The Life of Jesus: The Three Kings

Ye may remember from The Life of Jesus how astronomer Michael Molnar was able to determine that Jesus was born on 17 April 6 BC using ancient Roman coins depicting the star pattern at the time. A conjunction of all the planets, especially Jupiter and the Sun in the constellation Aries, prompted the wise men from the Bible to go looking for the infant Jesus. Molnar, along with Egyptologist Bob Brier, reason that the wise men, or magi, were Parthian astrologers, and their skulls may have been discovered by Constantine's mother Helena and they may be kept in the Cologne Cathedral.

The Alexandria Project

Has the body of Alexander the Great been discovered in an Egyptian monastery?



Stephan A. Schwartz has used remote viewing to locate many archaeological finds that were believed to have been lost. In one project in Alexandria, Egypt, Prof. Schwartz and his team may have made the discovery of the millennium, the location of the bones of Alexander the Great. He is working on getting permission from the Egyptian government to do DNA tests on the bones, located at the Monastery of Saint Macarius in Wadi El Natrun to see if the skeleton that was discovered using remote viewing is the body.

The Joe Rogan Experience with Graham Hancock

Joe Rogan talks with Graham Hancock about ancient civilisations, the ice age, psychadelics, the war on drugs, and why the power elite don't want us asking questions about deep antiquity. Runs 2 hours.

Was Atlantis in Bolivia?

This 10 minute video details Jim Allen's hypothesis that Atlantis was located in Bolivia. IT goes quickly, so you may have to stop and start it often. The evidence is circumstantial. 1. There was definitely a very large civilisation in South America that left behind ruins, 2. Pre-Columbian travel between the old and new world really happened, and 3. that ancient South American civilisation bears a resemblance to the description of Atlantis in Plato's dialogues, but while 1 and 2 are established facts, 3 is an inference alone. The resemblance might well be coincidental. There may or may not be issues with the dating of these sites, I don't know, I haven't looked into it too carefully. The video is worth watching and, as always, I recommend you form your own opinions.

The Pyramid Deception

There is a lie that is oft perpetuated by archaeologists who are members of the scientistic magisterium. It is claimed that prior to the invention of modern building techniques and materials the ONLY way to build tall structures was to build a pyramid, and that's why pyramids were built by many ancient civilisations. This is a lie on its face.



It was entirely possible to build tall towers with straight walls. Below I provide numerous examples. It is important to address a small issue right away before proceeding. Many towers do have tapering sides. That does not negate my thesis for two reasons.



1. The taller a structure rises the more it must deal with wind resistance, as winds are stronger the higher up you go. The best solution, as seen in modern buildings such as the Burj Khalifa, is to taper the building as you go up. No one would claim that a tower like the Burj Khalifa or the Empire State Building are pyramids, but they do taper to reduce the surface area that is being bombarded by heavy winds.



2. Reducing the thickness of the walls as you go up allows you to build much taller. The base of any structure can only support a finite weight before collapsing. If you taper the structure you can make it taller than if you kept the walls a uniform thickness.



Since I intend to demonstrate that it was possible to build tall towers using pre-modern construction techniques and materials, I will only list pre-modern structures, those built before 1500.



When people think of pyramids they probably think of the Great Pyramid, and who knows how that thing was built? Maybe it was aliens. Probably not, but if ancient aliens didn't exist then how did they build everything? What people don't know is that most pyramids are nowhere near that impressive. Pyramids, for the most part, are just heaps of rubble and earth faced with stone. This is how the pyramids of the Americas were built. It's not all that difficult to create a big heap of dirt and put stones on top. While the Great Pyramid is 455 feet tall, the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico only stands at 216 feet. Pyramids throughout southern Egypt and Sudan are usually no taller than 60 feet.



The Minaret of Jam

In 1190 in central Afghanistan the Ghurid kings built a brick minaret 203 feet tall. Before anyone says "Bricks? Bricks are modern, build it out of stone!" I will point out that the ziggurats of Babylon, some of the earliest pyramids in the world, were built not of stone, but of fired bricks.  The minaret is composed of five sections, each smaller than the other, but each section itself has very straight sides.



The Qutub Minar

1220. The Sultan of Delhi, taking inspiration from the Minaret of Jam, dismantled several Hindu temples to make a 240 foot tall victory minaret. This tower does taper quite a bit, but it is far from a pyramid. It is a tower much like a lighthouse, also with five sections, built without steam power or steel cranes.



The Towers of the Himalaya

Throughout eastern Tibet and south-western China, there are hundreds of stone towers built, it is thought, within a 400 year period around 1400. It is believed they were built by numerous different civilisations for different purposes, family pride, signal towers, protection from Mongol invasions, etc. Most are between 100 and 200 feet tall, with straight sides, and either rectilinear or star-shaped bases.



The Towers of Bologna

The rich families of Bologna, in terror of vendettas, built tall towers to spy on one another. Of the hundred or more towers in the city, the most famous are known as the Two Towers. Built of stone, brick, and wood, the towers are believed to have been built on average over ten years. The shorter Garisenda Tower stands at 159 feet and leans heavily to one side. It was much taller, but the top had to be removed to prevent collapse. The taller Asinelli Tower is 323 feet and overlooks its shorter neighbor. Both were built between 1109 to 1185.



