Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eclectus who wrote (70477)	5/27/2001 1:51:44 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116762

Off Topic (of gold that is) Maybe these folks could shed some light ? nationalpost.com regards Kastel

To: Eclectus who wrote (70477)	5/27/2001 9:31:58 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116762

Well proof is hard to come by. But it is my contention that the Irish were the first people to inhabit the Middle East. It has been rarely metioned but when Schliemann was investigating the Tomb of the Pharoahs he happened to dig to a deeper level than anyone had before. In a layer of earth that showed the where a fire had destroyed an ancient city he uncovered a bottle of Bushnells. There was some contention that one of the workers, an Irishman had planted it there or fell asleep and left it there. but that has to immeditately dismissed as the bottle was full! It is highly evident in that case that no Irishmen could have left it behind in that condition, no matter what his condition was. Ergo a terrible accident had to happen to the population at the time. The Jews had several cultural habits and implements that imply that they had to get them from the Irish. In the bible they mention chariots at a very ancient time, Iron swords, and wine. The Eqyptans with all their art and architecture did not possess the wheel or the chariot. That came later with the Ptolemies. But the Jews speak of chariots of war far prior to their Eqyptian captivity. The Celts had chariots in ancient times long after they left their ancestral homeland, Eden acres. They gave chariots to the Romans and to the Babylonians whom the traded with and probably gave steel to as well. It is now known that the Celts had steel of enormous strength (twice the strength of mild steel) 5 millenia before Christ. This became in trade, the famed Damascus steel with it characteristic wavy lined patterns. Remember now when the Celts brought Steel to Damascus it was a Greek City not an Assyrian one. The Jews needed grapes for wine which in the ME they did not have. Again this was introduced by the Celts whose homelands had this fruit. BTW we know the steel was of great strength because a Celtic weapon was the scythe that turned on the hub of a chariot. It was 3 curvy swords of about 30 inches in length sticking out from the Hub. The swords would spin and cut the bronze greaves of enemy Soldiers. Now from a chariot at 40 miles an hour, if a mild steel sword or iron hit phosphor bronze of 55 thousand pounds breaking strength, it would shatter or bend like a twig. So the steel had to have ultimate strength. We now know the formula for his steel was 10% carbon! Yet is was as tough as monel metal. If you cast steel with that formula today you will see it congeal with those wavy lines as a pattern of solidiffcation. It does not require any working as was once thought. It is believed that the Jews were able to defeat their enemies although outnumbered in the area by the fact that they had superior weaponry. Steel swords and horse drawn chariots. The enemies they drove out of the ME were the Greeks, Later to become famous for defeating their enemies in battle with what we know now was steel as well. The Spartans were good because they too had steel weapons, superior to the other Greeks. I don't doubt the story of Noah and his flood. The Babylonians had the same story. Called the gent Gilgamesh. So there was a big water bath. We can tell by, Geology, Archaeology and the very accurate Babylonian records (why would they lie?) that that happened 5800 years ago. So in geology we also know that at that time the Black sea flooded in the greatest deluge in history. It formed the straights of the Bosporus and filled up the basin and the rather small lake the Jews were living on at the time. the Babylonians were on the south shore, as they still are. So they told it straight. It makes sense and their account lines up with the geological record and carbon dating to a T. So two people cannot be wrong. How could we have got the numbers wrong in the good book? Simple, mistranslate it a dozen times and have the Catholic Church edit it a dozen ways to suiit them. If it was written 8,000 years ago as we think then it could be something got lost in the translation which is on its 5th language and as many different organizations. Anyway it all makes sense. The Babylonians to get flooded out had to get wet with the Black sea. And this accounts for the Jews ending up in a Babylonian Captivity and the ark ending up in Iraq. How else could it get there if not in the Black Sea? Noah is very specific, Mt Ararat. Its still there but no longer on the shore of the sea. The Greeks and Georgians were there too or at least he Ancestors of their cultures living on what was then an island, Atlantis. On the main Peloponessus this happened too as we can see remnant columns in the water off the coast. A large earthquake introduced the Mediterranean to the Black Sea which at that time was a fresh water lake 200 feet below the Med. The Jews had wandered into the North Black Sea area around 5800 BC, the time of Noah. They had wandered west for many a year. Probably form the Tarim basin of China, leaving behind other Indo Europeans. they crossed a desert, the Steppes. If they really had wandererd in a sand desert they never would have made it. They had to graze cattle (the golden calf) and that would be the Russian Steppes. If they originated in a dry desert area, as in the Tarim basin they would have learned to live in the desert, which again explains their preference for dry areas. If you read the book you prefer, with a little bit of wisdom you will see descriptions of the people of Noah and later. You hear mention from the bible of hair the colour of, flax and wheat and eyes like honey. Now stop me, but but this implies blondes and hazel eyes does it not? And Ruth is mentioned as having had brown hair, not jet black. And other historical records that must be innocent of cant. For instance Constantine said of Jesus, "Pale Galilean Thou has Conquered." Now here was a Roman calling a Jew, pale. Well obviously they had some idea what he looked like. he was not as dark as a Tuscan.. So the inference is that the Jews were never a race that originated in the Tigris Euphrates of the race of the people who now inhabit there. They were not Babylonians or Egyptions or Assyrians and by their own admission came from somewhere in the east, and wandered west to Iraq after an untold length of time. It is not specified in the Bible or the Torah how long. So you can use your imagination or your brain and find out for youself. But I already know.. There are only three races in the world that have natural red hair. They are the Russians who get their name from the colour red, (Russ), the Celts or Irish and the Jews. Two of them are indisputably Indo Eurpoean Jews also have freckles no matter where they are from. This is a Celtic characteristic. I used to live in a Jewish area of Toronto. I heard Hebrew and Yiddish spoken every day. One day I am driving downtown and I gave a lift to two dark haired brown eyed girls who got in the back of my car and spoke to each other in this strange guttural language that I recognised as Hebrew. I asked them after a whlle if they had learned the language in Israel. They looked at me with pure astonishment.! Oh We are not Jewish! We are from Donegal. We are speaking Irish! They say the Irish are the lost tribe or Israel. I think it's the other way around. And it all started with a drunken Irishman. Don't forget Adam is an Irish name. It's all in there. You just have to read it again. EC<:-}