Good day to anons reading this,

This thread is going to be an attempt to build the Qmap by building the bridges and making the connections between different issues & threads, as well as finding out the truth about the REAL history of mankind. It’s all about digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs, digs…

Link to:

Bridges & Maps 3: https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/6687429.html

Bridges & Maps 4: https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/9207873.html

Bridges & Maps 5: https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/13198790.html

Bridges & Maps 6: https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/13718828.html

Archives of :

Bridges & Maps 1: http://archive.is/yzA4B

Bridges & Maps 2: https://archive.is/VbcWi

This is the old man,

Bridges & Maps thread 7 is a continuation of the long dig started in Bridges & Maps thread 4. I will pick up where I stopped in thread 6 for old readers. For new readers, I would be asking them to go back to thread 4 and start reading from the very first page or they will be unable to fully grasp what it’s all about since this is a long chain.

When the lights go out, I will keep on working, keep on posting as long as I can.

I thank everyone for their patience. Hope you will enjoy reading this thread.

Wishing you a good day.

God bless you all.

(Please read from the start)

Next, I’m going to show you a study made on the teeth of the dead infants. Please note whom is saying this is an infant burial ground, and look whom is insisting these are sacrificial victims. Check out the dates, the names and the big shot establishments. Also, I would like to point out how messed up the understanding is in this specific article when the history of Carthage is concerned = foundation. We’ve already been through all of it so I’m not going to repeat it. I’m going to comment only when necessary.

https://www.livescience.com/23298-carthage-graveyard-not-child-sacrifice.html

“Ancient Baby Graveyard Not for Child Sacrifice, Scientists Say

By Tia Ghose 19 September 2012

A Carthaginian burial site was not for child sacrifice but was instead a graveyard for babies and fetuses, researchers now say.

A new study of the ancient North African site offers the latest volley in a debate over the primary purpose of the graveyard, long thought to be a place of sacred sacrifice.

"It's all very great, cinematic stuff, but whether that was a constant daily activity ― I think our analysis contradicts that," said study co-author Jeffrey Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh.

The city-state of Carthage was founded in the ninth century B.C., when Queen Dido fled Phoenicia (along the eastern Mediterranean shore) for what is now Tunis, Tunisia. The empire became a powerhouse of the ancient world and fought several wars against the Romans.

When archaeologists began excavating the ancient civilization last century, they found urns with the cremated remains of thousands of babies, young goats and lambs at a graveyard called the Tophet, which had been used from 700 to 300 B.C. At its peak, the Tophet may have been bigger than a football field and had nine levels of burials.

Based on historical accounts, scientists believed Carthaginians sacrificed children at the Tophet before burying them there. For instance, the Bible describes child sacrifice to the deity Baal, worshipped by a civilization in Carthage. A Greek and a Roman historian both recount gory tales from this time period in which of priests slit the throats of babies and tossed them into fiery pits, Schwartz said.

However, those accounts came from Carthage's enemies. "Some of this might have been anti-Carthaginian propaganda," Schwartz told LiveScience.”

>> Bull’s eye = it’s all propaganda towards the enemies of the Jews and the Bloodlines. The Bloodlines used to run things behind the curtain in Hellenic, Hellenistic and Roman times. Alexander the Great was given to you as a sample.

“In 2010 Schwartz and his colleagues used dental remains from 540 individuals to argue that the site was not primarily for ritual child slaughter, and they reiterate that stance in this month's issue of the journal Antiquity. In the new article, the researchers cite several older studies to validate their methods for estimating infant ages from tooth fragments.”

• Page 1 592 –

>>15012575

(Please read from the start)

“The team argues that many tooth fragments found at the Tophet were actually developing tooth buds from the jaws of fetuses and stillborn babies who could not have been live sacrifices. As evidence, they showed that half of the teeth lacked a sign of birth called the neonatal line. The stress of birth temporarily halts tooth development in newborns, creating a tiny, dark line in their tooth buds; however, the line doesn't form until a week or two after birth.”

>> Examining the teeth is one of the methods. No traces on the bones were found too – that’s another method.

“Other researchers still believe the Tophet was a place for sacred killing.

"This is not a regular cemetery; the age distribution suggests they were sacrificing infants at the age of 1 month," said Patricia Smith, an anthropologist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Smith's team published a 2011 paper questioning Schwartz's dental analysis. The incredible heat and pressure generated during cremation usually erase the neonatal line, she said, so its absence isn't a reliable measure of age. Schwartz's team miscalculated how much teeth shrink in cremation, leading to an underestimate of infant ages, Smith argued.”

>> The age distribution only indicates this was a special cemetery for infant burial, there are no tangible indication linking the age of the dead infants to ritual sacrifice. There isn’t a single infant, NOT A SINGLE INFANT, burried in the necropolis where the adults and teens are.

Just look whom’s talking. See how it works?

“Smith also doubts Carthage would have routinely cremated stillbirths or infants. Because of sky-high infant mortality rates, babies were probably not considered people until they were at least 1 or 2 years old. The Carthaginians chopped down most of their trees to plant crops and wouldn't have used the precious wood to burn babies, she said.

"The Carthaginians were seafarers; they needed wood for ships, they needed wood for cloth, they needed wood for their tools," she said.”

>> Lack of wood is not an argument my dear. Carthaginians were traders and traders have access to all types and quantities of goods they wish for. And how many times during the wars with the Greeks, then the Romans, was the Carthaginian fleet burned/destroyed and then rebuilt by them? Not to mention all of those siege weapons used in all of these wars.They weren’t made of plastic you know. I never knew that wood is needed to make clothing though. Wood was plenty available for the Carthaginians as long as their trade was flourishing. So yes, there was plenty of wood to go around and yes, it was constantly used to cremate infants whom were dead prematurely or any similar reason like being stillborn. So my dear, your argument of lack of wood is nothing but hot air and you trying to twist facts and cast shade of the findings of Schwartz. How much were you paid my dear?

• Page 1 593 –

>>15012609

(Please read from the start)

Here is what Schwartz and co. worked on. Please keep an eye on the names, places/”establishments” and dates mentioned. It’s long but I’m putting it as it is for anons to read: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009177

“Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants

• Jeffrey H. Schwartz ,

• Frank Houghton,

• Roberto Macchiarelli,

• Luca Bondioli

Published: February 17, 2010

Abstract

Two types of cemeteries occur at Punic Carthage and other Carthaginian settlements: one centrally situated housing the remains of older children through adults, and another at the periphery of the settlement (the “Tophet”) yielding small urns containing the cremated skeletal remains of very young animals and humans, sometimes comingled. Although the absence of the youngest humans at the primary cemeteries is unusual and worthy of discussion, debate has focused on the significance of Tophets, especially at Carthage, as burial grounds for the young. One interpretation, based on two supposed eye-witness reports of large-scale Carthaginian infant sacrifice [Kleitarchos (3rd c. BCE) and Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BCE)], a particular translation of inscriptions on some burial monuments, and the argument that if the animals had been sacrificed so too were the humans, is that Tophets represent burial grounds reserved for sacrificial victims. An alternative hypothesis acknowledges that while the Carthaginians may have occasionally sacrificed humans, as did their contemporaries, the extreme youth of Tophet individuals suggests these cemeteries were not only for the sacrificed, but also for the very young, however they died. Here we present the first rigorous analysis of the largest sample of cremated human skeletal remains (348 burial urns, N = 540 individuals) from the Carthaginian Tophet based on tooth formation, enamel histology, cranial and postcranial metrics, and the potential effects of heat-induced bone shrinkage. Most of the sample fell within the period prenatal to 5-to-6 postnatal months, with a significant presence of prenates. Rather than indicating sacrifice as the agent of death, this age distribution is consistent with modern-day data on perinatal mortality, which at Carthage would also have been exacerbated by numerous diseases common in other major cities, such as Rome and Pompeii. Our diverse approaches to analyzing the cremated human remains from Carthage strongly support the conclusion that Tophets were cemeteries for those who died shortly before or after birth, regardless of the cause.”

>> Here, they are making it clear that they didn’t solely rely on examining the teeth but also on cranial study and others. They are also saying that we are putting the cause of the death aside and focusing simply on the bones and the message it’s giving us. But…remember what Smith from the University of Jerusalem wrote just a page earlier? See how the mafia works when someone present the truth? And I disagree with disregarding the cause of death, it’s an important factor which could lean the case for or against child sacrifice taking place at Carthage. I also would prefer stop calling it Tophet since Tophet means open air sacrificial ground….but would like to call it from now on infant/child burial/cemetery.

• Page 1 594 –

>>15012628

(Please read from the start)

“Introduction

Some biblical scholars maintain that the Carthaginians frequently and systematically practiced infant sacrifice perhaps as early as Queen Dido's founding of the Phoenician colony on the northern coast of Africa in the 9th or 8th century BCE until 146 BCE, when the Romans won the third and last Punic War [1]–[5]. This interpretation derives from the following: 1) Kleitarchos (3rd c. BCE) described Carthaginians throwing live infants onto a pyre, Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BCE) told of infants' throats being slit prior to cremation, and non-eyewitness reports claim the simultaneous sacrifice and burning of many children; 2) since the Eastern Mediterranean Phoenicians were the Canaanites described in the Old Testament as actually or potentially sacrificing offspring, and specifically first-born males, they continued this ritual as Carthage and its colonies; 3) the centrally situated Carthaginian cemetery contains remains of children and adults while a geographically separate area (the Tophet, Figure 1A) presents small urns (Figure 1B) with burned bones of very young animals (usually lamb or kid), humans (single or multiple individuals) (Figure 1C) and, occasionally, both; 4) inscriptions on some Tophet grave markers (stelae) (Figure 1D) suggest an offering was made to one or both primary deities, Ba'al Hamon and Tanit; and 5) one stela depicts a man, interpreted as a priest, carrying a child. The “all humans were sacrificed” thesis also rests on the argument that, since the animals interred in the Tophet were surely sacrificial victims, so too were the humans also interred in the Tophet [4], [5].”

>> We’ve already seen these. Anons are now familiar with them. And these are the arguments the Phoenician/Carthaginians enemies present to the public to support their accusations, from long ago, till nowadays. Good summary.

“Other biblical scholars [6]–[14], upon reviewing the evidence from the Tophet at Carthage and others at Carthaginian settlements in Cyprus and Sardinia, admit that humans may occasionally have been sacrificed, but also argue that sacrifice alone was not the primary factor underlying human interment in Tophets because: 1) perinatal humans, perhaps stillborn, have tentatively been identified at these sites; 2) the general age-representation of these human samples is consistent with infant mortality, which would have been high; 3) the presence of the very youngest humans in marginally rather than in cross-generational and centrally located cemeteries attests to attributes specific to the young, such as death before at age at which they would have been accepted into society as real individuals; 4) postmortem human cremations were offerings to the deities; and 5) the classical “descriptions” of repeated, large-scale infant sacrifice were exaggerations if not anti-Carthaginian propaganda.”

>> Faced with the new findings and studies shedding light on the truth, some have started to realize the error they made in blindly accusing the Carthaginians of practicing child sacrifice. So faced with facts, some have started to retract and tried to take a middle ground position. There is no in between fellows. It’s either white or black. You cannot have it both ways.

• Page 1 595 –

>>15012636

(Please read from the start)

“In the latter 1970s, excavations at Carthage were undertaken as part of a UNESCO sponsored, multinational archaeological effort to salvage as much information as possible from the vast site before expansion of building covered everything. The Tunisian Department of Antiquities granted permission to the American Team to excavate and analyze all material–osteological or otherwise–recovered from the Tophet. Once urns were removed from the field, the processing, sorting, osteological analyses of their contents, and the presentation of the results was under the direction of JHS.

Here we provide the results of the first in-depth study not only of the largest sample of the skeletal remains (348 urn contents) from the Tophet at Carthage (summer field seasons 1976 to 1979), but from any Carthaginian Tophet of [see Supporting Information Tables S1, S2]. Our objective was to address the following questions. Were all humans interred in the Tophet sacrificed? Whether sacrificed or merely cremated, how many individuals per event were involved (one, two, or en masse)? Regardless of number of individuals, was each treated with care from pre- to post-cremation? And, as inferred from passages in the Old Testament, were victims exclusively male?

Methods

Because the water table rose subsequent to use of the Carthaginian Tophet, JHS determined that each excavated urn should be placed in a water-filled bucket until he could extract its contents; otherwise dissolved calcium carbonate would solidify urn contents into a cement-like block as they dried [15], [16]. A weak stream of water aided in removing urn contents onto plastic mesh supported above ground, and in removing adherent silt as urn contents were separated and laid out in a single layer to dry. Bones and teeth, clay that once sealed the urn's mouth, charcoal, urn fragments, and/or amulets or other objects removed from the urn were then sorted [15], [16]. The individualistically stylized and decorated, but poorly fired red-clay urns of the earlier Carthaginian phases were more frequently broken–likely from the weight of water-logged soil and subsequent urn burials–than the more uniform yellow-clay urns of later phases [2], [5], [16].

Since damage to urns and dislodging of the clay seal made possible the loss of material from an urn as well as the intrusion of silts and even bones into the urn [15], soil around the urn was collected to determine the presence of osteological material (JHS). With the exception of the rare small fragment, this “extra-urn” soil was free of burned human bone; on one occasion part of a recent sheep scapula was found inside an urn. The primary intrusive material was, therefore, earth, which seeped in with the water. The complete list of the osteological remains recovered is presented in Tables S1, S2 (Supporting Information). All bones were inspected for evidence of cut marks and other signs of trauma but none was discovered.”

>> I’m satisfied with how this study was handled. And yes….no marks or trauma were found on the bones.

“Age estimation was based on comparative measurements of skeletal elements (basilar portion of the occipital or basilaris, sphenoid, petrosal, ischium, and pubis) [17], states of tooth formation [18], and presence or absence of a neonatal line (NL) in the enamel of tooth crowns. The transition from an intra- to extra-uterine environment leaves its mark in deciduous teeth and first permanent molars (the mesial cusp) as an accentuated enamel incremental ring called the neonatal line (NL) [19], [20] (see Figure 2). The NL, which separates the enamel formed during intrauterine life from that formed after leaving the womb, is observable in individuals who survive at least 7 to 10–15 days ex utero [21]–[24].

Given the periodicity of enamel deposition and the fact that prenatal enamel does not normally present accentuated lines, an NL is the first postnatal hypoplasia (i.e. stress-induced alteration of enamel deposition). It thus marks the brief period of disruption of enamel secretion (decrease in daily rates of enamel formation) that occurs immediately postpartum. The emergence of an NL most likely reflects a drop in blood serum calcium values during the first 48 to 72 hours ex-utero [25], [26], as well as the dynamics of a fetus leaving the womb [27].”

• Page 1 596 –

>>15019097

(Pleae read from the start)

“An NL can be identified easily in ground sections because both the difference in quality between pre- and postnatal enamel and its characteristic location is specific for each tooth class [24], [28]. In incisors, this line extends from the dentino-enamel junction at the cervix (neck) of the crown onto the crown's surface, leaving only a small portion of postnatally formed enamel. In canines and molars, this line is present closer to the incisal/occlusal part of the enamel, with only a small portion of prenatally formed enamel present [29]. Postpartum, the crown thickens via apposition of additional layers of enamel [30].

Analysis of NL presence/absence is routine in forensic investigations, which is noted not only in its increasingly prevalence in analyses of archaeological populations [31]–[34], but especially now in its application to fossil human teeth [35], [36]. Indeed, NL analysis has rapidly become the only currently available osteodontic analytical technique capable of discriminating between infant death during the first postpartum week and the succeeding three weeks”

>> Meaning this method, technique, is commonly and frequently used. This is not an isolated case.

“For this analysis, JHS and FH sent LB and RM well-preserved crowns of deciduous incisors and deciduous molars of 50 individuals, whose estimated ages bracketed the morphologically determined perinatal period and thus the period of transition from in- to ex-utero. Only specimen numbers were provided to LB and RM.

Specimens were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath and embedded in epoxy resin. Longitudinal labio- (bucco-) lingually oriented ground sections were prepared with a diamond blade microtome (Leica 1600) following the protocol of Caropreso et al. [37]. The sectional plane was situated as close as possible to the tip of the dentine horn (for the two deciduous molars, the dentine horns of the mesial cusps). While the quality of the cutting procedure was not always assured because of the condition of the tooth crowns, most specimens were sufficiently preserved enamel to permit reliable NL site-specific assessment.

At least three thin sections per specimen were produced. ∼300 µm-thick slices were subsequently reduced to 80–100 µm with a motorized grinder (Minimet 1000 Buehler), polished, mounted for routine microscopy, and then etched for few seconds with a gel of phosphoric acid in order to enhance enamel microstructure. Of the three slides per tooth, the one with the least diagenetic damage and the most clear-cut microstructure was used in the analysis [33].

Sections were scrutinized under polarized light with an optical transmitted-light microscope (Laborlux S, Leica AG) and images taken with Polaroid Digital Microscope Camera (DMC 1) at 100× and 400×. Contrast enhancement convolution filters (3×3 and 5×5 kernels) produced sharper detail while change in the look-up table function increased site-specific contrasts of intensity profiles. Several partial images (from 7 to 15) were used to reconstruct the entire crown as a digital photomosaic. Because tooth enamel contains significantly less organic material than bone (∼1% vs. ∼20%, respectively), it reacts differently to heat and is less prone to plastic deformation [38]. In addition to its rheological properties, the enamel of unerupted crowns experiences relatively limited cracking and flaking because the structure is buffered against the direct effects of heat by the surrounding bone of the jaw [39]–[41]. While the color of the outermost enamel surface clearly reflects changes in both the burning environment (reduced vs. oxygenic) and temperature [42], the effect of heat on inner enamel microstructure tends to be locally constrained [43], [44]. Within each tooth class, but independent of an individual's sex, the location of the NL is an indirect indicator of gestation length (time of initial mineralization in utero through postpartum), with pre-term birth shifting the line more occlusally [24], [28].”

• Page 1 597 –

>>15019103

(Please read from the start)

“Results

Urn Contents

Urns could contain burned bones and teeth of humans, animals (primarily lamb or kid), or both (Table S1). There could be evidence in a single urn of only one human (Figure 3A) or, when number of duplicated parts was used to infer minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) (Figure 3E), as many as seven individuals (Table S2). In cases where one or two individuals were hypothesized present on the basis of MNI, the suite of preserved skeletal elements typically demonstrated that entire individuals had been interred. When, however, MNI indicated the presence of more than two individuals, sufficient numbers of duplicated bones and/or teeth could not be associated on the basis of size or burn pattern to reconstruct with confidence that number of individuals. Thus while multiple duplicates of a skeletal element may indeed reflect the prior existence of that number of individuals, the traditional approach to determining MNI does not provide evidence of an urn containing the complete or nearly complete skeletal remains of each of these individuals. Rather, there was never enough skeletal material to suggest that more than two (relatively) complete skeletons were placed in a single urn, which is inconsistent with a scenario of Carthaginians sacrificing or at least cremating groups of infants whose remains were then carefully collected and interred together in the same urn.”

>> Exactly.

“Bones and teeth from the same individual were rarely uniformly charred or calcined, and many were only minimally affected by heat (Figure 3B,C). This irregular burning pattern is consistent with a body on a funeral pyre in which tinder and hot ash were unequal in size and uneven in distribution [45]–to which the presence of burnt small branches in urns attests [16]–and into which bones fell randomly as they separated or burst from the heat and at the same time that pyre-tenders prodded embers to maintain the intensity of the fire [46]. Consequently, when an urn contained nearly complete skeletons, multiple duplicates but little associated skeletal remains, or a single duplicated element amidst the relatively complete remains of one or two perinates, we could infer with confidence that if individuals had been dealt with separately, such attention did not persist beyond cremation. Instead, we suggest, bones and teeth that fell deep into the pyre were left behind and inadvertently collected with the remains of subsequently cremated individuals. Similarly, if multiple cremations had occurred, either simultaneously or in short succession, there was obviously no attempt to prevent comingling of bones and teeth from different individuals.”

>> Correct.

“Determination of Sex

Seventy pelvic ilia were sufficiently preserved for visual assessment of sex, for which we relied on angle and depth of the greater sciatic notch and, when preserved sufficiently to be scrutinized, curvature of the iliac crest (Figure 3D). In Schutkowski's [47] study of a sample of children sexes and ages-at-death were well-documented, greater sciatic notch angle correctly assigned, respectively, males 95% and females 71.4%, notch depth 81.2% and 76.5%, and crest curvature 81.2% and 62.1% of the time. In our sample of ilia, 26 very probably and one questionably represented male, and 38 probably and two more questionably female (Table 1); three specimens were indeterminate. Given the likelihood that at least some individuals we identified as female were indeed female, the hypothesis of first-born males being the focus of a Carthaginian ritual of sacrifice is falsified.”

>> The fable of the Phoenicians/Carthaginians sacrificing their first born male child has been proven to be nothing but a lie in Carthage because of the presence of remains in the urns from both genders. Another bogus tale from the Old Testament, reported by the Jews and used to slander the Phoenicians and destroy their public image.

• Page 1 598 –

>>15019107

(Please read from the start)

“Estimation of Age: Tooth Formation and Osteometrics

Only bones and teeth and tooth crowns that were preserved sufficiently intact to provide an accurate (not estimated) measurement were used in our estimation of age. Based on skeletal measurements (of the basilar portion of the occipital or basilaris, sphenoid, petrosal, ischium, and pubis; Tables S3, S4) [17], as well as relative states of tooth formation (Table S2) [18], most of the sample fell within the range of 2 to 12 postnatal months, clustering between 2 and 5 months at death (Table S2). At least another 20% of the sample (depending on the representation of the specific skeletal element) could be identified as prenatal. These results are consistent with modern infant mortality data [48], [49]. We ruled out misclassifying infants of “low birth weight” (LBW) as prenatal because, while mortality is 40% higher in perinates <2500 gm than infants of normal birth weight [50], LBW is not reflected in diminished bone length or retarded tooth development [51].

Although experiments on heat-induced bone shrinkage were not done in the manner of Carthaginian cremation, we nonetheless thought it prudent to consider them. Most of these studies used ovens rather than fire as well as dry and defleshed green rather than fleshed bone [e.g. 52]–[54]. In all cases, bone shrinkage was minimal. Richard [55] did, however, cremate parts of human infant cadavers, but focused only on temperature and degree of bone carbonation and calcination. Baby [56], who cremated fleshed adult human remains, concluded that bone size was either not, or at most only minimally, altered. Buikstra and Swegle [57] cremated fleshed adult animal remains and found that while bone shrinkage could be as much as 6%, in general, bone size was minimally affected. Dokládal [58] compared bones from cremated halves of five adult cadavers with their uncremated counterparts and reported shrinkage between 5 and 12%. Muller's [59] cremations of defleshed human fetal and newborn bones suggest shrinkage could reach 10%.”

>> It’s very clear that the bone shrinkage is at a minimal in all of the different tests mentioned. This is a notable point not to neglect because some “experts” are using the bone shrinkage to try to nullify the results of this study done by Schwartz & co.

“Although some Carthaginian perinates' bones were barely charred–and thus their exposure to heat minimal [46]–we increased all of our measurements by 5, 10 and then an extreme 25% in order to account for any possible shrinkage (Figure 4). Even at 25% increase in size, most of our analyses still classified some individuals as prenates and thus not available for sacrifice.”

>> “most of our analyses still classified some individuals as PRENATES and thus not available for sacrifice” – I wonder how the Jews and (((their))) paid “experts” are going to spin and twist this one around.

• Page 1 599 –

>>15019113

(Please read from the start)

“Estimation of Age: Neonatal Line (NL) Analysis

In the Carthaginian sample, NL thickness ranged from 6.3 to 14.5 µm, with a mean of 10.1 µm (±2.76 µm). Comparative estimates obtained by the same investigative methods on deciduous teeth of all morphological classes were available from 124 crowns representing 102 modern European children [43], [60] and from 209 crowns representing 109 children (aged 6 months to 9 years) buried at the Imperial Roman cemetery of Isola Sacra [31], [60]. In the modern sample, NL thickness ranged from 6.5 to 50.9 µm and the mean value corresponded to 17.3 µm (±7.97 µm). In the archaeological sample, the range of variation range 9–36 µm with a mean of 16.7 µm (±4.40 µm). Additional values from a modern sample of 147 children ranged from 10 to 24 µm [27].

An NL results from perturbation in matrix deposition of enamel prisms reflecting stress in the transition from an intra- to extra-uterine environment (Figure 2), which does not always correspond to parturition following a full-term pregnancy [61]. Given the periodicity of enamel deposition, a newborn must survive at least 7 and even as many as 10 to 15 extra-uterine days in order for an NL to emerge fully. A definitive NL was observed in 24 Carthaginian specimens (Table 2); the amount of subsequent enamel deposition suggests these individuals survived at least 2 weeks postpartum. An NL was absent in 26 Carthaginian specimens (Table 2), which suggests that these individuals were either stillborn, spontaneously aborted, or died during the first extra-uterine week. Unambiguous counts and measurements of daily enamel cross-striations, which provide information on the timing and rate of enamel deposition and thus indirect evidence of gestation length [31], [33], could not be obtained on this sample. However, because other analyses in our study indicate the presence of individuals who had not reached full term, we suggest that individuals lacking an NL probably fall into the prenatal category because comparison of morphological/metric and NL age estimates demonstrates that when they differed, the histological (NL) age more frequently over-aged individuals than did morphological age (M<H 22%, M>H 10%; see Table 3). Consequently, if we include with the prenates those individuals who did not survive beyond one or even two weeks postpartum, we must conclude that a significant number of individuals could not have been sacrificed because they were either not alive or not yet old enough to be considered viable sacrificial entities [7], [8], [10], [13] (Figure 5).”

>> “a significant number of individuals could not have been sacrificed because they were either not alive or not yet old enough to be considered viable sacrificial entities.”

“Discussion

The identification of prenatal individuals in the Carthaginian Tophet sample is consistent with current data from modern-day studies on the incidence of stillbirth and spontaneous abortion as being the primary contributors to “reproductive wastage” [62], as well as with recent data on infant mortality [48], [49]. For example, in England and Wales from 1969 to 1976, 48.4% of 6517 deaths within two weeks of live birth occurred between 30 minutes and 24 hours and 39.3% between 7 and 13 days [61]. These statistics easily accommodate our results.”

• Page 1 600 –

>>15026061

(Please read from the start)

“Infectious diseases known to lead to stillbirth include smallpox, vaccinia, and listeriosis; those resulting in prematurity and perinatal mortality include severe viral infections and malaria [49]. Noninfectious diseases resulting in stillbirth, abortion, or preterm delivery include cholestasis, hypertension, toxemia, and renal disease [50]. The Carthaginians were probably exposed to and susceptible to all of these afflictions. If conditions of sanitation at Carthage, including management of water supply and human and animal excreta, were similar to those at Pompeii, Ostia, and Rome [63], the Carthaginians would also have been potential victims to and vectors of cholera, dysentery, gastroenteritis, infectious hepatitis, leptospirosis, typhoid, and parasitic intestinal infestations, most of which result in severe dehydration, which is a common cause of infant death [50].”

>> It could be all the above deceases and illnesses. And as said in the paragraph, this was the same case in other Cities of the time, like in Pompeii for example. Here, the study team is suggesting a cocktail of deceases, but what if it was only ONE. And this ONE decease lasted for centuries because it was passed on from the older generation to the newer one. Here, Schwartz is suggesting that some, not all of the buried infants, were “probably” sacrificed, while others died “naturally” = as in from deceases or illnesses. I don’t think it was “some”…I think it was ALL of the infants whom died naturally.

“In sum, while the Carthaginians may occasionally have practiced human sacrifice, as did other circum-Mediterranean societies [1], [63], [64], our analyses do not support the contention that all humans interred in the Tophet had been sacrificed. Rather, it would appear that the Carthaginian Tophet, and by extension Tophets at Carthaginian settlements in general, were cemeteries for the remains of human prenates and infants who died from a variety of causes and then cremated and whose remains, sometimes on a catch-as-catch-can basis, interred in urns. Following widespread practice at this time in history, it is likely that at least some, if not all, of the cremated animal remains represent sacrificial offerings.”

>> As I just said in the previous comments, I don’t think SOME infants died naturally while others were sacrificed. I think all died naturally and I will be talking about this. I also think there is ONE cause of death = one decease, and not a cocktail as suggested here. Yes, it’s very possible as Schwartz & co suggested, but there is a possibility no one thought of before because no one knew it existed, so no one went looking for it. And it COULD explain everything and prove ALL infants died naturally = of course medical analysis is required.

• Page 1 601 –

>>15026066

Here is an article from a different “study”: https://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html

“Child Sacrifice: Children of Phoenician Punic Carthage Where Not Sacrificed to the Gods

Still Born Fetuses in Urns & the Perpetuated Lie of Diodoro Siculo

Translated from Italian by kind courtesy of Pasquale Mereu, Karalis, Sardinia, Italy

From IGN Italy Global Nation (May 2007)

Excavations in Zama, Tunis, reveal that the practice of sacrificing children by the Phoenicians is a myth. The myth was born in the Greco-Roman age with Diodoro Siculo. He made a claim that in 310 B.C. the Carthaginians remembered that they did not honor their god Chronos with the annual sacrifice of children of noble families. Because of that, in few days, they slaughtered two hundred children. Recent archaeological discoveries have disavowed this macabre religious tradition, demonstrating that among Phoenicians there is no trace of human sacrifices. This appears in an interview, in the new issue of the Italian review: "Archeologia Viva," with professor Piero Bartoloni, Head of the Department of Phoenician-Punic Archaeology at Universita' di Sassari, Italy, and a favorite student of famous archaeologist Sabatino Moscati. He undertook a major excavation campaign in Zama, Tunisia, that is linked to the fall of Carthage after the battle of Zama in 202 B.C. The battle ended the second Punic war. He declares that, "In ancient times, for every ten children that were born, seven died within the first year and out of the remained three, only one became an adult. Now I ask: is it reasonable that, with such a high level of infant mortality, these people killed their own children?” Ten necropolises are the resting places of children. Actually it has been discovered Bartoloni reveals that the greater part of approximately 6,000 children urns found in Carthage, contain bones of fetuses, therefore of still born babies. The little older children remain a problem. They most probably passed away before their initiation, a ceremony that corresponds to Catholic baptism. Flames in some way were involved, because the same initiation included the "passage of fire” of the child, accompanied by its godfather. They jumped on burning coals, as written in the Bible, the Book of the Kings.”

>> The next section is in Italian, so I’m going to put the text as it is first, then add the translation right under it.

“Curriculum Vitae et Studiorum di Piero Bartoloni (in Italian)

Piero Bartoloni si è laureato in Lettere presso linsegnamento di Filologia Semitica, relatore Sabatino Moscati, con una tesi sullinsediamento di Monte Sirai (Carbonia-Cagliari), conseguendo la votazione di 110 e lode.

Piero Bartoloni è stato Dirigente di Ricerca del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche presso lIstituto per la Civiltà fenicia e punica, del quale è stato Direttore dal 1997 al 2002. Attualmente è Professore Straordinario di Archeologia fenicio-punica presso lUniversità di Sassari. Inoltre, dal 1990 al 1994 è stato Professore di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente e dal 1994 al 2000 di Archeologia fenicio-punica nell`Università di Urbino.”

• Page 1 602 –

>>15026069

(Please read from the start)

“Piero Bartoloni dal 1962 ha effettuato missioni archeologiche, prospezioni terrestri e subacquee e viaggi di studio in Italia, in Europa, in Africa e nel Nord-America. Attualmente, per conto del Dipartimento di Storia dellUniversità di Sassari, dellIstituto di Studi sulle Civiltà italiche e del Mediterraneo antico del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, dirige gli scavi archeologici a Zama Regia (Siliana- Tunisia) e, in collaborazione con la Soprintendenza Archeologica per le Province di Cagliari e Oristano, a Sulcis e a Monte Sirai (Cagliari).

Piero Bartoloni è Coordinatore dellXI Dottorato "Il Mediterraneo in età classica. Storia e culture", è Membro del Comitato Nazionale per gli Studi e le Ricerche sulla Civiltà fenicia e punica del Ministro per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali e Membro dellIstituto Italiano per lAfrica e lOriente. Piero Bartoloni è Direttore del Museo Archeologico Comunale "Ferruccio Barreca" di Sant`Antioco (Cagliari).

Piero Bartoloni è autore di circa duecento (two hundreds) pubblicazioni a carattere scientifico, tra le quali dieci libri.”

“Curriculum Vitae et Studiorum by Piero Bartoloni (in Italian)

Piero Bartoloni graduated in Literature from the teaching of Semitic Philology, supervisor Sabatino Moscati, with a thesis on the settlement of Monte Sirai (Carbonia-Cagliari), obtaining the mark of 110 and honors.

Piero Bartoloni was Research Director of the National Research Council at the Institute for Phoenician and Punic Civilization, of which he was Director from 1997 to 2002. He is currently Extraordinary Professor of Phoenician-Punic Archeology at the University of Sassari. Furthermore, from 1990 to 1994 he was Professor of Archeology of the Near East and from 1994 to 2000 of Phoenician-Punic Archeology at the University of Urbino.

Piero Bartoloni since 1962 has carried out archaeological missions, land and underwater prospecting and study trips to Italy, Europe, Africa and North America. Currently, on behalf of the Department of History of the University of Sassari, of the Institute of Studies on Italic and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations of the National Research Council, he directs the archaeological excavations in Zama Regia (Siliana-Tunisia) and, in collaboration with the Archaeological Superintendence for the Provinces of Cagliari and Oristano, in Sulcis and Monte Sirai (Cagliari).

Piero Bartoloni is Coordinator of the XI Doctorate "The Mediterranean in the classical age. History and cultures", is a member of the National Committee for Studies and Research on Phoenician and Punic Civilization of the Minister for Cultural and Environmental Heritage and a member of the Italian Institute for Africa and the East. Piero Bartoloni is Director of the "Ferruccio Barreca" Municipal Archaeological Museum of Sant`Antioco (Cagliari).

Piero Bartoloni is the author of about two hundred (two hundreds) scientific publications, including ten books.”

>> That’s an honest introduction to Bartoloni.

• Page 1 603 –

>>15026073

(Please read from the start)

“Arguments for and against the claim that the Phoenician/Punic practiced child sacrifice by M'hamed Hassine Fantar and Lawrence E. Stager and Jospeh A Greene, as well as a letter in support of M'hamed Fantar's view.

NO, The Phoenician/Punic did not practice Child Sacrifice

The Tophet was the final resting place for the still- born and for children who died in early infancy.

M'hamed Hassine Fantar

Were it not for a few classical accounts, scholars would probably not attribute the burials in the Carthage Tophet to child sacrifice. Some of the more sensational stories, such as those related by the first-century B.C. historian Diodorus Siculus, have been picked up in modern times and passed off as the entire truth. In the 19th century, for instance, Gustave Flaubert described Punic child sacrifices in his novel Salammbô; he had no evidence at all, except for the classical sources.

What if, however, the classical sources are unreliable? Indeed, what if all the evidence regarding the burials‹either from literary sources or archaeological excavations‹is unreliable or inconclusive?

Here is Diodorus's account of how the Carthaginians sacrificed their children: "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire" (Library of History 20.6- 7).

This is the stuff of myth, not history. Diodorus, who was from Sicily, was probably mixing up stories about Carthage with ancient Sicilian myths‹ specifically the myth of the great bronze bull, built for the Sicilian tyrant Phalaris, in which the king's enemies were roasted alive.”

>> Please go back anons and re-read what was written about the Carthaginians wars in Sicily. Whom was fighting whom? Check out Epirus’ role in all of this, then, if you don’t remember, go check out again whom really were the royals of Epirus. Do you see the invisible connection?

“Now, when we come to more credible sources, like the Roman historian Polybius (c. 200-118 B.C.), there is no mention of Carthaginian child sacrifice. Polybius, we know, was with the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus when he destroyed Punic Carthage in 146 B.C. Polybius had no love of Carthage; he fought against the city. His evidence would have been decisive. But he does not make the least allusion to child sacrifice at Carthage.”

>> Good observation. Very logical. Like it or not, he’s got a point here.

“Nor does the Roman historian Livy (c. 64 B.C.-12 A.D.), a more reliable contemporary of Diodorus. Livy was relatively well informed about Carthage, yet he was not so affectionate toward the city as to cover up what would have been in his eyes the worst of infamies: the deliberate slaughter of children.”

• Page 1 604 –

>>15026076

(Please read from the start)

“*For more information on the meaning of the word "Moloch," see Lawrence E. Stager and Samuel R. Wolff, "Child Sacrifice at Carthage‹Religious Rite or Population Control? Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 1984. (This issue is out of print. To order a photocopy of this article, call us at 1-800-221-4644.).

So it is not clear at all from the classical sources that the Carthaginians sacrificed their children to the gods. What about the biblical verses often taken as evidence of child sacrifice among the Canaanites‹particularly the Phoenicians, who established Carthage? The word "Tophet" is only known from the Hebrew Bible; it occurs several times in Jeremiah, once in Isaiah and once in Kings, always in the same context: "He [the late- seventh-century B.C. Judahite king Josiah] defiled Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, so that no one would make a son or a daughter pass through fire as an offering to Moloch" (2 Kings 23:10).* So strong a connection has been presumed between such biblical passages and the Punic sanctuaries that these sacred grounds in Carthage and elsewhere are now called Tophets. The fact is, however, that the biblical passages do not mention sacrifice. They only refer to passing children through fire.”

>> Another good observation.

“Neither the classical sources nor the biblical passages provide conclusive evidence concerning the events that took place in the Carthage Tophet. What about the physical facts?”

>> Exactly.

“The Tophet was a sacred space where urns containing the incinerated bones of children were buried. These remains, moreover, were no doubt buried ritually, in accord with Punic religious or cultic laws. Marking some urns are stelae bearing Phoenician inscriptions, along with symbols (like the triangular symbol of the goddess Tanit) and figural images. The incinerated remains are those of very young children, even fetuses; in certain urns, the bones of animals have been discovered. In some cases the urns contain the remains of children and animals mixed together. How do we account for these facts?

Some historians, such as the French scholar Hélène Benichou-Safar, have proposed that the Carthage Tophet was simply a children's cemetery in which incineration was the method of burial. This interpretation, however, confronts a sizable obstacle: Many of the thousands of inscriptions engraved on the burial stelae are votive. The inscriptions make offerings and vows to the gods, and they plead for the gods' blessing. Not one of these inscriptions, however, mentions death.”

>> Absolutely correct. So ask yourselves anons: what are the parents begging/asking the gods for? Now connect it to the mutated symbol of the Beam = what you call nowadays Caduceus. If you are a parent, and your child is stillborn, what would you be wishing for that deceased child of yours? Wouldn’t you be wishing for the infant to be in Heaven or find his/her way to Heaven? And not get lost during the trip? If so, whom would you ask to make sure the child got that blessing and reached Heaven? You ask a deity, right? You usually ask the patron deities of a City-State back in the days, regardless of which deity it is. I’m not saying Tanit is good, I’ve already declared this needs a re-evaluation. It’s not something I can do in a few hours or a month, this needs time because it’s deep. So for now I’m going to work on this one brick at a time. Think about what I’m saying anons.

• Page 1 605 –

>>15026081

(Please read from the start)

“The Carthage Tophet, like other Tophets in Sicily and Sardinia, was not a necropolis. It was a sanctuary of the Punic god Ba'al Hammon.”

>> I totally disagree. It was a necropolis = a burial ground. And yes, some rituals used to take place, like burial rituals, just like we have burial, wedding, first communion rites in Church. So there were different types of rituals, all depending on the situation. In this case, it was a burial type of ritual and the dead infant were cremated. Why cremation? I don’t know for sure, but….there is a high chance it’s mostly due to the genre of the remains = the dead infants were not totally formed for some of them, and some were not even alive (= stillborn) or died during the birth process. In these specific cases, some were not complete physically = not fully formed. Others had no breath of life within them = not fully alive.

“The texts of the inscriptions in the Carthage Tophet suggest that the sanctuary was open to everyone, regardless of nationality or social status. We know that Greek-speaking people made use of the sanctuary, for instance, since some inscriptions have the names of the gods transcribed in Greek characters. Foreigners who visited the Tophet clearly did not offer Ba'al Hammon their offspring. Nor is it likely that visitors from other Punic settlements visited the Carthage Tophet to bury or sacrifice their children. One inscription, for example, mentions a woman named "Arishat daughter of Ozmik." The inscription tells us that Arishat was a "Baalat Eryx," or noble woman of Eryx, a Punic community in Sicily. It seems reasonable to assume that Arishat, while visiting the great city of Carthage, simply felt the need to pay homage to the Punic gods‹or to utter a vow or make a request.”

>> Remember Epirus? Remember how the Carthaginians used to “mysteriously” loose against their enemies in the most critical time ever? Infiltration not invasion. Do not forget there was also a Jewish community there as well as the Greek one.

Carthage was not the only Phoenician colony whom had a child burial where infants were buried. There are other sites, mostly in Sardinia and Sicily. The story of Arishat, LADY of Eryx, should be examined a bit further than the obvious, mostly to see if there was a migration or a political marriage, not just with her generation, but generation before her as well. As in her parents and her grandparents; because what killed all of these infants was an illness transferred from one generation to the next; that’s why we got so many of them = dead infants = and it explains why the deaths stretched for centuries. So it’s possible that Arishat, lady of Eryx, was making an offering to someone related to her in that cemetery. Or she had a miscarriage herself and was emotionally moved when she saw the burial in Carthage. Or it could be any other reason. This needs further digging.

“The Carthage Tophet was a sacred sanctuary where people came to make vows and address requests to Ba'al Hammon and his consort Tanit, according to the formula do ut des ("I give in order that you give"). Each vow was accompanied by an offering.”

>> This could be like “God, I promise to stop drinking if you could guide my child to Heaven and watch over him/her during the trip” or “God, I promise to sacrifice a rooster each year for you if you guide the soul and the spirit of my child to Heaven”, etc. This is how I understand the inscriptions to be. Not as explained by the chorus of the Main Stream History and the anti-Phoenician academic mafia.

“Some of the stelae suggest that animals were sacrificed and then offered to the gods. For example, some stelae bear engraved depictions of altars and the heads of the animal victims.”

• Page 1 606 –

>>15026093

(Please read from the start)

>> Nothing evil or horrible in this type of offering. It used to take place all over the world and by everyone. And there is nothing wrong in making an animal offering for the soul of the deceased infant to rest in peace or to thank the deity for guiding it to Heaven or for protecting the infant’s spirit in the afterlife. Till this day, we do hold similar practices in all the religions of the world, including the practice of ancestor worshiping or ancestor praying. Or in other places, there are prayers and offerings for the soul of the deceased family member so it could rest in peace and not hold grudges towards the living relatives because it was forgotten or because of neglect. It takes various forms and it’s a bit different from one place to the other, but the core idea behind them all is the same; like what they do in Mexico or in Japan for examples.

“The presence of the incinerated bones of very young children, infants and even fetuses is puzzling. If the Tophet was not a cemetery (as the presence of animal bones suggests), why do we find infants and fetuses buried in a sanctuary?”

>> Good question.

“It is very common, all over the world, to find that children who die young, and especially fetuses, are accorded special status. Many cultures believe that these are simply not ordinary deaths. The Italian archaeologist Sabatino Moscati has pointed out that in certain Greek necropolises children were incinerated and their tombs were located in a separate sector, quite distinct from the burial place used for adults. This is also the case in some Islamic necropolises, where sections are reserved exclusively for the tombs of infants. Even today, Japanese children who die young, called Gizu, are placed in special areas of a temple, and they are represented by carved figurines that suggest their holy status.”