Lincoln Cathedral

The medieval cathedrals were built over many centuries, using man-powered cranes and often had to be rebuilt numerous times due to collapse. There are a few very tall cathedrals, some even taller than the Great Pyramid, but, while most were started centuries ago, most were not finished until the late 19th century. This disqualifies them from this list. One very prominent exception is Lincoln Cathedral. Built in 1311, the central spire rose to 525 feet high, towering over the Great Pyramid even at its greatest, before erosion and thieves stole some of its height. A heavy storm tore down the spire in 1549, but the parts of the tower still remaining stood at 271 feet high. With dead straight walls, it is impossible to claim that the only means of reaching fantastic heights was to build pyramids.



So far all these examples have been from the ADs, a good three thousand years after the Great Pyramid was built. This might turn some people off. "We want ANCIENT towers, not merely pre-modern towers! It was IMPOSSIBLE! Pyramids were inevitable!!!!1"



I've saved the best for last.



The Lighthouse of Alexandria

The original Seventh Wonder of the World. Built in 280 BC, the lighthouse stood at Alexandria Harbor, the gateway to the greatest city in the world, built by Alexander the Great himself and governed by his general Ptolemy. Built in three sections, with very gently sloping walls, the lighthouse rose to at least 400 feet high, almost as tall as the Great Pyramid itself! The tower stood until 1480, only 12 years before Columbus' history altering voyage, when it was dismantled to built the fort at Qaitbay by the Sultan of Egypt.








People were capable of building tall towers before modern construction, they were not required to build pyramids. There was nothing to stop ancient people from building perfect vertical walls, yet many decided to still build pyramids. Why? We don't know. The ubiquity of pyramids all over the world is a truly unexplained mystery.



It is interesting that the same people who say that to suggest a lost civilisation such as Atlantis or alien intervention is to insult the intelligence of the brown people who made these monuments, themselves insult the intelligence of ancient peoples by suggesting that the ONLY way to build tall structures was to build pyramids. It is another sign of the hypocrisy of these people.



You can't explain away why ancient people all over the world built
pyramids. Why did people all over the world build pyramids? Say it with
me, it's my favourite phrase: "WE DO NOT KNOW." We do not know. I am not here to propose an alternate hypothesis, merely to disprove the predominant hypothesis that pyramids exist all over the world because people were too stupid to build straight sided towers. I have provided you with six examples of ancient towers, now you can let the pyramid deception die.

Oldest Quran Yet Discovered

Fragments from the Quran were discovered in Birmingham and have been dated to around the time of Muhammad's birth, or slightly before.

Keith Small, from the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library, added: "This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven."



This is more evidence in support of the hypothesis that the text of the Quran comes from Syriac Christian sources in the Negev that were altered by Muhammad or someone else to justify the Arab conquest of the region. This is why the sites associated with early Islam are being destroyed by the Saudi government and others, not to prevent people from worshipping at Muhammad's birthplace, but to hide the fact that the religion of Islam was created after the political movement had established itself, to to distance it from its Christian and Jewish roots.

The Hidden History Of The Human Race

A 45 minute video composed of bits and pieces of interviews with Michael Cremo from the 1990s about how the scientistic magisterium deliberately lies about human antiquity. Includes information on Virginia Steen-McIntyre and the controversy in Hueyatlaco, Mexico.

The Myth of Cultural Relativity

Why is it that on every video about Egypt, or archaeology in general, there has to be someone who leaves a comment about racialism? "You don't think [insert minority here] was smart enough to create something on their own! You're racialist!"

The truth of the matter is, most people in the world were not smart enough to do things on their own. People from Eurasia, and Egypt, did invent a whole lot, and had achieved a whole lot, and everyone else in the world was pretty much stuck in the stone age until the 18th century when they were dragged kicking and screaming into modernity.

People in North America did not have wheels, few had any form of record keeping, and those who had a limited usage of metal used it for ornamental purposes, not for anything practical. However impressive the accomplishments of the Maya or the Peruvian peoples, those accomplishments were all equivalent to things Eurasians had done many thousands of years earlier. Megalithic cairns dating back over 10,000 years map out precise astronomical alignments. While Egyptian pyramids were made from enormous blocks of cut stone, Mesoamerican pyramids were mostly made of rubble, only faced with stone. There were people in the Americas who built tumuli (earthen mounds), even up to probably 1500, while Eurasians had advanced beyond this thousands of years earlier. Not all cultures are equivalent, not scientifically, not technologically, not philosophically, not artistically, and not morally.

I don't think there is anyone who would argue that all breeds of dog are equivalent. Some dogs run really fast, others are exceptional at hunting waterfowl, others are useful for military work. No one would argue that all dogs are equivalent. And yet, somehow, there are some people who manage to think that all humans are equivalent. Some humans are exceptional at metal work, and philosophy, and construction, and hydrology, and navigation, and agriculture, and science, and they almost all come from the same areas. And some humans are great at making mud huts, and they pretty much live everywhere else.

The mistake is to separate humans from the natural world and make equal that which is not. As groups of humans separated geographically breed, just like dogs, different traits are passed on. Some breeds of human accumulate more beneficial traits than others, just like dogs. Some dogs (created in modern times by sick humans) have severe physical deformities that are a terrible detriment to their health. Some dogs are so deformed they cannot even breed without human intervention. The same is true with humans. Certain groups of humans are really short, others have developed the ability to digest milk into adulthood, some can run for days without tiring, and some groups of humans are incredibly smart. But for some reason while it is perfectly fine to talk about how breeding affects dogs, people get up in arms when anyone talks about breeding in humans.

