Actually, Avery's attack of the ship carrying the pilgrims nearly lost the crown it's trade through the east India company with the grand moghul of Delhi, who was going to kick out the British from his lands.
They had to, I think, pay him compensation and reassure him that they were actively hunting down the pirates and unfortunately for one William kid, he became a famous scapegoat and hung while others were pardoned and every slipped through the cracks.
People like him usually drank away their fortunes somewhere under the radar and died poor.
Scott Wolter on his TV show America Unearthed unveiled a connection between American Stonehenge, England’s Stonehenge and possibly the Phoenicians. Minoa being where it was wouldn’t been too far off from the Phoenician city-states Greek, much like the Gallic language groups are all PIE so there is that connection, but its likely much older. As far as Spain is concerned, it was known as Iberia in Roman times whereas Ireland was Hiberia the H is silent in many Latin based languages so there is that connection as well.
According to I what I read before, Avery attacked an Indian treasure fleet not just one ship. And it’s interesting that despite the price put on Avery’s head by the then British(?) king William, this pirate managed to safely ‘dissapear’. Was the King even serious in his action. And what about the men under Avery? Were they identitified much less captured. Apparently not. Obviously the wealth that the former pirates were spreading in creating their new life as an ordinary citizens spoke more loudly than the ‘promised’ royal bounty.
Ancient Origins always keeps me informed about new ancient developments, which continues to enhance my knowledge about the earliest history of humans from around the world..
Your understanding of the root language and etymology is superficial and spurious. If you want to defend the view that English comes from Greek you can do that but you can’t really make a convincing argument by just saying the newcommer is wrong and the establishment is right cuz you said so and repeat it over and over. Thats all you are really offering in your article. You gloss over some of the points in the saga, and then you say well thats wrong becuase mainstream disagrees with it. Uh... ok but how convienent. Thats not really making a case or examining evidence. I’m never suprised by the quality of journalism these days. Perhaps becuase we are degenerating as the saga seems to suggest. One can point out the missing peices in the saga and there are many that need futher resaerch, but your gonna have to fairly do the same in the mainstream view, and there are many there as well. But you fail to do the latter, because your goal is to debunk a view that is against yours. So you’re makeing paradoy for selfish reasons and deciving people. You don’t seem to have a deep understanding of the sound system & probably don’t even know what that is. It’s kinda what the whole saga is about but your article has no mention of it whatsoever. Pathetic sir. A word (sound) can actually be used in Greek English Van and Root and be all different definitions in each language but the saga illuminates how these words are connected and often talking about the same thing while your little article doesn’t even comprehend that concept. I dunno what to even say. You should be ashamed of your haymaker of an article as it swings way short of reaching any aspect of the saga whatsoever.
This oral tradition will endure futher druken swipes by so called “academics” like you who don’t even know the origin the word.
I'm afraid this story is so biased it considers some really fanciful and imaginative claims and mixes them in with the Glastonbury Abbey fire, lack of funding, subsequent wealth that I think the author qualified enough to work for a political campaign.
Any contemporary of today's state, TV and Internet media educated society can guess the reason behind King Arthur's grave being discovered after the fire but to weave in a story of 'The Church' existing as an evil extortative entity on the poor, subordinate to an evil king in subduing the Welsh and even itself subdued by yet another evil king, correlating a theme of dynastic greed there is certainly very manipulative and seemingly very plausible to the everyday pleb who I'm sure would make and infer some very calculated assumptions.
My analysis: Very communist in its use of argument to identify an oppressed mass of leypersons by church and state.
"No importance was given to the brain." I always beg to defer when I see this statement applied to the study of Egyptian mummification. I think its either to complex or they don't want us to know. But it was very important in fact it appears to to be the most delicate task of the whole process. Yes the heart was very important but I'm sure the brain was revered the same. And the brain is not responsible for body decomposure? The heart is what makes us mortal when it stops. But brain is what makes us immortal. The question thats always nagged me and I'm sure should be the main question is why did they remove the brain and what did they do with it? To say that the brain was unimportant to them is flat lie. The uraeus peeking from out the forehead was far more then a symbol of rulership.
oh really? you poor little indoctrinated Atheist! “he wouldn't have given us foreskins if he wanted us to cut them off.”