>> But if the Punics or the Phoenicians did the same….they are sacrificing children….because???? the Jews and their nobility = the Bloodlines said so. See how it works? And this is the only thing (((they))) made the Phoenicians famous for. Amazing how much publicity a LIE and SLANDER got….just to brainwash the public and ruin the public image of the Phoenician. Whom controls the media and the printing houses? Whom controls the academic world? Whom controls the medical research facilities? Whom is paying all the supposed “experts”? And whom is crushing those whom don’t fall in line with (((their))) narrative? Whom is the entity standing behind that curtain, manipulating every single information there is about the Phoenicians? Whom is controlling everything?

“Similarly, Punic children who died young possessed a special status. They were accordingly incinerated and buried inside an enclosure reserved for the cult of lord Ba'al Hammon and lady Tanit. These children were not "dead" in the usual sense of the word; rather, they were retroceded. For mysterious reasons, Ba'al Hammon decided to recall them to himself. Submitting to divine will, the parents returned the child, giving it back to the god according to a ritual that involved, among other things, incineration and burial. In return, the parents hoped that Ba'al Hammon and Tanit would provide a replacement for the retroceded child‹and this request was inscribed on a funeral stela.”

>> This is a possible explanation to SOME of the inscriptions but not ALL of them. Not all parents had the same wish and this is normal, because we are not the same person all of us. Yes, all parents wish for the wellbeing of their children, but if some parents lost their children due to illness, then they hope to have healthy children next time. And this even happens nowadays.

“Thus the Tophet burials were not true offerings of children to the gods. Rather, they were restitutions of children or fetuses taken prematurely, by natural death.”

• Page 1 607 –

>>15026110

(Please read from the start)

>> I see them as special burial for the ones whom were not “complete” as humans, either body, spirit, or understanding = less than 5 years old. And I see them as being put in the care of the deities so they would guide them to Heaven = the presence of the Beam is more important than anyone thought of. It’s like parents are asking the deity to open the stargate and help their “not completed” child to have a safe passage to Heaven.

Anyone reading has any memory of his life before his 5 years of age? My oldest memories are when I was 5 years old. The truth is, no one = not a single person, remembers his or her life before his 5th birthday. Which makes it that the persons memories are incomplete making him unconscious or should I say making him an UNAWARE human.

Being with the young man, we got to learn and understand better how the spirit “works”…well, that is not entirely true too, but…it’s hard to explain in simple words. I mean we got to know better the Spirit that our Heavenly Father has put into each one of us. And we know that our consciousness is linked to our Spirit. If you are aware, then you feel. When you feel then your Spirit grows and becomes stronger. The more you are conscious of everything and everyone around you and yourself, the more you feel. The more you feel, the more your spirit gets stronger and powerful and your connection gets stronger as well. If you are not compassionate, then you have no way of growing your spiritual power and to be compassionate you gotta have a big amount of awareness or if you want to say a big amount of consciousness. As in if you feel bad or wrong about something – does it bother you to hear that some innocents were killed on the other side of the planet or not? If it does, then what are you doing about it? Or do you ignore that feeling and go get drunk in a bar, go the gym, or simply go play a video game? As in doing anything to run away from your own consciousness from your own awareness – the Bloodlines trained you well to run away and not face the harsh feeling your consciousness generates. At first, it’s very painful, in a maddening way. When you start to absorb the pain in and tame it, it doesn’t go away, more pain will pile up on it, the flow of pain won’t go away nor will it stop….but….it’s going to build up inside of you, to form a spiritual spark and that spark when it reaches a certain level it will ignite your spirit and make it stronger. There is a reason why Christ had to live the torture and then be crucified. I’m not saying that should happen to you. Don’t get me wrong, but I’m saying if you don’t go through hardship and if you don’t feel with the hardship of others, then you will never grow spiritually and never be part of the Light. There is no FREE ENTRANCE to HEAVEN. That’s a myth created by the Bloodline. Christ re-opened the gates or if you want to call it: the stargate, for us, he made Heaven accessible to us. But it’s going to be up to us to “earn” the ticket = as in work to get a ticket to Heaven…sort of speak of course.

“Carthaginians did not sacrifice their children to Ba'al Hammon in the Tophet. This open-air site, accessible to all who cared to visit the place, was a sacred sanctuary presided over by Ba'al Hammon and his consort Tanit. The human remains found in the urns buried in the Tophet were of children recalled to the presence of the gods; that is why they were buried in the sanctuary. To this sanctuary came grieving parents, who gave their children back to Ba'al Hammon and Tanit. Sometimes the parents would offer animal sacrifices to the gods to solicit their favor. Then they had funeral stelae carved and inscribed with vows, along with the poignant request that the divine couple grant them further offspring.”

• Page 1 608 -

>>15034970

(Please read from the start)

>> I slightly differ in a point he made which I already explained many time what the difference is, but in general, this is correct. The difference is I think the deities were asked for protection and guide the child during his passage to Heaven = as in putting the dead infant in the care of the deity whom will be leading him/her to Heaven = safe arrival to Heaven. Why I think that? = because of the care displayed for the remains. There is a huge dosage of feelings and care in and around each burial. These were not cold hearted parents sacrificing their children, these were caring parents mourning their lost child and worrying about the infant’s passage to Heaven.

“YES, The Phoenician/Punic practiced Child Sacrifice

The thousands of individual burials, the several mass burials and the animal burials all demonstrate that these were sacrifical offerings to the gods.

Lawrence E. Stager and Joseph A. Greene

“The evidence that Phoenicians ritually sacrificed their children comes from four sources. Classical authors and biblical prophets charge the Phoenicians with the practice. Stelae associated with burial urns found at Carthage bear decorations alluding to sacrifice and inscriptions expressing vows to Phoenician deities. Urns buried beneath these stelae contain remains of children (and sometimes of animals) who were cremated as described in the sources or implied by the inscriptions.”

>> My eyes are filled with tears from laughter. Let’s take a look at the arguments presented by the Phoenician accusers = the prosecutors:

1 – Classical authors…we’ve already seen them many times in this thread, starting with the tale of Queen Elissa (starting page 1 452). And we already read it from Wikipedia itself how their “accounts” were contradicting one another, inaccurate and none were direct eye-witnesses to the practice of child sacrifice in Carthage. These are the witnesses 1 & 2 in the court case against the Phoenicians and it’s been proven over and over again that they are the enemies of the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians. As well as the Bloodlines presence and influence can be detected or connected to those Classical authors. It’s up to you if you want to believe them or not. You are the Jury in this court case.

2 – The biblical prophets: I already know the Old Testament was heavily edited and subtle changes made to it to substitute Jerusalem with Tyre in Ezechiel. That’s just one example of how the substitution and the change were made. Ezechiel was cursing Jerusalem and calling it the City of the Evil One, whom ruled over it, the City of the sinners whom did unforgiveable things. But amazingly, a few well-placed changes and it became the Phoenician City-State of Tyre = Sur which was the city of sinners instead. Amazing! This is how the Jews polish their own excrements and make them look good and shiny. Sorry for the bad choice of words but it’s the truth. Here, the Jews took the horrible act (((they))) commit themselves and (((they))) projected it on the Phoenicians. And not a single mention, not a pip about the Tophet of Jerusalem which was not closed despite the supposed efforts of king Josiah to shut it down and to stop this nasty practice. Not enough….please go back and research yourself how Yahweh and the Evil One are one and the same deity. Go back and research how there is a big Jewish community in each HUGE center dedicated to the cult of the Evil Lady and/or the Evil One. Please go research how the apostles preached in those centers on purpose and they were “persecuted” and “fought” by the Hellenized Jews of those big center of cult. Go back and research how the Jews held onto the cult of the Evil Lady and mostly to the sacred prostitution = it was their favorite. The Jews are the witness number 3 in the court case against the Phoenicians. It’s going to be up to you dear reader if you want to believe the Jews or not? = find them credible witnesses or not against the Phoencians, despite the fact that they too have never been eye witnesses of the so called children sacrifice ceremony practiced by the Phoenicians. I can go on and on about them and their lies and their slander, but I’m not going to waste time on something so obvious.

• Page 1 609 –

>>15035009

(Please read from the start)

3 – The Stelae in the burial ground: the symbols on it need to be re-evaluated depending on the new finding about Tanit which needs to be re-studied. As for the inscriptions: First, we gotta make sure the translation is correct because there is big difference between each translation. Second, once we are certain to have the correct translation, then the interpretation of the inscription should be carefully done not on its own, but it should merge with the results we will discover from the re-evaluation of the cult of Tanit. It’s like they complete one another. Loads of work to be done here.

4 – The Sources are not reliable and the inscriptions do not explicitly say the children were sacrificed = burned alive = killed for the deity. It all depends on the interpretation of the inscription which can be biased depending on whom is paying to get the interpretation they like to hear, not as it really is. As for the urns and the remains in them, this is a burial ground for “incomplete” humans, there are many reasons why the dead infants were cremated = as in the practice of burning the already dead body was used and they were not buried in a coffin or sarcophagus. One of the reasons could be their “incomplete” body…or…it could be to stop some deceases like the cholera to spread. We simply don’t know why this method = cremation was used for this specific category of deaths. So quickly jumping to conclusion that cremation is a sign of child sacrifice is nothing but pure stupidity….or….it might be serving a darker agenda = deliberate slander of the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and the deliberate act of destroying their public image; creating this MYTH that the Phoenicians sacrificed children so that the public, but mostly the American Christians (the puppets), would be brainwashed by this huge lie, this fiction. You think you are brainwashed by the MSM? Wait till you find out how brainwashed you are by your own church and the Bible, mostly the Old Testament. The only true thing in that book is Christ. His existence is the only truth in that book. I like St Paul too, but…there are some passage which reeks of alterations and manipulations = as in his words were twisted and edited. As for the Armageddon = that is not written by St John, this was written and added centuries later.

“Still, some scholars like Dr. Fantar deny that the Phoenicians sacrificed their children. They dismiss the texts as tendentious or misinformed, and they ignore the sacrificial implications of the inscribed stelae. The archaeological evidence, however, especially the bones found inside the burial urns, cannot be so easily explained away.”

>> What “sacrificial implications” are found in the inscriptions of the Stelae? It’s subjected to the interpretation of everyone = as in anyone can come in and interpret this according to their own views….including me. What is going to draw the line in all of this is the Cause of death of all of these children. When we determine what caused the death of all of these children, then we would be able to lean this or that way once and for all. Until then, the inscriptions can be considered ambiguous and open to any interpretation.

The thing is with the Phoenician haters (paid of the Jews) they take one point on its own, separately, and hammer it and twist things to fit the narrative they are paid to push forward. What they do not do is gather all the evidence and see what they are all talking about, point towards uniformly, in a synchronized way. When you are a homicide detective, you must take into consideration all of the elements you’ve got in front of you and not rely solely on one = you gotta put the entire picture together and not a section of it like what the Phoenician haters do. And unfortunately, they’ve got the biggest bullhorn, the money and the media to back them up, while our voices are muffled.

• Page 1 610 –

>>15035079

(Please read from the start)

“Evidence from classical authors. Ancient authors, both Greco-Roman historians like Kleitarchos, Diodorus and Plutarch and Church fathers like Tertullian, condemn the Carthaginians for the practice of child sacrifice. Some add lurid but unverifiable details‹sacrifices witnessed by distraught mothers, grimacing victims consumed by flames, human offerings received in the outstretched arms of a brazen statue. On one point these sources are completely in accord: The Carthaginians sacrificed their children to their supreme deities.”

>> LoL! It’s true, on that ONE point, these sources are completely in accord….but….you are not telling the public that these same sources contradict each other and diverge with one another on thousands of the remaining points ^_^ You are one heck of a hypocrite and a paid liar.

“To be sure, some historians who wrote about Carthage, such as Polybius, took no note of this practice. Why Polybius failed to mention Carthaginian child sacrifice is a mystery. He was a member of Scipio's staff in 146 B.C., and he must have known the city well. The revisionists seize on such omissions as an excuse to dismiss all reports of Phoenician child sacrifice as pure fabrications arising from anti-Phoenician bias. But this is a non sequitur. The fact that Polybius does not mention Carthaginian child sacrifice does not mean that other testimonies are false; it simply means that he has nothing to say on this point.”

>> So according to this Phoenician/Carthaginian hater, Polybius, whom could be considered as the closest thing we have to a half-way direct eye witness, never mentions the Phoenicians practiced child sacrifice. But his silence on the issue is interpreted as he had nothing to say (rolling eyes). It’s up to you if you are convinced by his interpretation of Polybius silence or not.

“Evidence from the Hebrew Bible. The sixth-century B.C. prophet Jeremiah accused syncretizing Judahites of setting up a "high place of Tophet" in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom outside Jerusalem (Jeremiah 7:30-32), where they "burn (sharaf) their sons and their daughters in the fire (b'esh)." This is clearly not a description of sons and daughters "passing through" the fire in some sort of rite of passage from which they emerge singed but not incinerated. These children, both male and female, "burn … in the fire," that is, they are cremated, according to Jeremiah. This testimony is not from a foreigner who accuses the Judahites of evil ways; it is from one of their own. Any Jerusalemite who thought that the prophet might have been fabricating charges of child sacrifice could have taken a short walk down the valley of Ben-Hinnom and become, like Jeremiah, an eyewitness to the human sacrifices taking place there.”

>> O.M.G.! This is a blatant lie. First of all, I thought that Bible made it clear that the Phoenicians only sacrificed their first born SONS, no mention of daughters. Secondly, the one this paid idiot is calling the “foreigners” = meaning the Greek and the Romans, were paid authors/writers, working for the Bloodlines. The Jews are the people of the Evil Clan, while the Bloodlines are the nobility leading the Evil Clan = the leaders of that clan. So when he says the testimonies of foreign….they are not foreigners, they are the noble rulers of the evil clan, scattered all over the world and they are in every civilization out there, and yes, I will be explaining how this happened. Remember how the Spanish nobility welcomed the Aztec nobility among their ranks and their society?

• Page 1 611 –

>>15035157

(Please read from the start)

I also don’t understand his way of thinking and linking the Tophet of Jerusalem with the Phoenicians… what’s that one gotta do with the Phoenicians? Jerusalem was NOT a Phoenician City-State, but a Jewish one. And why should we take a walk in the valley of Ben-Hinnom? Nothing was found there indicating the presence of a Tophet there according to the official narrative. So what am I supposed to “see” or “discover” when I walk there? Whom is lying here? Is the official narrative of Israel about Ben-Hinnom valley correct or another lie? Did (((their))) archaeologists secretly found something and (((they))) have been hiding it from us for all of this time? You see, the Lebanese and the Syrians allowed us to take a look = access the raw data from their digs. And we’ve been checking the excavations for decades now, without anyone knowing what we are truly doing. But when we wanted to do the same with the Israeli data….access was denied. And don’t go thinking we went there nicely asking them to hand over the raw data to us. We pretended we are working on something else. So ask yourselves, why would the Lebanese and Syrians let us check the raw data? And why Israel refused to let us check the raw data they’ve got?

One last thought = was Jeremiah truly an eye witness of what was taking place there? Or did he hear about it as in he was aware of what was going there and tried to put an end to it? If you are an eye witness, does it mean you are participating in the ritual, or are you standing aside and simply watching? Darn it! The prophet Jeremiah must have had nerves of steel to stand there and not react while infants were slaughtered and burned like that. As a prophet of our Heavenly Father, don’t you find him witnessing all of this and not trying to stop it weird? This is another indicator this person is lying all the way up to his eye balls. Because no one with a sound mind can sit there and watch this horror take place without trying to stop it or react to it.

“The word "Tophet" can be translated "place of burning" or "roaster." The Hebrew text does not specify that the Judahite victims were buried, only burned, although the "place of burning" was probably adjacent to the place of burial. Indeed, soil in the Carthage Tophet was found to be full of olive wood charcoal, no doubt from the sacrificial pyres. We have no idea how the Phoenicians themselves referred to the places of burning or burial or to the practice itself, since no large body of Phoenician writing‹no Phoenician "Bible," as it were‹has come down to us.”

>> The Olive tree is sacred in the ALL the basin of the Med Sea; to the Greeks as well. And the Olive tree is considered as a blessing from the Light; remember where Christ was arrested? This person is the first one whom mentioned finding olive tree wood charcoal in the soil of the burial in Carthage. Funny how Schwartz whom collected soil from around the urns and examined them, never mentioned such an important detail…that is, if you believe the one pushing forward this. And even if such charcoal was found, I don’t think they use stones for cremating dead bodies = you need wood in order to do that. And do anons remember that Smith lady arguing that there wasn’t enough wood around for Carthage to use it all on cremating their dead infants? See how (((they))) play (((their))) tricks? It’s so obvious this is nothing but B.S. Of course you have no idea how the Phoenicians called such places as the Jewish Tophet, because the Bloodlines took the Phoenician records/archives. They simply vanished when the Romans got into each City-State, mostly during the time of the first Triumvirate.

“Evidence from Phoenician inscriptions. What have come down to us are thousands of Phoenician inscriptions, the vast majority of which are from the Carthage Tophet. These inscriptions, however, are highly formulaic and tantalizingly laconic. None refers explicitly to child sacrifice, only to vows made to Tanit and Ba'al Hammon. For example, an inscription on a stela from the Tanit II period (sixth to third century B.C.) reads: "To our lady, to Tanit … and to our lord, to Ba'al Hammon, that which was vowed." The placement of such stelae immediately above the jars containing burned remains strongly suggests that these vows had something to do with the cremated individuals, human or animal, inside the jars.”

• Page 1 612 –

>>15035210

(Please read from the start)

>> This dude is a pure A. hole. Sorry, but it’s true. He is fully aware that the inscriptions from the infant burial in Carthage are PUNIC not Phoenician = as in a mutated form of Phoenician where Berber and “others” have merged with Phoenician to create a new form of it = the Punic. Also, please do indicate which inscription from Motherland Phoenicia = Lebanon, you are using a proof because nothing of what you are talking about have been found there. And I’m a bit glad to see you have a tiny ounce of decency in you, because you admitted that the inscriptions on the stelae of the infant burial ground in Carthage are laconic, which makes it hard to interpret and understand. So the meaning could be anything and everything. We simply don’t know, we are unsure. So why did you and the rest of your “mafia” friends jump quickly onto interpreting uncertain inscriptions as being evidence of child sacrifice? The presence of such inscriptions right above burial urns doesn’t mean the infants were sacrificed? That is ONE POSSIBILITY out of MANY, but there is nothing tangible to support that, mostly that no sacrificial knife was found nor any marks of any sort on the bones.

“For more information on the meaning of the word "Moloch," see Lawrence E. Stager and Samuel R. Wolff, "Child Sacrifice at Carthage‹Religious Rite or Population Control? Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 1984. (This issue is out of print. To order a photocopy of this article, call us at 1-800-221-4644.) Somewhat unexpectedly, inscribed stelae in the Carthage Tophet occasionally mark jars containing animal remains, incinerated and buried in the same careful fashion as the human victims. In this regard, a second- or third-century A.D. Neo-Punic stela from Cirta (Constantine), in Algeria, is relevant. The stela is inscribed in Latin: vita pro vita, sanguis pro sanguine, agnum pro vikario (Life for life, blood for blood, a lamb for a substitute). This act of substitution is reminiscent of the biblical Akedah, in which Abraham's sacrifice of his son Isaac was forestalled by the miraculous provision of a ram as a substitute (Genesis 22:13).”

>> Do you remember Numidia and the role it played when Carthage was “destroyed” by the Romans during the last Punic war (page 1 548)? Cirta is in Numidia, did you know that? The Numidians were the enemies of the Carthaginians and in the same time they were the allies of the Romans. Also didn’t the Romans destroy Carthage in 146 B.C? And then rebuild a Roman city on the ruins of the Punic City? While the men were killed, the women and children tortured, raped and enslaved. And from since 146 B.C. the new Carthage is a Roman city, run by the Romans and it’s where there was a Roman community living in there. And you are giving me as an example an inscription which dates either for the second or third century A.D.? As in, Carthage was ruled for almost 350 years by the Romans. And then look at the artifacts from Numidia: do anons remember what it means to find an iconography from a female deity holding her breasts like this? = the cult of the Evil lady. Also, were there any migrants from Carthage to Cirta in Numidia? Of course there were….but…from which community were they? Were they from the Greek, Ancient Egypt, the Phoenicians, the Jewish or any other community living there? We simply don’t know. There are too many bumps before we declare this stele with its inscription as a piece of evidence against the Carthaginians. It was not even found in the burial ground in Carthage nor does it fit the reign of the Punic City = around 350 years after its fall. This dude thinks the reader is an idiot whom won’t go check if his claims are right or false.

“Evidence from archaeology. The burned bones found inside jars from the Carthage Tophet provide conclusive evidence for Phoenician child sacrifice. Animal remains, mostly sheep and goats, found inside some of the Tophet urns strongly suggest that this was not a burial ground for children who died prematurely. The animals were sacrificed to the gods, presumably in place of children. It is highly likely that the children unlucky enough not to have substitutes were also sacrificed and then buried in the Tophet.”

• Page 1 613 –

>>15042462

(Please read from the start)

>> Wow! Really?! = the burned bones are conclusive evidence that the Phoenicians practiced child sacrifice. So does that mean you finally found ONE bone with knife marks on it? Or any type of trauma on it indicating that child was truly sacrificed? Anyone can burn some bones, so if a simply burned bone is evidence for this dude…. (rolling eyes). Also we know the Carthaginians buried in the necropolis the dead beyond 5 years of age, while they cremated the dead below 5 years of age. This practice was not exclusively Carthaginians as we saw earlier, it was practiced by many cultures/civilizations worldwide and through the ages. So finding some burned bones is not an indicator child sacrifice took place. It simply indicates the dead infants were cremated. When you find knife marks, or binding marks or trauma marks, like a blow to the head…then…yeah…that’s a sign these infants were sacrificed. But nothing of the sort was found.

“Moreover, the osteological evidence reveals that most of the victims were children two to three months old, though some were as old as age five. So far no skeleton has shown any signs of pathological conditions that might have caused death. These were healthy children deliberately killed as sacrifices in the manner described in the classical and biblical texts.”

>> We haven’t found the cause of death yet, so we cannot rule out sickness. These were not healthy children. He is conveniently omitting the mention of stillborn and pre-mature children; making you think all the infants made it through birth unharmed = which is not correct. There are different age categories in that infant burial, the eldest being 5 years of age. And if my memory is not betraying me, there is one exceptional case of a 12 years old buried there. I’m saying this from memory.

“The sex of the victims is unclear. We do not know for certain whether they were exclusively males, as some have asserted, or both males and females. Some biblical texts suggest that firstborn males were chosen as the ultimate sacrifice to the deity. For example, during a military engagement between the Moabites and the Israelites, the king of Moab "took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering." Upon witnessing this sacrifice, the Israelites retreated and "returned to their own land" (2 Kings 3:27). The prophet Micah lists the sacrifice of the firstborn male as the highest form of offering a human can give to a god‹even better than "calves a year old," rams or "rivers of olive oil" (Micah 6:6-7). Other texts, however, specify that both "sons and daughters" were sacrificed in the Tophet (Jeremiah 7:31 and 2 Kings 23:10).”

>> First of all the buried infants were from both sexes if this dude likes it or not. An honest bone study by an honest institution, mostly the pelvic bones, should put this to rest once and for all. So no….it’s not “as some have asserted” = the bones don’t lie, but this dude does.

Secondly, I don’t understand what Phoenicians and Carthaginians have anything to do with the kingdom of Moab and their king whom sacrificed his eldest son? Is the kingdom of Moab Phoenician? Here we are talking specifically about the sacrifice of children in Carthage, not in Moab. Can someone please explain to me what this has got to do with the issue we are discussing? This dude is arguing how a tomato looks like by giving a cucumber as a supportive example for it. You get what I mean there?! He’s really something. Why doesn’t he give us an example from the burial in Carthage? According to him there are plenty of sacrificial victims there. This means he can find easily an example to give us, instead of using the Bible & Moab, right?

• Page 1 614 –

>>15043366

(Please read from the start)

“Infant skeletons are insufficiently developed to allow the determination of sex on the basis of bone morphology alone. Ongoing DNA analysis of bones from the jars, however, may resolve the question of whether the victims were all males or a mix of males and females.”

>> He just argued up above that some victims were around 5 years of age. How come their bones are insufficiently developed to allow the determination of sex? What about the 1, 2, 3 and 4 years old? Are their bones also under developed for study? So according to this dude what should be the right age of a child to have his bones fully developed in order to recognize it’s a male or a female child? When a homicide detective finds a decomposed body of a child, how does he know it’s a male or female victim? It’s the same thing here = they rely on the bones. So saying the bones are not fully developed is this dude lying to himself. It doesn’t matter if the dead was an infant or a couple of years old child, the bones tell the same story in either case. And finally, he said something with a bit of sense in it = DNA testing. Let’s check out those chromosomes, shall we? And then ask yourselves anons why this type of test wasn’t done before till now, to put at least an end to the gender debate?

“The classical and biblical texts, as well as the archaeology, all indicate that healthy living children were sacrificed to the gods in the Tophet. Our purpose in making this case is not to malign the Phoenicians but to understand them.”

>> His purpose is what he denied it to be = to malign the Phoenicians….but I thought we were discussing the burial in Carthage, not Phoenicia? How did we end up talking about the Phoenicians again? Being Carthaginian or Punic doesn’t mean you are Phoenician because other elements such as Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Berber etc. all mixed, merged into the Phoenician colony to form a new hybrid form which became known as the Punic civilization. So again, why is he bringing up the Phoenicians in all of this, I thought we are talking about the Carthaginians here.

The next part at first doesn’t seem to be connected at all with the burial of Carthage and with this thread. That is, if you haven’t paid attention at all to what I’m working on this thread. Do you remember what we found out about Ashkelon? Do you remember we found it was a center, just like Ephesus, of the sacred prostitution? Do you remember we found out the cult of a mutated form of the Evil Lady took place? So let’s check what comes next in this same article we’ve been reading till now, but do keep in mind what we found out about Ashkelon so far. Please go back and recheck things out, I’m talking from memory right now.

“Excavations in Ashkelon prove that the Romans drowned, threw away their male babies

DNA Analysis Sheds New Light on Oldest Profession at Ashkelon

By Lawrence E. Stager and Patricia Smith

From Biblical Archaeology Review BAR 23:04, Jul/Aug 1997”

>> Do you remember Patricia Smith from page 1 593? It’s the same “expert”. Now watch carefully how she is going to word her sentences and how she is going to argue and interpret things ^_^ This one is going to be fun for the old man.

• Page 1 615 –

>>15043387

(Please read from the start)

“The latest scientific techniques using DNA analysis have enabled us to conclude that the fourth- to sixth-century A.D. building at Ashkelon we confidently identified as a bathhouse also served as a brothel.”

>> A bathhouse was also used like a brothel = remember the bathhouse design of Epstein Island temple? Didn’t Qteam guide us to the bathhouse design from Islamic era in Syria, so we could find the meaning of the Epstein Temple? = it was a site where sacred prostitution rituals were taking place: what does the ritual of sacred prostitution consist of? Well, I’m going to ask you to go re-read what Alexander the not so Great did. Then I’m going to ask you to think about it and try to put things together.

This brothel/bathhouse, Qteam also pointed to it by showing us the pool of Biltmore castle. If we also look, we will find out that this brothel bathhouse is much older than the 4th century A.D. It dates back to many centuries. Just check out the mutated forms of the Evil Lady in Ashkelon and how far back it goes. It’s not that hard to find and back then, there were no Romans in the area. The Jews lived there and practiced the cult of the Evil Lady and the sacred prostitutions. Just check things out yourselves anons.

“Its identity as a bathhouse of the late Roman period was never in doubt. Its architecture included a hypocausta and a tub. The real question was, Did it also serve as a brothel? During this period there is ample textual evidence to indicate that “mixed bathing” led to more than just cleanliness. One author, writing in the time of Nero, describes a father who went to the baths, leaving one child at home, only to return from the baths as the prospective father of two more. The poet Martial wrote that the “bathman lets you in among the tomb-haunting whores only after putting out his lantern.”

>> The first sentence is there to make you think this was taking place only under Roman times solely and it’s not older. Which is not true, because if you look, you will find out its way older = I mean the practice, not the bathhouse itself. Don’t get confused or get me wrong here. I’m saying the sacred prostitution and the use of bathhouses as prostitution places were the rituals of the Evil Lady cult were practiced is very very old….but this bathhouse, yeah, it was built during Roman times.

It was because of Qteam’s hint to the bathhouse in Aleppo that I finally understood how it’s linked to the sacred prostitution. It took me some time to figure it out, but I finally did. I also want to caution anons that this doesn’t mean every single bathhouse in the world is a place where the cult of the Evil Lady took place. Each ancient bathhouse should be examined as a case on its own and verify if the cult of the Evil Lady was taking place there or not. Not all bathhouse were for mixed genders, and I’m sure the cult of the Evil Lady was NOT practiced in all bathhouses worldwide.

“Our suspicions that the Ashkelon bathhouse might also have been a brothel were aroused by the Israeli archaeologist and epigraphist Vasilios Tsaferis, who read a tantalizingly incomplete Greek inscription scrawled on the side of the tub as “Enter, enjoy and …” But the epigraph was too short to be decisive.”

>> I agree, the inscription is incomplete and cannot determine on its own if the bathhouse had a double function of a bathhouse and a brothel.

• Page 1 616 –

>>15043444

(Please read from the start)

“The sewer system we found beneath the bathhouse was more suggestive. The sewer was high enough for an adult to stand up inside it. The whole system had been clogged and had gone out of use by the sixth century A.D. The sewer was filled with rubbish of all kinds, including potsherds, coins and animal bones.

In addition, the shallow gutter that ran below and along the line of the sewer was filled with the skeletons of about a hundred babies. Analysis of these remains by physical anthropologists Patricia Smith and Gila Kahila indicated that the infants were newborns, discarded within a day of birth. Analysis of teeth that had not yet erupted revealed bloodstains, indicating that the infants were either strangled or drowned. Because the infant remains were found in the gutter of the sewer, it seems likely that they were intentionally drowned.”

>> Amazing how Smith accepts the analysis of the teeth of these “murdered” children, but refuses that of the buried children in Carthage. Poor kids, thrown like that in the sewer. The mothers didn’t care about them one zit to throw them in that dirty, filthy, bacteria infested place. Here, if we compare how the dead infants were treated after death = tossed into the sewer; and how the Carthaginians treated their dead infants = cremated, buried in urns thena stele was placed on top with a vow = inscription on it while the priest prayed and a religious burial ritual was performed by him. All of the things done to bury the dead infants and children in Carthage are costly anons and in the same time they project the care given by the parents to their dead child. While here, in the bath house, it’s the easiest, nastiest and cheapest way to get rid of an unwanted infant and it projects the lack of care the mother had towards this child since it lived for an extremely short amount of time. The signs of death here are clear = it was premeditated murder to get rid of the infant. In Carthage, there are no such signs on the remains which could have helped us find out the cause of death of the children.

“For centuries, infanticide was an accepted practice for disposing of unwanted female babies—and, less often, male babies. This was especially true in ancient Roman society. In a letter (dated to June 17 of the year 1 B.C. by our calendar), a certain Hilarion writes to his wife Alis: “I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son … If you are delivered of child [before I get home,] if it is a boy keep it; if a girl, discard it.”

>> Look at the beauty of this sentence and how it’s redirecting your thoughts towards the Romans to keep you away from associating this finding to the Jews, since Ashkelon , where this macabre discovery was made, is in Israel after all. They magically forgot to mention the Tophet of Jerusalem condemned by so many prophets and how king Josiah tried to shut it down and stop the practice of child sacrifice taking place there. In other words, it’s “look here not there” trick being played on your mind here anons.

“Knowing that the Ashkelon bathhouse was an unlikely institution for either the city’s Jews or Christians, both of whom were overwhelmingly “pro-natal,” we assumed the bathhouse/bordello made sense in a Roman context. There should, according to conventional wisdom and calculations, be more female than male babies discarded in the sewers of Ashkelon. This determination could not be made by the analysis usually used by physical anthropologists. It is impossible to determine the sex of prepubescent humans from skeletal observations alone: Such diagnostic features as the pelvis have not yet reached a significant developmental stage.”

• Page 1 617 –

>>15048388

(Please read from the start)

>> LoL! What a liar! See how quickly she dismissed the Jews taking part of this? She conveniently forgot to mention the Tophet of Jerusalem and what was taking place there. She conveniently also forgot to mention the cult of a mutated form of the Evil Lady in Ashkelon itself, way before the Romans got their butts there. Just don’t suspect the Jews and focus on the Romans. The Christians wrote many complaints about the sacred prostitution practice in many places all around the Med Sea. We even have the apostles preaching in some of the centers where this cult was being practiced. We also know in the big centers where this cult was heavily practiced, there was always a big Hellenized Jewish community living there, as it was the case of Ephesus. It’s a pattern and anons can easily find it after checking out each and every single city like we did. And in all cities, the cults dates way back, way before the cities were Hellenized or conquered by the Romans. It used to take a local, native form, but after the arrival of the Greeks and then the Romans, it became Hellenized then Romanized. We studied each case and we found the same core pattern, while small details deferred from one location to another; but as I just said, the core was the same. The evil clan was spread all over and (((they))) infiltrated and settled themselves in almost every major city out there. It’s the same places where a large Jewish community was there as well. I’m repeating = study the pattern.

See how Smith is careful to avoid telling you all of this and not connecting the dots? You think she doesn’t know what was really taking place there? Of course she did, but she is covering for her “clan” = the Jews. We certainly don’t want them to be seen by the public in a bad way. And can anyone reading find me a letter of complaint or some written documents written by the synagogue or the Jewish community in the places where the sacred prostitution used to take place to try to put a stop to it…or at least simply complaint about the degenerated things taking place there? We have plenty of complaints written by the Christians…where are the Jewish ones? And let me point out that the Jews lived in those big cities for many centuries without writing or voicing a single complaint about the practice of the sacred prostitution in their city.

She is counting on you to be the Sheep that you’ve always been and never question things or check = research things out.

As for the gender of the dead infants, she is lying all the way up to her eye balls, because the big majority of the infants were males. After working for many years, we finally understood my mentor and me, what used to take place in those sacred prostitution centers. I will be explaining all of this to anons.

“Our only hope of determining the gender of the Roman infants from Ashkelon was DNA analysis. If the relevant ancient DNA could be isolated and successfully extracted, the X and Y chromosomes could be distinguished.

Drs. Ariella Oppenheim and Marina Faerman, of the hematology and anatomy departments at Hebrew University, determined that the sewer sample contained both sexes. They restricted the ancient DNA samples to left femurs so that they would not duplicate bones from the same infant. They tested 43 exemplars found in the gutter. The femurs were examined using three different tests, from which they could be confident in determining the sex of 19 individuals, based on DNA analyses. Of these, 14 were male and 5 female.

The high proportion of males supports the intriguing possibility that the infants discarded in the sewer were the unwanted offspring of bathhouse courtesans. The prostitutes of the establishment may have preferred to preserve a higher proportion of illegitimate female offspring to meet the future needs of the largely heterosexual institution.”

>> The last paragraph is halfway correct.

• Page 1 618 –

>>15048396

(Please read from the start)

I’m going to tell anons what we old folks found out about all of this, but before I start, please check out these 2 links:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14401305

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/discovery-mass-baby-grave-under-roman-bathhouse-ashkelon-israel-002399

The narrative in these 2 articles about all of this is what is pushed by the Jews and the Main Stream History = the “experts”. It’s the controlled narrative (((they))) want the Sheep to read. But did anyone notice that there are many sites worldwide with the same gruesome discovery of big numbers of infants, mostly male, being buried in ancient times? Now ask yourselves why these “experts” never immediately cried out “child sacrifice” was being practiced there and this was only the case whenever the Phoenicians are concerned and Carthage is a good example of what I’m talking about here. Compare how it was handled when the discovery was made in Carthage and compare how it’s handled in these sites where a large number of ancient dead infant bodies were found. See what I mean?

Now let me tell you what we found out about the sacred prostitution and what was happening in such places:

There was a calendar held by each sanctuary where the cult of the Evil Lady used to take place. The calendar wasn’t identical in all the sanctuary where the cult took place because of the mixture with local dates and customs. So there were common points and there were diverging points. All in all, there was a very specific date fixed upon the calendar when a BIG festival or a celebration used to take place once a year. There were other events related to the calendar, it was not related to one event per year. It’s like what we have with the Christian calendar, as in we have Christmas, Easter etc.

So once a year, on a specific date, a grand festival used to be organized where sacred prostitution was openly practiced for several days at grand scale – depending on the size of the sanctuary/temple it was taking place in. The women prostituting themselves were usually linked to the temple, like the one of Ephesus. They used to give themselves to any man whom wanted to have sex, regardless of his background, age and skin color. And they used to give themselves to multiple men, in other words, it was one big orgy. This practice became very famous in some centers like Ephesus, so when the time of the “festival” approached a lot of men from all over the Med Sea basin used to travel there to attend the orgy. While in some other “more discreet places”, it was just simple travelers or people from the city itself and neighboring villages whom used to attend. It used to be on different scales for each place.

Music used to be played, wine poured heavily and in some places we were suspecting the use of some type of drugs too. In some places the people participating, the men and the prostitutes alike, used to wear masks. There were wild dances taking place by naked or half-dressed people. Loads of free food to go around for everyone circulated. Depending on the location, some orgies used to last from a day, others up to several days. Also depending on the location, some orgies used to happen at night, some during the day and some all day long = 24h in a row. Donations and contributions, like appreciation gifts were made to the temple by the men “visiting”. We are unsure if women (apart the prostitutes) also participated in the big orgies as well. We have some indication that most of these degenerated acts used to take place within the boundaries of the sanctuary, but we are suspecting some places to have done it openly, right in the middle of the streets…if you know what I mean there. The lack of moral was so blatant in some places that it’s scary. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah?

• Page 1 619 –

>>15048475

(Please read from the start)

Anyways….once the frenzy is over, the men traveled back to where they came from. But what happened with the priestesses = prostitutes after the men have gone?

Well, some if not all of them whom participated got pregnant. But strangely, we didn’t find a single clue as to what had happened to the children born from the sacred prostitution. We thought that at least some of them would have been sold as salves or servants to wealthy families. But until the child reachs working age, whom’s gonna take care of him/her and mostly whom is going to feed the child?

Years later, we figured out that the female babies were kept and raised to become future priestesses participating in the sacred prostitution themselves. They were raised as the daughter of the sanctuary, not as individual daughters of each priestess. We also found out that the children are gradually “acquainted” then “trained” to their future job as prostitutes of the sanctuary. There was one case where we found out the girls started to prostitute themselves as young as 14 years old of age. After a certain age and a certain quota, the prostitute went up in ranks and stop offering themselves to the “visiting” men and she relinquished her spot as a sacred prostitute to the younger generation.

Which made us believe there were limited “spots” to fil the job of prostitute at the sanctuary. As in there was a limited number of prostitutes, which differed from each sanctuary to another. Like in a small one, there were 2 or 3 of them each year, no more, no less. Sometimes, it was the same girls from year to year. And in big places, the numbers could go up much more = 10 times more…all depending on the location of course. I think it’s all because of the popularity and the number of “visitor” men participating in the sacred prostitution ritual.

Once the festival time is over, these girls wouldn’t offer themselves like that to any men. In some cases we know, the sacred prostitution used to take place within the walls of the sanctuary but upon selective prior appointments; sort of speak. You know what I mean there.

So what used to happen to the babies if they were males? We believe that a very small percentage of males were kept alive but castrated at a certain age. This is because they needed the man power to perform hard tasks for daily life = like cutting the wood logs or carrying heavy crates of food for the sanctuary’s kitchen….you know…. Tasks which required physical strength which a woman couldn’t provide. Depending on the year, most of the male babies left no trace behind = as if they never existed, while one or 2 were kept alive.

We started to dig in and around some temples (where we had the opportunity to do it) and we looked around (where we couldn’t dig), we snooped in the hope discover a massive grave like the one we just read about in the sewers of Ashkelon’s bathhouse. We never found a mass grave of male infants as we were expecting. But we also never checked out the bathhouses.

• Page 1 620 –

>>15048477

(Please read from the start)

It never occurred to us that the male infants could be disposed of in the bathhouse. We assumed they were disposed of in the sanctuary. But now that I think about it, a bathhouse is a good place to get rid of all the blood and biological stuff which comes out during birth, apart the infants. There is plenty of water around, and the canalization to wash the blood away and the sewer to throw the placenta in. In a strange way, it makes sense why a bathhouse was picked to fill the role of a birth place for the priestesses practicing the sacred prostitution. And it explains why we never found the graves of infants both of us were looking for = we were looking in the wrong place in Ephesus.

When Christianity spread and the complaints against the sacred prostitution from early Christians kept on piling up, this practice went “underground” = as in it was secretly practiced. There is a possibility the bathhouses were used as “the substitute place” instead of using the sanctuaries and the pagan temples to do it as was the situation before Christianity spread. Since the Christians were closing their temples, (((they))) camouflaged what (((they))) were doing and used the bathhouses instead of the temples = avoiding attention from the Christians whom were fooled into believing the sacred prostitution practice had stopped; while the cult of the Evil Lady lived on in secret right under their noses. Rothschild ball is enough proof that the sacred prostitution practice never died and kept on being practiced in hiding till this day. It’s possible it was camouflaged for a certain period of time by using the bathhouses instead of doing it in the sanctuary where it would get the attention of the Christians. They simply switched places, from the sanctuary/temple, they moved to some of the bathhouses. This is why Epstein temple looks like a bath house from Syria.

As I said, most of the female infants were kept, but not all of them if the number of female birth exceeded the required number. See, there was always a certain number of prostitutes for each generation not to exceed or there will be too many mouths to feed, too much work to be done, and there are a few “men visitors”. So the number of female infants to keep for the next generation was determined according to the number of men visitors the sanctuary annually received - as in according to the “demand” or flow of male participants in the orgies. If the temple received a few visitors per year or too many of them = this played a role in the number of prostitutes to keep from one generation to another. Some temples started small and became big, while for others it’s the other way around. If the number of female infants born for the next generation exceeded the number of prostitute required, these “extra” female infants were also “disposed” of. This is why we see the majority of the dead children in such gruesome places are males and a very minority among them are females.

There are a few additional points to mention:

1 – We don’t know what used to happen to infants with “problems” like physical deformities or mental problems.

2 – We couldn’t find out if certain physical criteria, like hair or eye color played a role in selecting which child was dispose of or which child was kept.

3 – We couldn’t find out if children used to be prostituted as well, and not just teens and adults.

4 – We didn’t know = couldn’t find out if human sacrifice was taking place during the orgies and/or they were practiced in secret private ceremonies during or after the festivals.

• Page 1 621 –

>>15055596

(Please read from the start)

5 - There was no way a yearly returning visitor to know which child was his if he was a regular participant. And it’s obvious the men wouldn’t care less if the prostitutes got pregnant or not and what happened to the baby after birth. If there are some long term participants to the orgies, like someone taking part of it for 16 years in a row, then, there is also the possibility he might end up having sex with his own daughter 15 years after he had sex with one of the sanctuary’s prostitute. I hope anons understand what I mean here.

6 – In some cases, we are even suspecting beastiality to have been practiced.

If you think all of this is sick and twisted, you are spot on. It was a place filled with depravity and moral degeneracy.

I would like to point out that some male infants whom were castrated and kept alive were turned into traveling priests of the cult of the Evil Lady = a method used in early times to spread her cult far and wide = everywhere they could spread it. We think this practice of traveling priests gradually faded and became rare as time went by and the big sanctuaries, like Ephesus, started to attract yearly visitors during the sacred prostitution festival. There was no need for the traveling priest to spread the cult anymore.

I’ve attached to this page and the previous page some pictures taken from Pompeii – Italy – some of the murals are from the brothel of the city, while others come from private citizen’s villas. This is a small sample I’m providing anons on how you can easily detect the practice of the sacred prostitutions in some cities around the Med Sea, while in others it’s trickier. As I’ve just said, I’ve put only a sample for anons….you can go online to check out the rest and find the other places of the same kind.