I'm not talking about intrinsic human-ness, I'm not saying other groups of people should be enslaved or exterminated, as people who feel instead of think have already assumed my argument is and have stopped reading. Stupid people are just as human as smart people, just as small deformed dogs are just as dog as reasonable-sized healthy dogs. It's just that stupid people are not as smart as smart people, and so one would find it a lot more difficult to believe that a group of stupid people would be able to create more advanced structures than a group of smart people. That's what the whole issue is. It is easier to believe that certain cultures with long histories of great achievements could create certain monuments with their technology than it is to believe another culture could do the same with much more primitive technology and no suitable record of achievements. It's logic, not feelings. Try using it.

Islam: The Untold Story

Tom Holland's documentary film on the early history if Islam. In the 7th century the Arabs came out of nowhere, taking advantage of war and plague that devastated the Roman and Persian empires, conquering most of the known world, but there is very little evidence that these early Arab conquerors were motivated by Islam. Who was the real Muhammad? How was the Quran first written? How much of the official origin story of Islam is real and how much was invented after the fact, a century or more later, to justify the conquests of the Arabs generations earlier? It's well known that the Saudi government has been destroying early Islamic sites for years, including a house that was claimed to be the birthplace of Muhammad. Why would a people willfully erase their own history, unless there is something they are trying to hide?



Tom Holland suggests that the true origins of Islam and Muhammad came not from Arabia, but from the Negev, and it was not until much later that the Mecca story was invented to further distance Islam from Christianity and Judaism. This could explain why the early sites are being destroyed, not because of the danger of idolatry, but because those sites were fakes, built centuries later, and the Wahhabis in the Saudi government don't want anyone - especially devout Muslims - from discovering that the buildings and cemeteries date from well after the life of Muhammad and his companions. It could also explain why the Quran makes more sense when read in Syriac (the language used in the Negev and Sinai at the time) than when read in Arabic.



Runs 71 minutes.







In case of further questions, the author of the program has written a follow up article addressing various criticisms.

Pyramid Secrets Revealed

Jean-Pierre Houdin, French architect, quit his job and sold his home so he could devote himself 24 hours a day for five years to solve the mystery of how the Great Pyramid was built. The result of all that work is probably the only credible hypothesis anyone has ever come up with. Working with Egyptologist Bob Brier, Houdin visits Egypt to look for evidence of his internal ramp hypothesis and does not leave empty handed. It turns out there is a lot of supporting evidence of an internal ramp. Houdin's hypothesis also explains the mystery of the Grand Gallery, a feature that appears in no other pyramid. He proposes that a series of sledges holding heavy counterweights were placed inside the Grand Gallery, permitting a handful of men to lift the mammoth 60 tonne granite stones found in the King's Chamber, a feat that would have been impossible to achieve with manpower alone. Houdin's hypothesis also explains the meaning of the machines that were said to be used to construct the pyramid. It turns out the whole structure was one giant machine after all, designed to build itself from the inside out. No aliens are required to explain the pyramid and our intelligence is not insulted with fanciful notions of thousands of men hauling stones up a giant ramp that would be many times larger than the pyramid itself.



Runs 51 minutes.

The Lost Island

Many islands appear on old maps that correspond to nothing at all. This leads modern "scholars" to dismiss everything that appears on antique maps. However some of these islands fit too neatly with existing landmasses to dismiss as myth. One of them is Antillia.



Antillia is a large, mostly rectangular island with a peninsula at the one end, with its long axis oriented North-South. It has seven prominent bays along its coast. Here is an old map of Antillia compared to a modern CIA map of Puerto Rico. It can be seen that the two islands are very similar in shape.








The Portugese were early explorers who rediscovered many islands, including the Azores in the early 15th century. Their navagation methods were not very sophisticated at the time, and they miscalculated the size of the Earth (it IS a myth that people in the Early Modern Period thought the Earth was flat. It had been known since Hellenistic times that the Earth was a sphere.). The distance from the Azores to Antillia was estimated at 1,400 kilometers, whereas the actual distance between the Azores and Puerto Rico is 4,500 kilometers, putting them off by a factor of three.



If you sail in a straight line from Portugal to Puerto Rico you would approach the island from the North East. The island, as viewed directly from Portugal, would appear to be oriented with the long axis vertical (North-South), as it appears on early maps identified as Antillia. Portugese explorers are said to have discovered (or rediscovered even, as many stories attribute the original discovery to Arab sailers 700 years prior) Antillia in the 1420s, more than 70 years before Columbus in 1493.



Columbus planned his voyages based on maps from earlier Portugese sailers. It is no coincidence he landed where he did, in the West Indies. He was headed in the direction of Antillia on those maps. Antillia was what Columbus was looking for, not India, not China, not Indonesia. It is no coincidence that Columbus arrived at Puerto Rico during his second voyage, it was intentional.



In some maps a chain of islands appear in an arc along the long axis of Antillia, to the "South". When we reorient the map these islands correspond very closely to the chain of islands known today as the Lesser Antilles. These too are real islands.