What? This is part of the reason you say God does not exist? LOL please educate us all how God does not exist. Everything we know and see was created by ‘chance’? Highly, highly unlikely, but you keep believing there’s no God because he wouldn't have given us foreskins if he wanted us to cut them off. Hilarious I needed that laugh.
Hi Zucchini, I researched the book titled “Black Biblical Heritage” by author Jack L. Johnson, and I must say that it is definitely a “MUST READ” book for people like me who eat, sleep, walk, talk ancient Black historical significant others and how they contributed to the history of the world… I will read as much as I can so that I can have a better understanding about the Bible and the Black people who are mentioned in it..
People are still born with little tails sometimes. I was told doctors used to cut them off without telling the parents. The real question in my mind is why my mother thought it necessary to have little one on one talks with me normalizing being born with a tail.
Get a copy of the Black Biblical Heritage Book on Amazon trust me you will like enjoy this Book and yes Ham an his 3 Son's are mentioned in The History Book; written by Jack L. Johnson. For me finding this Specific History Book it was an answer to several prayers for me an again sorry can't remember The Scythians referenced in The Book.
This is all I've got for you so far Charles check this History Book out on Amazon, so until next time, what do you say? Goodbye!
According to Genesis KUSH was the first son of Ham, and his three brothers were Mizriam=Egypt, Phut=Libya and Canaan=Father of the Canaanites? I would assume that all three of Ham’s sons were Black especially if they shared the same mother as well? I’m just using deductive logic here?
I think you are correct in many ways. If the water was low enough for the Berring Land bridge then Mu would have been exposed as would have other islands. This coupled with the theory of the Hudson Bay north pole, which would have brought the American side of Antartica 30 degrees north would have made it fairly easy for folks to travel between the two areas.
According to the Urantia Book, they did come by sea. The sea was much lower back then and there were many more islands to stop at. These people were the Andites of old.
Further evidence that South America was originally populated from the South. I theorize that Australian Aboriginals / Melanesians either sailed (paddled, floated, etc.) following the coast of Antarctica until they reached Tierra del Fuego. Alternately (quite a stretch of the imagination), the migration may have happened so deep in time that they walked from Australia / Antarctica to South America, when all these continents were much closer.
Not so long ago we were taught that people only migrated to North America via Beringia. My grandfather, who is Unangax (Native Alaskan, Aleut) said his ancestors came by boat, they didn’t walk, only the inlanders walked. Now we know there were multiple migrations by way of land and sea to the Americas. DNA testing has proven this by showing that the inland tribes are Athabaskans closely related to the Navajo, and Unangax are more closely related to Manchurians / Mongolians, interestingly enough with some Peruvian markers. The migration picture is much more complicated than the simplistic explanations pushed by small minded members of the current archaeological world.
I am an electrical engineer, by no means an archaeologist, but I can easily imagine global cultures with small craft following coastlines and striking out for islands visible upon the horizon. Why not? History is rife with archaeologists having their careers ruined for postulating new theories (only to be honored posthumously), yet the rest of the world praises thinking outside of the box. Time for the Luddites to retire and make way for actual scientists without preconceived notions clouding their judgement.
“The world is full of people who have never, since childhood, met an open doorway with an open mind.” ― E.B. White
This is a good story of Medieval Counter-PR. Henry II who helped cause the death of Thomas Beckett & deeply disliked by his Welsh subjects decided to “discover” the grave of a mythical ‘King’ who’s existance is yet to be proven. Well it didn't work. As for King Arthur’s grave exhumation & reburial; if they did ‘discover’ & rebury some bones, I wonder who it really was? A Saxon King maybe? Personaly I would love to the existance of Arthur to be proven without a doubt but I've resigned myself that this prospect is unlikely to happen.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Actually, Avery's attack of the ship carrying the pilgrims nearly lost the crown it's trade through the east India company with the grand moghul of Delhi, who was going to kick out the British from his lands.