I know I went a bit deep into this detour about Ashkelon, but as anons can see, it’s an important one on too many fronts and it connects many digging tunnels together.

So did the sacred prostitution cult take place in Carthage? Maybe…we don’t know….but during the Roman period, yeah, I think it did. Are the infants buried in the burial of Carthage killed, murdered by the prostitutes to get rid of unwanted children like how it was the case in Ashkelon? The answer is a big NO. The burial method is different and most important, as I’ve mentioned before in page 1 617, the infant buried in Carthage were loved and cared for. Their parents went into great length to bury them properly and loads of money was spent on each burial. While the killed infants in Ashkelon were not even treated with respect, but like garbage, thrown into filthy sewer of the bathhouse. The difference between the 2 cases is simply huge. So NO anons, the infant burial in Carthage doesn’t contain the remains of unwanted infants resulting from the practice of the sacred prostitution. Remember how some inscriptions were asking the deity to give them another child instead of the deceased one? ^_~

So there is a mass child murder case discovered in Ashkelon, Israel and the academic world and the MSM are all silent about it. Amazing, truly amazing! And what about the other places in Europe for example where such gruesome discoveries were made? Where is the spotlight on them? Where is the outrage? Why aren’t the accusation flying like crazy that child sacrifice practice was taking place there? This “treatment” is only reserved to the enemies of the Bloodlines = just ask Potus Trump and his family, they will tell you all about it since they have been living it for the last 6 or so years of their lives. I see there are some people whom still don’t understand how the game is played out and think the media worldwide is saying the truth, as in thinking only the American media is fake news. Don’t you get it, the media worldwide is corrupt!

• Page 1 622 –

>>15055634

(Please read from the start)

It won’t be fair if we don’t hear the side of the Phoenician hater = accusers. So let’s do that and see what the prosecutors have to say. Please pay attention to their arguments and what they are relying on as evidence = look what they are pushing forward as evidence. Please, remember that then compare with what the defense side is saying about the same arguments. Look which makes sense: the prosecutor’s side? Or the defense side? Verify everything. I get pissed when I read their lies and hypocrisy, so I don’t want to go off on one my rants about this. So I’m going to comment only when necessary. I’ve already gone through most of the points, if not all of them. Notice the dates as well.

https://www.browndailyherald.com/2014/02/12/analysis-sheds-light-ancient-phoenician-child-sacrifice-mystery/

“Analysis sheds light on ancient Phoenician child sacrifice mystery

Study helps clarify ongoing debate about whether Phoenicians sacrificed their kids

By Albert Anderson

Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

New and detailed assessments of centuries-old burial sites suggest Phoenicians and their Carthaginian successors performed rituals of child sacrifice — adding new evidence to a mystery archaeologists have long debated.

The new analysis, co-authored by Professor of Archaeology Peter Van Dommelen, is published in the current edition of the journal Antiquity.

Phoenician child sacrifice has been a contentious issue in archaeology for the past century, though contemporary Greco-Roman accounts and evidence from the burial sites themselves suggest the practice took place, Van Dommelen said.

The burial sites, known as tophets, are located along the coasts of North Africa, Sicily and Sardinia and are filled with the cremated remains of small children and occasionally animals. Archaeologists have recently rekindled the debate, with some contending that these sites are simply separate child cemeteries. This assertion is based on bone analysis that points to a significant number of prenatal remains, as well as analysis of contemporary infant mortality rates, Van Dommelen said.

But Van Dommelen said he disagrees with this conclusion. “You need to historicize your scientific result before you come to a conclusion,” he said.”

“In the recent analysis, he and his European colleagues used evidence collected from previous on-site digs to develop their conclusion. They noted that the inscriptions left on markers at the sites are of a sacrificial and not funerary nature, and that the number of remains compared to the tophets’ centuries of use suggests only a couple depositions per year, much less than one would expect at a conventional cemetery, he said.”

>> So he is using the indecisive inscriptions of the stelae as evidence, which can be interpreted in various ways. We already talked about this.

• Page 1 623 –

>>15055661

(Please read from the start)

“The paper also cites the “unanimous” support of contemporary Greco-Roman sources, Van Dommelen said, some of which explicitly state that Phoenicians practiced this custom.”

>> We’ve also taken a look at these sources and we already know they were the enemies of the Phoenicians/Carthaginians which they slandered repeatedly. Their biased writings are also contradictory to one another accounts.

“It is not about depositing children that died accidentally — it is actually an offering being made to a god,” Van Dommelen said. “At least a significant percentage (of deceased children) we can reasonably assume must have been sacrificed.”

>> And this assumption was made on what exactly?

“Science is making archaeology very much an interdisciplinary field,” Van Dommelen said, adding that traditional historical approaches must also be factored into conclusions.

Tophets are largely found to the north of larger Carthaginian cities, which started as Phoenician colonial settlements. They were often among the first structures built, and acted as open-air sanctuaries or ritual sites, Van Dommelen said. As the cities expanded, the tophets remained unmoved, which indicates their importance.”

>> No mention of the Jewsish origins of the name and the Tophet itself.

“Despite what scientists and archaeologists have already discovered, there are still mysteries surrounding the tophets. Though Van Dommelen referred to the sacrifices as a “contract” with the gods to be offered in times of distress in exchange for good fortune, the exact nature of the rituals remains a mystery.

“We don’t have any written literature from the Phoenician-Punic world,” Van Dommelen said.”

>> At least you admitted this one. So you built your entire case on the tales from the Carthaginians enemy’s side.

“Researchers have not discovered tophet sites in the center of the Phoenician homeland in modern-day Lebanon, where the Carthaginian civilization originated. The presence of known tophets in places where the Phoenicians expanded for trade raises questions about why the practice coincided with the civilization’s expansion.”

• Page 1 624 –

>>15055670

(Please read from the start)

>> He is admitting nothing was found in Phoenician Motherland but he wonders how some of the colonies had a high infant mortality rate: he’s really smart. He never took into account = calculation what the “migrants” from the “other” places might have brought with them when they moved into these Phoenicians colonies. The Main Stream History wants you to think that the demographics in the colonies were made of a 100% Phoenician colonists, but the truth is the colonies were a demographic mosaic. That’s a known FACT which the Main Stream History and the PAID “experts” like to ignore.

“Matthew McCarty, a lecturer in classics at Princeton who was not involved in the study, said he agreed with Van Dommelen’s recent paper. “I think it’s a model for the kind of clear reasoning and attention to the actual evidence that we have from the ancient world to make a compelling argument,” McCarty said. “I think it’s a slam dunk.”

>> What actual evidence? It’s a clear reasoning model alright, but not just any reasoning, it’s a special type of reasons which is guided by the sign of $$$$$$$ in your bank account, to both of you.

“McCarty added that Phoenician child sacrifice “will continue to be an issue because it’s a politically and culturally fraught one, but academically, scientifically, it probably should no longer be an issue, it should be settled.”

>>That’s where you are wrong: it’s not settled academically and scientifically just like it’s not culturally. But politically, it is settled because the politicians worldwide are in the pocket of the Bloodlines and they do and say what the Bloodlines tell them. This includes the likes of you in the academic world and in the media world.

“Susan Alcock, director of the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, echoed McCarty’s sentiment. “This topic is a real flashpoint in archaeology in the Mediterranean. It is very hard to talk about it without people overreacting or getting upset, but it is a phenomenon that we have to study carefully and understand in its own cultural context,” she said.

Van Dommelen brings a unique expertise to Brown, Alcock said, calling him an outlier in a field dominated by study of the Greeks and Romans. “There aren’t many places in North America that teach this kind of thing, so it adds a whole new dimension to archaeology at Brown.”

>> Because of the lies and the slander, the Tunisian and mostly the Lebanse nations have been badly treated. The slander has lead to the discrimination of the descendants of both the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians, specifically by the Western Christian. So no…..this type of work is not great, nor does it deserve to be taught to the younger generation whom you are filling their brains with nothing but pure fiction and lies, just to keep up the fable, the narrative put up by the Bloodlines and (((their))) people = the Jews from long ago. I guess this gets a spot in the top 10 list of the longest lies perpetuated by the Evil Clan on the general public.

• Page 1 625 –

Please, light a candle, pray for the victims of another horrible crime.

>>15055692

(Please read from the start)

Next is an acticle putting both side’s arguments: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/21/carthaginians-sacrificed-own-children-study

“Carthaginians sacrificed own children, archaeologists say

Graves holding tiny cremated bones confirm accounts dismissed as Greek or Roman black propaganda, study shows.

Just as ancient Greek and Roman propagandists insisted, the Carthaginians did kill their own infant children, burying them with sacrificed animals and ritual inscriptions in special cemeteries to give thanks for favours from the gods, according to a new study.”

>>This one is darn too good: he admits it’s propaganda, but the Carthaginians are guilty of sacrificing children because a burial with uncertain inscriptions were found. The situation with the Greek-Roman sources is like bringing Killary as a witness to testify against Trump about his “supposed” friendship with Epstein. It’s the same situation we have here on our hands anons. You cannot bring witnesses whom are known to be the enemies of the Carthaginians/Phoenicians to testify against them.

"This is something dismissed as black propaganda because in modern times people just didn't want to believe it," said Josephine Quinn, a lecturer in ancient history at Oxford, who is behind the study, with international colleagues, of one of the most bitterly debated questions in classical archaeology.

But when you pull together all the evidence – archaeological, epigraphic and literary – it is overwhelming and, we believe, conclusive: they did kill their children, and on the evidence of the inscriptions, not just as an offering for future favours but fulfilling a promise that had already been made.

"This was not a common event, and it must have been among an elite because cremation was very expensive, and so was the ritual of burial. It may even have been seen as a philanthropic act for the good of the whole community."

Argument has raged on the subject since cemeteries known as tophets – after the biblical account of a place of sacrifice – were excavated in the early 20th century on the outskirts of Carthage in modern Tunisia, and then at other Carthaginian sites in Sicily and Sardinia. The graves held tiny cremated bones carefully packed into urns, buried under tombstones giving thanks to the gods. One has a carving which has been interpreted as a priest carrying the body of a small child. Some archaeologists and historians saw the finds as proving ancient accounts of child sacrifice; others insisted they showed tender respect for cherished children who died before or soon after birth.”

>> Notice the observations he is making of how carefully the remains are buried? But for him it means nothing and he keeps on singing to the same tune.

• Page 1 626 –

>>15063191

(Please read from the start)

“Quinn and her colleagues, a group of Punic archaeologists and historians from Italy and the Netherlands, who publish their findings in the journal Antiquity – where the argument has been rumbling on for several years – completely reject the latter theory.

“The inscriptions are unequivocal: time and again we find the explanation that the gods 'heard my voice and blessed me'. It cannot be that so many children conveniently happened to die at just the right time to become an offering – and in any case a poorly or dead child would make a pretty feeble offering if you're already worried about the gods rejecting it."

"Then there is the fact that the animals from the sites, which were beyond question sacrificial offerings, are buried in exactly the same way, sometimes in the same urns with the bones of the children."

>> Yes, there is no question the animal bones are sacrificial offering, but…they were offered so that the deity protects and guids the dead child’s soul and spirit to Heaven. The Beam symbol on the stelae is conveniently ignored. This symbol was put there for a reason = to make sure the light beam got the soul and spirit of the dead child to Heaven.

“Although hundreds of remains were found, there were far too few to represent all the stillbirth and infant deaths of Carthage. According to Quinn, there were perhaps 25 such burials a year, for a city of perhaps 500,000 people.”

>> That’s the maximum demographic number and the lowest was 200 000 people. This is important and it will play a part in what I’m going to explain about the reason = cause of death. See, we never found the cause of death for such a big number of dead children. We can say the cause of death is stillbirth and so on for some of them, but this doesn’t cover all the dead children. We always thought the cause was some type of illness of some sort. But we found nothing in the past that could justify the large numbers spread over many centuries. But now I found it and it justifies ALL of the deaths: even the ones whom died before maturity, the stillborns and everyone else. One illness killed them all. It turned out to be a rare illness.

“The Roman historian Diodorus and other ancient historians gave graphic accounts of Carthaginian child sacrifice: "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."

Diodorus even said that some citizens who bought children from poor people and reared them specially for sacrifice believed misfortunes had resulted because they had not sacrificed their own offspring.

The argument has been passionate for years, with scientists often reaching opposed conclusions from the same bone fragments: four years ago a group of scientists published a paper saying the cremated remains did not indicate infant sacrifice.”

• Page 1 627 –

>>15063220

(Please read from the start)

“Now in the same issue as Quinn's research, Antiquity is publishing a new paper on the same bones, insisting that the earlier study got the science of burnt infant bones wrong, and therefore greatly overestimated the number who died before birth rather than being murdered in infancy.”

>> This is what the Bloodlines excel in = they bring their own team of scientists and experts and provide bogus results just to counter and derail the correct results. You don’t believe me, just take a look what they did with the plandemic. Now imagine if this was done for other issues as well, like the medical results = the tests on the Carthaginian infant burial remains. There is one way to put an end to all of this = the alliance can hopefully clear all of this out by bringing out the true, authentic results.

“Quinn said many of her academic colleagues were appalled by her conclusions.

"The feeling that some ultimate taboo is being broken is very strong. It was striking how often colleagues, when they asked what I was working on, reacted in horror and said, 'Oh no, that's simply not possible, you must have got it wrong.'"

"We like to think that we're quite close to the ancient world, that they were really just like us – the truth is, I'm afraid, that they really weren't."

>> I agree with the colleagues = you got it terribly wrong.

More reading of the same anons. Sorry, but I gotta cover it from all sides:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/two-tales-of-one-city-data-inference-and-carthaginian-infant-sacrifice/5006E240CB75A1E324B3230F6DA17389

“Two tales of one city: data, inference and Carthaginian infant sacrifice

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 April 2017

Recent issues of Antiquity have seen much discussion on the topic of Carthaginian infant sacrifice: was it a Graeco-Roman fiction or did it really happen? There are strongly held opinions on both sides of the argument, with much resting on the age profile of the children interred at the cemetery known as the Carthage Tophet. Here, the authors respond to claims by Smith et al. (2011, 2013) that their ageing of the infants and children was incorrect, and so also by extension was their interpretation that not all interments at the Tophet were the result of sacrifice.

Introduction

In his second major work, Salammbô, Flaubert (Reference Flaubert1862) portrayed the Carthaginians as a heartless people who sacrificed their children to gain favour with their gods Tanit and Ba'al Hammon. In this fictional account, a priest places these innocents—tied hand and foot, and cloaked to mask the horror ahead—first individually, and then en masse, in the hands of a huge brass statue of Ba'al, whose arms are then raised until the bodies fall into a pyre between its legs. Throughout, musicians play loudly to smother the wails of the victims. Flaubert's critics chastised him for embracing Graeco-Roman tales of rampant Carthaginian infant sacrifice too literally (Gras et al. Reference Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor1991).”

• Page 1 628 –

>>15070192

(Please read from the start)

“Flaubert's scenario preceded, by 59 years, the first interpretation of urns bearing the burnt remains of humans and animals from a distinct cemetery (the ‘Tophet’) at the Carthaginian city of Motya (Motzia), Sicily, as evidence of sacrifice (Whitaker Reference Whitaker1921), which Poinssot (Poinssot & Lantier Reference Poinssot and Lantier1923) then applied to the Carthage Tophet.

Prominent French scholars rejected Whitaker's claim, which they saw as derivative of Flaubert and his reliance on what they considered to be inaccurate Graeco-Roman descriptions of Carthaginian infant sacrifice (Gras et al. Reference Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor1991). As Saumange wrote in 1922 (translated and quoted in Gras et al. Reference Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor1991: 151):

The imagination of the public, haunted by Flaubert's memory, has promptly dramatized the discovery: these children [. . .] are the victims of cruel holocausts which Carthage offered to Moloch. This is an imprudent and grave step to take lightly. Imprudent because it is important to know the excavation perfectly and in all details before advancing such a thing even hypothetically. Grave because one compromises the rehabilitation which the religious reputation of Carthage has benefited from among a good number of our best historians.

May we be permitted to ask ourselves whether the object of the wish was not simply to erect the image of the [. . .] god himself, and whether the presence of ashes of children could not have been intended to render the place of the betyl [sacred stone] forever untouchable, by burying bones.

In the end, however, Poinssot and Lantier (Reference Poinssot and Lantier1923) succeeded in suppressing interpretations of Tophets that argued against sacrifice as the sole cause for the presence of human remains in the Carthage Tophet and others.

Although an ‘all-sacrifice’ conception of Tophets was not universally accepted (Harden Reference Harden1927; Soliel et al. Reference Soliel, Muller and Richard1958; Richard Reference Richard1961), this interpretation has garnered a following that seeks support from several sources: Graeco-Roman tales by Diodorus and others; the reinterpretation of grave-marker inscriptions as parental vows to sacrifice their offspring to Ba'al and Tanit; the argument that animals were sacrificed and therefore humans were too; the interpretation of images on a particular stele as representing a priest carrying a sacrificial infant; and claims that only sacrifice warranted the use of scarce plant resources for pyres (see references in Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013; also Xella 2010; Quinn Reference Quinn and Gruen2011; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013; Stager Reference Stager2014).”

>> Now this sums up pretty good the arguments used by the prosecutors. I like most the one saying: if the Carthaginians sacrificed animals, then they must have sacrificed children too. LoL! Abraham sacrificed an animal – mentioned in the Bible, so is this an indicator that he also sacrificed children or just humans in a general perspective? Every single old civilization/culture sacrificed animals, does this mean they ALL also sacrificed humans? (((They))) think (((they))) can easily fool us with empty arguments of the sort. Even till this day the Jews still have this weird chicken customary atonement ritual practiced on the eve of Yom Kippur. I’m putting a picture with this page about the Jewish ritual and I’m putting a link if anons are interested in reading more about this ritual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapparot

• Page 1 629 –

>>15070199

(Please read from the start)

“There is also significant support for a ‘not-all-sacrifice’ hypothesis, which does not rule out sacrifice, but takes into consideration other factors (see references in Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010, Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Bondioli and Macchiarelli2012): Tophets lie outside city limits and house the remains of prenatal, neonatal and young postnatal humans, which are absent from the main cemeteries in city centres; only Tophet burials are cremations; and the age range of humans buried at Tophets is consistent with natural causes of death. As for the ‘seminal’ stele (see Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011: fig. 1d), the fully outlined, erect adult figure (with ear, open eye, upright shoulders, upraised right arm with forward-facing hand, distinct manual digits and a bent right leg, well forward of the left leg) contrasts with the minimally outlined small individual that it holds (with down-turned, featureless head, torso, slumped shoulder and a curved line hinting at a limp, handless left arm). Observed without preconception, the adult holds an inanimate (deceased, perhaps cloaked) infant.”

>> I already talked about this stele, please check it out again starting page 1 566.

“Nevertheless, proponents of an ‘all-sacrifice’ interpretation reject any alternatives, reiterating that Graeco-Roman depictions of specific events actually reflect a widespread Carthaginian practice; that their interpretations of the stele are correct; and that the presence at other Tophets of the cremated remains of humans who ‘must’ have been sacrificed also means that the Carthage Tophet humans were sacrificed (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013; also Xella 2010; Quinn Reference Quinn and Gruen2011; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013; Stager Reference Stager2014). Furthermore, they denounce alternative theories as ‘revisionist’ (Lancel Reference Lancel1995; Quinn Reference Quinn and Gruen2011; Stager Reference Stager2014).

Prior osteological analyses of Carthage Tophet urn contents

In 1922 and then 1923, Graeco-Roman accounts of infant sacrifice at Carthage seemed validated when de Prorok and colleagues, and Poinssot and Lantier, respectively, discovered urns at the Carthage Tophet containing burnt bones, most of which were identified as belonging to human infants or children (Stager & Wolff Reference Stager and Wolff1984).

Although Kelsey (Reference Kelsey1926) assumed that most of the Carthage Tophet urns he excavated (more than 1000) contained human remains, neither he nor his successor Harden (Reference Harden1927) claimed that the Carthaginians engaged in rampant, sanctioned infant sacrifice. Between 1934 and 1936, Chabot and Lapeyre unearthed more than 1000 urns at the Tophet, most of which they assumed to contain the remains of either one or two human infants and/or children, or a young human and some animal remains (Lapeyre & Pellegrin Reference Lapeyre and Pellegrin1942).

After Charles-Picard and Cintas (Charles-Picard Reference Charles-Picard1945) excavated the Carthage Tophet, they gave forensic expert Richard (Reference Richard1961) the contents of 42 urns. Upon combining these remains with those from 138 urns from the Hadrumentum Tophet, Richard identified one or more humans in 88 urns, human and lamb in 59, and lamb in 29.”

• Page 1 630 –

>>15070207

(Please read from the start)

“What the bones tell us

In 1976, L.E. Stager, director of the team excavating the Tophet, invited one of the authors here (Schwartz) to oversee both the on-site processing and preliminary assessment, and the subsequent detailed laboratory analysis, of the contents of 348 urns from the Carthage Tophet (dated to around the early eighth century to 146 BC) (Schwartz Reference Schwartz1993). Using the accepted MNI approach (minimum number of individuals as reflected in the number of the same tooth or skeletal element; Hesse & Wapnish Reference Hesse and Wapnish1985), Schwartz and Houghton documented evidence of 540 humans. Yet only urns with a MNI of one or two housed sufficient skeletal material to conclude that entire individuals were represented (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). When an urn's MNI indicated three or more individuals, there was insufficient skeletal material to argue for that number of entire individuals (e.g. there could be three incompletely represented individuals, or one or two skeletally well-represented individuals and only a few elements from other individuals).

As no single criterion can accurately assess age at death—nor in determining sex (Schwartz 2007)—Schwartz and Houghton used the standard multifactorial (multi-morphological/metric) approach (Fazekas & Kósa Reference Fazekas and Kósa1979; Lovejoy et al. Reference Lovejoy, Meindl, Mensforth and Barton1985; Schwartz 2007). Specifically, we (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010) based estimates of age at death on: the state of crown and root formation (teeth being the most frequently preserved and analysable elements); age-related changes in basisphenoids and petrosals; and measurements of petrosals, lateral occipital parts, basiocciputs, pubes and ischia, which shrink minimally, if at all, when cremated (Krogman Reference Krogman and Levinson1949). Through numerous re-analyses, we refined the percentages of individuals in each age category.”

>> They didn’t just rely on the teeth. If you had properly read what they wrote, then you would have known they also worked on other bones = parts of the body.

“From accepted age-estimation criteria using tooth and cranial-bone formation, we concluded that pre-/peri-/neonates together constituted ≥50% of the sample (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Ages based on basicranial- and pelvic-bone measurements were determined by comparison with Fazekas and Kósa's (Reference Fazekas and Kósa1979) measurements of these bones in individuals of known age. We sought to avoid the criticism that cremated bones may have shrunk by incrementally increasing each linear measurement to allow for the possibility of 25% shrinkage, well beyond the shrinkage recorded for experimentally cremated human or animal remains (see references in Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Even at 25% shrinkage, each measurement classified some number of individuals as ‘prenatal’.

From these ageing criteria, we concluded that 24% were prenatal, 15% peri-/neonatal, and 17% less than 1 month of age. We tested these results via neonatal line (NL) analysis.”

>> These findings fit perfectly with the cause of death I’ve discovered after coming to this board.

• Page 1 631 –

>>15070224

(Please read from the start)

“Identifiable in enamel only at high magnification (microns), a NL presents as a distinct, morphologically homogeneous line devoid of cross striations (Figure 1). It reflects a stress-induced disruption of enamel deposition coincident with the transition from in- to ex-utero, which may not correspond to full-term birth. NLs are always present in deciduous teeth (Antoine et al. Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009), which begin developing by the twentieth intrauterine week (Antoine et al. Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009; also Ten Cate Reference Ten Cate and Cate1989). Since first permanent molar crowns (lower M1 or upper M1) mineralise late in the third trimester, their NLs lie closer to the dentino-enamel juncture (DEJ) (Antoine et al. Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009). Given the periodicity of enamel deposition and the lag between a stress and a response to it, an individual must survive around 7, or even 10–15, post-uterine days for a NL to form (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010).

For NL analysis, Schwartz and Houghton sent co-authors Bondioli and Macchiarelli 50 deciduous tooth crowns from the ‘perinatal’ category (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Twenty-six crowns lacked a NL. In the 24 crowns with NLs, enamel thickness indicated survival of at least two weeks post-NL-formation. Upon comparing NL with our morphological/metrical age estimates (M) of the same individuals, M>NL in only 10% of the sample. As M typically equalled or over-estimated NL-derived ages, we concluded that M-based age estimates were reliable (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Taking everything into account, we concluded that: “the Carthaginian Tophet, and by extension other Tophets, were cemeteries for the remains of human prenates and infants who died from a variety of causes” (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010: 10).

When our analyses consistently identified pre- and neonates, Stager demanded return of the sample, which he sent to P. Smith (Stager Reference Stager2014). Subsequently, Smith, Stager and others have since dismissed our work through misrepresentation of it, and have also rejected our results and defended the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory through erroneous assumption and incorrect criteria. Given that these allegations and misinformation appeared in this journal, we present the reader with the relevant background, arguments and correct analytical information.”

>> Look whom they sent the samples to. LoL! Of course they are going dismiss the work and reject the results.

“A refutation?

Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011: 860–61) not only mischaracterised us (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010) as asserting that the Carthage Tophet was solely “a cemetery for the burial of aborted or stillborn infants”, but also criticised us for not accounting for tooth-crown and bone shrinkage, for estimating age primarily on the basis of an inappropriate combination of petrosal length and width measurements, and for using questionable long-bone measurements and NL analysis to estimate age. They also dismissed our analysis because the percentages of identified pre-/perinates were not the same in all cranial and pelvic-bone metric analyses. As most bioarchaeologists know, however, multiple criteria will not yield exactly the same estimate, but, together, they provide a more realistic approximation of age than using one criterion. Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) subsequently reiterated these objections and defended their age estimates based on tooth-crown height corrected for purported shrinkage, which identified most individuals as one to two postnatal months of age. From this, they asserted that the Carthage humans were alive and available for sacrifice. We address these and other ‘bones of contention’ individually.”

• Page 1 632 –

>>15078068

(Please read from the start)

“Only sacrifice can account for individuals in the Carthage Tophet

Regardless of whether some Carthage Tophet humans were sacrificed, it does not preclude death by natural causes (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Bondioli and Macchiarelli2012): for example, spontaneous abortion, which is common enough today for perinatologists to refer to it as ‘reproductive wastage’ (Durfee Reference Durfee and Wharton1987). Furthermore, if we accept that sanitary conditions at Carthage were as poor as at contemporaneous Pompeii, Ostia and Rome (Scobie Reference Scobie1986), all Carthaginians (pregnant women included) were susceptible to cholera, dysentery, gastroenteritis, infectious hepatitis, leptospirosis, typhoid and parasitic intestinal infestations, most of which result in severe dehydration, which remains a primary cause of peri- and postnatal death (Behrman & Shiono Reference Behrman, Shiono, Fanaroff and Martin1997). Also relevant to considering infant mortality are: low birth weight (Behrman & Shiono Reference Behrman, Shiono, Fanaroff and Martin1997); severe viral infections and malaria leading to premature birth and perinatal mortality; infectious diseases (smallpox, vaccinia, listeriosis) resulting in stillbirth; and non-infectious diseases (cholestasis, hypertension, toxemia, renal disease) causing stillbirth, abortion and preterm delivery (Taylor & Pernoll Reference Taylor, Pernoll, Pernoll and Benson1987). As these are today major causes of peri- and postnatal death, they must have constituted natural—and probably more prevalent—elements of Carthaginian life. As Becker (Reference Becker, Lally and Moore2011: 24) commented in light of the high incidence of perinatal mortality in non-industrial societies and its unexpected increase in modern industrialised societies: “The last months of a pregnancy, the process of parturition, and various stresses during the months after birth provide a frightening trio of challenges that lead to [. . .] ‘infant mortality’”.

Bone shrinkage

Our age estimates (pace Smith et al. Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) did not derive primarily from measurement of the petrosal bone and an inappropriate combination of its length and width. We did measure the petrosal, but we also measured other cranial and several pelvic bones, and compared each measurement individually to those in Fazekas and Kósa's (Reference Fazekas and Kósa1979) ageing tables. Moreover, even though these bones shrank little, if at all, when we incrementally increased our measurements to compensate for an unrealistic shrinkage of 25%, prenates were still identified. We did not measure long bones.”

>> See! They didn’t simply rely on the study of teeth to determine the age of the infants. Other bones from the body were studied and they combined the results. See how Smith & co. are playing dirty?

“Tooth-crown shrinkage

Even if cremated teeth shrink, their morphology and relative states of development do not change—a fact that others have used when comparing Carthage Tophet crowns with unburned crowns (e.g. Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013; Figure 2B). Thus, the estimates we achieved using relative states of crown formation are viable (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010).”

>> We have Einstein present in the room = “others have used when comparing Carthage Tophet crowns with unburned crowns” – really smart, isn’t it? (rolling eyes).

• Page 1 633 –

>>15078078

(Please read from the start)

“Although Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) cited Krogman (Reference Krogman and Levinson1949) as demonstrating marked heat-induced shrinkage, he actually questioned whether this occurred, as unerupted, jaw-embedded developing teeth (as most of the Carthage Tophet teeth were) are less susceptible to the effects of heat than erupted teeth, which crack and/or split (see also Krogman 1962). They also claimed (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) that both Shipman et al. (Reference Shipman, Forster and Schoeninger1984) and Buikstra and Swegle (Reference Buikstra, Swegle, Bonnischen and Sorg1989) demonstrated heat-induced crown shrinkage. Only Shipman and colleagues cremated teeth experimentally, however, and these were erupted sheep molars, which differ from enamel-capped human teeth in having vertical plates of enamel separated by occlusally exposed fields of soft dentine. Not unexpectedly, it was not the crystalline enamel but the hydrated dentine that shrank.

Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011) compared crown heights of specimens from the Carthage Tophet with similarly formed, unburned teeth from an unidentified sample. As the Carthage crowns were 0.6mm shorter, they increased their age estimates by around four weeks. Human populations differ markedly in their tooth dimensions (Coughlin Reference Coughlin1967; Yuen et al. Reference Yuen, So and Tang1997; Hanihara & Ishida Reference Hanihara and Ishida2005; Anfe et al. Reference Anfe, Arakaki, Nakamura and Viera2012), however, so any effect that heat might have on tooth size can be determined only by measuring the same teeth, pre- and post-cremation, as Deutsch and colleagues (Deutsch & Shapira Reference Deutsch and Shapira1987; Mayer et al. Reference Mayer, Schneider, Sydney-Zax and Deutsch1990; Sydney-Zax et al. Reference Sydney-Zax, Mayer and Deutsch1991) and Soliel et al. (Reference Soliel, Muller and Richard1958) did. These studies revealed that shrinkage is at best negligible—a fact that Soliel et al. used to identify pre- and perinates in their Carthage Tophet sample. As for Deutsch et al.’s studies, crown weight decreased as a result of loss of water and carbonates (see Figure 2A & B). (See also Smith et al. Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013 for incorrectly comparing measurements of cremated teeth from some, with uncremated teeth from other, studies as demonstration of shrinkage.)”

>> Smith is not even using good samples to compare the Carthaginians samples with. “Unidentified sample” = now that is either showing how unprofessional she is in her work, or this is showing how dirty she is maneuvering to “fix” the results= manipulating the tests to make it go her way.

“Correcting for their inflation of ages, it is striking that Smith and colleagues’ mortality distribution is virtually identical to ours when ‘fetal’ and ‘perinatal’ categories are combined (Figure S1 in online supplementary material (OSM)). This is consistent with present-day fetal/infant mortality profiles (Chalmers & Macfarlane Reference Chalmers, Macfarlane and Wharton1980; Taylor & Pernoll Reference Taylor, Pernoll, Pernoll and Benson1987; Saunders & Barrans Reference Saunders, Barrans, Hoppa and Fitzgerald1999): in other words, a large proportion of spontaneously aborted or stillborn fetuses (Durfee Reference Durfee and Wharton1987), and of peri- and neonates, who are at serious risk of death during the first two postnatal weeks (Chalmers & Macfarlane Reference Chalmers, Macfarlane and Wharton1980) (also see our NL estimates above).”

>> Smith & co are playin dirty.

• Page 1 634 –

>>15078084

(Please read from the start)

“Neonatal lines

Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) claimed that heat can alter the internal structure of teeth and eliminate evidence of NLs. They also claimed that NLs may be present in permanent, but not deciduous, teeth. From these assertions, they concluded that age estimates based on NL presence/absence are unreliable.”

>> LoL! Nice joke here.

“The magnifications used by Smith et al. are insufficient to identify NLs: i.e. millimetres rather than microns (1μ = 0.001mm). Consider their case for asserting that a NL can be present in uncremated, and absent in cremated, teeth. In their fig. 3d and 3e, they present a sectioned, uncremated M1 that purports to show a NL and a Carthage Tophet M1 that supposedly lacks this feature (see Figure 2C & D here). In all cases, however, Smith et al. illustrate the always-present DEJ, which can be identified at low magnification. In Figure 2C, the DEJ is better defined in the uncremated M1 than in the Carthage Tophet M1. In Figure 2D, the DEJ of the Carthage Tophet M1 appears as expected (as it also does in the specimens in Figure 2C), while in the uncremated tooth, separation of dentine and enamel created a dark band that Smith et al. incorrectly identified as a NL. To reiterate: NLs develop not between enamel and dentine, but in enamel, and cannot be visualised in magnifications as low as millimetres.”

>> I’m saying it again, either this Smith is stupid or….she is doing this on purpose with a dirty agenda behind it. It’s so obvious she is trying to trash the work of Schwartz and supposedly debunk it and present it as incorrect, unreliable study. Why is she doing this? Because Schwartz’ work shatters the image of barbarism and cruelty of the Carthaginians projected by the MSM, Academic world and ancient writers. She’s trying to keep the ancient narrative alive despite the obvious results of Schwartz work.

“In support of their contention that deciduous teeth may lack NLs, Smith and colleagues (Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013: 1195) cite Antoine et al. (Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009) as being able to “locate this line in only one of five teeth they examined”. Antoine et al. (Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009: 49) actually wrote that NLs can always be identified in deciduous crowns, which begin to form months before birth, but may be difficult to locate in the less fully developed M1 crowns of pre-, peri- and neonates because they lie close to the DEJ. This accounts for their being able to identify a NL in only one of the five permanent molars that they analysed (a M1 vs 3 M1s and 1 M1). As we only scrutinised deciduous teeth for NLs, we stand by our results—26 of 50 crowns lacked a NL—which confirms the presence of some number of prenates.”

>> See how Smith is nitpicking all the time, trying to find fault where there is none, twisting things and presenting falsehoods?

• Page 1 635 –

>>15083122

(Please read from the start)

"Do other studies support the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory?

Richard (Reference Richard1961) analysed the contents of 42 urns from the Carthage Tophet together with remains from 138 urns from the Hadrumentum Tophet. From long-bone measurements representing 41 individuals, he identified 5 (12.2%) prenates (1 of 7.5 fetal months, and 4 of 8–9 fetal months), 20 (48.8%) perinates, and 16 (39%) postnates (9 of ≤1 month, 3 of 1–3 months, and 4 of 2–3 years). Conservatively, he suggested 1 prenate, 33 perinates and 7 postnates. Using developing teeth representing 147 humans, Richard identified 16 prenates (10.9%), 118 perinates (80.3%) and 13 postnates (8.8%; 6 of a few months of age, 7 of 3–6 years). His conservative estimate was 13 postnates, from 2–16 prenates, and the rest as perinates. Recognising that his results were consistent with expected mortality, Richard tentatively suggested that 5% were prenatal, 75% perinatal and 20% postnatal (pace Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013). As 26 teeth that we classified as ‘perinatal’ lacked a NL, Richard's perinatal category probably included prenates.

Based on a small number of bones from 16 Carthage Tophet urns, Gejvall (Reference Gejvall1949) suggested that 1 human was neonatal to 3 months of age, 7 were greater than 3 months, and 3 were 3–4 postnatal months. Given Gejvall's small sample, his conclusions are not inconsistent with ours (pace Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013).

Additionally, Muller et al. (Reference Muller, Depreux, Muller and Fontaine1952) analysed the contents of 44 Carthage Tophet urns and those of 31 urns from the Sousse Tophet. They identified humans in 32 urns, animals in 2 urns and commingled human/animal remains in 38 urns. They determined age using sphenoid development/coalescence, long-bone length, Haversian canal configuration and semicircular canal orientation: 65 individuals (around 87% of the sample) were near birth, 1 of 21 days, 2 of 30 postnatal days, and the rest of 2–3 postnatal months. Some of the 65 individuals were probably prenatal.

>> See how many pre-natals there are and how soon most of the infants died after birth? This is very important. And this is consistent with the results of Schwartz work. There are more than one study/analysis that are pointing in the same direction. But the Jew along with the Bloodlines are still weighing on the scales and keep on peddling, pushing the child sacrficie narrative despite many tests showing this is not correct. This is showing there was something wrong with the births in Carthage. We can start to see a pattern emerge about a birth anomality in Carthage and the other colonies where such burials were found. But let’s just keep on insisting it’s human sacrfice just to please the Jews. We certainly don’t want to uncover their bad intentions, their deception and their lies.

“Recently, Xella (Reference Xella2009) defended the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory via his ‘new’ approach, which relied solely on classical Greek and Roman writings. Subsequently, Xella and colleagues (Xella 2010; Quinn Reference Quinn and Gruen2011; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013) included the interpretations of archaeologists, historians and epigraphers, which, they concluded, tell the same story: Tophets were cemeteries for sacrificed children. Smith et al.’s claims fit their interpretation. They (Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013) rejected our results on the grounds that analyses by Docter et al. (Reference Docter, Smits, Hakbijl, Stuijts and van der Plicht2003), Melchiorri (Reference Melchiorri2010) and Ciasca et al. (Reference Ciasca, Di Salvo, Castellino and Di Patti1996) contradicted ours.”

>> Look what they are relying on here! LoL! And they think this is credible.

• Page 1 636 –

>>15083139

(Please read from the start)

“Docter et al. studied 6 Carthage Tophet urns. Using tooth and skeletal development, they identified 3 newborns in 1 urn, 2 newborns in each of 2 urns, 1 newborn in each of 2 urns, and one 6–9-year-old child in 1 urn. Given our results, it is probable that 3 complete individuals were not represented in that first urn, and that ‘newborn’ includes prenates.

Melchiorri analysed 72 Sulci Tophet (Sardinia) urns, and identified 52 humans, ranging in age from prenatal to 4–5 years. Of the 30 classified as neonatal, some were probably prenatal.

From the Motya Tophet, Ciasca et al. (Reference Ciasca, Di Salvo, Castellino and Di Patti1996) identified human remains in 132 urns, and comingled human and animal remains in 303 urns. They reported that the humans ranged in age from birth (the majority) to 6 months. For 112 of these individuals, they determined that 95 (84.8%) were neonates, 8 were 1 month of age, 4 were 2 months, 1 was 2–3 months, 3 were 4 months, and 1 was 6 months of age. ‘Neontatal’ undoubtedly included prenates.”

>> The results are consistent even in the other colonies. This is good.

“Animal remains

“Another defence of the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory is that as all Carthage Tophet animals must have been sacrificed, all humans must also have been sacrificed (see references in Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013; see also Xella 2010; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013).”

>> This is the most idiotic argument I’ve ever heard in my entire life. So if I light a candle on the grave of a relative of mine, does this also mean that I’ve practiced human sacrifice? If in ancient time it was custom to present an animal offering for the soul of the deceased, is that a bad thing? Or does it show that the living relative of the dead is worried what happens to the soul and spirit of the deceased? Why do these “experts” always take the worst explanation and don’t look at it as a general practice done by everyone in old times? Why always see things from this narrow perspective?

“We identified lamb or kid alone in some urns, and lamb or kid, and infrequently bird and fish, commingled with human bones in others (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Never, however, was there enough bone to suggest the interment of an entire animal (see Table S1 in OSM). This pattern is consistent with then contemporaneous practice: although an animal may have been killed sacrificially, only part of it (that was less desirable for eating) was burned as an offering to the gods; the rest was consumed (Detienne Reference Detienne, Detienne and Vernant1989). Given the skewed representation of animal skeletal elements, it appears that the circumstances leading to their presence in the Carthage Tophet differed from those involving humans.”

• Page 1 637 –

>>15083161

(Please read from the start)

>> It is correct to say that the animal was sacrificed = offered along with prayer, incense and other stuff, depending on the ritual. The good flesh was then taken and cooked and the meal was distributed, either to the members of the family gathered to honor the memory of the deceased. Or the meal was distributed to the needy or the less fortunate people as charity, in the memory of the deceased. Still till this day, some cultures still hold meal gatherings after a funeral to honor the memory of the dead person.

“Advocates of the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory also specify when this event occurred. Gejvall (Reference Gejvall1949) and Docter et al. (Reference Docter, Smits, Hakbijl, Stuijts and van der Plicht2003) thought that all lamb/kid remains from the Carthage Tophet represented spring-born neonates, and Stager (Reference Stager2014) extrapolated from this, and from the rare occurrence of commingled bird and human remains, to the notion of a regular springtime ritual. Our data, however, demonstrate that the low incidence of lamb/kid/bird remains, whether alone, or commingled with human bones (Table S1), cannot support the claim: if all humans were sacrificed, it was always in the spring. More broadly, given the number of potential natural causes of death (see above), it is unlikely that Carthaginians, whether or not interred in the Tophet, died only at certain times of the year.”

>> Last sentence is very correct.

“Yet another justification of the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory?

As deforestation began with the founding of Carthage (van Zeist et al. Reference van Zeist, Bottema and van der Veen2001), it has been argued that nothing less profound than sacrificial cremation would warrant the use of dwindling wood resources otherwise needed for building ships and habitation (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013). In reality, Carthage Tophet pyres typically comprised thin branches (Schwartz Reference Schwartz1993; Docter et al. Reference Docter, Smits, Hakbijl, Stuijts and van der Plicht2003), mostly from cultivated small trees (e.g. Prunus) and bushes (e.g. Ligustrum) (Docter et al. Reference Docter, Smits, Hakbijl, Stuijts and van der Plicht2003). Furthermore, charcoal of the largest plant present (Quercus) suggests that only scraps—probably left over from large-scale construction—were used (Docter et al. Reference Docter, Smits, Hakbijl, Stuijts and van der Plicht2003).”

>> LoL! Here we go again with the lack of wood theory. Can someone explain to me how the Carthaginians managed to build their trading fleet for centuries if there is no wood? Can someone explain to me how the Carthaginians managed to build their military naval forces over and over again, each time after it was destroyed during the Punic wars? How did they also manage to build time and time again the siege weapons? Did they use plastic for those?

“Conclusion

In summary, Tophets housed the remains of primarily pre-/perinates, newborns and children ≤5 years of age, and lay outside the city, while main cemeteries lay within city limits and typically contained humans ≥5 years. Only Tophet individuals were cremated and interred in urns. The disparity between urns in the presence of entire individuals, as well as often marked differences between urn contents in degree of incineration (including skeletal elements still in articulation), probably reflects differences at different times and on different occasions in acts of cremation and efforts to recover remains (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Furthermore, cloth adhering to the internal side of a perinate's barely burned ilium suggests that, after cooling, bones were collected and either wrapped or placed in sacks before being placed in an urn (Schwartz Reference Schwartz1993; Figure S2 in OSM).”

>> This is correct.