If we look at a polar projection of the Earth we can see the Caribbean as it would appear from Portugal if the Earth was flat like a map. The islands are now situated vertically. Similarly Antillia is depicted on maps as being a large, rectangular island oriented with its long axis running slightly off from vertical at roughly the same latitude as Portugal. On the polar projection we can see Puerto Rico is a largely rectangular island, with its long axis situated nearly vertically, at roughly the same latitude as Portugal.



Early maps depicting Antillia were navigational charts. They did not attempt to accurately depict the shape of the Earth as a sphere, but provided an estimate of distances and directions for ships' pilots. Early maps were far from accurate. Florida and California were both depicted as islands at first, and Ceylon was placed to the West of India, instead of the East where it really is. Accuracy of distances decreased the farther from the mainland a ship traveled. This can be seen with the position of the Azores islands, with the error in distance increasing with the farther islands. The distance to the Azores are often underestimated. The same is true with Antillia, which is placed three times closer to Europe than the Caribbean is in reality.



On some maps directly above Antillia (to the West on our reoriented polar projection) is another large island called Satanazes. Sometimes there are four islands depicted. There are four larger islands in the Caribbean (Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico), along with numerous smaller ones.



The identification with Antillia and the islands surrounding it with the islands of the Caribbean is nothing new. It has been a stubborn hypothesis from the very beginning of the age of exploration. On his 1492 globe German mariner and geographer Martin Behaim placed Antilia along the Tropic of Cancer, just slightly to the north of Cuba. Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, a Spanish historian writing in 1511, explicitly states that Columbus reached Antillia on his voyages.



Early 19th century German geographer Johann Georg Heinrich Hassel posited the same hypothesis in 1822 and late 19th early 20th century American lawyer, writer, and historian William H. Babcock was published in the peer reviewed Geographical Review detailing the Antillia in the Caribbean hypothesis. He also wrote a book about the subject, that was published the year he died.



Cuba appears to be the most popular candidate for historians and geographers. Personally, with its location and very blocky shape, I identify Antillia with Puerto Rico. It just fits. It fits a lot better than old maps of Scandinavia or China or maps that left out the Arabian peninsula entirely. The shape, position, and location of the islands of Antillia on old maps fits well with the four large islands of the Caribbean. And it is by no means impossible to suggest that the Portuguese discovered these islands 70 years prior to Columbus. The New World had already been visited by the Vikings in the year AD 1000. Hanno the Navigator explored the coast of Africa up to Cameroon in 500 BC. Pre-Columbian Atlantic travel was not only possible, it is historical fact.



Another "lost" island, seen in the picture, is Brasil, also known as Hy-Brasil. You can read more about it in the picture, and here.

The First Mystics

The Aboriginal Australians possess the oldest extant culture in the world, dating back at least 40,000 years, and possibly extending 100,000 years into the past or more. Theirs is the oldest unbroken lineage of mystics. In their tradition the Dreamtime is a realm beyond space and time where the past, present, and future coexist simultaneously in a seamless wholeness. Through practice they are able to locate subterranean water, navigate through inhospitable wastelands to find food and shelter, heal the sick, and travel out of the body. Their highest deity is the Rainbow Serpent, a mother goddess who may be related to the Kundalini subtle energy currents in the spine, depicted as a serpent in the Hindu traditions.

Leonard Nimoy hosts a program about the history and mysticism of the first Australians. Runs 45 minutes.

The Sealed Books

70 lead books may be the earliest Christian documents, written years before Paul's letters, the oldest of which is dated to AD 51 (just 18 years after the crucifixion). If they prove to be authentic these books will be the most significant archaeological discovery since the Dead Sea Scrolls. The books make reference to a messiah and possibly crucifixion and resurrection. Some of the books are sealed with wires, and it is speculated that they may be the sealed books referred to in Revelation.

This is where the story gets really really scary. The books were found in Jordan and smuggled into Israel and the Jordanian government wants the books back. British scientists are working with the Jordanians to recover the books.

Here's why this is scary. One word: Jahiliyyah.


It is a key Islamic doctrine that NOTHING EXISTED BEFORE ISLAM.
The Caliphate was the first state to ever erase its own history. The destruction of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan in 2001 was one of the most recent examples of this practice in action. Any and all artefacts that display sophisticated cultural heritage before a place was conquered by Islam must be destroyed. The Islamic authorities who control the Temple Mount in Jerusalem have conducted numerous illegal digs and have destroyed untold quantities of priceless archaeological treasures to eliminate any legitimacy the state of Israel might have.

If the Jordanians get a hold of these priceless relics any contribution to the world's understanding of history and culture in the first century will be destroyed.

Dating Creation

Taking the geneologies found in the Masoritic Text and fitting them together with an estimate of when the Exodus occured, we might be able to figure out when the Bible places the creation of the world. From Adam to Moses, we can construct the following chart:



Patriarch    Born    Died

Adam           1*          931

Seth             131      1043

Enosh          236      1141

Kenan          326      1236

Mahalalel     396      1291

Jared           461      1423

Enoch          623      988 ("Walked with God")

Methuselah 688      1657 (Died seven days before the flood)

Lamech      875      1652

Noah           1057    2007    1657 = The Flood

Shem          1557    2157

Arphaxad    1657    2095

Shelah        1692    2125

Eber           1722    2195

Peleg          1756    1995

Reu             1786    2025

Sherug        1818    2048

Nahor          1848    1996

Terah           1877    2152

Abraham     1947    2222

Isaac           2047    2267

Jacob          2107    2254



Some interesting things appear when we view this data in chart form. Lamech was the last patriarch to see Adam alive (he died 126 years before Noah was born). Noah not only outlived his great-great-great grandson, he also outlived his great-great-great-great-great-great grandson Nahor, who died quite young (relatively speaking). Abraham also had 215 years to get to know Noah, and so he had a direct testimony of the flood. Key events from creation to when the Israelites enter Egypt are not more than two people removed.