They had to, I think, pay him compensation and reassure him that they were actively hunting down the pirates and unfortunately for one William kid, he became a famous scapegoat and hung while others were pardoned and every slipped through the cracks.
People like him usually drank away their fortunes somewhere under the radar and died poor.
Scott Wolter on his TV show America Unearthed unveiled a connection between American Stonehenge, England’s Stonehenge and possibly the Phoenicians. Minoa being where it was wouldn’t been too far off from the Phoenician city-states Greek, much like the Gallic language groups are all PIE so there is that connection, but its likely much older. As far as Spain is concerned, it was known as Iberia in Roman times whereas Ireland was Hiberia the H is silent in many Latin based languages so there is that connection as well.
According to I what I read before, Avery attacked an Indian treasure fleet not just one ship. And it’s interesting that despite the price put on Avery’s head by the then British(?) king William, this pirate managed to safely ‘dissapear’. Was the King even serious in his action. And what about the men under Avery? Were they identitified much less captured. Apparently not. Obviously the wealth that the former pirates were spreading in creating their new life as an ordinary citizens spoke more loudly than the ‘promised’ royal bounty.
Ancient Origins always keeps me informed about new ancient developments, which continues to enhance my knowledge about the earliest history of humans from around the world..
Your understanding of the root language and etymology is superficial and spurious. If you want to defend the view that English comes from Greek you can do that but you can’t really make a convincing argument by just saying the newcommer is wrong and the establishment is right cuz you said so and repeat it over and over. Thats all you are really offering in your article. You gloss over some of the points in the saga, and then you say well thats wrong becuase mainstream disagrees with it. Uh... ok but how convienent. Thats not really making a case or examining evidence. I’m never suprised by the quality of journalism these days. Perhaps becuase we are degenerating as the saga seems to suggest. One can point out the missing peices in the saga and there are many that need futher resaerch, but your gonna have to fairly do the same in the mainstream view, and there are many there as well. But you fail to do the latter, because your goal is to debunk a view that is against yours. So you’re makeing paradoy for selfish reasons and deciving people. You don’t seem to have a deep understanding of the sound system & probably don’t even know what that is. It’s kinda what the whole saga is about but your article has no mention of it whatsoever. Pathetic sir. A word (sound) can actually be used in Greek English Van and Root and be all different definitions in each language but the saga illuminates how these words are connected and often talking about the same thing while your little article doesn’t even comprehend that concept. I dunno what to even say. You should be ashamed of your haymaker of an article as it swings way short of reaching any aspect of the saga whatsoever.
This oral tradition will endure futher druken swipes by so called “academics” like you who don’t even know the origin the word.
I'm afraid this story is so biased it considers some really fanciful and imaginative claims and mixes them in with the Glastonbury Abbey fire, lack of funding, subsequent wealth that I think the author qualified enough to work for a political campaign.
Any contemporary of today's state, TV and Internet media educated society can guess the reason behind King Arthur's grave being discovered after the fire but to weave in a story of 'The Church' existing as an evil extortative entity on the poor, subordinate to an evil king in subduing the Welsh and even itself subdued by yet another evil king, correlating a theme of dynastic greed there is certainly very manipulative and seemingly very plausible to the everyday pleb who I'm sure would make and infer some very calculated assumptions.
My analysis: Very communist in its use of argument to identify an oppressed mass of leypersons by church and state.
"No importance was given to the brain." I always beg to defer when I see this statement applied to the study of Egyptian mummification. I think its either to complex or they don't want us to know. But it was very important in fact it appears to to be the most delicate task of the whole process. Yes the heart was very important but I'm sure the brain was revered the same. And the brain is not responsible for body decomposure? The heart is what makes us mortal when it stops. But brain is what makes us immortal. The question thats always nagged me and I'm sure should be the main question is why did they remove the brain and what did they do with it? To say that the brain was unimportant to them is flat lie. The uraeus peeking from out the forehead was far more then a symbol of rulership.
oh really? you poor little indoctrinated Atheist! “he wouldn't have given us foreskins if he wanted us to cut them off.”