• Page 1 638 –

>>15087718

(Please read from the start)

“That Carthaginians maintained two different cemeteries is compatible with the Punic-derived, Roman-Carthaginian practice of not considering offspring as ‘persons’ until they had survived a certain number of years (Norman Reference Norman2002; Stuckey Reference Stuckey2009). Furthermore, as Becker (Reference Becker, Lally and Moore2011) reviews in detail from study of Cazzanello and other south Etrurian sites (e.g. Tarquinia), the burial of prenates, perinates and even children up to five years of age in cemeteries apart from the main cemetery was apparently commonplace in Etruscan culture.”

>> This is also correct.

“From this perspective, rather than conceiving of the Carthage Tophet as a sanctuary solely for the sacrificed, it is not unreasonable to perceive it as a cemetery for humans (with or without attendant animal sacrifices) who, having died prior to formal acceptance into society, were returned to the gods through the smoke of cremation (Stuckey Reference Stuckey2009). Moreover, given that the Carthage Tophet and Cazzanello's children's cemetery are similar in both housing perinates and children, but only Carthage Tophet individuals were cremated, the difference between these two cemeteries is reasonably attributed to cultural differences in burial, not sacrificial, practice (cf. Becker Reference Becker, Lally and Moore2011).”

>> Spot on. The diffrence between the two cemeterires is in burial practice/type, not sacrificial practice.

“While Xella (Reference Xella2009, 2010; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013) and others (e.g. Quinn (Reference Quinn and Gruen2011) defend the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory by giving priority to non-osteological sources—“archaeology, historical and especially epigraphic evidence” (Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013: 1206)—none can falsify osteological evidence: the teeth and bones of a prenate are the teeth and bones of a prenate. As Becker (Reference Becker, Lally and Moore2011: 31) cautioned in considering infant vs main cemeteries in Rome and Etruria: “Direct evidence suggest[s . . .] that historians and others might wish to consider how the biological evidence relates to their interpretations of the written records”.”

>> Inscriptions = epigraphy can be interpreted any way if it’s not clear. This Xella prefers to rely on non concrete evidence which can be biased = anyone can lie = than rely on physical, tangile, solid, non altered evidences = different bones evidences. This says a lot on whom he is and whom the likes of him are. And this approach of theirs unveils the mafia in the academic world whom is set to slander the Phoenicians in the minds of the general public = anything and everything, all assests out to villify the Phoenicians in any way, shape or form. Anyone reading wondering why? Why is there from long ago till now, this huge effort to villify the Phoenicians/Carthaginians by the Jews and their nobility = the Bloodlines? Why do they hate the Phoenicians so much to spent centuries and loads of money, working hard to make the general public hate them, persecute them and see them as the ultimate evil civilizations? Is this related to why the Evil Lady attacked the Phoenician City-States? Is it the same reason in both cases? Think about all of this for no anons.

• Page 1 639 –

>>15087721

(Please read from the start)

“Although questions remain regarding the reality and extent of Carthaginian infant sacrifice, as well as the identity of those who buried their offspring in Tophets (probably not the poor who, unable to afford formal burial, would seek other avenues for disposing of the dead; cf. Becker Reference Becker, Lally and Moore2011), it seems prudent to think beyond the bizarre and inhumane, and to consider all potential aspects of daily life, in which the unspectacular and mundane are also important: Tophets were cemeteries for the very young, regardless of how they died.”

>> Well, the last sentence we can all agree on. For me, it’s clear: no human sacrifice took place there. But there was something else going on. We always suspected some type of biological reason as in some type of illness. But we never managed to discover it because this stretched out for many centuries, so if it’s the plague or any other decease of the kind, then it’s impossible for it to last for such a long time in a consistent manner.

Another point made here and it’s very correct = you need deep pockets to burry someone in this cemetery. All of that you saw, from the cremation burial ceremony to the animal offerings, to the urns, to the stelae and the inscriptions = all of this costs loads of money anons. An average person wouldn’t be able to afford all of this easily in one package and burry the dead child in the “enclosed” space of this burial. Is this an indication that a specific social group (or should I say a social class, as in middle class and above), was suffering from some special type of “biological/medical misfortune”? Is this an indication that a specific social class was plagued with high infant/birth mortality? Loads to think about here, right?

I know this was extremely long, but it was necessary so that anon understand the ups and downs and the ins and outs of all of this; also going through the arguments and the counter-arguments of each side. It’s more than obvious that this is a burial place, specially made for infant and children below the age of 5. It’s also certain and a FACT that not all buried in there were sacrificed as the Phoenician/Carthaginian haters claim; as some are clearly dead before birth. It’s also a fact that the method of burial was by cremation for this category of dead person. It is also a FACT that the dead children were from both genders and not ALL MALES as the Jews like to claim.

A few additions from me:

1 - I was suspecting it for a long time ago, and now I’m certain of it = ALL of the children buried in the cemetery are dead from one specific illness. We are going to talk about it soon.

2 – The children were cremated mostly for hygiene reasons, mostly when you are dealing with not fully formed children.

3 – The claims of the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans are nothing but slander, lies and they contradict one another when you study them well. This propaganda and persecution campaign started long ago and it still continues till now via the modern day MSM and “academic experts”.

• Page 1 640 –

>>15087732

(Please read from the start)

In order to proceed with taking a look at Evidence number 4 we have on our hands here, we need to understand what is a satanic child sacrifice ritual. The next part is not for the faint of heart.

The Phoenicians were accused of worshiping Baal and Moloch = 2 variation of Satan – sort of speak. Moloch doesn’t even exist in the Phoenician pantheon or Phoenician deity list (check out Ugarits archives). So this doesn’t make him a Phoenician deity. As for Baal, it’s an honorific, confused and used as the name of Satan. Sometimes it is also used in the names of Phoenician kings = a theophoric type of name. There are MANY “Baalim” ( = plural) in Phoenician, not ONE. As I’ve said before, when reading the few Phoenician texts that we have, we can put “Baal” into 4 different categories:

1 - We have Baal pointing to the mortal kings of the Phoenician City-states + nobility (regardless if they are good or bad).

2 – We have Baal pointing to the mortal foreign kings + nobility (regardless if they are good or bad).

3 - We have Baal pointing our Heavenly Father = the Great Creator God.

4 – We have Baal pointing to many youthful thunder yielding type of warrior gods – or deities in general.

Strangely enough, when you replace the word Baal in all of these cases with the world Lord, it fits perfectly.

So what do we know from the Jews mostly, on how the Phoenicians (not the Carthaginians) sacrificed children?

1 – The Phoenicians sacrificed their first born males.

2 – The Phoenicians sacrificed in an open air sanctuary which had a Jewish name Tophet.

3 – The Phoenician did a ritual called = passage of fire – which was described/ interpreted as throwing the child while it was alive in fire.

4 – The Phoenicians sacrificed to Moloch (putting the child in the hands of the statue) or to Baal.

Do we know something else from the Jewish sources on how the Phoenicians sacrificed children? I’m going from memory here, so I might have forgotten one or two. If anons want to bring them to my attention, then please do.

Then other sources started to appear gradually in history, starting with the Greek, then the Romans….to reappear in somewhat modern history, starting in the 18th century, to get some steam in the 19th century, to reach its climax in the other half of the 20th century till now. The rather modern sources relied on the ancient sources = Greek and Roman, and leaned on them using them as ancient proof the Phoenician practiced human sacrifice. They took these old sources as a base to restart/relaunch the attack and destroy the public image of the Phoenicians all over again.

• Page 1 641 –

>>15093233

(Please read from the start)

What amazed me in the ancient sources were the details given in some, regarding the ritual of human sacrifice supposedly done by the Phoenicians. How did they know these details? Like how did they know this or that was done? How did they know the parents were there, the mother not making any reaction to the sacrifice of her child? How did they know the priest put the baby in the hands of the statue of Moloch and then the baby rolled into the fire of the pyre? While others claimed the children were slaughtered first = cut with a blade, blood coming out and then when the child died it was tossed in the fire of the pyre. These are just a few examples.

I always wondered how these ancient writers knew of these things without seeing them personally = without them being a first-hand eye witnesses? As far as I know, there isn’t a single eye witness to the human sacrifice ritual practiced by the Phoenicians. It’s all hearsay. So how did these ancient writers know about these details (despite them being contradictory to one another) about the ritual? I always thought the ancient writers were imagining these details or simply making them up via imagination.

As if that is not enough, the rather modern sources amazed me on how in their turn, also provided vivid descriptions of the human sacrifice ritual practiced by the Phoenicians. How did they know? They surely didn’t travel back in time to witness these rituals themselves. So how did they know? Their description is even more detailed than the ones provided in the ancient sources. For decades I thought these modern day writers (more or less) had a greater imagination than the ancient sources; as in they took the fantasy tales of the ancient sources and amplified them and added their imaginative take to it all as well. Some are very obviously working for the Bloodlines and/or receiving marching orders from them. So I always took this issue as being one big imaginative story, blown out of proportion just to destroy the Phoenicians/Carthaginians.

After coming to this board and reading the Qteam drops, I found out I was terribly, terribly wrong. Maybe, just maybe, without even wanting it, the Qteam helped me in solving the Carthage burial and the Phoenician human sacrifice issue. The way the team helped was by pointing on HOW this human sacrifice ritual is performed. By helping me understand HOW this ritual was performed, the team, along with Potus and Flotus, helped me understand the WHY.

And this is what we are going to talk about next: I’m going to talk about the HOW first, then about the WHY. Both are connected to one another and to evidence number 4.

The HOW:

1 – Everything starts with kidnaping, snatching or buying the child. I don’t think anons noticed that this is how the ritual actually starts = getting the kid by “dirty” means. The reader might laugh at me, but I think the ritual of child sacrifice starts with the “ACTION” to get the child in an immoral way = theft, tricks, abduction, lies, cheating, bribery etc. I’ve used nice “polite” words for the anons to read, but you should imagine the worst here. This act of “theft” mostly as in kidnapping the child is done on purpose for too many reasons, one of them I think it’s related to Inanna/the Evil Lady and how she didn’t hesitate to resort to theft and lies to get her way with things. And here we have an insane and totally disgusting tunnel to dig into = how the victims are selected. As in what is the selection process and criteria of the victims?

• Page 1 642 –

>>15093255

(Please read from the start)

2 – Regardless of the means of transport, the child is taken to a specific location which holds some type of “magical” or ritualistic, symbolic significance, importance that only (((their))) twisted minds understand. In other words, for some strange reason that I don’t fully understand (((they))) are bound to WHERE these rituals are performed. I think (((they))) like to perform them to places with strong energy points on earth, or in some cases like the “Place de la Concorde” = it holds a very high symbolic meaning to the Payseur clan because it’s the place where Louis XVI was beheaded. Another place where (((they)))) perform sacrificial rituals is in a place or a geographic point where a LOT of people died, like a square or a yard where a lot of people were massacre or buried. All of the possibilities I’ve just mentioned to the reader have one thing in common = they are a geographic point connected to Spiritual energy, specifically, it’s connected to the transfer of Spiritual energy; somehow, someway. But I don’t fully understand it yet.

The abducted child is taken to that location either a long period prior to the sacrifice and kept there alive = as providing barely any necessities as food and water for the child until the day of the ritual. Or depending on the case, some children are brought barely a few hours to the location where the ritual will take place.

We just talked about the WHERE.

3 – The previous point is connected to this one = the calendar – We are going to talk about the WHEN. From what I’ve been reading online there are 2 time frames for the rituals. There are the big ceremonies which the Kabbalah perform on a yearly basis like Halloween for example. Such rituals are held according to a religious calendar. We have that in Christianity too, in Islam, in Judaism and if I’m not mistaking, even in Buddhism. Apart this yearly calendar, the Kabbalah also have … how should I call it? = a daily ritual practice or more like a routine, common practice in everyday life. This is connected to the WHY.

I’m going to talk about it just after the HOW.

4 – So after the place and the date are set; the child is selected and brought to the location, what happens then? We are going to talk now about the HOW:

It starts by a series of different types of physical abuse to the child. I believe this includes starving the child and causing physical harm to the child. This includes torturing the child physically and sexually abusing the child. This second type of torture is done not just to physically torture the child, but to mentally, emotionally and spiritually break the child. You can imagine all the horrors being made here. And the length of this period can go from a few hours to several days.

This has a purpose apart the sadistic twisted one, this is not done randomly. Anons researching found out this was done to produce Adrenochrome by the body of the victim. It’s (((their))) fountain of youth and apparently Adrenochrome is very addictive. This makes the blood of the victim precious to (((them))).

• Page 1 643 –

>>15093278

(Please read from the start)

5 – When Adrenochrome is produced in the body, this is when the victim is killed. But I don’t think it’s killed in any way; I mean I think it’s killed in a way to be able to draw the blood of the victim as much as could be drawn out. After all, for these crazy sick people, the blood is (((their))) precious commodity. This means the victims is mostly likely killed = most of the time, in a way where the blood can be drawn from it = collected.

6 – The blood is consumed, and the flesh of the victims is also consumed just like what we see on the screen from the monitor of the underground facility under Esptein Island’s temple.

7 – I think a small portion of the victim’s body is burned, most likely the heart of the victim. I think this is done on the surface, where there is this small fire pit on the side of the temple on Epstein’s Island – I’ve previously pointed to it before.

Why I think it’s the heart of the victim that is burned?

A – The heart is a hard muscle, by that I mean the flesh is hard and not easily chewable. Don’t forget these cannibals are consuming the flesh of their victims raw – at least this is how it looks like from the footage of the picture I’m putting with this page.

B – Seth is said to have consumed the heart of Osiris. As in I’m suspecting the Evil One to have consumed the heart of the Great King. That is just a text, but we also have the relief from page 1 366 where we see the Evil One stabbing the King of kings in the abdomen. So the idea is floating in my mind that the Evil One consumed the heart of the King of kings.

C – The Aztecs were known for cutting out the heart of their sacrificial victims. Some Native American tribes are rumored to consume the heart of their enemies. The same rumor goes for some African tribes. It’s believed by consuming the heart of their enemy, they consume its strength and life force.

D – I know this one is going to sound strange, but I see a lot of projection of the Evil Clan in the movie series Aliens. Like how it has a Queen Alien which lay eggs. As well as how the alien incubating in a human host burst out of the chest = it’s a symbolic reminder of how the Evil One took out the heart of the King of kings. Also evil residing inside the humans. That’s how I see it.

I think the ritual of human sacrifice ends with the burning of the heart of the victim, as it being an offering to the Evil One, or the Evil Lady. By burning the heart, they are repeating the act of the Evil One consuming the heart of the Great King. They are also giving him a share of the victim, as in by burning the heart, he is symbolically consuming as well a part of the victim.

Before I came to this board, I didn’t know all of these disgusting, gruesome things about the ritual. I always thought the children were tied up to stop them from moving too much and they were somehow tossed into the fire while being alive. But now I see things differently, mostly the ancient sources where some of them contain details similar or should I say details which can be considered as being very close to what I recently found out about the ritual after coming to this board. I always thought these ancient Greek and Roman sources were biased and they reach deep into their imagination just to paint the Phoenicians as monsters. You know, like an exaggerated work of fiction. But now, I’m suspecting at least some of them to have either personally witnessed a satanic human sacrifice performed by the Ancient Bloodlines or to have been the ones practicing = taking part of such rituals. There is also a slight possibility some of these ancient sources were just pawns which information was passed onto them and they simply wrote about it without them doing it.

• Page 1 644 –

>>15093313

(Please read from the start)

The even more mind boggling is the rather modern day scholars and writers – we’ve seen some of them while taking a look at Carthage. It starts around the 18th century to continue and amplify till nowadays. Where on earth did they get their details from, about the human sacrificial ritual supposedly practiced by the Phoenicians/Carthaginians? It’s mind boggling how some of the things said are so close to what NOW we know are parts of the satanic human sacrifice ritual practiced by the Bloodlines. And I would like to point out that some of these rather modern writers/scholars go all the way back to the 18th century at least. I haven’t look in older dates, but I will not be surprised if I found some stuff in Medieval and Renaissance times. All of this is making me believe that some of these writers might be part of the cult = Kabbalah; or if not part of it, they are in some type of contact with them, or a member of it to be able to know all of these gruesome details and write about them.

Let’s talk about the WHY:

Why are children, tortured, sacrificed and then consumed by this group of people?

A lot will say these people are crazy. Others will say they are evil and satanists. Others will say will say it’s (((their))) addiction to Adrenochrome. If I ask the question on social media: why does satanists sacrifice then consume children? – How many different reasons/answers will I get?

I know a lot of readers think the reason behind it all is satanism or the practiced of satanism. I thought the same too, but I discovered a deeper layer in all of this. A lot of anons think everything that is taking place is rotating around satanism or it’s built around the satanic cult. Well, that is partially true. But what if this satanic cult itself is rotating around something else? What if it’s rotating around a sickness? What if the start and the core of everything was an illness which cannot be cured? What if the need for blood to ward off the illness is the reason these human sacrifice rituals exist? What if satanism was the consequence, the product, the result of this illness?

What is this illness then? It’s the illness the Evil One was born with.

Before I start to talk about the illness, I want to talk a bit about the role of the healing a bit. Back then, when the 7 kingdoms of Atlantis or of Heaven existed, there were 2 methods of healing:

1 – The Medical Beds we’ve mentioned many times already in this thread.

2 – The Spiritual healing power of the Fish men, specifically that of the King of kings.

So whatever the illness of the Evil One is, it couldn’t be cure by either one of these 2 healing methods which existed back then and was available to him. For him not being cured means his illness has to be something within his genes. And as I’ve pointed to it many times already, we found echoes of this illness mostly within the Dogon people’s tales.

I want to highlight that if the Evil Lady is the identical twin of the Evil One = a possibility, then this means she carries the same illness as he does.

• Page 1 645 –

>>15099093

(Please read from the start)

I found out what the illness was with the help of Potus and Flotus, it’s somewhere in one of the earlier thread, maybe 2 or 3, I don’t remember. I know Killary is the Payseur heir but I also knew anons were incorrect when trying to figure out what she was ill of. The Med Beds technology seems to have been in the hands of the Kabbalah and Bloodlines for some time now, at least 50 years that I am aware of. But for some strange reason, these Med Beds were unable to heal Killary from all the symptoms we see her display in public. I’m attaching to this page some of the “iconic” moments where her illness was in full display in front of the cameras for the entire world to see.

There were a lot of speculations back then as what her illness could be. Anons, including me made a lot of guesses, then I realized that whatever she is ill from, it’s not curable with the Med Beds. Or they would have already cured her a long time ago. She is (((their))) queen after all. I’ve speculated as well, just like the rest of anons, I thought of Cancer, of Dementia, of Parkinson decease etc. But it was so strange to see so many symptoms fitting many illness all in one go in one person. As if she is showing symptoms of a cocktail of illness all in one go. Was this even possible?

And when you look at rapist Bill, he took looks like S… He looks like he is 200 years old. And this also made us speculate a lot too, going to H.I.V. to Parkinson, to Cancer etc. The most notable change with rapist Bill was his skin. He looked like a dead man walking back then, now he is dead by the way. So here again, I was like the rest of anons, speculating about what his illness could be, but then…once again, I realized that if it was H.I.V.; the cure already exists and Potus Trump made it clear he is going to release the cure soon. This means the Bloodlines must have had that cure for decades now. So rapist Bill doesn’t have H.I.V. Is it Cancer? Well, with the Med Beds technology, he could be cured from his Cancer if he had it. Same goes for the other deceases whatever you can think of. So his case was in the same tunnel as Killary = it’s an illness that the Med Beds couldn’t cure. I’ve attached some pictures of rapist Bill to the previous page.

So when you think about it and add to the equations all the hidden cures and the Med Beds hidden from the rest of mankind but used by the Bloodlines; then it makes no sense to say Killary or rapist Bill have Cancer or this and that decease known to us. With the hidden cures and the Med Beds, they would have been healed a long time ago. But they aren’t, which in turn points that whatever they are ill of cannot be cured at all. And they have to “tame” the symptoms. This is where Potus and Flotus got into the “game” sort of speak and pointed, directed me with a pair of lovely feet in shoes to the illness BOTH have. And by looking back at History, I found out this mysterious illness was present in the figures I know were from the Bloodlines. They all share the same physical and mental symptoms of Killary and rapist Bill. This made me understand that this originated with the Evil One. He was the first with this illness and it was passed on to his direct descendants via his genes.

This illness has the name of McLeod Syndrome, which is also known as the “Sickness of the kings”.

When I came out and declared it, it was brushed off by most anons as in being wrong because in the articles of this illness shown back then by Google’s algorithms it was written that this illness was “almost solely found in males”. All the readers quickly jumped onto disregarding this find because of they didn’t read properly these 5 words: the meaning of the entire sentence changes with one word = ALMOST. This means it exists in females as well, but the symptoms are not shown in females as frequently as it is in males. The female mostly carry this illness and it’s transmitted to the younger generations.

• Page 1 646 –

>>15099116

(Please read from the start)

I’m going to give anons some homework if you want to: please go back and take a look at all (as much as you can) the pictures and video of Killary’s illness symptoms. Please do the same for rapist Bill. Write down all that you see, from the head bubbling of Killary to rapist Bill chewing his tongue. Make 2 separate lists, one for each. The read carefully what I’m going to provide to anons about this illness and compare. See for yourself if the illness of these 2 evil person’s symptoms fit or not with this illness.So next, we are going to take a look at this illness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLeod_syndrome

“McLeod syndrome (pronounced /məˈklaʊd/) is an X-linked recessive genetic disorder that may affect the blood, brain, peripheral nerves, muscle, and heart. It is caused by a variety of recessively inherited mutations in the XK gene on the X chromosome. The gene is responsible for producing the Kx protein, a secondary supportive protein for the Kell antigen on the red blood cell surface.”

>> This is directly linked to the RED BLOOD CELLS.

“Presentation

Patients usually begin to notice symptoms in their 50s and the course is usually slowly progressive. Common features include peripheral neuropathy, cardiomyopathy, and hemolytic anemia. Other features include limb chorea, facial tics, other oral movements (lip and tongue biting), seizures, a late-onset dementia, and behavioral changes.”

>> Are you taking notes of all of these symptoms anons? Are you comparing with Killary and rapist Bill’s symptoms = the list you made by observation? I also want to highlight the first sentence when it said that the symptoms USUALLY begin to show up around 50 years of age. This indicates that they can show up before or after that age but most of the cases show up around the age of 50. Please take note of this.

“Genetics

The McLeod phenotype is a recessive mutation of the Kell blood group system. The McLeod gene encodes the XK protein, which is located on the X chromosome, and has the structural characteristics of a membrane transport protein but an unknown function. Absence of the XK protein is an X-linked disease. Mutational variants result in McLeod syndrome either with or without neuroacanthocytosis: the gene on the X chromosome for McLeod syndrome is physically close to the gene for chronic granulomatous disease. As a result, an individual with one relatively small deletion may have both diseases.

The phenotype may be present without the syndrome presenting.”

>> This is interesting isn’t it? Well, take note that it’s “carried” by the X chromosome = it’s a genetic illness. This is important, because it means that males only get it from their mothers and females can get it from both parents if they carry it of course.

• Page 1 647 –

>>15099129

(Please read from the start)

“Diagnosis

Laboratory features

McLeod syndrome is one of only a few disorders in which acanthocytes may be found on the peripheral blood smear. Blood evaluation may show signs of hemolytic anemia. Elevated creatine kinase can be seen with myopathy in McLeod syndrome.”

>> This is a form of blood anemia due to abnormal breakdown of the red cells in the blood. Do you get it anons? This is why the Merovingian bloodline = direct descendants of the Evil One NEED to drink Human Blood = this is the vampiric symptom they have within (((their))) genes.

“Radiologic and pathologic features

MRI shows increased T2 signal in the lateral putamen with caudate atrophy and secondary lateral ventricular dilation. Necropsy shows loss of neurons and gliosis in the caudate and globus pallidus. Similar changes may also be seen in the thalamus, substantia nigra, and putamen. The cerebellum and cerebral cortex are generally spared.

Treatment

There is no cure for McLeod syndrome; the treatment is supportive depending on symptoms. Medication may assist with management of epilepsy, and cardiac and psychiatric features, although patients may respond poorly to treatment for chorea.”

>> Please read and re-read this paragraph over and over again anons and compare it with the case of Killary and rapist Bill. It’ all here, mostly the psychiatric features in the case of Killary = she surely is one nut job. So you see, there is no cure for this decease, all the doctors can do is give supportive treatment to lessen the symptoms, depending on what they are because there is a variety of symptoms – not all may show up, some might, while some won’t.

“Prognosis

A typical patient with severe McLeod syndrome that begins in adulthood lives for an additional 5 to 10 years. Patients with cardiomyopathy have elevated risk for congestive heart failure and sudden cardiac death. The prognosis for a normal life span is often good in some patients with mild neurological or cardiac sequelae.”

>> How do you avoid death in such a situation? How do you trick death away if you know you have a short lifespan after you are diagnosed with this illness? For the Bloodlines, mostly the direct descendants of the Evil One, the solution comes with drinking human blood = being a vampire. It doesn’t solve the problem but it kicks down the can further down the road.

• Page 1 648 –

>>15099135

(Please read from the start)

“Epidemiology

McLeod syndrome is present in 0.5 to 1 per 100,000 of the population. McLeod males have variable acanthocytosis due to a defect in the inner leaflet bilayer of the red blood cell, as well as mild hemolysis. McLeod females have only occasional acanthocytes and very mild hemolysis; the lesser severity is thought to be due to X chromosome inactivation via the Lyon effect. Some individuals with McLeod phenotype develop myopathy, neuropathy, or psychiatric symptoms, producing a syndrome that may mimic chorea.”

>> If the numbers are true, then we have an estimate how many of them there are nowadays. And here we know that the females might carry it, but because of the Lyon effect, some of them would have lesser symptoms or the symptoms won’t show at all. It can be muscle symptoms, as well as neurological and even psychiatric symptoms. Perfect fit for Killary’s case.

“McLeod syndrome can cause an increase in the enzymes creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) found in routine blood screening.

History

McLeod syndrome was discovered in 1961 and, as with the Kell antigen system, was named after the first patient in which it was found: Harvard dental student Hugh McLeod, whose red blood cells were observed to have weak expression of Kell system antigens during blood donation, and found to be acanthocytic (spiky) under the microscope.”

>> This is very important = the red blood cells had a spiky shape under the microscope.

“The wives of King Henry VIII of England show a pattern of pregnancies and infant deaths, which with his mental deterioration suggest that the king may have been Kell positive and suffered from McLeod syndrome.”

>> This little sentence is as precious as gold. First of all, it’s giving us Henry VIII of England as candidate having the McLeod syndrome = illness of the kings. And we all know Henry VIII was of the Bloodlines. For a male like him to be Kell positive, it means he got it from his mother. This way we can trace back the tree of the Bloodlines and make a list of whom are the carriers of the illness of the Evil One during that part of History.

Here, they support Henry as an example (according to him a potential) candidate with the McLeod syndrome by citing 2 symptoms: his mental deterioration and most importantly the pattern of pregnancies and INFANT DEATHS of his wives. For his mental deterioration that is correct, because it seems like dementia is one of the symptoms of the McLeod syndrome. But if you read more about the illness you will find there are other symptoms which coincidently also appear on Henry VIII like the gain of massive weight = being obese. Just like Killary as well.

But the most important part is about the “PATTERN OF PREGNANCIES AND INFANT DEATHS” his wives suffered from. I’m smiling from ear to ear here anons. Don’t forget, we are still talking about the huge number of infant death in the burial of Carthage ^_~ What are the odds this is what killed all of these children in Carthage? Think about this for now. I’ve still got a lot to show you about the McLeod syndrome. So for now, let’s continue about this illness..

• Page 1 649 –

>>15099152

(Please read from the start)

Let’s talk a bit about Henry VIII of England. Here is the link for anons to read and read carefully and slowly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII

For Henry VIII to have the McLeod syndrome, it means it got passed onto him via his mother. Which in turn means Henry’s siblings, mostly his sisters also carry it. Henry, in turn, passed it to both his living daughters - while his son Edward, got it from his mother. This is important, so we are going to take a look into Henry VIII . I’m going only to put the important things that will highlight the McLeod syndrome, mostly the childhood and the behavior of Henry VIII. I’m not interested in politics or anything other, if anons want to dig deeper into this, they can use the link to look at this.

“Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 22 April 1509 until his death in 1547. Henry is best known for his six marriages, including his efforts to have his first marriage (to Catherine of Aragon) annulled. His disagreement with Pope Clement VII about such an annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation, separating the Church of England from papal authority. He appointed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolved convents and monasteries, for which he was excommunicated. […]

Domestically, Henry is known for his radical changes to the English Constitution, ushering in the theory of the divine right of kings. He also greatly expanded royal power during his reign. He frequently used charges of treason and heresy to quell dissent, and those accused were often executed without a formal trial by means of bills of attainder. He achieved many of his political aims through the work of his chief ministers, some of whom were banished or executed when they fell out of his favour. Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, Richard Rich, and Thomas Cranmer all figured prominently in his administration.”

>> LoL! Sorry, but I couldn’t help but notice how many Thomas’ there are around Henry VIII ^_^

“Henry was an extravagant spender, using the proceeds from the dissolution of the monasteries and acts of the Reformation Parliament. He also converted the money that was formerly paid to Rome into royal revenue. Despite the money from these sources, he was continually on the verge of financial ruin due to his personal extravagance, as well as his numerous costly and largely unsuccessful wars, particularly with King Francis I of France, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, King James V of Scotland and the Scottish regency under the Earl of Arran and Mary of Guise. At home, he oversaw the legal union of England and Wales with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542, and he was the first English monarch to rule as King of Ireland following the Crown of Ireland Act 1542.

Henry's contemporaries considered him an attractive, educated, and accomplished king. He has been described as "one of the most charismatic rulers to sit on the English throne" and his reign has been described as the "most important" in English history. He was an author and composer. As he aged, he became severely overweight and his health suffered. He is frequently characterised in his later life as a lustful, egotistical, paranoid and tyrannical monarch. He was succeeded by his son Edward VI.”

>> Anons taking notes of the “radical changes” in his behavior, policies, also his physical shape and how he views himself as God like?

• Page 1 650 –

>>15106189

(Please read from the start)

“Early years

Born on 28 June 1491 at the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich, Kent, Henry Tudor was the third child and second son of King Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. Of the young Henry's six (or seven) siblings, only three – his brother Arthur, Prince of Wales, and sisters Margaret and Mary – survived infancy. […] Not much is known about Henry's early life – save for his appointments – because he was not expected to become king, but it is known that he received a first-rate education from leading tutors. He became fluent in Latin and French and learned at least some Italian.”

>> Anyone notice the infant birth death level within the royal family? Elizabeth of York was carrying the McLeod Syndrome for sure, it’s unsure if Henry VII was also carrying it.

“In November 1501, Henry played a considerable part in the ceremonies surrounding his brother Arthur's marriage to Catherine, the youngest child of King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile.[…]

In 1502, Arthur died at the age of 15, possibly of sweating sickness, just 20 weeks after his marriage to Catherine. Arthur's death thrust all his duties upon his younger brother. The 10-year-old Henry became the new Duke of Cornwall, and the new Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in February 1504. Henry VII gave his second son few responsibilities even after the death of Arthur. Young Henry was strictly supervised and did not appear in public. As a result, he ascended the throne "untrained in the exacting art of kingship".”

>> After doing some reading, even if you are a teen, the persons carrying the McLeod syndrome can still die. Few persons carrying this syndrome make it out to adulthood. So, it’s not strange to see Arthur die despite him being 15 years old.

“Henry VII renewed his efforts to seal a marital alliance between England and Spain, by offering his son Henry in marriage to the widowed Catherine. Both Henry VII and Isabella, Catherine's mother, were keen on the idea, which had arisen very shortly after Arthur's death. On 23 June 1503, a treaty was signed for their marriage, and they were betrothed two days later. A papal dispensation was only needed for the "impediment of public honesty" if the marriage had not been consummated as Catherine and her duenna claimed, but Henry VII and the Spanish ambassador set out instead to obtain a dispensation for "affinity", which took account of the possibility of consummation. Cohabitation was not possible because Henry was too young. Isabella's death in 1504, and the ensuing problems of succession in Castile, complicated matters. Catherine's father Ferdinand preferred her to stay in England, but Henry VII's relations with Ferdinand had deteriorated. Catherine was therefore left in limbo for some time, culminating in Prince Henry's rejection of the marriage as soon he was able, at the age of 14. Ferdinand's solution was to make his daughter ambassador, allowing her to stay in England indefinitely. Devout, she began to believe that it was God's will that she marry the prince despite his opposition.”

>> Here, it’s all about keeping the Blood pure = as in preserving the McLeod syndrome within the family. Catherine also carried the syndrome, just like Henry VIII did.

• Page 1 651 –

>>15106207

(Please read from the start)

“Early reign

Henry VII died on 21 April 1509, and the 17-year-old Henry succeeded him as king. Soon after his father's burial on 10 May, Henry suddenly declared that he would indeed marry Catherine, leaving unresolved several issues concerning the papal dispensation and a missing part of the marriage portion. The new king maintained that it had been his father's dying wish that he marry Catherine. Whether or not this was true, it was certainly convenient. Emperor Maximilian I had been attempting to marry his granddaughter Eleanor, Catherine's niece, to Henry; she had now been jilted. Henry's wedding to Catherine was kept low-key and was held at the friar's church in Greenwich on 11 June 1509.

On 23 June 1509, Henry led the now 23-year-old Catherine from the Tower of London to Westminster Abbey for their coronation, which took place the following day. It was a grand affair: the king's passage was lined with tapestries and laid with fine cloth. Following the ceremony, there was a grand banquet in Westminster Hall. As Catherine wrote to her father, "our time is spent in continuous festival".

Two days after his coronation, Henry arrested his father's two most unpopular ministers, Sir Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. They were charged with high treason and were executed in 1510. Politically motivated executions would remain one of Henry's primary tactics for dealing with those who stood in his way.[…].”

>> Notice his radical decisions and behavior.

“Soon after marrying Henry, Catherine conceived. She gave birth to a stillborn girl on 31 January 1510. About four months later, Catherine again became pregnant. On 1 January 1511, New Year's Day, a son Henry was born. After the grief of losing their first child, the couple were pleased to have a boy and festivities were held, including a two-day joust known as the Westminster Tournament. However, the child died seven weeks later.Catherine had two stillborn sons in 1513 and 1515, but gave birth in February 1516 to a girl, Mary. Relations between Henry and Catherine had been strained, but they eased slightly after Mary's birth.”

>> Notice how many stillborn children a SINGLE couple had? And how long did their son Henry live? = a couple of months or so? Do you remember how many infants Schwartz found aged between a month or 2 after birth in the burial of Carthage? Do you remember how Smith automatically, blindly put these children (whom were 1 and 2 months old) as being sacrifice victims? Here, we have ONE couple = the royal couple, whom buried 3 of their children in around 2 years. Imagine that! A single couple buried 3 children in the spam of 2 years. And look at their reaction how they were thankful for their son Henry to have made it through birth. Doesn’t this remind anons of the inscription on the stelae in Carthage, of how the parents were asking the deity to give them another child after this one was gone? And….do you remember the huge number of children buried in that cemetery in Carthage? Anyone tested the remains if they have the same parents? As in, how many children ONE couple buried in Carthage? Is this why no one did a D.N.A. test to the remains of Carthage? In just 2 years, the British royal couple buried 3 children = in Carthage, in just 2 years, how many children did ONE couple bury in that cemetery? This explains the high number of infant burials there, doesn’t it?

“Although Henry's marriage to Catherine has since been described as "unusually good", it is known that Henry took mistresses. […] Catherine is not known to have protested. In 1518 she fell pregnant again with another girl, who was also stillborn.”

>> This is the 4th stillborn child of the royal couple.

• Page 1 652 –

>>15106251

(Please read from the start)

“Blount gave birth in June 1519 to Henry's illegitimate son, Henry FitzRoy. The young boy was made Duke of Richmond in June 1525 in what some thought was one step on the path to his eventual legitimisation. In 1533, FitzRoy married Mary Howard, but died childless three years later. At the time of his death in June 1536, Parliament was considering the Second Succession Act, which could have allowed him to become king.”

>> So it turned out that Blount, the mistress of Henry VIII, also carried the McLeod sickness because FitzRoy died when he was 14. Don’t forget, males get the McLeod syndrome from their mothers. As for females, they get it from one or both of their parents. Adding FitzRoy to the rest of the already dead royal children, this makes it the 5th child of the king which died before reaching adulthood.

“France and the Habsburgs

[…]. Henry renewed his father's friendship with Louis XII of France, an issue that divided his council. […] Shortly thereafter, however, Henry also signed a pact with Ferdinand II of Aragon. […]

On 30 June 1513, Henry invaded France, and his troops defeated a French army at the Battle of the Spurs – a relatively minor result, but one which was seized on by the English for propaganda purposes. […]. His absence from the country, however, had prompted his brother-in-law James IV of Scotland to invade England at the behest of Louis. Nevertheless, the English army, overseen by Queen Catherine, decisively defeated the Scots at the Battle of Flodden on 9 September 1513. Among the dead was the Scottish king, thus ending Scotland's brief involvement in the war. […]With the replacement of Julius by Pope Leo X, who was inclined to negotiate for peace with France, Henry signed his own treaty with Louis: his sister Mary would become Louis' wife, having previously been pledged to the younger Charles, and peace was secured for eight years, a remarkably long time.

[…]”

>> Don’t forget that Henry VIII’s sisters also probably carried the McLeod Syndrome, and with his sister’s marriage to Louis XII of France, she brought with her that blood.

“Marriages

Annulment from Catherine

During his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Henry conducted an affair with Mary Boleyn, Catherine's lady-in-waiting. There has been speculation that Mary's two children, Henry Carey and Catherine Carey, were fathered by Henry, but this has never been proved, and the king never acknowledged them as he did in the case of Henry FitzRoy. In 1525, as Henry grew more impatient with Catherine's inability to produce the male heir he desired, he became enamoured of Mary Boleyn's sister, Anne Boleyn, then a charismatic young woman of 25 in the queen's entourage. Anne, however, resisted his attempts to seduce her, and refused to become his mistress as her sister had. It was in this context that Henry considered his three options for finding a dynastic successor and hence resolving what came to be described at court as the king's "great matter". These options were legitimising Henry FitzRoy, which would need the involvement of the Pope and would be open to challenge; marrying off Mary, his daughter with Catherine, as soon as possible and hoping for a grandson to inherit directly, but Mary was considered unlikely to conceive before Henry's death, or somehow rejecting Catherine and marrying someone else of child-bearing age. Probably seeing the possibility of marrying Anne, the third was ultimately the most attractive possibility to the 34-year-old Henry,[and it soon became the king's absorbing desire to annul his marriage to the now 40-year-old Catherine.”

• Page 1 653 –

>>15106266

(Please read from the start)

“Henry's precise motivations and intentions over the coming years are not widely agreed on. […]. It is not clear exactly when Henry changed his mind on the issue as he grew more intent on a second marriage. Certainly, by 1527, he had convinced himself that Catherine had produced no male heir because their union was "blighted in the eyes of God".Indeed, in marrying Catherine, his brother's wife, he had acted contrary to Leviticus 20:21, a justification Thomas Cranmer used to declare the marriage null. Martin Luther, on the other hand, had initially argued against the annulment, stating that Henry VIII could take a second wife in accordance with his teaching that the Bible allowed for polygamy but not divorce Henry now believed the Pope had lacked the authority to grant a dispensation from this impediment. It was this argument Henry took to Pope Clement VII in 1527 in the hope of having his marriage to Catherine annulled, forgoing at least one less openly defiant line of attack. In going public, all hope of tempting Catherine to retire to a nunnery or otherwise stay quiet was lost. Henry sent his secretary, William Knight, to appeal directly to the Holy See by way of a deceptively worded draft papal bull. Knight was unsuccessful; the Pope could not be misled so easily.

[…]”

>> Ah! According to Luther, Polygamy was accepted in the Bible. Amazing isn’t it?! And this shift in behavior is not a coincidence, nor his mood swings. It’s all due to one thing = his illness.

“A year later, Catherine was banished from court, and her rooms were given to Anne Boleyn. Anne was an unusually educated and intellectual woman for her time and was keenly absorbed and engaged with the ideas of the Protestant Reformers, but the extent to which she herself was a committed Protestant is much debated. […]

Marriage to Anne Boleyn

In the winter of 1532, Henry met with Francis I at Calais and enlisted the support of the French king for his new marriage, Immediately upon returning to Dover in England, Henry, now 41, and Anne went through a secret wedding service. She soon became pregnant, and there was a second wedding service in London on 25 January 1533. On 23 May 1533, Cranmer, sitting in judgment at a special court convened at Dunstable Priory to rule on the validity of the king's marriage to Catherine of Aragon, declared the marriage of Henry and Catherine null and void. Five days later, on 28 May 1533, Cranmer declared the marriage of Henry and Anne to be valid. Catherine was formally stripped of her title as queen, becoming instead "princess dowager" as the widow of Arthur. In her place, Anne was crowned queen consort on 1 June 1533.[ The queen gave birth to a daughter slightly prematurely on 7 September 1533. The child was christened Elizabeth, in honour of Henry's mother, Elizabeth of York.”

>> So the child was born slightly pre-mature.

“[…] With the Act of Succession 1533, Catherine's daughter, Mary, was declared illegitimate; Henry's marriage to Anne was declared legitimate; and Anne's issue declared to be next in the line of succession. With the Acts of Supremacy in 1534, Parliament also recognised the king's status as head of the church in England and, together with the Act in Restraint of Appeals in 1532, abolished the right of appeal to Rome. It was only then that Pope Clement VII took the step of excommunicating the king and Cranmer, although the excommunication was not made official until some time later.”

• Page 1 654 –

>>15113239

(Please read from the start)

“The king and queen were not pleased with married life. The royal couple enjoyed periods of calm and affection, but Anne refused to play the submissive role expected of her. The vivacity and opinionated intellect that had made her so attractive as an illicit lover made her too independent for the largely ceremonial role of a royal wife and it made her many enemies. For his part, Henry disliked Anne's constant irritability and violent temper. After a false pregnancy or miscarriage in 1534, he saw her failure to give him a son as a betrayal. […]”

>> Whomever wrote this is inserting the “feminism mouvement ideas” with what they said about Anne. Either it’s a fake pregnancy or a miscarriage, that’s another child lost to the king. How many so far? Is this the fifth child already? Possibly, if it turns out to be true and not a faked pregnancy.

“Opposition to Henry's religious policies was quickly suppressed in England. A number of dissenting monks, including the first Carthusian Martyrs, were executed and many more pilloried. The most prominent resisters included John Fisher, […]”

>> So much for respecting the Men of God = priests, monks. That’s a brutal execution.

“Execution of Anne Boleyn

On 8 January 1536, news reached the king and queen that Catherine of Aragon had died. The following day, Henry dressed all in yellow, with a white feather in his bonnet. Queen Anne was pregnant again, and she was aware of the consequences if she failed to give birth to a son. Later that month, the king was unhorsed in a tournament and was badly injured; it seemed for a time that his life was in danger. When news of this accident reached the queen, she was sent into shock and miscarried a male child at about 15 weeks' gestation, on the day of Catherine's funeral, 29 January 1536. For most observers, this personal loss was the beginning of the end of this royal marriage.

[…]”

>> See how they’ve worded this? They put the fault on emotional shock for the miscarriage, but the truth is, it’s the McLeod syndrome. This is for sure the 5th child lost to the king. I’m not counting the previous possible or not possible one.