Moses was 80 years old when the Exodus happened, which took place exactly 430 years after the Israelites (Jacob's family) entered Egypt, when Jacob was age 130. Meaning:



2237 = Israelites enter Egypt

2667 = Exodus

Time spent in Egypt = 430 Years (to the day)



Moses died at age 120. From this we can calculate the dates of Moses' life:



Moses    2587    2707



I've estimated before that the Exodus** happened around 1550 BC. 1550 BC now becomes 2667 after the beginning of the sixth day (yom).This would mean Adam was created in the year 4217 BC. The world, according to this calculation, would be 6,230 years and 5 unspecified yom old.



Solomon's temple was supposedly built exactly 480 years after the Exodus, or year 3147 AA (After Adam), or 1070 BC according to my estimate. This was the fourth year of Solomon's reign, so he became king in 3143 AA, or 1074 BC. His father, David, reigned for 40 years with Solomon being his immediate successor. David became king at age 30, so he lived a total of 70 years. This places his life at 3073 - 3143 (he had Solomon the year of his death, apparently) or 1144 - 1074 BC. This is about a hundred years before he is traditionally placed.



Of course, all this rests on the accuracy of one date: the date of the Exodus. That said, I think it is fairly accurate. I don't know if there was an Adam who lived 6,000 years ago (pretty close to the start of the Egyptian calendar), or what event from 2560 BC would count as the flood (around the time when the Great Pyramid was supposed to have been built). I have no idea what any of this is actually calculating. Sure, there was an Abraham, and the Israelites did settle in Egypt, but what happened before is anyone's guess. It does, however, make for an interesting day's work.









*For some reason many people seems to start counting with a year zero. I have no idea how to count zero years. The current Jewish calendar starts counting with year one (the first five days of creation) and says Adam was created on the first day of year two. Since there is no way to know how long, exactly, those first five days were, I'm going to put Adam's creation at the start of year one.



**Going by the Hebrew calendar, which currently places us in year 5773, Exodus happened 1126 BC,

Ancient Aliens

A more accomplished inventor than Edison, a more sinister killer than Hitler.



Back in 2009 I watched a program on what was then called The History Channel (now just History, which is ironic as it no longer has anything to do with history but is instead reality shows about ambiguously gay garbage men and all sorts of utter crap) called Ancient Aliens. At the time it was the most viewed program ever aired on The History Channel (over 2 million views). The program presented speculation that many of the things ancient people built, supposedly with one foot still in the stone age, which modern technology cannot replicate (the Great Pyramid took 23 years to build, supposedly by thousands of people pulling stones along a ramp that would have stretched for several miles and contained several times the voulme of material as the pyramid itself, and with the entire world's supply of boom cranes it would take at least 100 years to build and cost more money than the GNP of most countries; the Stone of the Pregnant Woman at Baalbek weighs over 1000 tonnes and does not have enough surface area to attach sufficient ropes for it to be moved), and proposes that it is possible that extraterrestrials visited Earth and had some role in these astonishing accomplishments.



From there it degenerated into idiots claiming that absolutely everything in the universe was done by ET, and has retconned itself at least once.



According to the man with the hair, show producer and host Giorgio Tsoukalos (according to wiki his day job is running an ET themed amusement park, which sounds wicked cool until you realise that it's probably all desk work and meeting with people with deep pockets), all the world's religions were started as cargo cults by ET (because things like God/gods, angels, and anything nonphysical is laughable on its face, and because no one ever used entheogens until the 1960s), every single artefact "looks surprisingly like" some modern machine which isn't the least bit odd considering that ET is supposedly millions of years more advanced than humans and yet is using Apollo era technology, ET started the American Revolution and was in communication with the Free Masons, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and maybe gave Sam Adams the recipe for beer, ET was behind the works of Shakespere and Leonardo da Vinci (because if you use a computer to distort da Vinci's paintings you can make ET heads or something), ET is responsible for every war in history, selects every US President, and mines the atmosphere for gold, somehow. Apparently "ancient astronaut theory" is no longer a theory, it's a deus ex machina for everything in the universe (except explaining where ET came from and if there is an even older race of ancient aliens who created the ones that visited Earth, and why the definition of "ancient astronaut theory" keeps changing for every episode).



In Season One ET visited the Earth looking for gold or liquid water (gold being a very heavy element should actually be more abundant on Mercury than Earth, and water is very common throughout the universe and can be found in huge quantities on the outer planets) and they found primitive ape creatures which they infused with ET DNA (or ENA) to make humans to mine the gold. Once they had enough they left until Roswell in 1947.



In the latest episode ET visited the Earth millions of years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs with laser weapons so the planet would be free to grow humans to mine for ratings on History's sister channel H2. The reason this change in ET agenda was never explained.



