and fishing rights. I've never actually seen these alleged documents. Does some tribe west of the Rockies get to lay claim on the rest of North America because they were there first, even though they had no idea about the scale of the continent? Should people alive now be bound by outdated contracts made by generations past that they have no relationship to? I know these are all contentious issues. What is your opinion on them?

Many of the tribes you referred to were rounded up after the battle at Little Big Horn. Most of these Native Americans were placed on reservations. We can see the results of the white man's efforts to secure the lands west of the Mississippi.

The whites basically took what they wanted by force of arms and gave the Indians worthless documents. Even today, after the Native Americans have discovered minerals on reservation land, the whites would love to get their hands on that as well. Can you blame the Indians for not trusting the American government?

 

[Randall]

Many of the tribes you referred to were rounded up after the battle at Little Big Horn. Most of these Native Americans were placed on reservations. We can see the results of the white man's efforts to secure the lands west of the Mississippi.

The whites basically took what they wanted by force of arms and gave the Indians worthless documents. Even today, after the Native Americans have discovered minerals on reservation land, the whites would love to get their hands on that as well. Can you blame the Indians for not trusting the American government?

All true. But then again ( and I'm not taking sides here ), tribes also fought among themselves and had their own wars. They weren't all perfectly at peace and in harmony with each other all the time, and their combat was as messy as any other barbaric warring tribes. So the "white-man" comes along and was just better at it, and ultimately won. So maybe it's also fair to say these tribes are just resentful because they lost, and if the situation been reversed, where the native Americans had been the ones in the early industrial age, rather than barely out of stone age, it's just as likely that the "white-man" would have been the losers, with the Native Americans taking over Europe. Now there's a thought.

 

[DaveM]

All true. But then again ( and I'm not taking sides here ), tribes also fought among themselves and had their own wars. They weren't all perfectly at peace and in harmony with each other all the time, and their combat was as messy as any other barbaric warring tribes. So the "white-man" comes along and was just better at it, and ultimately won. So maybe it's also fair to say these tribes are just resentful because they lost, and if the situation been reversed, where the native Americans had been the ones in the early industrial age, rather than barely out of stone age, it's just as likely that the "white-man" would have been the losers, with the Native Americans taking over Europe. Now there's a thought.

If I read you properly, you are saying that 'might makes right.' If you were rounded up and made to live in undesirable lands, I would imagine you might be very resentful. I don't exactly see your point other than the Native Americans are sore losers.

 

[Robert Baird]

There are many eras - before De Soto there were an estimated 70 million people in North America - over 400 tribes. Within 100 years the population was 2 million due to de-pop by WMD (not Fort Pitt which was much later) - I have mentioned - The Plague. I have mentioned I have confessions, motives, means and proof it was also used to de-pop or weed out many in Europe. There they used Flagellants going to ghettoes. In America you can look at De Soto's meanderings to put him in touch with the largest number of people. He spent a lot of time with the Alabamans who no longer exist.

I have proof at Lithia Springs of Mayans there - but also at Poverty Point. This is where the atl-atl weapon system originates according to Professor Jesse Jennings - over 10,000 years ago
Atl-atl weapons and the beginning of tools
. It may be Mayax (Churchward) - or the submerged site off Cuba which side scan sonar shows Pyramidal or megalithic urban buildings like Yonaguni. That site has what might be Luwian script related to Tokharian of Urumchi but Luwian is Cretan - one of the main centres for the Keltoi through many millennia - see Osirian culture. Poverty Point is what ties in with the Canadian Encyclopedia's date for the origin of the Iroquois though they do not specify how - I do. Many names - many places for the Red Headed League of Megalith Builders I first got to know from Conan Doyle who spoke the Phoenician language of his native Cornwall.

It goes like this - Poverty Point (dwarves found by Barry Fell in Kentucky - 600 if I recall) and Phoenicians after the Mississippi formed as the route for the Lake Superior metals. Before that they were around Wisconsin and the University there has Professor Shercz (sp) who shows maps to the northern route were Thulean white like the Beothuk worked for them and moved to L'Anse L'Amour in 5500 BCE His student and AIA member Joan Price has written a book detailing how the Fox and Sauk tribes came from the Taklamakand desert (Urumchi) which before it was a desert was probably the Mediterranean. The one we know was created around the same time as the glacial melt created the North Sea. Then they are the Adena and Hopewell (Mound people) and when they split in the 11th Century AD to become Sioux and Iroquois the eastern region Megwi are studied and documented by Richardson in upstate NY. Here are other names and facts you can browse for. Melungeon, Figuig, Bat Creek, Davenport stele, Prince Madoc, Silverbell, Acambaro, Hueyatlaco, Leakey at Calico and the Salton Sea, Inyo, etc.

Talking about Sitting Bull and other white Indians (DNA proves the Sioux and Iroquoian are white rather than Asian) he had my great great and maybe another great grandfather's Papal Medal when he died in Canada or the reservation there. I think Myles Keogh gave it to him despite the possibility it was taken at Little Big Horn - his horse was Commanche - the Johnny Horton song. Sitting Bull like Joseph Brant and his father are all in league with the invaders - and all Mediwiwin are like Masons. In various places for many millenia I have ritual tables and paraphernalia proving the Masonic tyypes were here. Lake Huron - Hungry Hall per Walter Kenyon. Near Topper where in earlier times 50,000 years ago according to Goodyear.

Topper

On and on - those deals made for wampum and all the nonsense about land contracts - pure fictional crap. Yes, the Keltic worldwide brotherhood had well documented sharing of land - nature was god and no one owned God. Those laws of land use have the Keltic Longhouse ladies owning the leaseholds of land for the Iroquois and only when war was a factor did the men become in charge. Kehoe traces the sweat lodge technology - others the Ertebolle pottery - I may be mixing some names - I think you need to read the links to get a lot more - then ask questions and I will provide more. If not all you are doing is having a chat about fictions like 'natives. - and their rights which will lead no where but into the paradigm lie of Manifest Destiny and Sovereign Rights borne of Divine Rights.