“Anne's downfall came shortly after she had recovered from her final miscarriage. Whether it was primarily the result of allegations of conspiracy, adultery, or witchcraft remains a matter of debate among historians. Early signs of a fall from grace included the king's new mistress, the 28-year-old Jane Seymour, being moved into new quarters, and Anne's brother, George Boleyn, being refused the Order of the Garter, which was instead given to Nicholas Carew. Between 30 April and 2 May, five men, including George Boleyn, were arrested on charges of treasonable adultery and accused of having sexual relationships with the queen. Anne was also arrested, accused of treasonous adultery and incest. Although the evidence against them was unconvincing, the accused were found guilty and condemned to death. The accused men were executed on 17 May 1536. Henry and Anne's marriage was annulled by Archbishop Cranmer at Lambeth on the same day. Cranmer appears to have had difficulty finding grounds for an annulment and probably based it on the prior liaison between Henry and Anne's sister Mary, which in canon law meant that Henry's marriage to Anne was, like his first marriage, within a forbidden degree of affinity and therefore void. At 8 am on 19 May 1536, Anne was executed on Tower Green.

[…]”

• Page 1 655 –

>>15113254

(Please read from the start)

>> Before I came to this board, I always thought the charges againt Anne Boleyn have been nothing but a court conspiracy, intregue, to get rid of an unwanted wife by the king himself and his counselors. Now, I don’t think so anymore.Now I think that ALL of this “conspiracy, adultery, or witchcraf” and even this “treasonous adultery and incest”, were all true. We are talking about the Bloodlines here. I bet Henry VIII knew of all of this from the get go and he took part of all of these orgies as well. But I think it reached a point where he had enough with Anne and wanted a new wife, so he used these acts to get rid of her, while halfway covering it so it won’t blow out of proportions and have himself unmasked as to what he was doing behind closed doors.

“[…] On 12 October 1537, Jane gave birth to a son, Prince Edward, the future Edward VI. The birth was difficult, and Queen Jane died on 24 October 1537 from an infection and was buried in Windsor. […].

With Charles V distracted by the internal politics of his many kingdoms and also external threats, and Henry and Francis on relatively good terms, domestic and not foreign policy issues had been Henry's priority in the first half of the 1530s. […] However, when Charles and Francis made peace in January 1539, Henry became increasingly paranoid, perhaps as a result of receiving a constant list of threats to the kingdom (real or imaginary, minor or serious) supplied by Cromwell in his role as spymaster. Enriched by the dissolution of the monasteries, Henry used some of his financial reserves to build a series of coastal defences and set some aside for use in the event of a Franco-German invasion.”

>>Paranoia?! Or McLeod syndrome symtoms kicking in?

“Physical decline and death

Late in life, Henry became obese, with a waist measurement of 54 inches (140 cm), and had to be moved about with the help of mechanical devices. He was covered with painful, pus-filled boils and possibly suffered from gout. His obesity and other medical problems can be traced to the jousting accident in 1536 in which he suffered a leg wound. The accident reopened and aggravated an injury he had sustained years earlier, to the extent that his doctors found it difficult to treat. The chronic wound festered for the remainder of his life and became ulcerated, preventing him from maintaining the level of physical activity he had previously enjoyed. The jousting accident is also believed to have caused Henry's mood swings, which may have had a dramatic effect on his personality and temperament.”

>> See how they find excuses for the symtoms of the McLeod syndrome? Weight gain, skin problems, a chronic wound and mostly his mood swings. He had them before, but now it’s more accentuated.

“The theory that Henry suffered from syphilis has been dismissed by most historians. Historian Susan Maclean Kybett ascribes his demise to scurvy, which is caused by insufficient vitamin C most often due to a lack of fresh fruits and vegetables in one's diet. Alternatively, his wives' pattern of pregnancies and his mental deterioration have led some to suggest that he may have been Kell positive and suffered from McLeod syndrome. According to another study, Henry's history and body morphology may have been the result of traumatic brain injury after his 1536 jousting accident, which in turn led to a neuroendocrine cause of his obesity. This analysis identifies growth hormone deficiency (GHD) as the reason for his increased adiposity but also significant behavioural changes noted in his later years, including his multiple marriages.”

• Page 1 656 –

>>15121511

(Please read from the start)

>> Before the Awakening, the other suggestions mentioned here were possibilities, but now, there aren’t so for me anymore. He had the McLeod syndrome. To put an end to this debate, let’s make a test on his remains and let’s see if he will test Kell positive or not? I bet he will test positive for it; he’s got all the symptoms. Wasn’t it also suggested at some point that rapist Bill might have had syphilis as well? (if my memory is not betraying me).

“Henry's obesity hastened his death at the age of 55, on 28 January 1547 in the Palace of Whitehall, on what would have been his father's 90th birthday. The tomb he had planned (with components taken from the tomb intended for Cardinal Wolsey) was only partly constructed and was never completed. (The sarcophagus and its base were later removed and used for Lord Nelson's tomb in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral.) Henry was interred in a vault at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, next to Jane Seymour. Over 100 years later, King Charles I (ruled 1625–1649) was buried in the same vault.

[…]”

>> After this, there is a part with a list of Henry VIII’s children = the ones whom lived and those whom didn’t live. I’m going to put it as it is:

Known children of Henry VIII of England

Name Birth Death Notes

By Catherine of Aragon (married Palace of Placentia 11 June 1509; annulled 23 May 1533)

Unnamed daughter 31 January 1510 stillborn

Henry, Duke of Cornwall

1 January 1511 22 February 1511 died aged almost two months

Unnamed son 17 September 1513 died shortly after birth

Unnamed son November 1514 died shortly after birth

Queen Mary I

18 February 1516 17 November 1558 married Philip II of Spain in 1554; no issue

Unnamed daughter 10 November 1518 stillborn in the 8th month of pregnancy or lived at least one week

By Elizabeth Blount (mistress; bore the only illegitimate child Henry VIII acknowledged as his son)

Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset

15 June 1519 23 July 1536 illegitimate; acknowledged by Henry VIII in 1525; no issue

By Anne Boleyn (married Westminster Abbey 25 January 1533; annulled 17 May 1536) beheaded on 19 May 1536

Queen Elizabeth I

7 September 1533 24 March 1603 never married; no issue

Unnamed son Christmas, 1534 miscarriage or false pregnancy

Unnamed son 1535 Miscarried son

Unnamed son 29 January 1536 miscarriage of a child, believed male, in the fourth month of pregnancy

By Jane Seymour (married Palace of Whitehall 30 May 1536) died 24 October 1537

King Edward VI

12 October 1537 6 July 1553 died unmarried, age 15; no issue

By Anne of Cleves (married Palace of Placentia 6 January 1540; annulled 9 July 1540)

no issue

By Catherine Howard (married Oatlands Palace 28 July 1540; annulled 23 November 1541) beheaded on 13 February 1542

no issue

By Catherine Parr (married Hampton Court Palace 12 July 1543; Henry VIII died 28 January 1547)

no issue

• Page 1 657 –

>>15121524

(Please read from the start)

>> Look at this anons. We have at least 10 children from Henry VIII, possibly 11 if that one from Boleyn was a miscarriage or a fake pregnancy. All of these are the offspring of ONE man. Out of the 10/11 children he conceived, only 2 managed to live through to their adulthood, while we have an additional 2 whom lived through to their teen years. The rest, were either miscarried, stillborn or died shortly after death. One man, buried 8/9 of his children. This is the results of ONE man being sick = having the McLeod syndrome. If we consider that he had his first child at the age of 17 and he died at 55, this means that in almost 40 years one man buried 8/9 of his children.

“Succession

Upon Henry's death, he was succeeded by his son Edward VI. Since Edward was then only nine years old, he could not rule directly. Instead, Henry's will designated 16 executors to serve on a council of regency until Edward reached 18. The executors chose Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford, Jane Seymour's elder brother, to be Lord Protector of the Realm. If Edward died childless, the throne was to pass to Mary, Henry VIII's daughter by Catherine of Aragon, and her heirs. If Mary's issue failed, the crown was to go to Elizabeth, Henry's daughter by Anne Boleyn, and her heirs. Finally, if Elizabeth's line became extinct, the crown was to be inherited by the descendants of Henry VIII's deceased younger sister, Mary, the Greys. The descendants of Henry's sister Margaret—the Stuarts, rulers of Scotland—were thereby excluded from the succession.This provision ultimately failed when James VI of Scotland became King of England in 1603.

[…]”

>> This is important to trace back whom had the McLeod syndrome = follow the wives….I would rather say it as = follow the females.

This detour with Henry VIII was necessary to provide anons an example and help make my point when the burial of Carthage is concerned; just as it makes my point that both Killary and rapist Bill had McLeod syndrome. This is the “illness of the kings” passed on the Bloodline families, but mostly in the bloodline of the direct descendants of the Evil One. As another candidate in this list, I want to name Alexander the Great (or not so great after all). It’s obvious he was a Bloodline and it’s clear he had the McLeod syndrome from his mother Olympias. I’ve already taken a look at him – starting page 1 519 – if interested, please go back and pick up the information about his behavior, his family line etc. and compare everything with what we have from Henry VIII, Killary, rapist Bill and of course from the McLeod syndrome symptoms. You can make a small file for each and use it for comparison. I will be providing more examples for anons as I go on.

I’m not done with the McLeod syndrome. Back when I first found it, the internet was “clogged” – sort of speak. After it was unclogged, I went back and started to read once more about the McLeod Syndrome. And I’ve found plenty that I wasn’t able to find in my initial, first search. This is what I’m going to share with anons next I hope it will help you see this is it = this is the illness of the Evil One passed onto his direct descendants and it’s what Killary was ill of, as well as rapist Bill by the way.

• Page 1 658 –

>>15121568

(Please read from the start)

Here is more about the McLeod syndrome: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/mcleod-neuroacanthocytosis-syndrome/

« McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome

Description

McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome is primarily a neurological disorder that occurs almost exclusively in boys and men. This disorder affects movement in many parts of the body. People with McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome also have abnormal star-shaped red blood cells (acanthocytosis). This condition is one of a group of disorders called neuroacanthocytoses that involve neurological problems and abnormal red blood cells.”

>> Note “ ALMOST exclusively” in males. Which means it also exist in females, but rarely.

“McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome affects the brain and spinal cord (central nervous system). Affected individuals have involuntary movements, including jerking motions (chorea), particularly of the arms and legs, and muscle tensing (dystonia) in the face and throat, which can cause grimacing and vocal tics (such as grunting and clicking noises). Dystonia of the tongue can lead to swallowing difficulties. Seizures occur in approximately half of all people with McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome. Individuals with this condition may develop difficulty processing, learning, and remembering information (cognitive impairment). They may also develop psychiatric disorders, such as depression, bipolar disorder, psychosis, or obsessive-compulsive disorder.”

>> Any of these symptoms match Killary’s and rapist Bill?

“People with McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome also have problems with their muscles, including muscle weakness (myopathy) and muscle degeneration (atrophy). Sometimes, nerves that connect to muscles atrophy (neurogenic atrophy), leading to loss of muscle mass and impaired movement. Individuals with McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome may also have reduced sensation and weakness in their arms and legs (peripheral neuropathy). Life-threatening heart problems such as irregular heartbeats (arrhythmia) and a weakened and enlarged heart (dilated cardiomyopathy) are common in individuals with this disorder.

The signs and symptoms of McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome usually begin in mid-adulthood. Behavioral changes, such as lack of self-restraint, the inability to take care of oneself, anxiety, depression, and changes in personality may be the first signs of this condition. While these behavioral changes are typically not progressive, the movement and muscle problems and intellectual impairments tend to worsen with age.

Frequency

McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome is rare; approximately 150 cases have been reported worldwide.”

• Page 1 659 –

>>15121583

(Please read from the start)

“Causes

Mutations in the XK gene cause McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome. The XK gene provides instructions for producing the XK protein, which carries the blood antigen Kx. Blood antigens are found on the surface of red blood cells and determine blood type. The XK protein is found in various tissues, particularly the brain, muscle, and heart. The function of the XK protein is unclear; researchers believe that it might play a role in transporting substances into and out of cells. On red blood cells, the XK protein attaches to another blood group protein, the Kell protein. The function of this blood group complex is unknown.

XK gene mutations typically lead to the production of an abnormally short, nonfunctional protein or cause no protein to be produced at all. A lack of XK protein leads to an absence of Kx antigens on red blood cells; the Kell antigen is also less prevalent. The absence of Kx antigen and reduction of Kell antigen is known as the "McLeod phenotype," and refers only to the red blood cells. It is not known how the lack of XK protein leads to the movement problems and other features of McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome.”

>> This is why (((they))) need to consume fresh human blood. This started with the Evil One. I’ve came to believe that he was the one whom discovered that if he consumed fresh human blood, he can ward off the symptoms of his illness, not curing himself though. And it’s from this that the satanic ritual was build; it was built all around the need of fresh blood and it evolved into becoming what we know as being a satanic ritual of human sacrifice. And somewhere along the way (((they))) also discovered that torturing the victims prior to the sacrificial ritual will produce Adrenochrome in the blood which is consumed by (((their))) vampiric kind. I believe all of this was discovered before the Cataclysm, it was practiced in secret back then. And I believe some if not all medical/biological information about the McLeod Syndrome was kept in that Book/record rumored to have been written by the blood of the victims.

“Inheritance

McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome is inherited in an X-linked recessive pattern. The gene associated with this condition is located on the X chromosome, which is one of the two sex chromosomes. In males (who have only one X chromosome), one altered copy of the gene in each cell is sufficient to cause the condition. In females (who have two X chromosomes), a mutation must be present in both copies of the gene to cause the disorder. Males are affected by X-linked recessive disorders much more frequently than females. Rarely, females with a mutation in one copy of the XK gene can have the characteristic misshapen blood cells and movement problems associated with McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome. A characteristic of X-linked inheritance is that fathers cannot pass X-linked traits to their sons.”

>> This paragraph is of High importance. For males, it needs one “sick” X chromosome to cause the disorder. But with females, we need to have BOTH X chromosomes to be “sick” to cause the disorder. And I believe this was the case with Killary. I believe she was considered “special” by the Bloodlines = the Chosen One according to (((them))) because she had the very very very rare condition of having both of her X chromosomes “sick”.

Also in this paragraph they are telling it clearly. Most females are carriers of the McLeod syndrome, but there are rare cases when the females are not just carriers but the disorder affects them just as it does to males, because both of the X chromosomes are “sick”.

• Page 1 660 –

>>15121603

(Please read from the start)

I’m going to give anons another example with a male having the McLeod Syndrome. It’s Albert Pike. I’m going to skip the unnecessary parts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pike

“Albert Pike (December 29, 1809 – April 2, 1891) was an American author, poet, orator, editor, lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court in exile from 1864 to 1865. He had previously served as a senior officer of the Confederate States Army, commanding the District of Indian Territory in the Trans-Mississippi Theater. A prominent member of the Freemasons, Pike served as the sovereign grand commander of the Scottish Rite from 1859 to 1889.

Early life and education

Albert Pike was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 29, 1809, the son of Benjamin and Sarah (Andrews) Pike, and spent his childhood in Byfield and Newburyport, Massachusetts. […]

Pike was an imposing figure; 6 feet (1.83 m) tall and 300 pounds (140 kg) with hair that reached his shoulders and a long beard. In 1831, he left Massachusetts to travel west, first stopping in Nashville, Tennessee, and later moving to St. Louis, Missouri.

[…]”

>> Don’t forget that the McLeod syndrome is transmitted to males via their mother. St. Louis is an important center for the Bloodlines.

“Freemasonry

Pike first joined the fraternal Independent Order of Odd Fellows in 1840. He next joined a Masonic Lodge, where he became extremely active in the affairs of the organization. In 1859 he was elected Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction. He remained Sovereign Grand Commander for the rest of his life, devoting a large amount of his time to developing the rituals of the order.

He published a book called Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in 1871, the first of several editions. This helped the Order grow during the nineteenth century. He also researched and wrote the seminal treatise Indo-Aryan Deities and Worship as Contained in the Rig-Veda. In the United States, Pike is still considered an eminent and influential Freemason, primarily in the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction.

[…]

Death and legacy

Pike died on April 2, 1891, in Charleston, South Carolina, at the age of 81, and was buried at Oak Hill Cemetery, despite the fact that he had left instructions for his body to be cremated In 1944, his remains were moved to the House of the Temple, headquarters of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite. The House of the Temple contains numerous memorials and artifacts related to Pike, including his personal library.”

• Page 1 661 –

>>15127219

(Please read from the start)

“A memorial to Pike was erected in 1901 in the Judiciary Square neighborhood of Washington, D.C. He was the only Confederate military officer with an outdoor statue in Washington, D.C., and in 2019 Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton called for its removal. […]

The Albert Pike Memorial Temple is an historic Masonic lodge in Little Rock, Arkansas; the structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Controversies

In the aftermath of the Civil War, as former Confederates found themselves barred from the ballot box, Pike remained deeply opposed to black suffrage, insisting that "the white race, and that race alone, shall govern this country. It is the only one that is fit to govern, and it is the only one that shall."

Regarding membership in the Freemasons, Pike is quoted as saying, "Prince Hall Lodge was as regular a Lodge as any Lodge created by competent authority. It had a perfect right to establish other Lodges and make itself a Mother Lodge. I am not inclined to meddle in the matter. I took my obligations from white men, not from negroes. When I have to accept negroes as brothers or leave masonry, I shall leave it. Better let the thing drift"; even so, Pike was the personal friend of Thornton A. Jackson, Supreme Grand Commander of the United Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, Prince Hall Affiliation and even gifted to Thornton his complete set of rituals for Prince Hall Scottish Rite Masonry to use.

Various histories of the Ku Klux Klan published in the early 20th century identify Pike as a high-ranking official of the order. Walter Lynwood Fleming, in 1905's Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment, lists Pike as the Klan's "chief judicial officer".Susan Lawrence Davis, whose father was a founding member of the Klan in Alabama, writes in her sympathetic account titled Authentic History: Ku Klux Klan, 1865-1877, published in 1924, that Pike was personally chosen by Nathan Bedford Forrest to serve as the Klan's "Chief Judicial Officer" and to head the Klan in Arkansas. In 1939's Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866-1871, Stanley Horn also reports that Forrest appointed Pike and credits him with a surge of local Klan activity in April 1868. Horn says that a pro-Klan poem, Death's Brigade, is attributed to Pike Southern Agrarian poet John Gould Fletcher, who grew up in Little Rock in a house that Pike built, also believed Pike was the poem's author.

However, Walter Lee Brown in his 1997 biography, found a lack of evidence that Pike was a member of the Klan. He cites Allen W. Trelease, author of 1971's White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction, as being doubtful of Pike's membership, as the offices Pike allegedly held are not mentioned in "The Prescript", the Klan constitution.

Pike's only known writing on the Klan, an 1868 editorial in the Memphis Daily Appeal, indicates that his main problems lay not with its aims, but with its methods and leadership. Later in this editorial, he proposed "one great Order of Southern Brotherhood," a secret society which would have been a larger and more centrally organized version of the Klan: "If it were in our power, if it could be effected, we would unite every white man in the South, who is opposed to negro suffrage, into one great Order of Southern Brotherhood, with an organization complete, active, vigorous, in which a few should execute the concentrated will of all, and whose very existence should be concealed from all but its members.”

• Page 1 662 –

>>15127222

(Please read from the start)

“He later adopted abolitionist views, writing, "I am not one of those who believe slavery a blessing. I know it is an evil, as great cities are an evil; as the concentration of capitol in a few hands, oppressing labor, is an evil; as the utter annihilation of free-will and individuality in the army and navy is an evil; as in this world everything is mixed of good and evil. Such is the rule of God’s providence, and the affairs of the world. Nor do I deny the abuses of slavery.*Necessarily it gives power that may be abused. Nor will I under-rate its abuses. It involves frequent separation of families. It, here and there, prevents the development of a mind and intellect**. Marriage does not create an indissoluble bond among the slaves. It gives occasion to prostitution. The slave toils all his life for mere clothing, shelter and food; and the last is heard sometimes upon the plantations, and in rare cases, cruelties punishable by the law are practiced."

>> I have a feeling this Wikipedia page was edited: since I’ve read this a year or so ago, I remember also reading about his wife and children, but amazingly it vanished from Wikipedia. Oh, well! Since I’m old, maybe I’m mistaking. If I cannot get in using the door, I can get in using the window. ^_~

This is why I went looking for another source of information – I’m going to skip the repeated information so I won’t post it twice: https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/albert-pike-1737/

“Albert Pike (1809–1891)

Albert Pike was a lawyer who played a major role in the development of the early courts of Arkansas and played an active role in the state’s politics prior to the Civil War. He also was a central figure in the development of Masonry in the state and later became a national leader of that organization. During the Civil War, he commanded the Confederacy’s Indian Territory, raising troops there and exercising field command in one battle. He also was a talented poet and writer.

[…]

Albert Pike was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 29, 1809. He was one of the six children of Benjamin Pike, a cobbler, and Sarah Andrews.

[…]

In addition to editing the newspaper, Pike secured additional work in Little Rock as a clerk in the legislature. He married Mary Ann Hamilton on October 10, 1834. The couple had six children. Hamilton brought to the marriage considerable financial resources, and she helped Pike purchase an interest in the Advocate from Bertrand in 1834. The next year, he became its sole proprietor. […]

After he ceased practicing law, Pike’s real interest was the Masonic Lodge. He had become a Mason in 1850 and participated in the creation of the Masonic St. Johns’ College in Little Rock that same year. In 1851, he helped to form the Grand Chapter of Arkansas and was its Grand High Priest from 1853 to 1854. In 1853, he also associated with the Scottish Rite of Masons and rose rapidly in the organization. In 1859, he was elected grand commander of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, the administrative district for all parts of the country except for the fifteen states east of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio, and held that post until his death. After the war, he devoted much of his time to rewriting the rituals of the Scottish Rite Masons. For years, his Morals and Dogma (1871), still in print, was distributed to members of the Rite. Over his career, he published numerous other works on the order, including Meaning of Masonry, Book of the Words, and The Point Within the Circle. As he aged, he also became interested in spiritualism, particularly Indian thought, and its relationship to Masonry. Late in life, he learned Sanskrit and translated various literary works written in that language. As a result of his work in this area, he published Indo-Aryan Deities and Worship as Contained in the Rig-Veda.”

• Page 1 663 –

>>15127235

(Please read from the start)

“Pike died at the Scottish Rite Temple in Washington DC on April 2, 1891. He was buried in Oak Hill Cemetery there. On December 29, 1944, the anniversary of his birth, his body was removed from Oak Hill Cemetery and placed in a crypt in the temple.

Pike was much honored after his death. His Masonic brothers erected a statute to him in 1901 in Washington DC. Authorities also named the first highway between Hot Springs (Garland County) and Colorado Springs, Colorado, the Albert Pike Highway. The Albert Pike Hotel bears his name. The Albert Pike Memorial Temple in Little Rock bears his name, and his Little Rock home remains standing. After renovation, the home opened as the Arkansas Arts Center’s Decorative Arts Museum in March 1985. In 2004, it became the Arts Center Community Gallery, a multi-purpose gallery in which local and regional art is shown. Discussions about removing the statue in Washington DC (and other statues of Confederates around the country) began in the summer of 2017, following a white supremacist rally at Confederate monuments in Charlottesville, Virginia. On June 19, 2020, the statue was toppled amid ongoing protests across the nation following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota.”

>> Here, they tell us he had 6 children from his wife. Well, I looked around a bit and this is what I found : https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Hamilton-Descendants-10580

“Descendants of Mary Ann (Hamilton) Pike

Mary Ann (Hamilton) Pike married Albert Pike (29 Dec 1809 - 2 Apr 1891) and is the mother of 10 children and the grandmother of one grandchild. Listed below are details on up to five generations of descendants. Also see Mary's DNA Descendants and Family Tree & Genealogy Tools for more views.

1. Ben Desha Pike (abt 1835 - 03 Mar 1836) [no children]

2. Albert Pike (17 Feb 1837 - 19 Feb 1837)

3. Luther Hamilton Pike (20 Aug 1838 - 09 Jan 1895)

4. Walter Lacy Pike (abt 29 Jun 1840 - 06 Apr 1863)

5. Isadore Pike (abt 20 Jan 1842 - 07 Jul 1869)

6. Lilian (Pike) Roome (abt 22 Feb 1843 - 01 Mar 1919)

7. Albert Holden Pike (04 Oct 1844 - 16 May 1858)

8. Clarence Pike (18 Aug 1846 - 11 Feb 1848) [no children]

9. Eustace Pike (20 Feb 1848 - 24 Jul 1848) [no children]

10. Ivon Pike (10 Sep 1849 - 30 Apr 1929) m. Eleanor Paxton (27 Nov 1850 - 28 May 1934).

11. Dore Pike (abt 1882)”

>> Look at the dates here. It’s interesting isn’t it? I’m going to point to the children via their numbers, it’s easier since we have some children with the same first name.

Children numbers 1, 2 & 9 = died extremely young. They lived from a few days to a few months.

Child number 8 was something close to a year and a half old when he died

Children numbers 4 and 5 died aged somewhere in their 20s.

Child number 3 died in his 50s.

Children numbers 7 and 10 lived to grow old = past their 60s.”

Just like it’s the case with Henry VIII, ONE MAN = Albert Pike, he had 10 children and he buried 4 of them at a very young age, while 2 others died aged in their 20s. He buried 6 of his children before he died himself. Aren’t these signs of McLeod Syndrome present in this family? And we are not even counting the miscarriages and the stillborn children his wife had. And one of his children = a male, died in his 50s. Just go back to read what was said about the illness “frame of death” after the person carrying it reaches 50. Henry VIII died at 55. The transmission of the McLeod syndrome to the next generation can only be done via the X chromosome, so does this mean his wife was also carrying the same illness as Pike? If it’s the case, then this makes her also a Bloodline, just like him. Loads of digging needed to be done here. Those whom are interested can retrace the entire line by following the females or following the wives as Qteam says.

• Page 1 664 –

>>15127256

(Please read from the start)

It’s very obvious that Pike had the McLeod syndrome. I am also suspecting many British kings had it, mostly the Plantagenet dynasty; as well as Louis XIV, Louis XV and of course Louis XVI to have had the illness as well = the Bourbon dynasty. In fact, when we look at how the royalty in Europe married from one another, you will see how the ladies transferred the illness from one royal family to another.

I’m not putting these candidates out of nothing. Let’s check out Louis XIV; he used to think he was the sun god – I bet he is referring to the Evil One and how (((they))) thought he was the sun, but the truth is he is the lesser sun. This is how you know since when the Bloodlines know there is an association between the Evil One and the sun (lesser sun). The French monarch’s name was Louis meaning Light = as the Evil One was the carrier of the Lamp; I bet (((they))) thought he was the carrier of the Light- which is not true. Louis XIV is also known for his mood swings.

Let me show you a couple of things quickly about Louis XIV: https://www.biography.com/news/louis-xiv-biography-facts

“[…]

The princess Louis XIV married was his first cousin

The king’s first true love was Mazarin’s niece, Marie Mancini, but both the queen and the cardinal frowned upon their relationship. Louis XIV was ultimately directed into a marriage that was a political, rather than a romantic, union by wedding the daughter of Spain’s King Philip IV, Marie-Thérèse, in 1660. The marriage between the two first cousins ensured ratification of the peace treaty that Mazarin had sought to establish with Hapsburg Spain.

One of Louis XIV’s mistresses bore more of his children than his wife

Marie-Thérèse gave birth to six of the king’s children, but only one, Louis, survived past the age of five. Louis XIV, however, had a healthy libido and fathered more than a dozen illegitimate children with a number of mistresses. Mistress Louise de La Vallière bore five of the king’s children, only two of which survived infancy, while her rival Madame de Montespan, who eventually became the king’s chief mistress, gave birth to seven of the monarch’s children. Louis XIV eventually legitimized most of his children born to mistresses in the years following their births.

[…]”

>> Just from 3 women = his legal wife and 2 mistresses, Louis XIV had 18 children. From the queen Marie-Thérèse he had 6 children whom 5 died and one made it pass his fifth birthday. While from his mistress de La Vallière he had 5 children which only 2 survived and 3 died. It’s not clear in this text how many of the 7 children he had from Madame de Montespan survived their childhood.

• Page 1 665 –

>>15133056

(Please read from the start)

So let’s take a look at that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Françoise-Athénaïs_de_Rochechouart,_Marquise_de_Montespan

“[…]

Children by Louis XIV

Name Birth Death Notes

Louise Françoise de Bourbon at the end of March, 1669 23 February 1672 (aged 2)

Louis Auguste, Duke of Maine

31 March 1670 14 May 1736 (aged 66) Legitimised on 20 December 1673. Held numerous offices, of which: Colonel General of the Suisses et Grisons, Governor of Languedoc, General of the Galleys, and Grand Master of Artillery. Also Duke of Aumale, Count of Eu and Prince of Dombes. Had issue. Founder of the Maine Line.

Louis César, Count of Vexin

20 June 1672 10 January 1683 (aged 10) Legitimised on 20 December 1673.

Louise Françoise de Bourbon

1 June 1673 16 June 1743 (aged 70) Legitimised on 20 December 1673. Married Louis III, Prince of Condé. Had issue.

Louise Marie Anne de Bourbon

12 November 1674 15 September 1681 (aged 6) Legitimised in January 1676.

Françoise Marie de Bourbon

9 February 1677 1 February 1749 (aged 72) Legitimised in November 1681. Married Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, the Regent of France under Louis XV. Had issue.

Louis Alexandre, Count of Toulouse

6 June 1678 1 December 1737 (aged 59) Legitimised on 22 November 1681. Held numerous offices, of which: Admiral of France, Governor of Guyenne, Governor of Brittany, and Grand Huntsman of France. Also Duke of Damville, of Rambouillet and of Penthièvre. Had issue.

>> We can see, that 3 out of 7 of her children died while being children and the remaining 4 made it into adulthood.

So let’s redo the numbers from Louis XIV:

1 – The queen had 6 children – 5 died.

2 – De La Vallière had 5 children – 3 died.

3 – De Montespan had 7 children – 3 died.

So in total Louis XIV had from 3 women 18 children which 11 died in infancy. This is indicating Louis XIV and his women had the McLeod Syndrome. They all had it. Look at the third child of Louis XIV with Montespan: Louis César Count of Vexin: He is a male with the McLeod Syndrome which can only be transmitted to him via his mother. This means that Montespan was a carrier of the McLeod Syndrome.

• Page 1 666 –

>>15133065

(Please read from the start)

Let me add to all of this the scandal of “l’Affair des Poisons”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair_of_the_Poisons

“The Affair of the Poisons (l'affaire des poisons) was a major murder scandal in France during the reign of King Louis XIV. Between 1677 and 1682, a number of prominent members of the aristocracy were implicated and sentenced on charges of poisoning and witchcraft. The scandal reached into the inner circle of the king. It led to the execution of 36 people.

[…]

Implications and investigation

The affair proper opened in February 1677 after the arrest of Magdelaine de La Grange on charges of forgery and murder. La Grange appealed to François Michel Le Tellier, Marquis of Louvois, claiming that she had information about other crimes of high importance. Louvois reported to the king, who told Gabriel Nicolas de la Reynie, who, among other things, was the chief of the Paris police, to root out the poisoners. La Reynie sought to calm the king. The subsequent investigation of potential poisoners led to accusations of witchcraft, murder and more.

Authorities rounded up a number of fortune tellers and alchemists who were suspected of selling not only divinations, séances and aphrodisiacs, but also "inheritance powders" (a euphemism for poison). Some of them confessed under torture and gave authorities lists of their clients, who had allegedly bought poison to get rid of their spouses or rivals in the royal court.

The most famous case was that of the midwife Catherine Deshayes Monvoisin or La Voisin, who was arrested in 1679 after she was incriminated by the poisoner Marie Bosse. La Voisin implicated several important courtiers. These included Olympia Mancini, the Countess of Soissons, her sister, the Duchess of Bouillon, François Henri de Montmorency, Duke of Luxembourg and, most importantly, the king's mistress, Madame de Montespan.

Questioned while intoxicated, La Voisin claimed that Montespan had bought aphrodisiacs and performed black masses with her in order to gain and keep the king's favour over rival lovers. She had worked with a priest named Étienne Guibourg. There was no evidence beyond her confessions, but bad reputations followed these people afterwards. Eleanor Herman, in her book Sex with Kings, claims that the police, given reports of "babies' bones", uncovered the remains of 2,500 infants in La Voisin's garden. However, Anne Somerset disputes this in her book The Affair of the Poisons and states there is no mention of the garden being searched for human remains.

Also involved in the scandal was Eustache Dauger de Cavoye, the eldest living scion of a prominent noble family. Cavoye was disinherited by his family when, in an act of debauchery, he chose to celebrate Good Friday with a black mass. Upon his disinheritance, he opened a lucrative trade in "inheritance powders" and aphrodisiacs. He mysteriously disappeared after the abrupt ending of Louis's official investigation in 1678. Because of this and his name, he was once suspected of being the Man in the Iron Mask. However, this theory has fallen out of favour because it is now known that he was imprisoned by his family in 1679 in the Prison Saint-Lazare.”

>> Notice the house with a garden where 2 500 infant remains were found?

• Page 1 667 –

>>15133068

(Please read from the start)

“The end of the trial

La Voisin was sentenced to death for witchcraft and poisoning, and burned at the stake on 22 February 1680. Marshal Montmorency-Bouteville was briefly jailed in 1680, but was later released and became a captain of the guard. Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert helped to hush things up.

De La Reynie re-established the special court, the Chambre Ardente ("burning court"), to judge cases of poisoning and witchcraft. It investigated a number of cases, including many connected to nobles and courtiers in the king's court. Over the years, the court sentenced 34 people to death for poisoning or witchcraft. Two died under torture and several courtiers were exiled. The court was abolished in 1682, because the king could not risk the publicity of such scandal. To this, Police Chief Reynie said "the enormity of their crimes proved their safeguard.

[…]"

>> It’s clear as day here the nobility in France, including the royals are Satanists. As well as they had the McLeod Syndrome.

La Voisin was 40 years old when she died. The 2 500 remains of infants in the garden of her house are the results of satanic child sacrifice rituals being practiced in the vicinity or inside her house. Of course she didn’t practice the sacrifice of children all by herself. And of course La Voisin didn’t start to sacrifice children when she was a kid herself, so let’s just say she started to take part of it since she was 15 or 18 = she needs to be initiated according to their rituals. So that leaves us with something like 25 years where she had time to practice the ritual of child sacrifice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Voisin

Saying she was a midwife and provided abortions is just a cover to hide what she was really doing. It’s a good excuse to try to justify the high number of infant remains in her garden. The truth is anons, even if she was a midwife performing illegal abortions, this doesn’t explain, nor justifies the fact that she buried these infants in her own garden, where her children used to play and where she lived. She could have taken these infants to bury them in another place or a small secretive cemeterie, but she didn’t. And the number is just too big. And look since when (((they))) promote abortions!

If she practiced abortions for 25 years and they found 2 500 infant remains in her gardens. That makes it AROUND a 100 abortion per year for her as in performing an abortion each 3 or 4 days. That’s just an insane number anons. It doesn’t add up. Was France back then a children popping machine? It’s like every female in France was pregnant back then. And La Voisin wasn’t the only one performing abortions. This doesn’t add up. I think this abortion provider excuse is just to cover the fact that she used to practice satanic child sacrifice to the nobility in France. And the network she was the head of, it’s a child kidnapping network.For me, this means she sacrificed with the nobles and/or for them, around a 100 child per year approximately.

Let’s compare the burial in La Voisin garden (clearly Satanic ritual victims) with the burial in Carthage:

1 - There is a notable to bring attention to here = the infants buried in her garden were not cremated which is in opposition with what we have in Carthage burial. But it fits perfectly with what we know is part of the satanic child sacrifice ritual = cannibalism. I just said when I talked in the previous pages about the ritual and how it’s all focused on the blood of the victim and cannibalism is connected. It’s the same ritual that was taking place under the temple of Epstein Island. The victim’s body is eaten and not cremated in Satanic rituals, at least part of it.

• Page 1 668 –

>>15133079

(Please read from the start)

If you cremate the body, then you cannot eat it. Some might argue and say that the child was slaughtered and the blood was drained, then some parts = some organs, might have been eaten from the children, after the body was cremated. My reply: where are the marks? If the child was slaughtered then his body was cut open and some organs were removed to be eaten, then this is going to leave marks on the bones. But we have none on the bones of Carthage. This indicates the children were cremated as whole and not cut open. There is also not a single sign of trauma on the bones in Carthage.

You see how big the difference is anons. With La Voisin, we bumped into a burial where sacrificed children remains were found. These were no cremated children, which open the possibility of cannibalism taking place there – because when you cremate the body, and there are no trauma, knife and teeth marks on the bones, then this means the children were cremated as a whole, without cutting them open in any way.

2 – The burial in La Voisin garden is the type of burials we were looking for in Syria and Lebanon, but we found none. Go back to Evidence 3, when I was talking about this and I said we found no mass graves, no sacrificial knife, no sacrificial altar in Phoenicia. See how easy it is to detect a mass grave of children sacrificed? If children sacrifice was taking place in Phoenicia, then we would have found a similar burial in Lebanon and on the coast of Syria. But none was found because such practices didn’t take place there.

3 - Another notable point is the absence of tombstones, coffins or any other thing indicating the children buried in the garden of La Voisin had “a proper” = “respectful” burial. From the looks of it, these infants were just dumped there. We see no care given to how they were buried, no money was spent to purchase a nice tombstone for them. It’s the complete opposite of what we see in Carthage and how much care was given to bury these children in the burial there; not to mention the money spent to purchase everything to bury the children = it was costly.

4 - What about the duration? With La Voisin, from an approximative, quick calculation from my part, I can say that she must have sacrificed around a 100 child per year for around 25 years’ time spam. It’s just an approximatively estimation anons, it’s not an accurate one. I’m talking gorsso modo here. While in Carthage well, the city was founded in 814 B.C. and it was destroyed by the Romans in 146 B.C. After that, it fell under the Roman rule. This leaves me with 668 years approximately with Carthage being a Punic city. How many infants are buried in that cemetery is unknown, but it’s estimated something around 20 000 urns according to the numbers I’ve got.

In the case of La Voisin, we have 2 500 dead child in around 25 years.

In the case of Carthage, we have 20 000 dead child in around 668 years.

If we divide 668/25 = 26.72.

So if I multiply 2 500 x 26.72 = 66 800.

Do you understand what I just did? If La Voisin (or others like her) kept on practicing without being caught in France as long as the Phoenicians are accused of practicing child sacrifice, the number of dead infants would have been around 66 800 sacrificed infants. And this is based on the number of just ONE burial in the garden of LaVoisin. There were OTHERS like her all over France. She was not a unique case. Do you understand where I’m going with this? It’s simply insane. The number of dead infants in La Voisin garden is just insane. And the demography of Paris back during the reign of Louis XIV was estimated to be around half a million person. Carthage was estimated to be the same number during its peak. La Voisin was ONE of MANY…which brings the question? = how many others like her were around? 3? 10? 15? If one person buried 2 500 infant in her garden, how many did the others bury as well? The numbers in France are just insane.I hope anons understand my chain of thougths here when I’m comparing the burial of Carthage to what was found in the garden of La Voisin = I’m trying to say if the burial in Carthage was where Satanic ritual victims were burried, we would have seen an explosif number if burried children there and not just around 20 000 over the spam of 668 years. The number would have been at least 3 times higher if the burial of Carthage was a satanic ritual victims burial site.

• Page 1 669 –

>>15139703

(Please read from the start)

5 – There was a stele in Carthage with a priest depicted on it carrying a dead child and performing a burial ritual (page 1 566). This means a priest prayed for the child during burial. The infants buried in the garden of La Voisin, did a priest pray for them during burial? Of course not. The only ritual performed was a satanic one to eat them not that their souls would rest in peace and find their way to Heaven. Remember the Light Beam symbol on the stele?

I guess this is enough comparison between the burial in Carthage and the burial in the garden of La Voisin to help anons see the huge difference between a real Satanic sacrificial victims burial and a normal children burial in Carthage.

Keep this in mind. I’m going to give next one last about the McLeod Syndrome, but this time it’s a female with a double sick X chromosome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain

“Anne (6 February 1665 – 1 August 1714) was Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland between 8 March 1702 and 1 May 1707. On 1 May 1707, under the Acts of Union, the kingdoms of England and Scotland united as a single sovereign state known as Great Britain. She continued to reign as Queen of Great Britain and Ireland until her death in 1714.

Anne was born in the reign of Charles II to his younger brother and heir presumptive, James, whose suspected Roman Catholicism was unpopular in England. On Charles's instructions, Anne and her elder sister, Mary, were raised as Anglicans. Mary married their Dutch Protestant cousin, William III of Orange, in 1677, and Anne married Prince George of Denmark in 1683. On Charles's death in 1685, James succeeded to the throne, but just three years later he was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Mary and William became joint monarchs. Although the sisters had been close, disagreements over Anne's finances, status, and choice of acquaintances arose shortly after Mary's accession and they became estranged. William and Mary had no children. After Mary's death in 1694, William reigned alone until his own death in 1702, when Anne succeeded him.

During her reign, Anne favoured moderate Tory politicians, who were more likely to share her Anglican religious views than their opponents, the Whigs. The Whigs grew more powerful during the course of the War of the Spanish Succession, until 1710 when Anne dismissed many of them from office. Her close friendship with Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, turned sour as the result of political differences. The Duchess took revenge with an unflattering description of the Queen in her memoirs, which was widely accepted by historians until Anne was re-assessed in the late 20th century.

Anne was plagued by ill health throughout her life, and from her thirties she grew increasingly ill and obese. Despite seventeen pregnancies, she died without surviving issue and was the last monarch of the House of Stuart. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, which excluded all Catholics, she was succeeded by her second cousin George I of the House of Hanover.”

• Page 1 670 –

>>15139721

(Please read from the start)

“Early life

Anne was born at 11:39 p.m. on 6 February 1665 at St James's Palace, London, the fourth child and second daughter of the Duke of York (afterwards James II and VII), and his first wife, Anne Hyde. […] The Duke and Duchess of York had eight children, but Anne and Mary were the only ones to survive into adulthood.”

>> Out of 8 children only 2 made it to adulthood. See how easily you can detect the McLeod syndrome?

“As a child, Anne suffered from an eye condition, which manifested as excessive watering known as "defluxion". For medical treatment, she was sent to France, where she lived with her paternal grandmother, Henrietta Maria of France, at the Château de Colombes near Paris. Following her grandmother's death in 1669, Anne lived with an aunt, Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. On the sudden death of her aunt in 1670, Anne returned to England. Her mother died the following year.

[…]

In 1673, the Duke of York's conversion to Catholicism became public, and he married a Catholic princess, Mary of Modena, who was only six and a half years older than Anne. Charles II had no legitimate children, and so the Duke of York was next in the line of succession, followed by his two surviving daughters from his first marriage, Mary and Anne—as long as he had no son. Over the next ten years, the new Duchess of York had ten children, but all were either stillborn or died in infancy, leaving Mary and Anne second and third in the line of succession after their father. […]”

>> We have 10 children whom are either stillborn or died in infancy. The McLeod Syndrome hits once again.

“Marriage

In November 1677, Anne's elder sister, Mary, married their Dutch first cousin William III of Orange, at St James's Palace, but Anne could not attend the wedding because she was confined to her room with smallpox. […]

Bishop Compton officiated at the wedding of Anne and George of Denmark on 28 July 1683 in the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace. Although it was an arranged marriage, they were faithful and devoted partners. They were given a set of buildings, known as the Cockpit, in the Palace of Whitehall as their London residence, and Sarah Churchill was appointed one of Anne's ladies of the bedchamber. Within months of the marriage, Anne was pregnant, but the baby was stillborn in May. Anne recovered at the spa town of Tunbridge Wells, and over the next two years, gave birth to two daughters in quick succession: Mary and Anne Sophia.”

• Page 1 671 –

>>15139737

(Please read from the start)

“Accession of James II and VII

When Charles II died in 1685, Anne's father became King James II of England and VII of Scotland. […].