Here's what Charlie Sheen has to say about Ancient Aliens:

Joshua, Jericho, and Hating Jews

Mahalia Jackson sings about Jericho, as it actually happened, in this 1964 video.




There is a gulf between archaeologists and the truth regarding all things biblical. Take the story of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan. The goal of archaeology seems to seperate the dates of the destruction of Jericho and other Canaan cities and the dates of Joshua and the Exodus as much as possible to discredit the whole story.




Kathleen Kenyon, a British archaeologist who excavated Jericho in the 1950s claims that the city was destroyed circa 1400 BC and that the Exodus occurred in 1250 BC, so the Israelites couldn't have destroyed the city. More recent dating puts the destruction of Jericho at 1550 BC, a full three centuries before the supposed date of the Exodus. The problem could be explained as followes: Suppose archaeologists a thousand years from now want to search for evidence of World War II, but they know with absolute certainty that the fiercest fighting of the war took place between 1744-45. They also don't believe in Nazis. So, when they look through the ruins of the old world they find a battle that took place in 1945, but none during 1745, so they conclude that the war in 1945 was some other war, certainly not World War II, and that the Nazis didn't exist because no evidence could be found for them in the ruins of the 18th century. Modern archaeologists, who don't believe in the Bible and who hate the Jews and Israel say that the Exodus happened in the 13th century BC (which they call BCE, but that's a whole other post) so when Jericho was destroyed in the 16th century it must have been someone else. Maybe it was the Syrians, oops, they call themselves Palestinians now, because we know they are the true and legitimate inhabitants of the land.




But what if the Exodus didn't happen in 1250? What if it did happen closer to 1550? After all, the grain at the city of Jericho and other sites was burned along with the cities, not plundered, just as Joshua told his army to do. Any invading army would plunder the cities they sack, but Joshua told his men not to plunder the sites. The goods of the city belong to God, not the Israelites, so they have to burn, not plunder them. This is exactly what we find, and exactly what would be expected if Joshua destroyed the city, not some fictional people hundreds of years prior. The dates of the destruction of the cities is based on hard evidence, the dates of the Exodus is based on speculation from texts. Speculation is far from evidence. Speculation can be wrong, and the Exodus can be a 16th century event. But why would anyone want to hide the truth?




Scholars claim that the story of the destruction of Jericho is etiological. The Israelites saw the cities, destroyed centuries before they arrived, and invented a fictional story to explain why those cities were destroyed. The story is fake, like all good biblical revisionists and fundamaterialists must believe, but the descriptions of the physical sites are accurate. But why should we believe that the Israelites excavated the cities, destroyed and buried three centuries before they arrived, found the broken walls, found the grain burned and not plundered, and invent a story to explain their finding? Why would a semi-nomadic people invent archaeology, undergo a huge excavation, and then write fiction about what they discovered? This is a far more complex explanation than saying the Exodus happened three centuries earlier than modern revisionists suppose.




The story has to be fake according to the revisionists. They believe there is a war between science and religion where such a war does not exist. They must debunk religion. But debunking isn't something science does, it's something the skep-dicks and TV magicians do. Science is open ended.




Debunking the conquest of Canaan deligitimises the Israelies' claim to the land. Modern liberal racists (~99% of academia) HATE Israel because it is the single light of freedom in the Near East. Liberal racists HATE freedom and every libertine idea. They are statists and Muslim theocracies are very statist regimes. Also, they hate "colonialism," which is what they see Israel as, for two reasons: 1. Israel was created by the British during the end of the colonial period, and 2. Israeli forces in the Syrian, oops, Palestinian territories is seen as a form of colonialism. Colonialism is much hated even though libocrats wouldn't exist without it. If not for colonialism there would be no academia because there would be no rich and powerful colonial powers to set up academies, as colonial powers get their power and wealth from their colonies. Before the rise of the colonial powers all academies were religious, and the libocrats HATE religion, except Islam because it is used by statist regimes, unlike other religions, and libocrats love statism, as all aristocrats do. Libocrats are willing to do anything, especially lie about science, to get rid of Israel and religion.




Well, there does exist an exception. One colony is good: Tibet. Why? Because the Chicoms are communist, and libocrats love communism above everything else in the whole world. China invading, conquering Tibet, and slaughtering one million Tibetans is wonderful to the Libocrats because it is part of the spread of communism.




The same can be said for the Muslim "archaeologists" who control the Temple Mount. They'll say there is no evidence of the Jews being in their "Palestine" at any point in history prior to 1923, the date the British Mandate went into effect. There is no evidence of David or Solomon, nothing to suggest anything but their mosques, designed in the style of the Roman temple to Jupiter at Baalbek, Lebanon, with its hexagonal structure exactly where the Dome of the Rock sits, and its rectangular structure exactly where the Al Aqsa Mosque sits, the space between the two being where the old Herodian Jewish temple was before it was destroyed (see diagram of how the two complexes, Roman and Islamic, look overlayed). These are the same Muslim "archaeologists" who say nothing existed in the Arabian peninsula before Islam, because they destroyed evidence of the Sassanid Persians, who controlled just about the whole area, as well as the countless sophisticated empires who occupied the area for millennia. When these discrepancies are pointed out they smile their asshole smile and laugh their asshole laugh and come up with some horseshit excuse and say "oh, we cannot let Jews onto the Temple Mount or build their temples between ours," leaving out the part where they think to themselves "because we want to exterminate them." You should take notice that 24% of Syrio-Palestinians, which I may start calling them, approve of terrorism against the US, with another 15% being somewhat ambivalent. Yes, the same people who claim the Jews never occupied Israel before 1923 support killing US civilians to achieve political goals. But they're good people, really.