What? This is part of the reason you say God does not exist? LOL please educate us all how God does not exist. Everything we know and see was created by ‘chance’? Highly, highly unlikely, but you keep believing there’s no God because he wouldn't have given us foreskins if he wanted us to cut them off. Hilarious I needed that laugh.
Pretty interesting
This isn’t considered “ancient”. This is prehistoric.
Hi Zucchini, I researched the book titled “Black Biblical Heritage” by author Jack L. Johnson, and I must say that it is definitely a “MUST READ” book for people like me who eat, sleep, walk, talk ancient Black historical significant others and how they contributed to the history of the world… I will read as much as I can so that I can have a better understanding about the Bible and the Black people who are mentioned in it..
People are still born with little tails sometimes. I was told doctors used to cut them off without telling the parents. The real question in my mind is why my mother thought it necessary to have little one on one talks with me normalizing being born with a tail.
Instead of Homo Apriliensis how about: Homo Aprilfoolsis, Homo Pulourlegsis or Homo Hahasis to name a few.
Hi Charles,
Get a copy of the Black Biblical Heritage Book on Amazon trust me you will like enjoy this Book and yes Ham an his 3 Son's are mentioned in The History Book; written by Jack L. Johnson. For me finding this Specific History Book it was an answer to several prayers for me an again sorry can't remember The Scythians referenced in The Book.
This is all I've got for you so far Charles check this History Book out on Amazon, so until next time, what do you say? Goodbye!
According to Genesis KUSH was the first son of Ham, and his three brothers were Mizriam=Egypt, Phut=Libya and Canaan=Father of the Canaanites? I would assume that all three of Ham’s sons were Black especially if they shared the same mother as well? I’m just using deductive logic here?
You gave yourself away with the tail bit. But, nice try. I wonder how many people will fall for this today?
I think you are correct in many ways. If the water was low enough for the Berring Land bridge then Mu would have been exposed as would have other islands. This coupled with the theory of the Hudson Bay north pole, which would have brought the American side of Antartica 30 degrees north would have made it fairly easy for folks to travel between the two areas.
According to the Urantia Book, they did come by sea. The sea was much lower back then and there were many more islands to stop at. These people were the Andites of old.
Further evidence that South America was originally populated from the South. I theorize that Australian Aboriginals / Melanesians either sailed (paddled, floated, etc.) following the coast of Antarctica until they reached Tierra del Fuego. Alternately (quite a stretch of the imagination), the migration may have happened so deep in time that they walked from Australia / Antarctica to South America, when all these continents were much closer.
Not so long ago we were taught that people only migrated to North America via Beringia. My grandfather, who is Unangax (Native Alaskan, Aleut) said his ancestors came by boat, they didn’t walk, only the inlanders walked. Now we know there were multiple migrations by way of land and sea to the Americas. DNA testing has proven this by showing that the inland tribes are Athabaskans closely related to the Navajo, and Unangax are more closely related to Manchurians / Mongolians, interestingly enough with some Peruvian markers. The migration picture is much more complicated than the simplistic explanations pushed by small minded members of the current archaeological world.
I am an electrical engineer, by no means an archaeologist, but I can easily imagine global cultures with small craft following coastlines and striking out for islands visible upon the horizon. Why not? History is rife with archaeologists having their careers ruined for postulating new theories (only to be honored posthumously), yet the rest of the world praises thinking outside of the box. Time for the Luddites to retire and make way for actual scientists without preconceived notions clouding their judgement.
“The world is full of people who have never, since childhood, met an open doorway with an open mind.”
― E.B. White
This is a good story of Medieval Counter-PR. Henry II who helped cause the death of Thomas Beckett & deeply disliked by his Welsh subjects decided to “discover” the grave of a mythical ‘King’ who’s existance is yet to be proven. Well it didn't work. As for King Arthur’s grave exhumation & reburial; if they did ‘discover’ & rebury some bones, I wonder who it really was? A Saxon King maybe? Personaly I would love to the existance of Arthur to be proven without a doubt but I've resigned myself that this prospect is unlikely to happen.
Pages