In early 1687, within a matter of days, Anne miscarried, her husband caught smallpox, and their two young daughters died of the same infection. Lady Rachel Russell wrote that George and Anne had "taken [the deaths] very heavily … Sometimes they wept, sometimes they mourned in words; then sat silent, hand in hand; he sick in bed, and she the carefullest nurse to him that can be imagined." Later that year, she suffered another stillbirth.”

>> I don’t know how I should consider the death of Anne’s 2 daughters. Did they truly die from smallpox? Regardless, so far, she had 3 stillborn children. Another indication of the McLeod Syndrome.

“Public alarm at James's Catholicism increased when his wife, Mary of Modena, became pregnant for the first time since James's accession. […]Anne suffered another miscarriage in April 1688, and left London to recuperate in the spa town of Bath.”

>> Miscarriage/stillborn number 4.

“Glorious Revolution

[…]On 24 July 1689, Anne gave birth to a son, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, who, though ill, survived infancy. As King William and Queen Mary had no children, it looked as though Anne's son would eventually inherit the Crown.

William and Mary

[…] In April, Anne gave birth to a son who died within minutes. Mary visited her, but instead of offering comfort took the opportunity to berate Anne once again for her friendship with Sarah. The sisters never saw each other again. Later that year, Anne moved to Berkeley House in Piccadilly, London, where she had a stillborn daughter in March 1693.

[…]”

>> I hope I haven’t lost count = so far 6 lost children, right?

“Act of Settlement

Anne's final pregnancy ended on 25 January 1700 with a stillbirth. She had been pregnant at least seventeen times over as many years, and had miscarried or given birth to stillborn children at least twelve times. Of her five liveborn children, four died before reaching the age of two. Anne suffered from bouts of "gout" (pains in her limbs and eventually stomach and head) from at least 1698. Based on her foetal losses and physical symptoms, she may have had systemic lupus erythematosus, or antiphospholipid syndrome. Alternatively, pelvic inflammatory disease could explain why the onset of her symptoms roughly coincided with her penultimate pregnancy. Other suggested causes of her failed pregnancies are listeriosis, diabetes, intrauterine growth retardation, and rhesus incompatibility. Rhesus incompatibility, however, generally worsens with successive pregnancies, and so does not fit with the pattern of Anne's pregnancies, as her only son to survive infancy, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, was born after a series of stillbirths. Experts also believe syphilis, porphyria and pelvic deformation to be unlikely as the symptoms are incompatible with her medical history.”

• Page 1 672 –

>>15145099

(Please read from the start)

>> And I propose she was suffering from the McLeod Syndrome and none of the above. She was pregnant 17 times and she buried 16 of her children before they reached their third birthday. It fits perfectly with what we saw with Henry VIII, Louis XIV and Pike. But I’m not just relying on her pregnancy problems to say she has McLeod Syndrome. Look at her health and what her symptoms are = the pain in her limbs.

“Anne's gout rendered her lame for much of her later life. Around the court, she was carried in a sedan chair, or used a wheelchair. Around her estates, she used a one-horse chaise, […].She gained weight as a result of her sedentary lifestyle; […]

Anne's sole surviving child, the Duke of Gloucester, died at the age of eleven on 30 July 1700. She and her husband were "overwhelmed with grief".Anne ordered her household to observe a day of mourning every year on the anniversary of his death. […]

>> Her weight gain can also be linked to the McLeod Syndrome as it’s one of the symptoms of the illness. There you go, that’s the 17th child she buried. But this one managed to live for a decade or so.

“Reign

[…]

Two-Party politics

[…]

The Duchess of Marlborough was angered when Abigail moved into rooms at Kensington Palace that Sarah considered her own, though she rarely if ever used them. In July 1708, she came to court with a bawdy poem written by a Whig propagandist, probably Arthur Maynwaring, that implied a lesbian relationship between Anne and Abigail. The Duchess wrote to Anne telling her she had damaged her reputation by conceiving "a great passion for such a woman … strange and unaccountable". […] While some modern commentators have concluded Anne was a lesbian, most have rejected this analysis. In the opinion of Anne's biographers, she considered Abigail nothing more than a trusted servant, and was a woman of strong traditional beliefs, who was devoted to her husband.”

>> If it’s true or not, I’m not going to be surprised either way because I believe (((they))) all practiced the sacred prostitution which included homosexuality and pedophilia. The sacred prostitution was like a huge umbrella containing many things under it. What I’m trying to say is that (((they))) had sex with anything and anyone as long as it was sex.

• Page 1 673 –

>>15145109

(Please read from the start)

“Death

Anne was unable to walk between January and July 1713. At Christmas, she was feverish, and lay unconscious for hours, which led to rumors of her impending death. She recovered, but was seriously ill again in March. […] She was rendered unable to speak by a stroke on 30 July 1714, the anniversary of Gloucester's death, […].

Anne died around 7:30 a.m. on 1 August 1714. John Arbuthnot, one of her doctors, thought her death was a release from a life of ill-health and tragedy; he wrote to Jonathan Swift, "I believe sleep was never more welcome to a weary traveller than death was to her." She was buried beside her husband and children in the Henry VII Chapel on the South Aisle of Westminster Abbey on 24 August.”

>> When I say Anne of England had McLeod syndrome, carrying a double sick X chromosome, I’m not relying solely on her inability to have “living” children = children whom live to adulthood. That is just one of the symptoms of the sickness = there is also the massive weight gain, the mood swings, her muscle, feet, skin problems and her being constantly ill. It’s the same cocktail of symptoms we see with Henry VIII and Louis XIV. It’s not that obvious, clear with Pike and Alexander the Great. The men also shared another symptom of the illness = their delusions about their greatness or simply put, they thought they were gods or some higher, superior type of being. This is a trait they share with Killary by the way. Anne wasn’t the only woman to show signs of the McLeod syndrome being fully active in her and she was not just a carrier. There is also her sister Mary which if you read about her, you will also notice similar symptoms showing up, including the inability to have “living children”.

This inability to have “living children” is passed on to (((them))) = the Bloodlines but mostly the Merovingian Bloodline by (((their))) founding father = the Evil One. This is what it means when we read in this thread before about the Evil One being castrated (like how it was with Seth), or he lost his manhood or he cannot have children. And we also have an additional detail which is that the Evil One bit the tip of his penis and took a piece off it = this is referring to circumcision and this is practiced by the Jews for a very very long time and it was introduced in Christianity and Islam via Judaism. It’s one of the pillars in Judaism.

The McLeod syndrome’s symptoms are a perfect fit to what we know about the Evil One, mostly with how he was good at first, and then suddenly he turned and became evil (please re-read page 922). It’s a perfect fit with what we know about the illness = it doesn’t show up at first, but progressively and mostly after the patient reaches the age of 50 (approximately) things deteriorate pretty fast. But how can we measure the age of a Sebetti ruler? Mostly that we know they seem to live for a very long time, like for hundreds of thousands of years. So it’s hard to figure out when the Evil One’s sickness symptoms showed up first, since we don’t know how long he lived.

What is certain though is that he couldn’t be cured at all by the Med Beds or by the Light of the Fish men Healers, including the Great King’s = because his illness was caused by faulty genes.

• Page 1 674 –

>>15145135

(Please read from the start)

Another certain point is that at some point in time, SOMEHOW, he managed to discover that drinking HUMAN BLOOD can sustain him. I don’t know how it happened, I mean what exactly happened for him to come up with the idea of drinking human blood for the first time ever. It’s certain he was desperate and totally had lost his mind for him to even have such an idea in the first place. But at some point in time, he became the first Vampire ever by drinking human blood. He discovered, then realized that drinking human blood ward off the symptoms of his illness but doesn’t cure him = kicking the can down the road.

His illness literally makes him sick: physical and mental. It’s clear his mental ability deteriorated and he started to see himself as our Heavenly Father = the Creator = he became megalomaniac. And of course he wanted to be King of kings, as in sit on the throne of Heaven = Atlantis and be the supreme ruler and play god. This is where his insanity kicks in mixed with evil. He understood that being alone will get him easily defeated. As in him doing a coup alone to take the throne of Heaven and auto-proclaim himself as the ultimate ruler, will only get him defeated by the other Sebetti clans which were united and they were loyal to the Great King. Facing the united forces of all the other Sebetti rulers would end up in a crushing defeat for him.

So he came up with an idea of having an ally. Here, it’s not clear what exactly happened, but at some point he approached the Antelope Sebetti ruler. Did he approach to get to his side the other Sebetti rulers? Maybe, but I don’t know, I’m not sure, it’s simply possible. What is certain is that sex was the way he got the Antelope Sebetti ruler to his side. Did he rape her at first? We have from time to time hints to that but it’s unclear = uncertain. He also used her fears and weaknesses = like the crack she had in her relationship with her Father as she asked for a bigger share, a bigger domain to rule, more power; but her request was denied by the Great King. During the same time, a new birth in the Royal family rattled both of them = the Evil Couple and it amplified their fears. It was the birth of a younger brother whom carried the Light within him. This younger brother became the Crown Prince and the Evil Couple saw that as if he stole what was rightfully theirs.

The Evil One used her (Antelope Sebetti ruler) fears, her insecurities, amplified them and the birth of the Crown Prince was just the cherry on top of the cake for them. He tied her to him emotionally, physically via sex and mentally. She was dependent on him from there on. And they proceeded to infiltrate the other clans and convert people as much as they could to their new clan and the new cult. This is how we got traitors and spies in most of the clans. Anons know what happened from there on as I’ve talked about this many times before in this thread.

And it’s this sickness which was passed on to the children the Evil Couple had together and from there on, it was passed on to their descendants known as the Bloodlines specifically the Merovingian Bloodline. I think “instructions” or “information” about the illness was passed onto the descendants, maybe in that bloody book that was passed on from one generation to another by the Bloodlines. It’s clear the direct descendants of the Evil Couple knew exactly what to do when it comes to the illness transmitted to them by (((their))) founding father. Was it all written in that bloody book? Or is it the Evil Lady and her followers which taught them everything they were doing in secret = pedovore – after the Cataclysm occurred? I don’t know, there are many possibilities here.

Do you understand now where the idea of mutant genes idea came from for the X-men comics? The X is not Xavier, but it’s point to the McLeod Syndrome.

I hope this is enough for anons about the McLeod Syndrome. And I hope the examples provided are enough to convince anons this is the illness of the Evil One, Killary and this is what’s in the “precious” Merovingian Bloodline = the blue/purple blood. This is the sickness of the kings trough out History. This sickness is the start of everything for me. It’s the reason why Satanism exists. And it’s the reason why we have a child burial in Carthage. This is the culprit which killed all of these children.

• Page 1 675 –

>>15151425

(Please read from the start)

Let’s talk a bit more about the burial in Carthage and why is it there?

Carthage was founded in 814 B.C. but the first layer of urns buried (also known as Tanit I – see page 1 577) was dated back between 750 -600 B.C. This means the first urns were buried around 750 B.C. So that makes it around 64 years passed before the first urns were buried in Carthage. This is pushing me to believe the founders of Carthage didn’t have McLeod Syndrome but it was brought later on via MIGRATION. This means the Phoenicians whom founded the city didn’t have McLeod Syndrome but it was brought into the City later on by a group of migrants. I’m saying a Group and not one person. It could be the Jews, the Greeks, the Ancient Egyptians or from Utica, etc. It could be from anywhere where people migrated from and resettled into Carthage. This is why we start seeing the urns appear around 750 B.C. and not before that date.

If we take as examples Henry VIII, Albert Pike, Louis XIV and Queen Anne of England, we can see they had multiple children. I believe Pike just like the other 2 men also had mistresses and concubines = you don’t get to the level he was in Freemasonry without having taken parts of orgies and/or having mistresses and concubines. Same goes for the other 2 men. And I believe that the number of children we see is the “official” number as in the publically recognized number. They do not tell us the real number and the secret children they might had from the orgies or one night stands with unknown mistresses. All we know is that they had slept around with a big number of women. This makes it highly possible for them to have had children we don’t know anything about, mostly we don’t know how many lived to become adults.

Putting all of this aside, I can say that with just three men and one woman with the McLeod Syndrome, we have around 55 children born:

Henry had 10 known children – 8 of them died before reaching adulthood.

Pike had 10 known children – 4 of them died before reaching adulthood.

Louis had 18 known children – 11 of them died before reaching adulthood.

Anne had 17 known children – 17 of them died before reaching adulthood.

In total we have 55 children born from 3 men and one woman which 40 of them died before reaching adulthood. Four adults = four parents burried 40 children, their children.

Let’s take an imaginary example and pretend 4 persons (like the ones we have here) belonging to the same community or even same family decided to migrate and go live in Carthage. And all of these had McLeod Syndrome. Let’s pretend they settled in Carthage 60 years after it was founded and lived there for around 50 years each. During that time, because of the genetic illness, they kept on having children whom died very young. This is how we start to see urns appear in the oldest layer in the burial called Tanit I. And I think each parent buried several children and not just one. I think each parent might have buried from 6 to 8 children, all depending on the number of wives /concubines. But what if the number of people migrating with McLeod syndrome was higher than 4, what if the number was 10 or 20? Then in turns this means the number of buried children would increase, right? If 4 parents with the McLeod syndrome buried 40 children in the average time of 50 years, how many children would be buried if it was not 4 parents migrating, but 10, with the illness? = that would make it something from 80 to a 100 child, within 50 years, buried in Carthage burial.

• Page 1 676 –

>>15151470

(Please read from the start)

Not all of the children of these people died, some lived, and in turn, they suffered from the same problem their parents had. Then this happened to the grandchildren, and the generation that came after that and after that etc. = this is why the children burials in Carthage stretched = was used, from 750 B.C. to 146 B.C. = it’s because the sickness was passed on to the next generation which was burying their children as well. This kept on going from one generation to the other for a long time. And it did not just happen in Carthage, it also happened in the other Phoenicians colonies which indicates that there were people living there for generations carrying the McLeod syndrome as well.

If they knew they had it or not is open for debate, but I think they did. At least some of them did. Why? Because of how many times Carthage was being “mysteriously sabotaged” each time it was close to defeating Epirus/Greeks and after that the Romans. This includes the mercenary rebellions which the timing of was impeccable. The ones carrying the McLeod Syndrome are members of the Bloodline families, just like the Greeks then Romans fighting the Carthaginians were. It was infiltration, not invasion.

Another indicator is the “pocket” of these people. I’ve said many times already that to bury a child in that burial in Carthage was costly for people back in the days. So imagine what it must have cost them to bury not one, but up to 6, 7 or more children. This means whomever was burying their children there was from a wealthy class and had deep pockets to be able to afford burying so many dead children there.

This connects with the point I just made about the military right above. Whomever these men were, paying off the mercenaries and sabotaging the Carthaginian navy and army puts them in a high enough position to know such important military secrets mostly when war was raging. I think we can all agree that the commoner would never be able to be in a room where military strategy of highest level and resources are being discussed. This is someone with money, power and influence whom was close to the power making/ decisions and he played the role of spy and sabotaged the Carthaginians from the inside. To have access to such military knowledge, it means you are a higher up and not a normal citizen. To be a higher up, means you’ve got money. It works the other way around too as well.

I think this is one and same group = infiltration not invasion. I think a very specific group infiltrated Carthage by moving there and slowly started to grow powerful and wealthy there, but the truth is, they were spies and working in coordination with the Bloodlines from Epirus and Rome. I think the ones whom migrated to Carthage were members of the Bloodlines since they carry the McLeod Syndrome. They hoisted themselves to the higher ranks and became close to the royalty, maybe even married to the royals or nobility. And they worked in a synchronized way with the Greeks, Romans and even with the scholars to destroy Carthage = their Phoenician origin enemy.

With evidences 1, 2,3 and now 4 all reviewed the conclusion is simple: The Phoenicians and Carthaginians DIDN’T PRACTICE CHILDREN SACRIFCE AT ALL.

It’s ALL a LIE.

• Page 1 677 –

>>15157515

(Please read from the start)

You think I’m stretching things out? Well, I would like to remind you that the Bloodlines never set a plan for a year or two. All which we are living now, from the financial reset, to the plandemic and the rest have been planned around 200 years or so ago believe it or not. It was not different back then. The Bloodlines work on long term gains and long term plans = stretching their plans for hundreds of years. It was valid back then, it’s valid now. If we take what we have learned from Qteam as to what the tactics and methods of the current day Bloodlines are = like infiltration and not invasion; and we apply those to the old days, we will discover that it fits perfectly and helps explains how things happened.

The burial in Carthage was discovered more than a hundred years ago and yet amazingly, no one did any D.N.A. test to the remains. Anyone reading wondered why? If they wanted to put an end to the debate about the Carthaginians sacrificing children and once and for all nail the Phoenicians/Carthaginians as practicing children sacrifice, then why no one = including the Tunisian government, ever tried to do a D.N.A. testing to a certain number of remains? And why no one ever tried to see if the dead children were siblings? Why didn’t Smith and Xella try to do just that? = because it would have revealed that many children buried in those urns are siblings. Combining this with the finds of Schwartz, this would have proved that there was something wrong taking place with the birth process in Carthage and it was NOT children sacrifice taking place. This also explains why we have dead children from both genders in the burial in Carthage.

The D.N.A. tests would have showed there was something wrong with the X chromosome of these children. It would have shown that some children were siblings as well. And I bet we can find their parents in the necropolis of Carthage, buried in the “adults” cemetery. There is a possibility we might find their teen siblings also buried in the adults cemetery too. This is why no D.N.A. testing was EVER done.

So dear readers, let me end the Evidence 4 = the Tophet of Carthage by saying I want this to be sent to the Lab and tested for McLeod Syndrome because this is the culprit which killed all of these children buried in the cemetery in Carthage. It was not children sacrifice practiced by the Carthaginians or the Phoenicians. All the witnesses: Greeks, Romans and the Jews are the enemies of the Phoenicians/Carthaginians. They ALL lied and they ALL projected their own crimes and doings onto the Phoenicians. The ones in control in the Greeks, Romans were always the Bloodlines; which in turn are the nobility which rules over the Jews. (((They))) were the invisible hands manipulating everything from behind the curtains for many centuries now.

There was no children sacrifice practiced by the Phoenicians, nor the Carthaginians, it’s all a LIE to manipulate the public and make them hate the Phoenicians. It was done by the Jews and their nobility = the Bloodlines. The reason we have so many children dead and buried in Carthage was because of a genetic illness called the McLeod syndrome. It’s also known as being the illness of the kings. And it’s the illness the Evil One had and he transmitted it to his direct descendants. It’s what also makes their blood have a blueish/purple coloring to it, different than the red blood color of normal people – no jokes there, just go and read about it online.

The McLeod syndrome is also the reason why they marry from one another in order to keep the blood pure = so that they won’t lose the mutated X chromosome.

I know “some” are reading, so I’m asking the Alliance, if possible, to do the tests and bring the truth out. It’s important. Very important. Why it’s important? ^_^ because this is related to the Phoenicians. Someone reading understands me and understands why.

• Page 1 678 –

>>15157532

(Please read from the start)

The infant burial in Carthage was used by the Bloodlines as the CROWN JEWELS of evidences to obliterate the Phoenicians and their current day descendants in Tunisia and Lebanon. The Phoenicians were wrongfully accused by the Bloodlines = (((they))) projected (((their))) crimes onto (((their))) enemies. This is done on purpose and this is used as a MAIN WEAPON by the Jews and the Bloodlines nowadays to justify all the horrors they are doing to the Arabs in general, but mostly the Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians.

The Jews and the Bloodlines have planted a seed in the mind of the Christians of the West. This SEED consist of the idea that (((they))) are the chosen people of God while the Phoenicians/Canaanites are worshipers of Satan and they sacrifice children for him. By planting this seed, (((they))) brainwashed the supposed Christians, mostly the American ones, and manipulated you = the public into finding justifications and accepting every horror that the current day descendants of the Phoenicians/Canaanites are being subjugated to by the Jews.

In the mind of the American “supposed” Christians, each time a Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian dies this means the worshipers of Satan and the terrorists are dying = evil people are dying. And the Americans cheer to the death of these people. This is all a mind game.

Do you realize it’s all lies to justify the killing of the Arabs and specifically the descendants of the Phoenicians/Canaanites. The Jews are making it ALRIGHT to kill other people because “supposedly” their ancestors, centuries ago, sacrificed children to Satan. Do you understand the gravity of the way you think and what you believe in? This is nothing but pure horror and evil straight out from Hell itself.

I want to provide anons 2 examples about what I’m talking about. I’m attaching the first video to this page.

The first video consists of a U.S. Iraq veteran whom confronts Bush. His name is Mike Prysner and this man is incredibly brave, Awake and he is a true warrior of the Light. Please take a very good look at the video provided to you.

First of all look at the persons presenting/talking on the show, the black mister and the brunette lady. She is laughing about how Bush was confronted by Mr. Prysner. But, the truth is, she should have NOT joked at all even if it was Bush getting the sponge. Why? Because her behavior and attitude is greatly disrespectful to the dead 1 million Iraqi victims the isue is about. When you go to a funeral or you are talking about the anniversary of 9/11, do you go around joking with a huge smiling face? Or do you say solemn and pay your respects? Here, it’s not U.S. soldiers or citizens whom died, but Iraqi innocent citizens we are talking about: where is the respect we owe them? Where’s the solemn behavior from the lady talking on this show? This is how the Western public, in general, is educated, do you know that?

Take a look at Potus when he goes to Arlington cemetery. Look how he walks, he talks and he behaves. Does he crack jokes and is all smiling there? Or is he dignified and shows a great deal of respect towards the dead by staying solemn? When the port of Beirut blast occurred and a few hours later Potus came out to say a few words about it, do you remember his face? Do you remember his attitude? His voice? Was he celebrating in the middle of that horrible massacre? Was he throwing jokes around and smiling from ear to ear?

So you understand what I’m really talking about here? Do you understand what you are doing to others? = you are kicking them in their pain when you behave like this lady. You are causing them pain and disrespecting them and the ones they lost. And this shows whom YOU are. If you are unable to respect others in their pain and mourning of losing dear ones – if you are unable to respect the innocent victims …what does this say about WHOM you are? This is no joking matter but it’s a sad and grieving one. So what’s with this behavior, totally empty of consideration to dead innocent victims of war criminal Bush? Since it’s not American or Westerner victims, let’s turn it into a circus.

• Page 1 679 –

>>15163619

(Please read from the start)

We are talking about a MILLION dead innocent Iraqi Civilian victims this is no time and no subject to insert a joke in. But when it is known that stupid Fauci tortured and killed puppies, see how outraged and horrified people are. See how they react and take this badly. But, if a MILLION Iraqis are dead…then, let’s smile from ear to ear, talk lightly and have fun while discussing this matter = wrong behavior even if it’s a broadcast show done by “amateurs”.

I didn’t watch all the video because I got terribly angry at the behavior of this lady, so I switched it off as I was looking for a video about Mr, Prysner. I know it’s not “professional” from my part, I should have picked up another video for anons, but then I decided to keep it despite me not watching it beyond minute 2 of the clip. I decided to keep it so I can show anons how this lady is behaving when discussing a very sad issue = a brave U.S. veteran confronting Bush about the deaths of his friends and the death of one million Iraqi citizens. If you want to see the video of Mr. Prysner confronting Bush, I’m sure you can find it easily online.

Let’ talk what’s in that short video where Bush is confronted by Mr. Prysner. When he stood up and started to talk, look at those 2 ladies whom were trying to hush him and get him out of the room. I have a cocktail of really, really bad words going through my mind right now to describe these 2 ladies. And I bet you, these 2 ladies have their rears glued to the church bench and know the Bible by heart. But are they truly Christians? Are they truly warriors of good? Are they truly close to Christ? If you ask them, they will reply : “of course we are and we know Christ and we follow him.” But do they really?

Do you think Christ accepts the killing of 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens? Can that be considered as an acceptable thing? Christ does not accept the murder of innocents, regardless of whom they are? It’s what’s in your heart that is going to take you Heaven, not the Temple nor the Bible? If you know the Bible by heart and go every Sunday to church, but you don’t give a damn about the 1 million innocent Iraqi KILLED then you are no Christian and you DON’T follow Christ. These 2 women are the worst type of people ever. There is a reason why Christ asked the young man to spread his real message to the world = it’s because the majority of people, including the Christians, are far away from Christ = their path diverged away from him.

We are living a Spiritual Battle.

That day, the young man asked Christ what would happen if he fails and the temple of Jerusalem is rebuilt and Armageddon comes. Christ replied that he, himself would return to save the VERY FEW “good” people left. The young man asked him how many would that be. Christ replied: “much less than the number you are thinking of right now”. The young man was thinking of a few hundred persons, maybe a thousand persons at most. He was startled by this reply, because he never realized how few good people are left in the world, genuinely good.

Do you understand what this means anons? Do you understand that it’s you whom gotta pull yourself out from the gates of Hell and fight back, from the inside out? The fighting gotta start within you and you gotta turn yourself into a warrior of the Light? To do that, it’s very painful because you gotta admit a lot of things you don’t like, you gotta realize a lot of things that are going to cause you shame and hurt you, you gotta find the courage to acknowledge your wrongs and stop putting yourself first and think how your actions, thoughts and feelings are impacting the life of others around you and all over the globe. We are all linked together.

Then take a look at that row of people sitting behind. Look at their faces. I have only one word to describe them: SSSSHHHHHEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!As for the 2 ladies trying to shush Mr. Prysner, these 2 ladies are the warriors of Darkness. It’s your heart and your moral compass that are your pass to Heaven, regardless the religion you follow. You will understand me better later when I present someone to you. In the mean time, I want you to think about what I’m saying.

• Page 1 680 –

>>15163649

(Please read from the start)

The second video is a short clip of Mr. Galloway confronting Jacqui Smith about the same subject = 1 million innocent Iraqi victims dead. Please look at her behavior and her reaction. Look at her physical language = her body gestures, the look in her eyes, her jaw, the poison dripping from her face, her nasty words and how she is making fun of George and the dead Iraqis = her body language tells a lot. Look at that look in her eyes and how she sneers under her nose while talking. The amount of disrespect she is displaying towards the Iraqi people is huge. Smith is nothing but a nasty warrior of Darkness.

Please read about Mr. Galloway yourselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

Mr. Galloway is not perfect, no one is, not even Potus. We all have our flaws, thank goodness. What is important is to have flaws, so we can learn from them, mostly our mistakes and grow out from them into being a better person. Please, PLEASE, read this Wikipedia page with the EYES Qteam gave you = see it like Neo does and not as you do when you are a Sheep. Saddam turned out to be innocent of the crimes he was accused of by Bush & co. Just like it was the case with Kaddafi. It doesn’t mean these men were saints, but, they were not guilty of the accusations inserted in your head via the MSM about them. So when reading this Wikipedia page, keep that in mind and remember what Qteam has been telling you about all of this.

I disagree with Mr. Galloway view on this issue:

“In an interview with the American radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in September 2005, Galloway said: "This is the thing about Zionism. It has nothing to do with Jewishness. Some of the biggest Zionists in the world are not Jews. These people have used Jewish people. […] They created the conditions in the Arab countries and in some European countries to stampede Jewish people out of the countries that they had been living in for many hundreds of years and stampede them into the Zionist state."

Potus Trump and team think this too. This is why he created that E.O. to protect the Jews on U.S. soil from backlash when the time comes. I disagree. Both of you sirs are completely wrong for the most simple reason of all = a leopard cannot change its spots. This is where your mistake is in and it’s going to be a fatal mistake. There is a secret out there that Potus doesn’t get it = it’s in the doctrine. Once that doctrine = way of teaching, being and rearing is inserted inside a person…then…a scorpion cannot change its own nature. I know you disagree….but…ask yourself = what do I know that you don’t? By doing it your way, you only kicked the can down the road. Saint Paisios and I are saying the same thing. There is a reason why the Light did things this way.There is no third option: it’s either this or that = I strongly believe in that. You cannot have it both ways. There is no middle ground in this case. This is not about reason, this is about the Spirit. Either you have it or you don’t.

I bet anons reading this are thinking that I’ve gone koo koo in the head right now ^_^

• Page 1 681 –

>>15163683

(Please read from the start)

It’s alright. Anyways, let me show you something else about Mr. Galloway that is going to be of use to anons during the Awakening process:

“At a 22 July 2006 demonstration (and later in a Socialist Worker op-ed), Galloway stated that "Hizbollah has never been a terrorist organisation. It is the legitimate national resistance movement of Lebanon", on the basis that they are, in his opinion, "freedom fighters". In addition: "I glorify the Hezbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah".In 2009, Galloway received a Palestinian passport from Hamas leader Ismail Haniya. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the European Union, and the US.”

The following comes with it as well:

“The convoy arrived in Gaza on 9 March, accompanied by approximately 180 extra trucks of aid donated by Libya's Gaddafi Foundation. On 10 March 2009, Galloway announced at a press conference in Gaza City attended by several senior Hamas officials: "We are giving you now 100 vehicles and all of their contents, and we make no apology for what I am about to say. We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine", adding that he would personally donate three cars and £25,000 to Hamas organisation "Prime Minister" Ismail Haniya.”

>> When you are facing a demonic monster, you don’t send cute ballet dancers wearing pink and white tutus to face them. When you are facing a demonic monster you send your bad ass, toughest, nastiest, hardest warriors to face it. No one is perfect, but some people face off with demons, so they gotta be as hard as those demons to be able to do that.

Let’s talk about INVASION a bit:

How many of you reading are Americans? Now what would you do as a people if a country, any country, would just land in = barge in and invade your country and take a chunk of your land? Would you pick arms and fight them back? Or would welcome the invader, cheer for them? I would fight back, if anyone wants a piece of my country, I would go after them.

There was a movie called Red Dawn and it talked about the States being invaded and taken over by the Soviets, if I remember this right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn

Let’s supposed a scenario like that happened, wouldn’t the invaders portray the patriots fighting back as “terrorists”? And if these “terrorists” ran out of guns and amo to fight back, and went to N. Korea or Iran or Mexico to buy some, would that be good or bad? Is it allowed to buy guns and amo from anyone willing to sell during war or should we be picky during an invasion? How do you behave? What do you do?

• Page 1 682 –

>>15163694

(Please read from the start)

Then, let’s add that your enemy has total control over the media worldwide, including your own country. The enemy also controls the banks worldwide and every major company you can imagine. What if the enemy controlled the medical supplies? And he is using all of this power he has to corner you, starve you and make you look like “terrorists”. What if the enemy also controlled all the big seats of power worldwide = the greatest, biggest nations on earth and organizations? What if the enemy controlled all the international levers of power like the U.N., N.A.T.O. etc.? What if these big international levers of power are used to label you as “terrorists”?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THE ENTIRE WORLD IS AGAINST YOU?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU ARE FIGHTING ALONE ON MANY FRONTS?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU ARE DEPICTED TO EVERYONE ON EARTH AS BEING A MONSTER WHILE ALL YOU WANT IS TO LIBERATE YOURSELF AND YOUR LAND FROM INAVSION?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOUR ENEMY IS SLAUGHTERING YOU AND THE WORLD CHEERS FOR IT OR IS TOTALLY INDEFERENT TO IT?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU ARE DENIED EVERY SINGLE HUMAN RIGHT GIVEN TO EVERYONE ELSE?

Why do you accept another country to be invaded and his people killed, while you are unable to accept for your own countr y to be invaded and your people killed? Why the double standards? Isn’t this selfishness? = it’s alright if it happens to others but it’s not alright if it happens to you.

When one person like Mr. Galloway comes out and outs (((them))), look how he is treated = read his Wikipedia page. Look how (((they))) came after him, trying to destroy and discredit him. How many times did (((they))) accuse him of stealing the donation/aid money and it turned out it’s false? Then, when that didn’t work, (((they))) switched tactics. Take a look at the following =

“On 8 April 2009, Galloway joined Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic to launch Viva Palestina US. A third Viva Palestina convoy began travelling at the end of 2009. On 8 January 2010, Galloway and his colleague Ron McKay were deported from Egypt immediately following their entry from Gaza. They had been attempting to help take about 200 aid trucks into the Gaza Strip. They were driven by the police to the airport and placed on a plane bound for London.

The Foreign Ministry of Egypt released a statement reading: "George Galloway is considered persona non grata and will not be allowed to enter into Egypt again". Shortly after his deportation, Galloway said, "It is a badge of honor to be deported by a dictatorship" and "I've been thrown out of better joints than that."

>> See how (((they))) use (((their))) puppets installed in all the governments worldwide? Whom was U.S. State secretary back then? When you are Awake, you can see what no one else can see and you can read between the lines.

“Galloway has worked for the Iranian state-run satellite television channel, Press TV since 2008. During an event at the London School of Economics in March 2011, he said: "Because I don’t believe that the government of Iran is a dictatorship I have no problem about working for Press TV in London which is a British owned television station. I’m not responsible for the government of Ahmedinijad. I’m not responsible for the leadership of Press TV". Galloway also said: "There are many things wrong with Iran. One thing they do have is elections. They elected a president that you or I might not have voted for but I am in no doubt that Ahmadinejad won the presidential election" held in 2009.”

>> When was the last time a president was elected in the U.K.? Or when was the last time the Americans “truly” elected their president? Since Kennedy maybe? Or even before that? To my knowledge Potus Trump is the first TRULY, FREELY, elected American President, in more than a hundred years, maybe even more. Democracy and elections are just an illusion = it’s the carrot in front of the donkey.

• Page 1 683 –

>>15163711

(Please read from the start)

When that didn’t work with Mr. Galloway, look what tactic (((they))) used – the video I’m attaching with this page. Accusing others of Anti-Semitism is (((their))) trump card = the always the winning card = when other tactics fail this one always works along with the Holocaust one.

Please, take a good look at this second video of Mr. Galloway. See how a SHOW is put for the Sheep? It’s perfectly staged and look how the brainwashing takes place and how the Western people are manipulated and brainwashed. Look at how the audience is behaving and reacting.

You can read the rest of Mr. Galloway yourselves anons. Quiet an interesting fellow.

Don’t forget this is a fight between the warriors of the Light and the warriors of Darkness. The truth is incredibly hard and harsh; terribly hard to swallow. Am I implying Muslims are the warriors of the Light? = NO. Am I implying Islam is correct and without a flaw? = NO.

I’m saying that the warriors of the Light are not chosen according to their nationality, to their religion, to their age, to their gender, to their skin color. They are chosen according to their hearts, might and the Light within them, regardless if they are Muslims, Hindu, Christians etc. You will understand me better much further down in this thread when I introduce you to someone incredible

Both Mr. Galloway and Mr. Prysner stood up ALONE and raised their voices and spoke the UGLY TRUTH. And look how both are treated. It was horribly wrong to send the American soldiers to fight in Iraq – other nations as well, including the British. They were victims. But it’s twice horribly wrong to send the American soldiers to fight in Iraq which ended up also in killing the innocent civilians there. Everyone in the States mourns the fallen soldiers, but whom among you gives a damn about the innocent civilians whom died in Iraq?

Out of the many in the West, I see 2 men in those clips standing up and speaking the truth. This is the bitter ugly truth = the innocent US soldiers were sent to Iraq to kill even more innocent civilians so that the Bloodlines could get their hands on the oil – Period. You cannot mourn the US soldiers and not mourn the Iraqi people along with them as well. If you only mourn once side, that makes you a selfish, brainless hypocrite.

Anons reading this are probably thinking right now: the old man is ranting again and is off subject once more.

No my dear readers, I’m not off subject. Then you might ask me: what Iraq has to do with the descendants of the Phoenicians/Canaanites/Carthaginians are persecuted and vilified in the eyes of the Western population by the Jews and the Bloodlines? ^_^ I’m going to say: Iraq is linked to all of this and I’ve already given anons the raw material = think of how and why it’s linked. I’m going to talk about it further down.

For now, the main point I want to make = get attention to, is your behavior as a human and how you are programed to behave, think and react to others; mostly to behave badly, negatively towards current day descendants of the Phoenicians/Canaanites. You have been under heavy programing for CENTURIES to make you hate them and see them in a very very bad light. Just like they have been programmed to see the West that way too. The Bloodlines and their people = the Jews, wiggled in between East and West and created a huge, deep abyss for a reason. Only a few from each side managed to wake themselves up and see the man behind the curtain pulling the strings.

• Page 1 684 –

>>15163736

(Please read from the start)

And here comes the BIG question: WHY?

Why did the Jews and the Bloodlines spent centuries onto destroying the Phoenicians/Canaanites and their current day descendants? Why did (((they))) project (((their))) crimes and doing onto the Phoenicians? Why are (((they))) doing (((their))) outmost best to paint the Arabs in general but mostly the Lebanese as evil and terrorists?

With this big question, I’ve just stepped into the second part of this section as mentioned in page 1 424 = WHY are the Jews and their nobility, the Bloodlines, are Hell bent to destroy the Arabs in general, but specifically the descendants of the Phoenicians? Why did (((they))) use “made up” evidences and brought false witnesses to destroy the Phoenicians?

Evidences 1 (starting page 1 426) is nothing but pure lies auto-debunked by the Phoenician inscriptions found on the base of the statue of Baalshilem II. But (((they))) held on this evidence like a rabid dog holding onto a bone and never letting go of it. And (((they))) keep on insisting these ex-votos are “undeniable” proof the Phoenicians sacrificed children.

Evidence 2 (starting page 1452) is nothing but conjecture; I see it like a fairy tale, or as I often call it = an urban legend. And yet, once again, this “tale” is used as undeniable proof by the Jews and the Bloodlines – including (((their))) paid experts – that the Phoenicians sacrificed children – despite having no tangible evidence of any sort supporting and proving the existence of the main protagonist of this tale or any other character mentioned in it. It’s just that = a tale; and it will remain so until we find physical evidence the people mentioned in it truly existed, mostly Elissa.

Evidence 4 (starting page 1 476) has always been the strongest one the Jews and their nobility = the Bloodlines had against the Carthaginians/Phoenicians for sacrificing children. But when you examine the physical evidence collected from the site itself, you start getting another picture from what the Ancient sources had depicted to us about Carthage.

The attackers use some blurry inscriptions and combine it with what the 3 lying witnesses have been falsely reporting about the Carthaginians to present it all as the ultimate, undeniable proof the Carthaginians and their ancestors the Phoenicians practiced human sacrifice. But….amazingly, no one wanted to do a D.N.A. test. And none of these attackers are taking into consideration all the cracks that are showing in their case.

Which cracks? Like the FACT that the children buried there were from both genders and not all male like what the Jews claimed the Phoenicians do = sacrifice the first born male. Another Fact ignored is that the accounts of these witnesses contradict one another in some cases and in others they provide incredibly detailed information which NOW we know is practiced by the Bloodlines. Another ignored FACT is that all of these supposed witnesses were never first hand eye witnesses but they are actually second, 3rd and 4th hand witnesses, which makes them nothing but gossip and propaganda writers. Another ignored FACT is that the only possible first hand witness = Polybius, never mentioned the Carthaginians practiced human sacrifice, mostly that he was part of a diplomatic delegation there during the Punic Wars.

Another ignored FACT is that the study of the bones including the teeth, show that at least a big number of these children died before they were born. Another ignored FACT is that no tangible evidence on the bones and the remains were found about human sacrifice was made. Which takes me to Evidence number 3 (starting page 1 470) = no tangible evidence of mass graves, from bones with marks, from ceremonial knives, from ceremonial altars were found in Phoenician Motherland, from Carthage and all the other Phoenician colonies put together. Not a single one of these. Just compare with what we have in Mesoamerican with the Mayans and the Aztecs and you will understand what I mean. I can go on and on and keep on presenting one argument after the other about the lack of evidence the Phoenicians sacrificed children.

• Page 1 685 –

>>15163759

(Please read from the start)

This entire case is solely built on what the Jews, then the Bloodlines via the Greeks and the Romans “claimed” about the Phoenicians. And it’s all built on the “testimony” of one side, we never heard the other side = the Phoenician and Carthaginian side. Magically and very conveniently, the Phoenician archive disappeared from nearly everywhere around the Med Sea. In a very mysterious way, the Ancient archives in the Med Sea and the Middle East vanished.

When you are hearing a case, hearing both sides is the way to proceed before you build your opinion about the issue. When you build an entire case, amplifying it with the bullhorns of the Media and academic world, on solely the hearsay of one side, without listening to the other side or taking into consideration the tangible evidence; this means you are biased and you are unfair. If you want to know the truth, you gotta hear both sides and you gotta see if they match the physical tangible evidence you have from the site. Here, we only have the testimony of one side and it contradicts or does not match the physical evidence found on the site. We are also important evidence = D.N.A. evidence which no one seems willing to undertake. It’s as if no one wants the D.N.A. information to come out about Carthage burial.

In other words, the supposed experts are trying to bend the tangible evidence to make them fit the biblical texts and the Greco-Roman sources. Anons by now know, this is not the correct way to proceed but it should be the other way around = the written source should match the tangible evidences = archaeological artifacts. If the texts do no match, then there is something wrong with the text, not the artifact. Texts can be biased and manipulated, tangible artifacts cannot.

So what do you have as evidence that the Phoenicians practiced children sacrifice?

Apart these 4 evidences and the 3 witnesses, what do you have? If anyone reading want to add an additional tangible evidence or an additional witness, please bring it forward, now is your chance to present it. Let’s take a look at it together.

It’s important to highlight that evidences = such as the Schwartz study on the bones and the stele of Inçirli (starting page 1 488) – which have the potential of exonerating the Phoenicians/Canaanites/Carthaginians of the crimes they are accused of is kept silent, hushed or simply not mentioned, ignored. The same goes for the researchers like me, whom know this is all B.S. from the Jews and their nobility just to destroy the Phoenicians. (((They))) came after people like me in many ways. Some had their lives destroyed just because they dared to “question” the narrative put forward by the Jews and the Bloodlines. Those whom questioned the Bible’s claims were silenced one way or the other and the rest of us understood the scale of the mafia whom is seeking to destroy the image of the Phoenicians.

No matter how much I talk and turn this around and think of all the directions, paths I could go into, I always end up in the same place = WHY?

• Page 1 686 –

>>15163779

(Please read from the start)

We know the Bloodlines hate specific groups of people and try to destroy them but (((they))) haven’t been after them for this long = not as long as (((they))) are after the Phoenicians and their current day descendants. Research this. You will find this is the longest “Manhunt” ever in the History of Mankind.

Why the Evil Clan wants to destroy the image of the Phoenicians so much for such a long time? (((They)))’ve been at this for at least 3 500 years now, AT LEAST. But if I take into account the Evil Lady attacking the Phoenician City-States and Neith coming to the rescue, then (with estimation) the Evil Clan has been trying to destroy the Phoenicians for at least 10 to 14 thousand years. Is that odd?

The reader might have already guessed what this is about. We’ve already reached the conclusion, we’ve found out why. I’ve already stated it before in this thread = there is a Sebetti ruler in Phoenicia. But not just ANY SEBETTI RULER = it’s a SPECIAL SEBETTI RULER.

I’ve said it before, we think the CROWN PRINCE is THAT Sebetti ruler. This is the conclusion we’ve reached. Of course, we didn’t reach it out of the blues. We relied on artifacts, noticed patterns and we found texts = sources supporting our find. Faith is also going to play a part here. It’s going to be up to you dear reader if you want to believe in this or not. And it’s going to be up to you to decide if these evidences are convincing or not = if they support enough my conclusion or not. Don’t forget, in this part, faith is an important factor, it’s going to be a weight on the scale.

I’m going to provide the artifacts randomly, no specific order – simply as I remember them. And I’m going to put a few pictures = samples because there are simply too much artifacts, I cannot put them all. It’s up to anons to check things up if interested.

In order to talk about the Crown Prince, we gotta talk a bit about his mother the Queen of queens = Neith.