This is why there exists a gulf between mainstream archaeology, which is run by fundamaterialist libocrats, and the true story of the Exodus, which likely did occur in the 16th century. Both groups want to delegitimise Israel, one out of disgust for religion and "colonialism," the other out of a desire to conquer and convert the world. Both create fictitional archaeology to support their claims.






Video, "There was nothing before Islam!

Starchild DNA

The infamous Starchild skull has had a DNA test done, demonstrating that it possesses a long string of DNA that is not found in any known creature. This seems to indicate that it is not human. The scientist who did the test suggests that it is an alien that was implanted into a human mother who gave birth to it on the earth. Why this alien IVF experiment was conducted is anyone's guess. Lloyd Pye, owner of the skull, is now seeking funding to develop a complete sequence of the Starchild's entire genome (it's called the Starchild due to its small size despite later evidence that it was an adult at the time of its death).

The Resurrection

Today is Easter, the day commemorating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the demonstration of his conquest of death. How exactly did this event occur? What led to the rolling away of the stone and the discovery of the empty tomb? Where did the body of Jesus go? There are a few ideas people have put out over the years. I present a few that I know of below with my commentary.



1. Jesus didn't really die, he was given a drug that put him into a comatose state and was later revived by his disciples inside the tomb and the whole story of the resurrection was a hoax. This is the so called "swoon" theory, which is the absolute least likely of them all. It is truly laughable. Anyone who knows anything about the Romans knows that they, perhaps more than any other culture in history, were experts at killint people. Killing people was what they did better than anyone else. If the Romans said Jesus was dead on the cross, he was dead, period. There is no way someone can survive a Roman scourging (120 individual lashes counted on the Shroud of Turin from a flagrum, when some people have been reported having died after five or ten lashes from a normal whip during modern attempts at capital punishment), carrying a heavy cross, being crucified, and then pierced in the heart with a spear. No drug can save someone from all that, and I defy anyone to reproduce the passion and survive as per the "swoon" theory.



2. Jesus really died, but the disciples stole the body then made up the story of the resurrection. This doesn't account for how they got passed the guards stationed at the tomb or how hundreds of people witnessed the risen Christ who were not among the disciples. Besides, where would the put the body and why would the disciples, who all turned away from Jesus when he was being captured, interrogated, and crucified, suddenly decide to preach the resurrection of their teacher at the expense of their own lives (all but one was killed for evangelizing)?



3. Jesus' soul temporarily left his body then returned to it while it lay in the tomb. He would still have to dematerialize his body to get out of the shroud, which was tightly wrapped around his body. This dematerialization might have created the image on the shroud, as speculated by a documentary I saw a few days ago The Real Face of Jesus. I was greatly surprised by this documentary and would classify it as one of the few "documentaries that don't dissapoint on every page." It presented a genuine scientific investigation of the Shroud of Turin that included no snarky quips from debunkers, treated Christianity and belief in the resurrection with respect, and concluded with a computer reconstruction of Jesus' face from the image on the shroud. It is suggested that the dematerialization of Jesus' body may have produced the image in some way; an image that contains no paint, pigment, burn marks, chemicals, or any indication that human hands produced it at all. The shroud is not a photograph, painting, or artwork of any kind. The scientists who worked on it, and were interviewed for the program, made very clear that they did not discover how the image was created, but were able to rule out any conventional or nonconventional means (such as photography being used 400 years before it was invented).



4. Jesus returned to his disciples as a form of after-death communication. Frequently people will report a full-body apparition of a newly deceased loved one that appears for a brief time to let them know that they are alright. Some have suggested that Jesus did not have a bodily resurrection but a spiritual resurrection. This still doesn't explain where the body went.



5. Jesus materialized a new body for himself using ectoplasm like the materialization mediums of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I just thought this one up a few days ago, but it seems less likely now. I thought that if mediums could materialize spirits using ectoplasm, a substance created in part from the medium's own body (which is why mediums' weights decreased greatly while they materialized spirits and why if something went wrong with the ectoplasmic form the medium could be greatly hurt), then why couldn't a sufficiently advanced spirit create their own solid form out of ectoplasm? The obvious problem is, where will the spirit get the material needed to create the ectoplasmic form if most of it comes from the medium's own body? In the case of Jesus he could have used material from his own, dead, body. This would explain the empty tomb and all the other features of his new body, such as its ability to appear and disappear and yet seem solid to anyone who would touch it (Thomas, who wasn't satisfied just looking at his teacher; though I suspect if I encountered a materialized loved one I would have to touch them too, for my own human frailty). Of course, if Jesus could create a new ectoplasmic body out of the material from his old body then wouldn't it be assuming less to just say that he dematerialized his old body and rematerialized it as in case three? It is kind of a meaningless exercise to argue whether Jesus could dematerialize his old body and rematerialize it or whether he made an ectoplasmic body out of the material from his old body. There really seems no difference.



All that said, I do not know how the resurrection was accomplished, only that I am glad that it did occur. Contemplation on the mystery of the resurrection seemed to be an appropriate usage of time for Easter, after all. Enjoy the rest of the day while it's still here.