Still waiting for evidence someone is interested in learning. Quote facts or thoughts rather than mouthing myths and normal media lies.

 

[Randall]

If I read you properly, you are saying that 'might makes right.' If you were rounded up and made to live in undesirable lands, I would imagine you might be very resentful. I don't exactly see your point other than the Native Americans are sore losers.

I wasn't making any moral judgements. Just making observations and asking questions. The conquering and exploitation of weaker cultures has gone on since the dawn of human history, and like I said, the Native Americans weren't always at peace with each other. So if using war to gain power and control was OK for them, why should they be given some kind of immunity from it? They got into a war and lost. It's just history. Don't blame "the white man". That's as racist as blaming the Native Americans or the Africans or whatever race happens to be the winners or the losers. Instead, leave race out of it and blame greed and corruption and the worst of human nature. Otherwise all that we're doing is reinforcing the walls that divide the races rather than finding ways to bridge that divide.

 

[Robert Baird]

Kingdom of the Saguenay


Some authors interpret that the mention of white men in woollens is important and others skip the matter. I think the words of Donnacona were true at first but after his kids were kidnapped and other shenanigans up to and including baptisms he realized these foreigners were not at all to be trusted. They were used to many Basque and other visitors including Norse and Irish (Norumbega etc.). We know this now so it is funny to read official accounts that try to make it seem like Cartier discovered North America or this region of it. Back in Europe there was something like the race to the moon flag-planting going on to claim the region and the Treaty of Tordesillas claimed the Pope had the right to split the whole world into his vassal states. But that is Rodrigo Borgia of the original crime family according to the recent mini-series. They aren't original though they were criminal. Jean Cabot actually never even reached the St. Lawrence probably and he wasn't English either but it served the English need to lay claim to the region. The intrigues continued and there was a period when it was thought prudent to have the Masons rule the land. Don't laugh - look up the Whig Party in the US later on.

This author told a lot of truth in his large and extensive research including manufacture and trans-shipment points for copper and metal ores being shipped back to Europe - Morrison's Island 1 and 6. They are separate archaeological digs on the Petawawa River which was one route to Lake Superior's great ores that had been known to a few people for many millennia (check out the Old Copper Culture and Isle Royale). He is quoted in my work as he notices the traditions and usages of Europe are all over the place. I got to talk with him and thank him just before he died of Cancer.

Google Books - Punch in Donnaconna and woollens to get to the part of this book which leads to true history rather than the half-baked indian stories told by those in league with the Government of today who ripped off and genocidally attacked a better government before out recent false history and Columbus - which you guys want to talk about rather than the topic of the thread.

Children of Aataentsic, The | McGill-Queen’s University Press


If you look for Frederick Pohl you might find an historian who had to tell truth in fictional presentations for a long time. But he was telling truth and other historians were schlepping fiction to make nations seem justified in Manifest Destiny designs. Their work can often still be found in libraries and schools - telling major lies and selling prejudices galore - I refer you to Diamond Jenness and all so many reprints talking about savages and primitives and other crud.

http://andywoodruff.com/blog/norumbe...s-and-vikings/


In this link we have Michael Bradley who was in bad health and of poor moral fibre when I was helping him out and he participated (before I had him banned for inappropriate sexual advances towards a woman) in a forum assisting my work. When he seems to be attacking Jewish political manipulations of DNA evidence - you should know he changed his name and was raised a Jew. But that does not mean he is not telling a lot of truth or that his work is not worth checking into, I notice a lot of what we were covering has been added to his previous work that did an excellent job of showing Kingston, Ontario had Europeans in the late 14th C. by evidence from the Ministry of Natural Resources doing a phosphate (detergent pollution study) analysis. This is where the woollens mentioned above were seen by the Stadacona Indians headed by Donnacona, who might not be as much Iroquois as they were cross-breeds of a more recent vintage - all Iroquois have Haplogroup X and Y markers showing they are Europods. That would make them Metis.

Memprhemagog

Please remember that a whole lot of what you might read under titles like Prophecy or Revealed truth will in the end be simple appeals to ego in hopes of personal gain and aggrandizement. Book of Prophecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Prehistoric Worldwide Import of the Great Lakes



This is the Table of Contents for my book on the Old Copper Culture surrounding the pure orichalcum or copper of Lake Superior.

CHAPTER ONE: From 'Hell' and Back.

- The Canadian Encyclopedia says: "The ancestors of the Iroquois can be traced backwards in New York State by archaeological evidence to at least 500 BC. And possibly as far back as 4,000 BC. The distinctive Iroquois culture of the historic period seems to have developed by about 1000 AD." In order to take the Iroquois back to 4000 BC one has to find the Megwi and Adena before them were once people who lived in Poverty Point where Eurasiatic technology existed and tall people thrived in the Keltic mound building tradition.

CHAPTER TWO: Manitou's Mounds and Mississippi Mud.

- Professor Jesse Jennings wrote what the Smithsonian called 'authoritative' and in its third edition says: "...are all the high cultures of the New World resultant from a diffusion of ideas, customs, artifacts, and religious-social practices of the OLD WORLD?"
- He also says: "Even more unusual at the two sites was the microflint work. The industry involved the striking of long, prismatic flakes from egg-shaped flint nodules or cores in a manner reminiscent of Eurasiatic Mesolithic industries."

Diverse Druids

Many embedded trails to whet the appetite in this link.


Mystical Islam - Idries Shah and nore - Vigilant Citizen Forums