As texts = sources, we’ve got the stories/legends/myths about Isis (starting page 846), Hathor (starting page 971) and Neith (starting page 1 019). I’m not talking what is written in Wikipedia pages. I’m talking about the ancient sources from Ancient Egypt itself = the mythology and legends we’ve got straight from there – it’s already mentioned in those Wikipedia pages. We also have as supportive texts the role the Queen of queens had in the myths of Osiris (starting page 834), Nephthys (starting page 880) and Horus (starting page 885). She is also present in Inanna’s myth, portrayed there as Billulu, the thief whom killed her husband (page 1 291). I already explained about all of them. We also have some Greco-Roman scholars/ writers, like Plutarch (which I don’t like because he is biased), whom put Isis/Neith in the City-State of Gebal/Byblos during her quest to find her husband’s “parts”- this is also mentioned by the Ancient Egyptian sources, but the Greco-Roman sources give their own take to that story.

It is very clear from all the sources, no matter what it is, that the Queen of queen was a chaste, balanced, loving, wise mother figure and she had a child. She is attached = connected to a child in most of the tales about her, including the one from Mesopotamia where she is portrayed as the thief Billulu. This motherly figure is also projected in Ancient Egypt with Isis, Neith and Hathor as well as the motherly cow figure. The Queen of queen is seen as the Universal Mother.

• Page 1 687 –

>>15170007

(Please read from the start)

It’s because of this motherly figure of her that the Ancient Bloodlines confused her with their founding mother = the Evil lady. The Evil Lady is the Mother of Monsters, not the Universal Mother. But I guess for (((them))), in (((their))) twisted minds, (((they))) see the Evil Lady as (((their))) universal mother, just like (((they))) see the Evil One as the sun. The truth is both of the Evil Couple are not that but they are wanna be. The Evil One portrayed himself as the King of kings to his clan and the Greater Sun and this is what the Evil Clan thinks he is; but the truth is he is not the Great King nor is he the Great Sun, he is the minor sun. Same principal goes for the Evil Lady. The Evil Clan see her as the Queen of queens, the Universal Mother, what she wants to be; but the truth is she is not that, but she is the Mother of Monsters and Demons. I guess both being the Sebetti ruler of a horned heraldic animal clan contributed to the confusion between the 2 queens.

It’s easy to tell them apart in some cases though from the ideas behind the iconography. Like the Evil Lady was a Pedovore, she didn’t project a caring, loving, motherly, tender, warm image. But she projected a very sexualized image, which was underlined by her constant nudity (in most cases) and her grabbing her breasts = bring the attention of the viewer to them. I’m attaching with this page a Phoenician terracotta of Astarte depicted with Ancient Egyptian hair style: you can easily see she is bringing attention to her breasts by grabbing them like that = this is to highlight, underline her sexual side. The Evil Lady is selfish, arrogant, addicted to sex and she eats children; she certainly doesn’t protect them, nor does she project the loving caring motherly image.

On the other hand the Queen of queen = Neith is chaste, wise, and she is there to protect, love and care for children. She projects the classical warm image of motherhood.

In later times, with migration mutation occurred and we find in the Middle East various forms mutated, local forms of the Evil Lady like Venus Heliopolitana or some forms of Atargatis where she merged with Neith and she is depicted wearing long robes, chaste clothing and also has a veil covering her. As I’ve just said, this is a merger = a mutation which occurred when the cult of the Evil Lady was trickling in the Middle East = Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. So the new cult blended with the local cult of the Queen of queens and confusion occurred. This is how the Evil Lady and Neith were thought to be one and the same deity by later, much later generations.

So far those were some of the written sources, but what about the tangible = archaeological monuments and artifacts? We have a huge load of artifacts and monuments from Ancient Egypt to support the Egyptian mythology concerning the Queen of queens = Neith. The greatest evidence we have to support her travel to Phoenician is the Temple of Baalat of Gebal in the Phoenician City-State of Gebal/Byblos. It doesn’t stop there, near the Temple of Baalat of Gebal (starting page 865) Bull statues from different materials were found: clay, different types of metal etc. Some like to dismiss these as them being ex-votos of sacrificed animals for Baalat of Gebal, but we think this is pointing to the Lamassu Clan as well as being ex-votos of sacrificed animals. I’m attaching the pictures for anons with this page.

The finding of the “bull” artifacts in and near Baalat of Gebal Temple is a confirmation for us and the texts from Greco-Roman Sources as well as Ancient Egyptian sources of Isis/Hathor going to Gebal, support the temple and the bull artifacts. Here the core story matches the artifacts and monuments found in Gebal, despite some details varying from one source to another. Gebal is also supposed to be one of the oldest Phoenician City-States in Motherland Phoenicia. And it fits perfectly with the chronological estimation I have about when the Sebetti rulers were still alive; even though I think Gebal is a couple of thousands of years older than what we are being told. We mustn’t forget that the Sebetti rulers lived for an extremely long time = hundreds of thousands of years.

The combination of the cult of Baalat of Gebal, her temple in Gebal, the “bull” artifacts found in the temple and near it, supported by the myths from Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt and Greco-Roman sources = all of these are pointing that Neith came to Phoenicia and she was worshiped there. The Phoenician worshiped her and they knew exactly whom she was = the Universal Mother = the Queen of queens.

• Page 1 688 –

>>15170049

(Please read from the start)

We also found the “bull” design on Phoenician seals – unfortunately, they are part of private collections and/or museum collections and they do not mention where they are found = which Phoenician City-State. These examples are there to show anons that the Bull design might also have existed in other City-States other than Gebal. Of course this was not the only design for seals and other artifacts out there, but it’s also not a rare one. It’s just one of the several designs found in Phoenicia. What’s interesting in these seals and in the “Bull” design in Phoenician in general is that the Bull (despite being linked to the Ancient Egyptian god Apis) is depicted in his full animal form and not in a humanoid form; nor in a form of a human with bull horns crown. And it’s found in GEBAL near the Temple of Baalat of Gebal, mostly. The location where these Bull artifacts were found is important and it’s what adds to the rest of the evidences connecting us to Neith/Isis/Hathor

The “letters” of Tell al-Amarna from Ancient Egypt are there also to attest the close and good relationship between Phoenicia in general, but Gebal specifically with Ancient Egypt. Just look how they don’t say Gebal is a Phoenician City-State – enjoy the read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letter_EA_362

See how the inscriptions are translated and codified. This is what the old man spent decades digging in – a pain in the rear, but it’s necessary. This is the type of archives I mean when I say I dug up in the ancient archives. See why I’m so critical of “supposed” inscription evidence of the Phoenicians sacrificing children? When the text is authentic = really there, it’s translated and codified and you can easily find it online or in big libraries in huge volumes containing the whole set. There is no such thing as a mysterious, obscure, blurry inscription with no name, no place of discovery and no codification. When you read a text telling you there is an inscription proving the Phoenicians sacrificed human children, then always ask for the code or where it’s printed so you can check it out as I just did with the Amarna letter showing the close ties between Gebal and Ancient Egypt.

The presence of the huge influence of Ancient Egyptian art is attested in loads of artifacts found the necropolis of Gebal. Like the jewelry I’m putting the pictures of, found in the tomb of king Abi Shemu of Gebal, dating back to 1800-1700 B.C. the artistic influence of Ancient Egypt doesn’t stop there, the Ancient Egyptian artistic influence also expands geographically to other Phoenician City-States like Sidon and Tyre. It doesn’t stop on geography, but it also stretches out in chronology as the presence of Eshmun-azor II sarcophagus (6th century B.C.) is evidence of how long the Ancient Egyptian artistic influence remained in Phoenicia. I think this is a very natural thing to happen because of 2 factors: 1 – Neith’s connection to Phoenicia – 2 – the Phoenicians were traders.

I have more artifacts and monuments which I will be bringing gradually as I progress in this part and it’s all linked to what I’m talking about here.

All of this is pointing very clearly, for me, to the presence of the Lamassu clan warriors in Phoenicia, Neith specifically because of her cult in Gebal. In Ancient Egypt we had a very close relationship between Horus, Isis and Hathor and we know all 3 were winged from the iconography there. We also know they used the Wedjat = electricity in their weapons = Hathor horns and the Sharur = staff weapon mostly used by the ThunderBirds a.k.a. Horus.

• Page 1 689 –

>>15175767

(Please read from the start)

In the Phoenican Pantheon, we have a Thunder deity called Hadad associated to the Bull; or should I say has the bull as his symbol. This indicates the close ties between the thunder god and the Bull image which doesn’t surprise me one bit since it’s as close as what the situation is in Ancient Egypt between Horus, Isis and Hathor. So let’s take a look at Hadad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad

“Hadad (Ugaritic: Haddu), Adad, Haddad (Akkadian IM) or Iškur (Sumerian) was the storm and rain god in the Canaanite and ancient Mesopotamian religions. He was attested in Ebla as "Hadda" in c. 2500 BCE. From the Levant, Hadad was introduced to Mesopotamia by the Amorites, where he became known as the Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian) god Adad. Adad and Iškur are usually written with the logogram IM—the same symbol used for the Hurrian god Teshub. Hadad was also called Pidar, Rapiu, Baal-Zephon, or often simply Baʿal (Lord), but this title was also used for other gods. The bull was the symbolic animal of Hadad. He appeared bearded, often holding a club and thunderbolt while wearing a bull-horned headdress. Hadad was equated with the Greek god Zeus; the Roman god Jupiter, as Jupiter Dolichenus; the Hittite storm-god Teshub; the Egyptian god Set.”

>> Zeus and Jupiter are mutated forms. I see no common points between Hadad and Seth. I don’t understand how they managed to link them both in this Wikipedia page while they have nothing in common. Seth represented the desert = none fertile lands, while Hadad represent rain = brings fertility to the land, same as Horus. They are actually on opposite sides.

So to make it short, Lord Hadad had a bull as his symbol and he used wear a horned headdress. He used to wield a club and thunderbolts. Does he sound like a Lamassu clan warrior or a ThunderBird? Maybe a merger of both? I’ve found this picture of Hadad from the web, it’s supposedly, him, but I’m not sure if it’s correct simply because we don’t have much iconography about him.

“The Baal Cycle, also known as the Epic of Baal, is a collection of stories about the god Baal from the Canaanite area who is also referred to as Hadad, the storm-god. This collection of stories is dated between 1400 and 1200 B.C. and was found in Ugarit, an ancient city located in modern-day Syria.”

• Page 1 690 –

>>15175779

(Please read from the start)

“Adad in Akkad and Sumer

In Akkadian, Adad is also known as Rammanu ("Thunderer") cognate with Aramaic: רעמא‎ Raˁmā and Hebrew: רַעַם‎ Raˁam, which was a byname of Hadad. Rammanu was formerly incorrectly taken by many scholars to be an independent Akkadian god later identified with Hadad.

Though originating in northern Mesopotamia, Adad was identified by the same Sumerogram IM that designated Iškur in the south. His worship became widespread in Mesopotamia after the First Babylonian dynasty. A text dating from the reign of Ur-Ninurta characterizes Adad/Iškur as both threatening in his stormy rage and generally life-giving and benevolent.

The form Iškur appears in the list of gods found at Shuruppak but was of far less importance, probably partly because storms and rain were scarce in Sumer and agriculture there depended on irrigation instead. The gods Enlil and Ninurta also had storm god features that decreased Iškur's distinctiveness. He sometimes appears as the assistant or companion of one or the other of the two.

When Enki distributed the destinies, he made Iškur inspector of the cosmos. In one litany, Iškur is proclaimed again and again as "great radiant bull, your name is heaven" and also called son of Anu, lord of Karkara; twin-brother of Enki, lord of abundance, lord who rides the storm, lion of heaven.”

>> Look what Hadad was called in Mesopotamia = “Lord who rides the storm” – it’s very close to what we read about the Native American ThunderBirds, isn’t it? And “Lion of Heaven” = is this a confirmation the Lion = Feline is the heraldic symbol of the King of kings = throne of Atlantis and of Atlantis itself?

“In other texts Adad/Iškur is sometimes son of the moon god Nanna/Sin by Ningal and brother of Utu/Shamash and Inanna/Ishtar. Iškur is also sometimes described as the son of Enlil.”

>> Here is a good example how things got mixed up back then.

“The bull was portrayed as Adad/Iškur's sacred animal starting in the Old Babylonian period (the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE).

[…]”

>> This is a rather late association.

“[…] In Assyria, Adad was developed along with his warrior aspect. During the Middle Assyrian Empire, from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1115–1077 BCE), Adad had a double sanctuary in Assur which he shared with Anu. Anu is often associated with Adad in invocations. The name Adad and various alternate forms and bynames (Dadu, Bir, Dadda) are often found in the names of the Assyrian kings.”

>> This is rather interesting: Anu and Adad shared a temple and were associated in invocations. This shows a close relationship between them.

• Page 1 691 –

>>15175791

(Please read from the start)

“Adad/Iškur presents two aspects in the hymns, incantations, and votive inscriptions. On the one hand he is the god who, through bringing on the rain in due season, causes the land to become fertile, and, on the other hand, the storms that he sends out bring havoc and destruction. He is pictured on monuments and cylinder seals (sometimes with a horned helmet) with the lightning and the thunderbolt (sometimes in the form of a spear), and in the hymns the sombre aspects of the god on the whole predominate. His association with the sun-god, Shamash, due to the natural combination of the two deities who alternate in the control of nature, leads to imbuing him with some of the traits belonging to a solar deity.

[…]”

>> Everything in this paragraph fits very well about Hadad being a ThunderBird, doesn’t it? The ThunderBirds are fearsome and they also bring rain = fertility, since they can control the weather. And I’m not surprised at all to read there is some sort of association between Hadad and Shamash because of the Light. Remember there are 2 Suns: a Major Sun = King of kings; and a lesser sun = the Evil One. When the King of kings was killed, this makes the Crown Prince, also born with the Light in him the new King of kings, which makes him after his Father’s death the new Great Sun.

“Shamash and Adad became in combination the gods of oracles and of divination in general. Whether the will of the gods is determined through the inspection of the liver of the sacrificial animal, through observing the action of oil bubbles in a basin of water or through the observation of the movements of the heavenly bodies, it is Shamash and Adad who, in the ritual connected with divination, are invariably invoked. Similarly in the annals and votive inscriptions of the kings, when oracles are referred to, Shamash and Adad are always named as the gods addressed, and their ordinary designation in such instances is bele biri ("lords of divination").”

>> I’m not surprised to hear this as well. Since Hadad is already associated with the Bull = Lamassu and we already know Neith had the power of divination; she was the top one, the head. I’m also not surprised the thunder god here has divination powers because the Crown Prince is the son of the Royal Couple = he might have taken this ability from his mother. It’s a possibility.

Another possibility is that Hadad is not a ThunderBird warrior but a Lamassu warrior which was wielding a Sharur staff weapon and had the power of divination. And there is a third possibility Hadad might be a merger of the image and characteristics of the 2 clans = Lamassu and ThunderBirds to make them become ONE person, instead of the initial 2 they were at origin. The ties are the same as the ties between Hathor/Isis and Horus from Ancient Egypt.

• Page 1 692 –

>>15175798

(Please read from the start)

“Hadad in Ugarit

In religious texts, Ba‘al/Hadad is the lord of the sky who governs the rain and thus the germination of plants with the power to determine fertility. He is the protector of life and growth to the agricultural people of the region. The absence of Ba‘al causes dry spells, starvation, death, and chaos. Also refers to the mountain of the west wind. The Biblical reference occurs at a time when Yahweh has provided a strong east wind (cf. Exodus 14:21,22) to push back the waters of the Red or Erythrian Sea, so that the children of Israel might cross over.”

>> The last sentence is juicy. Here, indirectly, we are getting a message that Yahweh brings drought = dry land; while Baal Hadad bring water = fertility. (((They))) are giving excuse to Yahweh’s “drought” powers by saying it was used for the good of his people = to help them cross over. (((They))) are trying to justify his “drought” power and making it sound as it is a good one in the Old Testament. From this one sentence, I see big similarities between Yahweh and Seth = the drought = infertile land. It contradicts what was said in the first paragraph of this Wikipedia page about Seth being associated to Hadad = as I’ve said back then, this is wrong. Hadad have the power of fertility, water, life. While Seth, and now Yahweh, have the power of drought, dry land, death. These little “slips” about Yahweh reveal a lot.

“In texts from Ugarit, El, the supreme god of the pantheon, resides on Mount Lel (perhaps meaning "Night") and it is there that the assembly of the gods meet. That is perhaps the mythical cosmic mountain.”

>> It’s amazing isn’t it? They are referring to that “floating mountain” we’ve seen before in this thread, in Mesopotamia while taking a look at Inanna (above world , under world) and with the Native Americans. I keep on wondering if this is not some type of space station or mega space ship where the King of kings used to live. It’s somehow connected to that Tree we have in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

“The Baal Cycle is fragmentary and leaves much unexplained that would have been obvious to a contemporary. In the earliest extant sections there appears to be some sort of feud between El and Ba‘al. El makes one of his sons who is called both prince Yamm ("Sea") and judge Nahar ("River") king over the gods and changes Yamm's name from yw (so spelled at that point in the text) to mdd ’il, meaning "Darling of El". El informs Yamm that in order to secure his power, Yamm will have to drive Ba‘al from his throne.”

>> First of all this is very fragmentary. Secondly, Baal can refer to any of the Sebetti minor kings, including the Evil One. As for Yamm is he the Evil One or the Crown Prince = the one born with the Light in him? It’s hard to tell from the text despite me reading it. I know one thing for sure, if the Phoenician archives/records still exist, they surely contain the story of Heaven = what was Atlantis like and how the coup happened which destroyed it. No wonder the Bloodlines did (((their))) best to get (((their))) hands on these records.

• Page 1 693 –

>>15181394

(Please read from the start)

“In this battle Ba‘al is somehow weakened, but the divine craftsman Kothar-wa-Khasis strikes Yamm with two magic clubs, Yamm collapses, and Ba'al finishes the fight. ‘Athtart proclaims Ba‘al's victory and salutes Ba‘al/Hadad as lrkb ‘rpt ("Rider on the Clouds"), a phrase applied by editors of modern English Bibles to Yahweh in Psalm 68.34. At ‘Athtart's urging Ba‘al "scatters" Yamm and proclaims that Yamm is dead and heat is assured.”

>> Is this pointing to the ThunderBirds killing the Evil One? Seems like that. We’ve seen scattering and dismemberment before in this thread with the Aztecs and with Osiris = how his body parts were scattered and Isis had to find/gather them. As for Yahweh, I thought just a few paragraphs above he brought “dry land” = drought….now he is associated with rain? And look by whom = editors of the modern English Bible = whom controls the printing houses and the “editing” process? And I thought Baal was evil = Satan, and Yahweh is good = God – so how come you associate the epithet of Baal (= Rider of the Clouds) to Yahweh if the first one is Satan? Here, Rider of the Clouds is a perfect fit with what we read about the Native American ThunderBirds and what we know in general about the ThunderBird warriors.

“A later passage refers to Ba‘al's victory over Lotan, the many-headed sea-dragon. Due to gaps in the text it is not known whether Lotan is another name for Yamm or a reference to another similar story. In the Mediterranean area, crops were often threatened by winds, storms, and floods from the sea, indicating why the ancients feared the fury of this cosmic being.”

>> This sea monster, it could be anything from the Cataclysm, to a hybrid Frankenstein like animal created by the Evil Clan etc. It’s better to have more information before saying what it could be, but since the text is fragmentary, we gotta be careful with this and not rush.

“A palace is built for Ba‘al/Hadad with cedars from Mount Lebanon and Sirion and also from silver and from gold. In his new palace Ba‘al hosts a great feast for the other gods. When urged by Kothar-wa-Khasis, Ba’al, somewhat reluctantly, opens a window in his palace and sends forth thunder and lightning. He then invites Mot 'Death' (god of drought and underworld), another son of El, to the feast.”

>> This section is a reflection of the banquet held by the King of kings which we also hear echoes of with Atra-Hasis version of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It’s the banquet/ celebration I’ve talked about many times in this thread before and it’s the night when the King of kings is killed by the Evil One and the Cataclysm is triggered. This is also projected by the “invitation” of MOT = personification of death to the palace. This is to say that death came that night to the palace as in someone died in the palace. Also mentioning that Mot was another son of El confirms that the Evil One was the son of the King of kings.

“But Mot is insulted. The eater of human flesh and blood will not be satisfied with bread and wine. Mot threatens to break Ba‘al into pieces and swallow Ba‘al. Even Ba‘al cannot stand against Death. Gaps here make interpretation dubious. It seems that by the advice of the goddess Shapsh 'Sun', Ba‘al has intercourse with a heifer and dresses the resultant calf in his own clothes as a gift to Mot and then himself prepares to go down to the underworld in the guise of a helpless shade. News of Ba‘al's apparent death leads even El to mourn. ‘Anat, Ba‘al's sister, finds Ba‘al's corpse, presumably really the dead body of the calf, and she buries the body with a funeral feast. The god ‘Athtar is appointed to take Ba‘al's place, but he is a poor substitute. Meanwhile, ‘Anat finds Mot, cleaves him with a sword, burns him with fire, and throws his remains on the field for the birds to eat. But the earth is still cracked with drought until Shapsh fetches Ba‘al back.”

• Page 1 694 –

>>15181408

(Please read from the start)

>> Here, it’s a salad, pure spaghetti. One moment you feel like Baal is the Crown Prince, one moment you feel like he is the Evil One. We have death of a Sebetti king, beastiality, cannibalism, pedovore, the Evil Lady taking action and amazingly, somehow the Lamassu clan is involved in all of this = plays a role. I don’t think we should take this paragraph word to word.

The Lamassu clan plays a role twice here. Once with a substitute for Baal with the calf. I don’t think here we should take it word to word but this actually and strangely echoes what we read from Ancient Egypt with Isis/Hathor/Neith taking baby Horus and fleeing away from Seth and his minions. In the Ugaritic text, it’s not that clear, but I do see the lines behind the myths have in common. And we shouldn’t forget the role Nephthys played with Horus. Then we have “Anat” which should be a mutation of the Evil Lady plays the role that is known for Neith/Isis to played = leading the ThunderBirds’ charge against the Evil Clan and killing the Evil One. I think here, there is confusion and merger between the 2 female Sebetti rulers. I’ve talked about this merger quiet a lot already in this thread and how the Universal Queen = the Queen of queens was confused and mixed by the minds of the younger generation with the queen of monsters = the Evil Lady. This is due because both are founding mothers of each side = Light and Darkness.

And of course, it’s due to the fact that the Evil Lady wanted to be the Queen of queens and take her mother’s place – she must have given herself that title during the coup and kept it after it while she never was the Queen of queens. Sometimes, it gets confusing, doesn’t it? It’s not easy to see through this. Do not also forget that both Sebetti queens are the rulers of a horned clan; which adds more to the confusion.

Also did anyone notice how they said here that the Earth remained “CRACKED” even after the defeat of Mot and the recognition of Baal as king? This reminds me of how the earth literally cracked and splitter between Egypt/Africa and the Arabian Peninsula; creating the Red Sea. This fits perfectly with the geological finds we have found in this thread.

“Seven years later Mot returns and attacks Ba‘al in a battle which ceases only when Shapsh tells Mot that El now supports Ba’al. Thereupon Mot at once surrenders to Ba‘al/Hadad and recognizes Ba‘al as king.”

>7 Years = I wonder what it’s really points to. And I think here, it’s obvious. The battle ends with the rightful Sebetti ruler sitting on the throne of Heaven, which is true. The Evil One was defeated. And we will be talking about this later.

“Hadad in Aram and ancient Israel

In the second millennium BCE, the king of Yamhad or Halab (modern Aleppo) received a statue of Ishtar from the king of Mari, as a sign of deference, to be displayed in the temple of Hadad located in Halab Citadel. The king of Aleppo called himself "the beloved of Hadad".The god is called "the god of Aleppo" on a stele of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I.”

• Page 1 695 –

>>15185711

(Please read from the start)

>> This paragraph is very important. This is not the first time in this thread we seen evidence of the City-State of Aleppo being Phoenician. We already saw the stele of Incirli on page 1 488; where it’s clearly stated that the king of Assyria asked the Phoenician king of Arwad & Aleppo to sacrifice humans in his honor. There was a law in those cities ruled by this Phoenician king which forbade the practice human sacrifice. But in the same time the Phoenician king didn’t want to offend the powerful Assyrian king and earn his wrath. So the Phoenician king, substituted humans (as requested by the Assyrian king) with animals and preformed the sacrifice to avoid the anger of the powerful king. The Phoenician king replaced humans by animals because he opposed human sacrifice.

Here, we know that since the second millennium B.C. Adad or Hadad was worship in Aleppo = he was the god of Aleppo as in the Patron = protective deity of Aleppo and his temple was located inside of the citadel. They don’t come out and say it out right here, but this is a very clear indication that Aleppo was a Phoenician City-State. The reason this is not explicitly said is because the “experts” have pushed forward a narrative for decades now that the Phoenician City-States were only located on a narrow coast and never formed a civilizations, so the Phoenicians don’t even exist according to them, nor does a Phoenician culture exist. Aleppo and other City-states located “inside” of Syria and Lebanon, like Baalbek, are proof that the Phoenician territory was much bigger than what is admitted = bigger towards the East, the North and the South. But (((they))) don’t want you to know that.

Another important point here is that the king of Mari gifted the statue of Ishtar to the Phoenician king of Aleppo. This is very important. Why?

Well, let’s start by saying that the PRIME deity = chief deity in Aleppo was Hadad = a Thunder wielding god. This was the MAIN and MAJOR cult in Aleppo. Having the temple of Hadad inside the protective walls of the citadel is an indication of the importance of the cult of Hadad. Also, this is indicating that the cult of Ishtar was not dominant at all in Aleppo since it didn’t take the prime spot = temple inside the citadel. There is a possibility for the cult of Ishtart to exist in other places in the City-State of Aleppo; yes, it’s possible, but it’s certain it was not a dominant cult. For the king of Mari to gift the Phoenician king of Aleppo a statue of Ishtar is a way, a method to introduce, slowly her cult in Aleppo. But her cult couldn’t replace or overtake the cult of Hadad in Aleppo since he was the major deity there. Her cult must have co-existed side by side with the cult of Hadad and when this sort of co-existence happens, it’s easy to see deities merge or have their characteristics switched, transferred, mutated etc.

This indicates the cult of Ishtar was not native to Aleppo but was “brought” there, migrated there, slowly. Of course, I’m not solely relying on this example to come to this conclusion. It’s just a sample I’m providing to anons. Another indication is the geographic location of both city-states. Please take a look at the map I’m attaching with this page. Mari is located on the banks of Euphrates River and to the East of Aleppo.

Remember how I said that the Evil Lady resettled in Mesopotamia and how her cult slowly spread from East to West = from Mesopotamia to Canaan/Phoenicia? And it also trickled down from the Taurus mountain range down into Syria. As I’ve explained before, the Eastern Lebanese mountain range known as Anti-Lebanon played the role of a “shield” up to some point, as it made it hard to cross and with that the cult of the Evil Lady spread was slowed down towards the Beqaa valley and double slowed down by Mount-Lebanon range towards the Phoenician coastal city-states.

• Page 1 696 –

>>15185744

(Please read from the start)

But, this was not the case with Inner Phoenicia, North Phoenicia and South Phoenicia = because there was no natural barrier to slow the spread of the cult of the Evil Lady in those area, her cult reached the Phoenician city-states in those areas earlier and spread wider. What we see right now with Aleppo is an example of the “earlier” spread of her cult towards the West. While look when it reached the City-State of Sidon (protected by the mountain barrier) = her cult slowed down and reached that place quiet late and wasn’t as wide spread as it was in the areas with no natural barrier.

All of this is ONE example out of MANY in the area. If anons study a bunch of them, they will find a repeated action of the cult of the Evil Lady slowly trickling from East to West, entering faster the areas of the North and South of Phoenicia because there was no natural barrier to slow the spread. This is a study which will lead anons to discover a pattern and they will also find the routes = paths of the spread and how it MOSTLY coincides with trade and migrant routes. The flows goes from East to West as in the transfer was MOSTLY in one direction = from Mesopotamia towards Phoenicia.

Again, I’m only providing a sample, an example for anons. The study is much bigger than this, I’m not relying on one example to say those words. I’m also attaching some pictures of Mari for anons. I want to draw attention to the layout of the city = the general shape/design of the city of Mari = it’s round, circular. And this is highly important. Anyone keeping track of ancient sites worldwide with perfectly circular shaped structures, rooms, buildings or layouts of cities? What is this indicating? Think about it for now.

“The element Hadad appears in a number of theophoric names borne by kings of the region. Hadad son of Bedad, who defeated the Midianites in the country of Moab, was the fourth king of Edom. Hadadezer ("Hadad-is-help"), the Aramean king defeated by David. Later Aramean kings of Damascus seem to have habitually assumed the title of Ben-Hadad, or son of Hadad, just as a series of Egyptian monarchs are known to have been accustomed to call themselves sons of Ammon. An example is Ben-Hadad, the king of Aram whom Asa, king of Judah, is said to have employed to invade the northern Kingdom of Israel. In the 9th or 8th century BCE, the name of Ben-Hadad 'Son of Hadad', king of Aram, is inscribed on his votive basalt stele dedicated to Melqart, found in Bredsh, a village north of Aleppo. A Hadad was also the seventh of the twelve sons of Ishmael.”

• Page 1 697 –

>>15185768

(Please read from the start)

>> Will I be shocking the reader if I said that Aramaic language is Phoenician language? If you want to understand me better, just take a look at how English was spoken and written during the time Shakespeare lived and compare it to the English we speak and write now. If I take this idea and apply it, I say the Phoenician language was like the English back during the time of Shakespeare, while Aramaic language is like the Middle English. There is a slight difference, some call it an evolution, but I call it a mutation which comes with time and younger generations. But there is no doubt for me that Aramaic is Phoenician Language. While modern day Hebrew is certainly a mutated “branch” of Phoenician language = Hebrew deviated from its origin: the Phoenician language. While Aramaic is like a softer Phoenician language. There are lot of identical things between Aramaic and Phoenician language. How should I explain this? It’s like Phoenician language is the old shape of the language, while the Aramaic is the newer shape of the language, but it’s the same language. It’s the same with the Old French = Français Ancient and the modern day French = Français moderne. To understand me better, I’m putting as an example a sentence I’ve found on the net written in Old English (1), Middle English (2), Early Modern English (3) and Modern English (4). The situation between Phoenician and Aramaic is identical to this situation with the English language. While with Hebrew it deviated from its origin = Phoenician. I hope now things are clear.

“A set of related bynames include the Aramaic rmn, Old South Arabic rmn, Hebrew rmwn, and Akkadian Rammānu ("Thunderer"), presumably originally vocalized as Ramān in Aramaic and Hebrew. The Hebrew spelling rmwn with Masoretic vocalization Rimmôn is identical with the Hebrew word meaning 'pomegranate' and may be an intentional misspelling and parody of the original.”

>> Anyone noticed how (((they))) “inserted” the Jews in what we are talking about again? = the cult of Hadad, a Phoenician deity. Amazing, isn’t it anons? Mostly how (((they))) redirect your thoughts towards Judaism and the Jews each time we are talking about anything concerning the Phoenicians.

“The word Hadad-rimmon, for which the inferior reading Hadar-rimmon is found in some manuscripts in the phrase "the mourning of (or at) Hadad-rimmon", has been a subject of much discussion. According to Jerome and all the older Christian interpreters, the mourning is for something that occurred at a place called Hadad-rimmon (Maximianopolis) in the valley of Megiddo. The event alluded to was generally held to be the death of Josiah (or, as in the Targum, the death of Ahab at the hands of Hadadrimmon). But even before the discovery of the Ugaritic texts some suspected that Hadad-rimmon might be a dying-and-rising god like Adonis or Tammuz, perhaps even the same as Tammuz, and the allusion could then be to mournings for Hadad such as those which usually accompanied the Adonis festivals. T. K. Cheyne pointed out that the Septuagint reads simply Rimmon, and argues that this may be a corruption of Migdon (Megiddo), in itself a corruption of Tammuz-Adon. He would render the verse, "In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of the women who weep for Tammuz-Adon" (Adon means "lord"). No further evidence has come to light to resolve such speculations.”

>> Here you go anons, another attempt to link a Thunder deity to the Evil One. Are you starting to see the pattern of how the experts twist themselves backward and juggle their way into explaining the connection between Yahweh and the Phoenician culture? How many times did we see this in this thread, no matter what the subject is we are talking about, whenever it’s about the Phoenicians and their culture, the Jews and Yahweh is glued to it as a parasitic entity trying to mimic the Phoenicians.

• Page 1 698 –

>>15188035

(Please read from the start)

When we take note of every single time Yahweh is compared to this and that….you will notice those characteristics he supposedly has, contradict one another. Which makes it impossible for one deity to have so many contradictory characteristics in the same time. Like what you may ask? Well, let’s take as an easy example of him being sometimes portrayed as a drought deity = infertile land, and sometimes he is portrayed as storm/rain deity = fertile land. Sure, the ThunderBirds could cause drought = as in stop rain from falling if they want to punish, but we are not talking about the drought cause by the lack of rain here. We are talking about the unfertile type of soil which we cannot use to plant in, like the desert sand. I just wanted to make that last point clear for the reader, because each time I’m talking about Yahweh bringing drought, I’m not saying he is stopping the rain so there is drought. I’m saying the type of soil he represent is not good for crops, like the desert sand; it’s the type of soil which nothing grows in even if you irrigate it. And this is incredibly symbolic because this is projecting his inability to have children or it’s hard for him to have children = pointing to the McLeod Syndrome.

Yahweh is also represented by fire (the element of the Evil One), which is in pure contradiction with what a storm is = lightning, thunder, rain and wind. Those are just 2 simple examples I’ve given anons.

And yes, Adonis is a mutated form of the Evil One’s cult, an aspect of him, mostly centered around his death and supposed resurrection = the cycle of nature. His love relationship with Ishtar/Aphrodite is a projection to the love story of the Evil Couple. His cult trickled into Phoenicia at a later date, just like the cult of the Evil Lady did. Don’t forget that the Evil One was also a Lord = a Baal because he was a Sebetti ruler.

“Sanchuniathon

In Sanchuniathon's account Hadad is once called Adodos, but is mostly named Demarûs. This is a puzzling form, probably from Ugaritic dmrn, which appears in parallelism with Hadad, or possibly a Greek corruption of Hadad Ramān. Sanchuniathon's Hadad is son of Sky by a concubine who is then given to the god Dagon while she is pregnant by Sky. This appears to be an attempt to combine two accounts of Hadad's parentage, one of which is the Ugaritic tradition that Hadad was son of Dagon. The cognate Akkadian god Adad is also often called the son of Anu ("Sky"). The corresponding Hittite god Teshub is likewise son of Anu (after a fashion).

In Sanchuniathon's account, it is Sky who first fights against Pontus ("Sea"). Then Sky allies himself with Hadad. Hadad takes over the conflict but is defeated, at which point unfortunately no more is said of this matter. Sanchuniathion agrees with Ugaritic tradition in making Muth, the Ugaritic Mot, whom he also calls "Death", the son of El.”

>> Just by reading this it’s obvious whomever wrote the Sanchuniathon, copied or translated it to Greek language was terribly confused and mixed things up. You cannot make heads or tails of this story and they said it themselves: it’s as if they are trying to merge to tales of the parenting of Hadad into one story. See how mutations happen when the younger generation misunderstands what the ancestors wrote?

• Page 1 699 –

>>15188059

(Please read from the start)

“Hadad in the Bible

In the Bible, Hadad is referenced multiple times as a god worshipped by non-believers of Yahweh, the god of the Israelites.”

>> Yup! This is a zillion percent true. The people worshiping Hadad don’t believe in Yahweh or worship him because he is on the opposite side of their Thunder deity. In other words; it’s about the Clan of the Light versus the Clan of the Darkness. Wanna have a guess which is which?

“In the Book of Exodus, the Israelites worshiped a false idol in the shape of a golden calf and they called it "El (God) the Bull" which is connected to the term Elohim meaning Lord of the Israelites in the ancient Hebrew language. In this manner, the Israelites appropriate to Hadad - the reverence that was previously given to Yahweh. Hadad is associated with bulls which shows a relationship between the false idol of the Israelites and Hadad. It is implied if not outright stated that the false idol is in fact Hadad. Hadad is characterized and seen as a god who wants the same power and authority that the God of the Israelites holds in Judeo-Christianity.”

>> LoL! I’ve got tears in my eyes out of laughter. This is one of the best paragraphs I’ve ever read in Wikipedia. The BULL from Moses fairytale is the Lamassu clan. Neith settled with surviving warriors from all the clan in Ancient Egypt, this included Apis = a male warrior from the Lamassu clan. The Lamassu warriors were from both genders. And the cult of Neith in any form of her was dominant in Ancient Egypt, mostly in the early times, including the early dynasties. It’s much later that her cult weakened and we saw the cult of Seth getting stronger and co-existed with the cult of Horus. See the Rameside dynasty to understand what I mean there.

Yes anons, Hadad and Yahweh are mortal enemies. This is a projection to the ancient battle between the ThunderBirds and the Horned Serpents. Yahweh is the Lord of Horned Serpent Clan = the Evil Clan. While the Thunder wielding Birds of Prey = I’m call them ThunderBirds, are one of the Royal guards of Atlantis, the warriors of the Crown Prince Clan. The ThunderBirds are the ones protecting the carrier of the Light = the new King of kings = the young Crown Prince of Atlantis. We also see this conflict between the ThunderBirds and the Horned Serpents in the legends of the Native Americans. In Ancient Egypt, we have the multi-morph Seth, a warrior of the Horned Serpent Clan, fighting another ThunderBird = Horus.

With the Native American legends, there is no association between the Bull = Lamassu clan and the Birds of Prey = ThunderBirds. This is because Neith = the Sebetti ruler of the Lamassu Clan was geographically located in Ancient Egypt = very far away from Northern America. It’s unclear if there were some = a few Lamassu warriors in Norther America, but…I haven’t finished looking in that part, I’ve entered this labyrinth I’m in right now via the ThunderBirds tunnel, and I’m going to go out and return to the Native Americans via the ThunderBirds as well. We are talking about them right now and will talk about them more in this part of this section since they are the Clan of the Crown Prince. For now, I’m saying that we don’t have any association, so far, between the Native American ThunderBirds and the Lamassu clan because Neith was not in that region = part of the world, but she was in Ancient Egypt. It’s in that place and in Phoenicia/Canaan that we have a close association/connection between the ThunderBirds, Lightning and the Lamassu Clan. It’s because Neith, the mother, was located in Ancient Egypt and the Crown Prince, the child was located in Phoenicia. And they made contact after the Cataclysm.

• Page 1 700 –

>>15188075

(Please read from the start)

This is why the Evil Lady, herself, left Mesopotamia and attacked the Phoenician City-States. And this is why Neith, herself, left Ancient Egypt soil and went to face the Evil Lady. The mother was protecting her son from the Evil Lady. The existence of the temple of Baalat of Gebal; the cult of Hadad in Phoenicia; all the Bull artifacts from Phoenicia, mostly from Gebal; the Tell al-Amarna letters; the Ancient Egyptian trade ties with Phoenicia; the Ancient Egyptian art influence in Phoenicia, the myths of Isis traveling to Gebal; even the tale of the thief woman killing the husband of Inanna….all of these and much more – all are converging into pointing that Baal = Hadad = the Thunder Deity of Phoenicia represent the ThunderBirds Clan warriors, including the presence of the Crown Prince there.

So when they say that Hadad is the opposite of Yahweh or Hadad is the enemy of Yahweh….you bet he was.

Here, the Jews are calling the Crown Prince as being the fake god. ^_^ This is projection. The truth is the other way around. Hadad which represents the ThunderBirds Clan warriors, just the same as Baal, is the Clan of the Crown Prince = the rightful heir of the throne of Heaven = the next in line to become King of kings after the death of his Father, the Great King. As we’ve seen Inanna calling Neith a thief whom killed her husband, here, the Evil Clan = the Jews are calling the Clan of the Crown Prince as followers of the fake, false god. While them = the Jews and their nobility = the Bloodlines are the followers of the true god = Yahweh, the Evil One.

Let me say it out loud = the Phoenicians/Canaanites but mostly the Phoenicians are the Clan of the Crown Prince. The Phoenicians are the people of the ThunderBirds Clan. This is why they are constantly massacred by the Evil Clan and accused by the Jews of the crimes (((they))) (((themselves))) committed = the Jews and their nobility projected (((their))) crimes onto the Phoenicians. This is why we have the longest Witch Hunt in the History of mankind = the Jews destroying till this very day the Phoenicians and their descendants.

I’m not talking out of the blues anons. I’ve already started to provide the artifacts, texts and clues I’ve got for you. And the first was Neith, her cult in Ancient Phoenicia and how close were the ties between Ancient Egypt and Phoenicia. The cult of Hadad is Phoenician and it was dominant there = the Thunder deity known as Baal or Hadad was dominant in Phoenicia because the Phoenician are the people of the ThunderBirds Clan. This is why in the Old Testament both Baal and Hadad are said to be Yahweh’s enemy and called a fake god by the people of the Evil Clan. (((They))) do not recognize the true heir of the throne of Heaven as (((their))) king. The Jews recognize the Evil One as (((their))) only king. (((They))) reject the Crown Prince as a ruler.

If you don’t believe me, then…why did Christ ask the young men to tell humanity his true message, his true words? It means we are following the wrong path which was laid to us by Judaism and it diverged from the path leading towards Christ. Christ asked the young man to bring the truth to humanity about himself and about his message. A lot of people nowadays think they are following Christ right now but the truth is they are following the Evil Clan without them even realizing they are walking far away from Christ. If we were truly following Christ, we wouldn’t have been standing on the doorstep of Armageddon.

The Jews are accusing Hadad/Baal to be what Yahweh really is = a false god. Unfortunately, everyone believes them and follows them…follows them to their own doom. Christ asked for the truth to come out about him and about his message to humanity. If we were already following the path of Christ, he would have never asked the young man to tell people the truth about him. He asked the young man to bring the people back to him.

• Page 1 701 –

>>15191241

(Please read from the start)

Let’s finish with Hadad and I will be providing more and more artifacts and monuments supported by the known texts to prove to anons that the Phoenicians are the people of the ThunderBirds.

“In the Books of Kings, Jezebel – the wife of the Northern Israelite King Ahab – served as an advocate of Hadad in her adopted nation. She enters into conflict with the prophet Elijah over which deity is more powerful and authoritative. In the end, Elijah is able to prove the superiority of Yahweh, thus taking back control of the Israelite people away from Ahab and Jezebel who both eventually die in a gruesome manner.”

>> Jezebel did bring the cult of a Thunder deity to her marriage. What is known as Northern Israel via the propaganda of the Jews is actually Phoenicia and Phoenician territory; precisely South Phoenicia. Jews lived there under the rule of Phoenician kings, up to a certain point. And it was forbidden to sacrifice humans in the Phoenician City-States, which enraged the Jews and built a huge amount of hate towards the Phoenician rulers. And the Jews also knew whom the Phoenicians truly were = (((their))) mortal enemy and in the same time the people of the ThunderBirds Clan. I’m not talking in the air. I have loads of things to back this up. I’m going to provide them to anons.

The prophet Elijah protects the ones whom carry the Light. This entire story of him showing the superiority of Yahweh is a false story and a lie. Elijah takes orders from his general, the ThunderBird general known as Archangel Michael. How do I know this? It’s because of the young man and what Christ showed him. I cannot tell much for safety reasons. I’m sorry about that.

What I want to say is that we know the Prophet Elijah works with the ThunderBirds, not against them. He works with what the normal people know as heavenly angels. There is no way for him to work for the Evil One and side with the Evil Clan against the ThunderBirds. I know this doesn’t sound too convincing. This is when your faith comes into play: if you believe or not and what you believe in. I’m not good at convincing people, but all I can do is talk = tell you the truth. The rest is up to the reader.