-Dee

The Ark of What?

From 4 March 2008.



Professor Tudor Parfitt, from the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies says he has found the Ark of the Covenant. Now if this is true he has just made the greatest archaeological discovery of all time and would probably become a multimillionaire overnight as every producer on the planet would want to turn his story into the latest Hollywood blockbuster. But not so fast.



What he claims is the Ark is not the same item described in the Bible. There are many refrences in the Bible that give a good description of what the Ark looked like, its size and decorations. Of course Parfitt can't accept that the ancient Israelites could make a chest that size and cover it with gold, ignoring the fact that they just came out of Egypt which led the world in gold working at the time, built similar chests for holding religious objects, and that given the rich history the Jews had in Egypt (starting with Joseph being Vizier and Moses being Crown Prince until he was exiled) it is likely that one of the 600,000 of them knew how to work gold.



He also brings up the fact that since Egypt had no gold coin then the Israelites would have to steal "huge" gold ritual objects to turn into the covering for the Ark. Never mind the fact that gold is the most malleable of all known metals. In fact as one source puts it "A single ounce of gold can be beaten into a sheet measuring roughly 5 meters on a side. Thin sheets of gold, known as gold leaf, are primarily used in arts and crafts for gilding." If a single ounce of gold can be beaten into a sheet that big there is no need for a huge amount of gold to cover the inner and outer surface of the Ark. Just a little bit will go a long way.



Don't forget that almost every royal tomb had been broken into and the vast stores of gold had been stolen from them. Stolen gold was a readily available comodity in ancient Egypt, that is, unless you got caught. With 600,000 people I'm sure at least one of them could have gotten away with enough gold to coat the Ark.



Parfitt instead looks to a passage from Deuteronomy (10:1-5) that doesn't mention gold or cherubim or anything like that. It is very brief and very vague and in line with Biblical scholars and lay people throughout history Parfitt decided to put his words into the mouth of Moses and uses this passage to justify something that the Bible doesn't say: namely that the Ark was not an elabourate chest covered in gold and such but was a simple wooden drum. Yes, it was a drum, not a chest, a drum. He claims that it was brought down to Africa after the first temple was destroyed and taken to a tribe of people called the Lemba (who have been shown to possess DNA from the Temple priests). He claims the drum that was the Ark decayed over time and was remade again and again and now exists as a broken wooden object in the warehouse of a museum in the middle of a war zone called the Ngoma Lungundu. He even had a two hour History Channel documentary (now called just "History" and not "The History Channel," which seems incredibly arrogant) that was an extreme disappointment just like with Zheng He who didn't discover America before Lief Ericson.



What he is doing is not archaeology. It is Biblical revisionism and an excuse to get grant money to fund his pet trips to Africa so he can have a good time with his Lemba friends and laugh at all serious scholars of the Bible. Maybe I'm just too attached to the notion that the Ark of the Covenant has inspired too many people to be a heap of wood and that the writers of the Bible just invented some fictional bill of materials for its construction, but why would there be so many refrences to gold that are fake and only one refrence not mentioning gold being correct? Why would there be design specifications if there was not an actual object (you can argue that Noah's ark was a fabrication but a simple gold inlayed chest the size of a large suit case seems tiny enough to grant something of the sort was actually built)? Maybe I just want there to have been a real Ark of the Covenant too much to accept that every time the Bible says it was a chest for holding objects that it was talking about a stupid musical instrument that bares no resemblance to what is described in the text. Anyway, I still say Prof. Parfitt is wrong and is making a mockery of serious archaeology in what he is suggesting.



Some quotes from the above most link.



"What Parfitt found cannot be described as a wooden box, roughly 4 ft. x 2 ft. x 2.5 ft., gold-plated and carried on poles inserted into ring. In fact, it an old drum with an uncharacteristic burnt-black bottom hole, the remains of carrying rings on its corners; and a raised relief of crossed reeds that Parfitt thinks reflects an Old Testament detail."



"A splinter has carbon-dated the drum to 1350 AD, making it probably the oldest wooden relic in sub-Saharan Africa, but far too new to be the Ark of the Covenant. Undaunted, Professor Parfitt declares, 'There can be little doubt that what I found is the last thing on earth in direct descent from the Ark of Moses.'"



"OK, I watched it. The 'scholarship' was so bad, my eleven-year-old son was correcting the professor. This is pure sensationalism."



"The professor will make a lot of money and gain a lot of notoriety, but there is not a serious scholar in the world who will respect his 'discovery'."



-Dee

The Great Wall of Solomon

Remember from an earlier post that biblical verses were discovered on tenth century pottery, casting sharp doubt on the documentary hypothesis? Well this just in from AP, a section of wall was found running 70 meters just outside of Jerusalem's Old City along with a gate house. Dating from the tenth century as well, providing good evidence that there existed a strong, centralized government in Jerusalem at the time capable of such monumental construction. There are some nay-sayers who say this is no evidence at all, mostly because they either don't want the Bible to be true or because they don't want the Jewish presence in the holy land to be true to perpetuate the myth of a single ethnic group known as the Palestinians who lived in the area always. Both sides present their case in the AP article, which is very short and does not use any big words like hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. Is this a remnant of the city built by Solomon? I'm excited to find out.



-Dee