This ends it with Hadad = the Thunder god of Phoenicia. We know for sure Hadad is NOT a real name. And we think Hadad represents the ThunderBirds warriors (in plural) whom accompanied the Crown Prince and protected him = the many Hadads are the warriors of the ThunderBirds Clan, this is why they were also referred to as Baal sometimes in the texts, which may confuse the reader if we don’t pay attention to the context of the inscription.

I haven’t finished with Neith’s ties to Phoenicia and how I’m certain she is indicating the Crown Prince = Sebetti ruler of the ThunderBirds lived in Phoenicia and the Phoenicians are his people, his clan. Let me present you next a very important piece of the puzzle gluing things up, patching things up as to whom Neith was = the mother of the Crown Prince and how the Crown Prince with his clan = the ThunderBirds are the Phoenicians.

• Page 1 702 –

>>15191269

(Please read from the start)

Evidence # 1: Dea Gravida connected to Baalat gebal cult and Neith.

There is a mysterious female deity in Phoenicia referred to as Dea Gravida. Her cult was extremely strong in Motherland Phoenicia. Her cult was widely spread all over the Phoenician colonies, we found a lot of artifacts connected to her there as well. And the Phoenician travelers = the sailors, the traders, all practiced her cult. I’m saying it again, her cult was extremely strong with the Phoenicians and this is attested = proved by the BIG numbers of her figurines found all over Phoenicia, the Phoenician colonies and even with the Phoenician travelers.

So let’s take a look at this Dea Gravida’s Wikipedia page, then I’m going to give my take on the artifacts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dea_Gravida

“Dea Gravida or Dea Tyria Gravida (Latin for "pregnant goddess") was either a goddess or representation of mortal women that were associated with procreation and fertility deriving from Phoenician culture and spreading within the Phoenician circle of influence. Although not much is known about the cult surrounding Dea Gravida, votive terracotta statues have been found throughout the Mediterranean, most notably in Phoenicia and Cyprus. The figure differs from kourotrophic figures that hold babies and are not visibly pregnant.”

>> Look how it’s carefully worded to keep it blurry and not give you much information about the cult of Dea Gravida. Yes, this is the cult of a “pregnant goddess” = a loving mother goddess which is very obvious when you look at the figurines. This was no mortal woman represented here but a goddess because of the high number of “almost” identical figures = mass production – found in Phoenician Motherland and in the Phoenician colonies = ALL of them. This is no simple, ordinary woman we are talking about here. If this was the case, there wouldn’t be this HUGE quantity of her statues and it wouldn’t have been this widely spread and popular among both the Phoenician nobles and the people.

Look how it’s worded here: Phoenician sphere of influence. This is to avoid telling that every single place where this statuette of Dea Gravida was found, it was originally a Phoenician colony. This is done on purpose to minimize = diminish the number of the colonies founded by the Phoenicians. Dea Gravida cult does NOT “derive” as they said here in this paragraph from Phoenicia = IT IS a Phoenician Cult, it doesn’t derive from it. It is a Phoenician cult. Just the number of these statuettes found in Tyre alone is enough to fill my entire room from floor to ceiling and I’m not exaggerating nor joking. See how (((they))) are playing with words while writing about her and making sure you don’t associate her to Phoenicia. It’s because (((they))) don’t want you to find out about her and how she is Neith. I’ve seen enough of these statues in the warehouses to fill me all the way up to my eyeballs. There is no way in Hell this is not Pregnant Isis or if you want to say it better, pregnant Neith = the Queen of queen = the Universal Mother. You will understand why I’m saying it’s Isis/Neith in just a bit.

These statues of Dea Gravida are NOT votive statues. These are CULT statues. It’s identical to the statues of saints and the statue of Christ or Virgin Mary some people put in their homes. Because of their size = can be easily carried in hand = the size makes it practical to carry by hand – so because of their size we think these statues are put in homes and carried away while traveling. It’s the same and identical type and size of statues we have in Christianity nowadays. I’m attaching a picture of statues of the Virgin Mary and of Christ which are sold and put in houses and which can be easily carried away if you are traveling. The Dea Gravida statues are ALL of the same type and size as the Statues of the Virgin and of Christ are.

• Page 1 703 –

>>15191347

(Please read from the start)

This type of statue is to be put indoors, in rooms, mostly in houses and can be easily portable if need be. This is indicating how widespread and popular the statue of Dea Gravida cult was in Phoenicia, which is highlighted by the HUGE number of these statues found. I bet every Phoenician family had at least one of these in their households.

They are trying to diverge your thoughts by inserting the sentence of the kourotrophic figures into Dea Gravida information, despite the fact that the kourotrophic figures had nothing to do with Dea Gravida. They simply threw that sentence there, just like that…to diverge your thoughts.

“Etymology

“Dea Gravida” is a name that has been applied to these types of figures by modern archaeologists that translates to “pregnant goddess”. The term gravida comes from the Latin word gravidus which is used to describe a woman who is pregnant. Tyria is a reference to Tyre, which was where many of these types of figures have been found.”

>> Yes a Latin name was given by modern day archaeologists for this high number of statuttes because we needed a name to refer to them. Just like what I did by calling the Birds of Prey Clan = the ThunderBirds and how I’ve been calling the Bull Clan = the Lamassu Clan. We are forced to do this in archaeology. We need a jargon to refer to a specific type/ series of artifacts instead of using long sentences to refer to them. It makes our work easier and we quickly recognize what it is because it’s part of our jargon.

Dea Gravida means pregnant lady. Look at the hypocrites here: they tell you “many” of these were found in Tyre. Oh, it was not “many” – “many” doesn’t come close to describe the number found in Tyre = they were found in big quantities in Tyre = hundreds. And that is just from ONE Phoenician City-State.

“Role in cult

The exact role in cult and the purpose of the votive figures is unclear. It has been suggested that the figures represent a mother/fertility goddess, sacred prostitutes, or were charms to protect women during pregnancy. Dea Gravida figures have occasionally been found together with a statue of a bearded male wearing an Atef crown. They may have together formed a divine couple, however, it is unclear exactly why they were together or who they are supposed to represent.”

>> They surely are going sky high with the level of hypocrisy in this Wikipedia page.

These are not votive figures as said in this paragraph. These are cult figures put inside the houses as in people prayed for them on daily basis, made offerings to them inside the house, maybe used incense, and these statuettes protected the house and the people living in them.

• Page 1 704 –

>>15191372

(Please read from the start)

Listen to this: “it has been suggested”…really?!!! By whom exactly? Whom exactly made this suggestion? And then read the rest of the sentence: “the figures represent a mother/fertility goddess, sacred prostitutes, or were charms to protect women during pregnancy.” Anyone apart me find these “suggestions” contradictory? You cannot project the image of a “sacred prostitute” goddess and be a caring loving mother. This is pure B.S. by whomever wrote this. I’ve explained this point many times before already in this thread when explaining the difference between the Evil Lady and Neith and how to recognize them. You cannot have a pedovore deity, whom used to rip the bellies of pregnant women open to take the children (we read this many times while taking a look at the Sebetti clan warriors), and then have her as a caring, loving mother figure. You cannot have a goddess practicing the sacred prostitution and be a caring loving mother figure. I’ve already explained what used to happen to the children born from the practice of the sacred prostitution by the priestesses of the Evil Lady cult (starting page 1 615). The sacred prostitution and motherhood oppose one another. It’s like one is Black and the other is White.

This is how the cult of the Evil Lady was confused and then merged with the one of Neith. It’s because of the young generation confused them and thought they were one and the same person but the truth is they were 2 different persons. I’ve already explained this point many times in this thread.

These are not charms exclusively to protect women. They do play partially that role, but these are cult statuette of a Mother Goddess = the Universal Mother = the Queen of queens.

Compare the clay figurine of the Evil Lady from page 1 688 to the statues of Dea Gravida. Look carefully how sexualized Astarte is depicted on this clay figurine. She is sporting an Ancient Egyptian hair style. She is totally naked and she is holding her breasts to bring the attention of the person looking at this statuette towards them. She is saying: “I’m sexy”. While Dea Gravida brings attention to her pregnancy by putting her hands on her belly and she is covered from head to toe = not naked. I will be describing the statue of Dea Gravita to anons in just a bit. Let me finish with Wikipedia page first.

Evidence # 2: Phoenician “Elongated” hat.

Some of these statues were found with a male companion as in another statue next to Dea Gravida, of a male deity. These male deities were bearded and they used to wear the Atef Crown = the Ancient Egyptian Atef Crown of Osiris. Sorry, I couldn’t find online a picture of the male statue, companion of Dea Gravida. It’s true that they were sometime worshiped as a duo. It’s unclear whom exactly this male deity is with the Atef Crown, according to Main Stream History. But I think it’s the King of kings.

First indication to whom this male deity might be is the beard he is sporting = indicating he is a mature man and not a young man. Second is the crown itself = he is king. Then it’s the type/genre of the crown = the Atef crown very famous for being the WHITE crown of Osiris and it was also known to be the type of crown and/or hat worn by the Phrygian and the Phoenicians as well. I’m attaching pictures of the Phoenician “elongated” hat with this page for anons.

• Page 1 705 –

>>15191433

(Please read from the start)

What you are not told is that the “elongated” hat of the Phoenicians was worn by the Lebanese all the way up till the first half of the XXth century. When the Ottomans conquered Lebanon and the entire Middle East after the battle of Marj Dabek (1516 A.D.) they brought with them a new type of hat to wear called the Tarboosh hat (red color one), which was adopted by all the Arab countries, including the ones of North Africa. It was mostly worn by the city folks in Lebanon and they abandoned their traditional “elongated” hat gradually. The “elongated” hat was only worn in the rural Lebanese area during the Ottoman times and as the centuries passed on, the “elongated” hat was worn less and less. I’m not sure of the name, but I was once told it’s called Lébbadé (I’ve written it in French). The original Lebanese hat = the “elongated” hat was still worn till not long ago: I’ve seen a couple of Lebanese old farmers wearing it, a few decades ago. But it’s almost vanished now.

I’ve found online a couple of paintings done by local painters in Lebanon depicting their old, traditional clothing of Lebanese mountain villager wearing the “elongated” hat. I’m attaching them with this page. I’ve also managed to find online a man attending what seems like a costume party and he is wearing the traditional Lebanese “elongated” hat. It’s a shame the Lebanese forgot their origins and abandoned this “elongated” hat which their ancestor wore for thousands of years = at least from 8 000 B.C. in Gebal because we found loads of soldiers bronze ex-votos in Baalat of Gebal Temple there, sporting the Phoenician “elongated” hat. I’m putting the picture of that as well with this page. So you see, this Phoenician “cone” hat is at least 10 000 years old and the Lebanese abandoned and forgot their valuable heritage. It’s the oldest form of hat ever worn and it looks like Gebal is the place where it showed up being worn first in the world since it’s the oldest.

The “elongated” hat was worn by the Phoenicians and their current day descendants = the Lebanese for around 10 000 years and it’s the same type of hat worn by the Phrygians and mostly by Osiris = he is famous for it. It took 10 thousand years for the hat to be totally abandoned by the ThunderBirds clan = the Phoenicians and their current day descendants. It held on for so long and didn’t let go = vanished easily, while it was abandoned by everyone else a long time ago. I say bring it back. It’s a treasure that shouldn’t be lost or forgotten. Because it tells whom the Lebanese truly are. It symbolizes their true identity.

So you see dear anons, these small details about the male deity found next to Dea Gravida are all indicating we are talking about the King of kings here. Some may ask if this is not the Crown Prince instead of the King of kings? Well, Dea Gravida is still pregnant, she didn’t give birth yet. In other words this “scene” of Neith pregnant being next to the King of kings was from before the murder of the Great King and before the Cataclysm occurred. Do you still doubt what I’m telling you anons despite all that I’ve given as proof? Dea Gravida is Neith = the Queen of queens. The male deity next to her is the King of kings. They are the parents of the Crown Prince, still unborn in this scene. And the Phoenicians worshiped them as their deities. If you are not convinced, then please, at least for now, think about it, as I progress I’m going to tell and show more.

Back to Dea Gravida:

“The figure has been associated with Taweret, a protective Egyptian goddess of pregnancy and childbirth who was represented as a pregnant hippopotamus. It is possible that Astarte was associated with these figures, however, no definite evidence supports this connection.”

>> It’s normal for Dea Gravida to be associated with Taweret from Ancient Egypt since both represent mother figures and both came from there. And (((they))) cannot resist but throw Astarte in there despite themselves saying there is no connection of any kind or evidence backing this up. This is written on purpose anons so that your mind will automatically associate Astarte with Dea Gravida despite the FACT there is no association between them. This is how programming works = (((they))) throw in these words to condition you and your mind into thinking down one specific line of thoughts so that you won’t go looking in other places and finding things (((they))) don’t want you to find out.

• Page 1 706 –

>>15191476

(Please read from the start)

If the reader is not convinced, all he has to do is have a visual comparison with the iconography of Astarte = naked, holding her breasts (from page 1 688) with the iconography of Dea Gravida, fully clothed = covered and very much pregnant…and there is nothing sexual or sexy about pregnancy. Pregnancy projects new life, it doesn’t project lust, desire and sex.

“Votive figures

The votive figures typically show a pregnant female goddesses or woman either seated or standing, often with a hand resting on her abdomen. These figures were made exclusively from terracotta and are typically small. Figures were often depicted as veiled with braided coiled hair pinned to either side of the head, which has led to misleading descriptions as the figures having a "cobra-hood" or "horns". A variant was found in Tripoli, showing the figure holding a cake offering.”

>> It’s time for the old man to give his take on the description of Dea Gravida:

It’s true these figurines are all done from terracotta and they are the right size to be easily carried in one hand. By the way, they are not heavy to carry at all. As I’ve said already many times, these are not votive figures but cult statuettes put inside the house to protect the family whom prays for the divine couple or to Dea Gravida = it’s a household cult, just like it was the situation of Hathor cult = you would find her in almost every household in Ancient Egypt; just like you would find a Bible or a Cross in every Christian household nowadays and a Koran in every Muslim household.

There are a few variants about the Dea Gravida. I mean there is a standard design for her but it varies a bit in the details and I think this variation came along as time passed by. By studying this, we can reconstruct the “evolution” phases of the design. It’s true she is sometimes represented seated and sometimes standing. She is also represented pregnant most of the time with a variant of her not being pregnant, but holding a new born child which is ALIVE – no child sacrifice here. How do I know the child is alive? Because sometimes the child is depicted with one of his arms held upward. I’m attaching pictures of all that I’m talking about here. As you can see from the pictures, despite being a bit different with variants, the design is mostly stereotyped as if there was a mass production for these statues, regardless of what the variant is.

This is a caring mother we are looking at. We can easily understand this by the way she is putting her hands around her belly = showing love, care and protection towards her unborn baby. While in the iconography of her holding her child, you can also see by the way she is holding it that she cares. She holds the child with both hands and cuddles him close to her body, while the head of the child rests either on her chest or on her upper arm = giving support to the baby’s head. Every parent knows that they need to “support” = hold from the back the head of the new born baby because the baby’s neck isn’t strong enough yet to support the weight of the head. The infants need to grow a few months before they can hold their head straight by themselves. Only a loving and caring mother would worry about supporting the head of her new born. If there are parents reading this, they know exactly what I’m talking about here.

• Page 1 707 –

>>15197059

(Please read from the start)

Dea Gravida is fully clothed = covered from head to toe = no nudity here. And she also wears a veil on her head. This is the traditional = native = local image which was spread all over Phoenicia and Canaan. When the cult of the Evil Lady infiltrated = trickled in and merged with the cult of the Dea Gravida = Neith, we started to see Astarte and all of her other aspects and forms stop being represented nude and she started to be represented fully clothed with a veil covering her. This is how we managed to find out till which geographic location the cult of Dea Gravida spread in the Middle East and where it was infiltrated by the cult of the Evil Lady and we understood then that the younger generation confused them, thought they were one and the same deity. The cult of Dea Gravida is the native local form of a female deity which was present, which was worshiped in all of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine before the cult of the Evil Lady wiggled its way in and merged with her cult. From there on, the locals had each a new form for a female deity called Ishtar or Astarte with all the characteristic of the Evil Lady, but mixed with those of Neith = like attributing the power of divination to Astarte when she never had it. Or like representing her covered with a veil, while Ishtar’s original iconography is being represented NUDE, not fully clothed. There are hundreds of variants of how the iconography merged and mutated and I’ve already given to anons one example of how Atargatis (starting page 1 310) clothing transformed and was misunderstood to later become a corset with many breasts. The merger of the queens and the clothing of the Evil Lady was one of the hardest bumps we had to overcome and it took us decades to sort things up. And when we try to explain it to others, they look at us as if our hair turned green magically all of a sudden. They are unable to understand how the mergeroccurred one place at a time, creating hundreds of different variants.

Now let’s talk about the details of Dea Gravida’s clothes and hairdo. I want to remind anons that I’ve only put a few examples = samples of the Dea Gravida statuettes and not put all the collection here. There are variants. So when I talk about something that I didn’t put the picture of is because I couldn’t find it online but I’ve seen it either “live” or in catalogues. Anons might ask where I got my information from. You are forgetting I’m an archaeologist, not a historian. I get my information from the artifacts themselves = I dig them up, clean them, restore them and study/ analyze them. My SOURCES of information are the artifacts themselves and the details they contain. I rely on the artifacts as my SOURCE of information = keep that in mind all the time while reading this thread as I’ve requested anons to do several times already.

Some of the statuettes have faint colorful paint on them (of course depending on the artifact) like the 4th picture of page 1 703. We can see the color of her dress painted in a reddish tone. Such statuette indicated that they were painted and decorated with details which are now lost to us. In other examples like first and second pictures of page 1 707, we can see her hair very clearly in the Ancient Egyptian hairdo or should I say the standard Ancient Egyptian hair style. It’s very obvious to the naked eye. I guess the Ancient Egyptian hairdo is what they are calling in this paragraph as being mistaken for snakes = her Egyptian style braids were mistaken for snakes. Yeah, right! Ancient Egyptian hairdo picture attached with this page for comparison.

• Page 1 708 –

>>15197090

(Please read from the start)

The veil around her is giving this volume around her head as if some type of sail with winds blowing in it. But we know from standard, stereotyped iconography this is how veils are generally depicted in any iconography of a deity. It’s incredibly hard to sculpt a veil, don’t you think so? So what the sculptor does is reproducing the volume the veil makes when it covers the head of the lady to tell us/ indicate to us she is wearing a veil on her head. And this is the situation with Dea Gravida and why we have the veil so voluminous around her head like that, mostly from the back.

Some of the variants of her design come 2 lumps or should I say buns on each side of her head, right under the veil. We believe this is a Phoenician hairdo because of one artifact found in Spain made by extraordinary craftsmanship. This artifact is known as: “the Lady of Elche”. If anons are interested, they can read about this in the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_Elche

The Lady of Elche is represented wearing an “elongated” hat with those discs like bun things on each side of her head. I must admit, this is a weird hairdo. But this type of sculpting is indicating this lady was from the noble class = it costs loads of money to have this type of impeccable sculpting with such refined work and care given to details. It’s insane with details when you look at this artifact up close. Of course no one likes to admit this is Carthaginian or should I say a Carthaginian noble lady…or a noble lady wearing Carthaginian clothing, jewelry and hairdo, including the elongated hat. And where do you think the Carthaginians got this “fashion” from? Just by looking at the “elongated” hat, you can see it came straight from their ancestors = the Phoenicians = at least for the hat part. The jewelry design she is wearing is definitely Carthaginian. So the hat is Phoenician and the jewelry is Carthaginian, then what does it make this lady? Main Stream History doesn’t like to admit it at all but this is most likely a Phoenician/Carthaginian noble lady living in Spain which was a Carthaginian territory during the 4th century B.C.

No one likes to admit this, not openly, and certainly not the “experts” because the Elche lady is projecting how wealthy, refined and sophisticated the Carthaginians were. An image totally different from the barbaric, cruel image projected to us by the Greeks and the Romans about the Carthaginians. So we certainly don’t want them to look like liars and deceitful to the general public, so what do (((they))) do? (((They))) create this entire controversy trying to plant doubts as to the authenticity of this artifact, simply because (((they))) don’t want to admit it’s Carthaginian. I’ve told anons many times before = it’s a mafia in archaeology and it’s controlled by a specific group of paid “experts” whom get their marching orders from (((them))). We know how the system works better than anyone, as well as we know what happens to those whom break the narrative pushed forward by the Bloodlines when it comes to History and Archaeology.

I bet a lot of anons reading this thread immediately thought of princess Leia in her iconic hairdo from Star Wars Saga. And you are right to be reminded of her because the hairdo used in that movie was inspired by the Lady of Elche hairdo, which in turn we think originally came from Phoenicia Motherland because of the hairdo we see on some of Dea Gravida statuettes. It’s the same hairdo with buns on each aide of the head. We think these buns are done like that on purpose to allow the person to wear the elongated hat. Another style is the braided hairdo, which also allows the person to put that elongated hat on his/her head without disturbing the hair fashion. And we see Dea Gravida depicted with both styles = the buns and the braided hair.

• Page 1 709 –

>>15201423

(Please read from the start)

Sometimes we wonder what is under that veil from the back side of her head = as in if Dea Gravida is not wearing an “elongated” hat under the veil when she was alive = when the Queen of queens was alive. Why do we think that? Well, because there is this strange lady’s hat worn in the Middle Ages in Lebanon which is conic in shape and has a veil attached to its upper end = it’s called Tantoor. We only managed to trace back till the Middle Ages = it was worn by local princesses from that time. But we couldn’t verify if it dates back from the Phoenician times. Since the “elongated” male Phoenician hat was worn from around 8000 B.C. till first part of XXth century = around 10 000 years, then this makes it possible for this conic female hat to have come to us straight from the Phoenicia fashion as well, but it’s not proven. Apart the lady of Elche wearing an elongated hat, we don’t have much.

We also cannot help ourselves but wonder if the design of the female cone shaped hat worn by the princess of Europe during the Middle Ages = as in worn by the female members of the Bloodlines families ruling over Europe during the Middle Ages – was not a design “stolen” by the Bloodlines from the female Phoenician/Carthaginian nobility. Crazy, right? Well, I didn’t get time to dig into this tunnel, but I have this little feeling I will find the Medieval princess conic hat goes back to the Phoenician female nobility wearing it. Why did the Bloodlines adopt this hat design for their princesses? Well, I think the chances are HIGH this goes back to Atlantis and the Phoenicians just happened to keep alive the tradition of having noble females wear pointy hats. When the Bloodlines found out about it after deciphering the “stolen” Phoenician archives via the Jesuits, they started to make (((their))) females wear the conic hat in order to point to (((their))) Atlantean origin. This is just a theory from my part for now since I didn’t find time to looking into all of this; comparing with others as well.

In some of Dea Gravida’s statuettes we can clearly see her feel, while in others it’s blurry. It’s one of the details varying from one statuette to another.

Another notable aspect in the description of Dea Gravida statuettes are the breasts of the goddess. In most cultures, usually, the artists creating the artifact outlines the gender of the statues he is working on. So if it’s a female statue like what it’s the case here, he marks the breasts to point this is a female = so we don’t confuse the gender of the person in the statue. With male statue, they are represented either bare chest or they show his genitals to point he is a male.

In our case here, the breasts of Dea Gravida are there to indicate we have a female deity. But it’s not a sexualized female deity since she is not holding her breasts but she is actually putting her hands on her pregnant belly to get the attention of the viewer on it. This is a huge difference with the statuette of the Evil Lady on page 1 688; we should include the clothing in this as well as in one is nude while the other is fully clothed.

I personally didn’t have the chance to a see a Dea Gravida from Tripoli so I cannot confirm if she is truly holding a “cake” or not.

• Page 1 710 –

>>15201642

(Please read from the start)

“The figures were first made in the Levantine coast in the 8th century BCE. and became widespread during the 6th to 4th centuries with the earliest known examples in Cyprus appearing in the 6th century. Depictions of pregnancy and motherhood were uncommon in Near Eastern iconography, as fertility was typically indicated by naked female figures holding their breasts. The most numerous and finest come from Phoenician tombs near Akhziv near ancient Tyre. Some of these figurines are dedicated in Cyprus from the 6th to the 5th century. On Cyprus, large number of figures have only been found in the city-kingdoms of Kition, Lapethos and Amathous, where Phoenician language and culture was dominate. Within Kition, these figures have been found within two urban sanctuaries and on the acropolis of Amthous, where the principal sanctuary of Aphrodite Kypria is located. A single figure has also been found in a sanctuary in Chytri. Figures have also been found in Lakonia, the sanctuary of Eileithyia Inatia in Crete, and possibly at the sanctuary of Demeter at Corinth. Some of these figures may have had a function as an anatomical teaching model, as some have been found with a square hole in the abdomen where a model fetus was placed.”

>> (((They))) had to throw Israel in there, (((they))) cannot resist it. No anons, it was in Tyre itself that the biggest batch of these figurines was found. And notice how it’s forbidden to say the word Phoenicia, instead (((they))) use “the Levantine coast”. For the colonies, well, Dea Gravida was found in a big number of them. As for Dea Gravida being an anatomical teaching model = double face palm for the old man. (((They))) really think we are stupid. (((They))) are willing to come up with such silly, stupid explanations so (((they))) won’t admit whom this deity really is. Amazing!

“The terracotta figures have been divided into three different groupings: those made by hand, those thrown on a potter's wheel, and those produced in a mold. The molded figurines had the greatest outside influence from other cultures. These are used to as votive figures in sanctuaries, as funerary offerings at cemeteries, and sometimes they have been found in the cargo of transport ships.”

>> Using molds indicates the mass stereotyped production of these statuettes which is confirmed by the models we have. We can also divide them into groups relying on the design, not just on how they are made. I don’t see these figurines having been submitted to outside influence. If they are referring about the Ancient Egyptian influence on the design on some of the Dea Gravida statuettes then this is no influence, but it’s actually reflecting the truth = it’s literally indicating to reality, as Neith was from Ancient Egypt and she dressed that way. This is no influence, this is factual. It’s like taking a photograph of Neith, but since we didn’t have cameras back then to take photos, they made these clay statuettes in her image. She truly used to dress like that. These are not votive figurines or funerary offerings, these were cult statuettes with people praying to them, but they were portable ones and household items. I’ve already mentioned them being with travelers, traders, sailors.

“Difference from kourotrophos

Dea Gravida is similar to kourotrophos figures. (Greek: κουροτρόφος, "child nurturer"). These figures typically presented as women or goddesses holding babies in their arms and they were sometimes shown nursing. However, some figures are show both pregnant and carrying a baby. Kourotrophos was also used to describe ancient Greek gods and goddesses whose properties included their ability to protect young people. Numerous gods were called by this adjective, including but not limited to Athena, Apollo, Hermes, Hecate, Aphrodite, Artemis, and Eileithyia.

Kourotrophos was a major figure of cult, appearing in sacrifice groups connected with fertility and child care.

[…]”

>> This pure B.S. Everything written above is just that. And (((they))) are trying hard to connect Dea Gravida to the sacred prostitution while it had nothing to do with it. Two different deities, two different cults = nothing in common between them, in fact, they are on opposite sides of one another.

• Page 1 711 –

>>15207476

(Please read from the start)

In page 1 707, the last picture I’ve attached is a series of Dea Gravida statuettes, clearly stereotype, coming from a mass production. I couldn’t find pictures with a better display of the same type of Dea Gravida as those for anons. There are better samples, clearer ones, to view. So I’m not basing my words on nothing. It’s just I wasn’t able to find a better sample for anons. These Dea Gravida are damaged and worn out, so it’s hard for an inexperienced eye to get a clear picture.

I’m done with the Wikipedia page of Dea Gravida, but not with her yet. I want to talk now about Isis/Neith being Baalat of Gebal, being the Queen of queen by presenting to anons a special type of Dea Gravida statuettes = Dea Gravida nursing her baby. This series of Dea Gravida is very special. In the sample I’m providing here for anons, we can clearly see there is residue of paint on this statuette, showing details of her clothes.

Dea Gravida is seated here, the baby’s head close to her left breast = she is nursing him. Look closely to the colorful collar of her clothes, maybe it’s not very clear to anons, but this collar is incredibly close to the clothing from Ancient Egypt. Why is this important? Because during all the History of Ancient Egypt we have very famous iconography of Isis almost identical to this series of Dea Gravida = from the early dynastic times all the way to Ptolemaic times, even a mutated version during Roman times.

I’m putting, with this page, different samples of Isis nursing Horus iconography; they come from different eras and from different types of artifacts. Since I don’t have much space in this page, I’m attaching with the next page a sample = an artifact of Isis nursing Horus from the Roman period. I’m also attaching to the next page a drawing made in the 18th century of the same iconography with a little variant= Isis doesn’t have a human head but a cow’s head. I couldn’t find an artifact supporting this idea of Isis cow head nursing Horus. Which in turn is making me wonder where the author of this drawing got this idea from? Did he get the idea from late period when association between Isis and Hathor occured? Probably. It’s possible.

Now let’s talk a bit about the artifacts from Ancient Egypt itself, including the one from Ptolemaic period. We can identify Isis because of her “throne” crown but if you look closely, we have also a variant of the crown = she sometimes is represented with Hathor’s horned crown. She is seated when represented as a statuette, but in reliefs we see her sometimes standing while nursing Horus. She is fully clothed but sometimes represented nude (mutated form). And she is nursing him via her left breast.

Now compare with Dea Gravida. It’s the same and IDENTICAL ideas and iconography. Sure the details are a bit different and with Dea Gravida we have her in different poses, sometimes pregnant, and she wears Phoenician clothing. But the idea behind both is identical. It’s a mother, fully clothed, seated, nursing her baby from her left breast. Of course there are variants and it’s only this series = this set of Dea Gravida that is projecting an identical image as the traditional image of Isis nursing Horus. The variation is due to chronology = as time passed.

• Page 1 712 –

>>15207508

(Please read from the start)

That is….if you take this set of artifacts on its own. But if you look at ALL the Dea Gravida artifacts, then combine with it the cult and temple of Baalat of Gebal, the bull head artifacts found near the temple of Baalat of Gebal, the myths of Isis from Ancient Egypt, the myth of her traveling to Gebal to find parts of her husband’s body, the hairdo of Dea Gravida, her clothing and the Ancient Egyptian influence, the soldier’s ex-votos “elongated” hats of Gebal and of Osiris = the Atef Crown.

Some say: the reason why Dea Gravida looks like Isis nursing Horus is because Ancient Egyptian Art influenced the Phoenician Art. I say = EXACTLY – this is where we got this iconography from = transfer occurred. On its own, transfer is meaningless, but when you have in both cases these statuettes made in the same size = easily portable by hand – and in the same time, they are found in both civilizations in big quantities. They are also found in normal and wealthy household ; as well as they were held by Phoenician travelers and trader while they sailed. This cult was widespread and very popular in both civilizations. It was practiced at the same time exactly the same in both civilizations = Ancient Egypt and Phoenicia (I’m talking about pre-dynastic times here, thousands of years before dynastic times).

But Dea Gravida nursing her baby is not the most common type of Dea Gravida statuettes. The most common and most spread design via geographic location and in numbers = quantity; is her seated while being pregnant and putting her hands on her belly. That is the most common design variant of Dea Gravida in Phoenicia and Phoenician colonies. So we cannot say Ancient Egyptian transferred this cult to Phoenicia and established it there. The Dea Gravida nursing her baby is the bridge between Isis nursing Horus and the pregnant Dea Gravida design in Phoenicia. And the reason why her cult was so widespread in both Ancient Egypt and in Phoenician because it represented the Sebetti rulers = mother and child, which used to live in both places = Ancient Egypt for Neith and Phoenicia for the Crown Prince. She stayed with her clan = the Lamassu clan in Ancient Egypt, it’s her territory. When she found out her son was in Phoenician and was attacked by the Evil Lady, she traveled there to personally repeal her. Sebetti rulers are very strong = crazy strong and mighty, so only a Sebetti ruler or someone of their level can repeal another Sebetti ruler’s attack. Since the Crown Prince was very young, the mother stepped in to protect her son. And this is also why and how she came to be the commander of the ThunderBirds = since the Sebetti ruler of the ThunderBirds was still very young and couldn’t lead the military charge of his own warriors = the Eagle warriors, the mother stepped in and became temporarily in charge of the ThunderBird warriors while they were fighting the Horned Serpents. Of course the Lamassu and the Feline clan warriors joined in, as well as the warriors from the other clans whom were still loyal to the Queen of queens and the Crown Prince.

Incredible story, isn’t it? And Dea Gravida is the “proof” in her different variant forms that Neith/Isis is the Queen of queens, mother of the Crown Prince and she traveled to Phoenicia to protect her son from the Evil Lady. This is supported with the text from Mesopotamis of Inanna and Bilulu (page 1 291). According the narration from the Evil Clan Bilulu = Neith, is a thief because she took away from the Evil Couple the throne of Heaven. And Bilulu killed Inanna’s husband just like Neith took charge of the battles against the Horned Serpent warriors. She became the temporary commander of the ThunderBirds in this fight against the Horned Serpents, as well as the temporary commander of the other Sebetti clan warriors, scattered in Ancient Egypt and the Levant area. Since Viracocha was stuck in the Andean region + the King of kings was dead as well as the Evil One + the Crown Prince was still very young + the last remaining Sebetti male rulers was also in another part of the world far away (I will talk about him when I reach that section) = it turns out Neith was the only one left to face the Horned Serpent warriors attack lead by the Evil Lady. It’s a bit strange, but we have 3 Sebetti rulers in one area of the world = the Middle East.

• Page 1 713 –

>>15213150

(Please read from the start)

The Evil Lady hated terribly her younger brother = the Crown Prince. Go back to page 1 289 and re-read once again Inanna’s petition to An to destroy Mount Ebhi. This is her brother she hates and it’s reason why she attacked the Phoenician City-States = he lived there as well along with his clan, his people.

Dea Gravida is the link = the Bridge, which connects all of these points together. I didn’t follow the texts anons. I followed the artifacts and much more, I will be showing them to you. I looked for patterns and links = bridges. I traced back step by step = rewind things with the cult of the Evil Lady using the artifacts from the Middle East aided with maps. The texts and myths are there to support my findings, they confirm them, they are my backup. But they are not the main proof I have = they play a supportive role.

I hope this should be enough for anons about Dea Gravida and this first set of evidences. Of course they are variants of her but it’s there, it’s all there = the main idea is there despite of the details changing a bit. The numbers are here to prove it. If you are not convinced, then please research this yourselves. I’ve given you plenty of clues where to look and what to look for.

Of course I’m not relying on just Dea Gravida to say that the Crown Prince lived in Phoenicia and the Phoenicians are his clan, his people. I’ve already provided a second piece of evidence to anons while talking about Dea Gravida = the “elongated” hat - or as it’s called in Ancient Egypt = the Atef Crown worn by Osiris – is the second one. I bet the Ancient Egyptians and the Phoenicians realized and recognized they were actually blood relatives = one was the place of the mother’s clan, while the other was the place of the child’s clan = which in turn makes them relatives. This explains the close ties between Ancient Egypt and Phoenicia , starting in Pre-dynastic times and all the dynastic times = till the arrival of the Ptolemaic dynasty. And this is yet another reason why most of the Phoenicians sided with Ancient Egypt against the Hittites.

Evidence # 3: Grifin/ Sphinx.

So far, the first evidence I’ve presented to anons is the cult of Neith along with Dea Gravida. The second evidence is the “elongated” hats. These 2 are not enough to say the Crown Prince of Atlantis was in Phoenicia and the Phoenicians were his people, his clan = the ThunderBirds. Let me present to you the third evidence = the Griffin in Phoenicia. We see the Griffin in nearly all types of artifacts there is in Phoenicia and the “design” of the Griffin mutated to become the Sphinx at some point. I’ve already declared that I’ve noticed a pattern worldwide: wherever there is a big volume of Griffin iconography in an area, there is a Sebetti ruler around = living in the area. In Phoenicia, there is a HUGE presence of Griffin iconography, including its mutated form = the Sphinx. We see it appear for a long time on various types of artifacts, it’s the design decorating them. Of course there were other designs for the artifacts, it was not solely = exclusively the Griffin/Sphinx decoration on these artifacts. I’m just saying it was a design widely in use there.

I’m putting samples for anons of a Phoenician plate with Griffin (Egyptian style) depicted on it. As well as Phoenician jewelry piece = a Ring/Seal with it. Another example is the details of the throne of King Ahiram of Gebal/Byblos, where we see him sitting on a throne which was decorated with female Sphinxes = we call them Sphinge in French. Look at the date and look at the Lions heads coming out on the sides of the sarcophagus. Ahiram was the king of the City-States of Gebal, the same City-State where Neith lived for some time and where we have the temple of Baalat of Gebal. Byblos is the Hellenized name of that City-State, while Gebal is the Phoenician one. It’s one of the oldest if not the oldest Phoenician City-State, and I think it’s a couple of thousand years older than what is officially admitted.

• Page 1 714 –

>>15213213

(Please read from the start)

The throne’s design of king Ahiram is identical to the one we see in the temple of Eshmun = the throne of Astarte (page 1 442). We also saw it on page 790 with the relief of Nergal, where we have a female royal sitting on a throne decorated with Griffins. The iconography of the Griffin is not exclusively for the Evil Lady, not in Mesopotamia nor in Ancient Egypt. Whenever there is a Sebetti ruler around, we found the Griffin around. It’s a pattern I’ve noticed. It started with one Lion and one Eagle, at some point they merged and formed the Griffin, which mutated and became the Sphinx design mostly in Phoenicia and Ancient Egypt. I think the chances are high the switch in design from Griffin to Sphinx occurred when the head of the Sphinx of Giza was recarved and it was given a human head during the reign of the Pharraoh Khafre. And this change was copied by the artists in Ancient Egypt and in Phoenicia. It’s just a theory from my part.

On page 2, the third picture is of a Phoenician sarcophagus called the Lycian sarcophagus, found in Sidon. Please take a look at the iconography on the side (small side) of the sarcophagus lid. We have 2 female sphinxes = sphinges, represented on it. This is a Phoenician sarcophagus influenced by Greek art = à la Grecque. This is the sarcophagus of a mysterious royal, which we know nothing about.

In Phoenicia, we have a really big number of different types of artifacts with designs of Griffin or Sphinx on them. I’ve just provided some samples to anons. The best place to find these artifacts would be in Museum catalogues since finding pictures of the artifacts with such design online is hard.

Some may ask why the Sphinx is female on the throne of Ahiram and if it’s because it’s linked to the cult of Astarte. My reply is that Ahiram was the king of Gebal where Neith lived for some time and the Phoenicians of Gebal, mostly the royals knew whom their ancestor was = a female Sebetti ruler. Using the Sphinge = a female Sphinx, not a male one, for decoration of his throne, the king of Gebal is indicating that he is a descendant from the Queen of queens. It’s like Gebal had Neith as a patron deity since she lived there for some time, she became the protective deity of Gebal. The royals of Gebal are pointing that out and they are pointing their ancestry. Gebal is famous for her close ties with Ancient Egypt which lasted for many, MANY centuries = thousands of years. This is not a coincidence.

Some even stretch it a bit too much by advancing the hypothesis that Gebal was founded by Isis, but I really doubt that because despite the big Egyptian influence, Gebal maintained its Phoenician origin, including its name and the names of the kings. It’s clear by studying the artifacts and the excavation site that the earliest civilization there is Phoenician. At some point in time, there is a huge Ancient Egyptian influence, not just in Gebal, but also in the other Phoenician City-States. This Ancient Egyptian influence last in Phoenician for thousands of years, all the way till the arrival of the Persians. As long as Ancient Egypt’s military was strong, its influence lasted in Phoenicia. It’s only with the decline of Ancient Egypt’s might that we see its influence fading in Phoenicia, to be replaced by the newest trend = the Persian trend.

The Phoenicians were never the servants of Ancient Egypt. They had their autonomy and ruled independently despite being many City-States with various kings in them. The Phoenicians never had a HUGE conquering army as that of Ancient Egypt, the Hittites, the Persians etc. Sure, they had soldiers and they participated in wars. Sure, the Phoenician City-States “nagged” one another, mostly during the younger generation. And as stated before, there was also this rivalry = competition among them on which City-State will become the most dominant and influential one among them. So there were some frictions among them here and there, but nothing big scale nor anything fantastic.

• Page 1 715 –

>>15213227

(Please read from the start)

Evidence # 4: Purple dye/color.

So far I’ve presented 3 evidences to anons, the 4th one is the color purple, specifically the purple dye the Phoenicians were famous for. Purple is the color of royalty but why was purple associated to royalty? So let’s take a look at this issue to find out what it’s all about, starting with what the Murex shell is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murex

“Murex is a genus of medium to large sized predatory tropical sea snails. These are carnivorous marine gastropod molluscs in the family Muricidae, commonly called "murexes" or "rock snails".

The common name murex is still used for many species in the family Muricidae which were originally given the Latin generic name Murex in the past, but have more recently been regrouped into different newer genera.

The word murex was used by Aristotle in reference to these kinds of snails, thus making it one of the oldest classical seashell names still in use by the scientific community.

Fossil Records

This genus is known in the fossil records from the Cretaceous to the Quaternary (age range: from 125.45 to 0.0 million years ago). Fossils of species within this genus have been found all over the world. There are about 25 known extinct species.”

>> Fossils of species within this genus were found all over the world = remember there was a Flood as part of a Great Cataclysm.

“[…]

Human Use

Costly and labor-intensive dyes Tyrian purple (or royal purple) and tekhelet were historically made by the ancient Phoenicians and Jews respectively, using mucus from the hypobranchial gland of two species commonly referred to as "murex", Murex brandaris and Murex trunculus, which are the older names for Haustellum brandaris (Bolinus brandaris) and Hexaplex trunculus (Phyllonatus trunculus). This dye is a rare animal-produced organobromine compound, which the snails make using a specific bromoperoxidase enzyme that operates on dissolved bromide in sea water.

>> (((They))) insert the Jews in this as well. See the pattern anons? Let me inform you that the Murex seashell was used to extract Purple/Reddish by the Phoenician thousands of years before there was something called Jews. But (((they))) don’t tell you that. Instead, the way (((they))) write such paragraphs is to associate the Jews to a discovery/ an exceptional feature = creating purple dye. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, as long as it’s something exceptional, remarkable in the History of mankind, they glue the Jews to it so that your mind would associate the great discovery to them and not the Phoenicians. This is part of the programing. I’ve said this before: the Jews and their nobility = the Bloodlines want what the Phoenicians have and (((they))) wanna be what the Phoenicians are. This is why (((they))) appropriate everything that is originally Phoenician, stealing their culture and their identity and making it, twisting it, pretending it’s (((their))) own. (((They))) take what is Phoenicians, twist it and present it to the world as being originally (((theirs))). And sometimes, (((they))) copy them, imitate them while (((they))) project (((their))) own crimes and (((their))) own evil doings onto the Phoenicians = accusing them of the crimes (((they))) committed (((themselves))).

“This dye was used in royal robes, other kinds of special ceremonial or ritual garments, or garments indicating high rank. It is hypothesised that the dye was the same dye as that which featured prominently in the ancient Temple in Jerusalem, the clothing of the High Priest (or Kohen Gadol) officiating there; it is sometimes still used by Jews today in the ritual fringes (tzitzit) on four-cornered garments. A consensus has yet to be reached regarding the Biblical source of the "blue" dye.

[…]”

• Page 1 716 –

>>15219062

(Please read from the start)

>> See, (((they))) are doing it AGAIN = inserting Judaism and the Jews when talking about royalty and the Phoenicians. Why not give an example from a Canaanite temple or from the Roman times or from Mesopotamia or from Ancient Egypt? See what I mean? It’s always Jews, Jews, Jews….and let’s link it to the temple to make the sheep happy. This is very important. (((They))) use this psychological projection and association methods to claim (((their))) royalty. But not just any royalty = a very special royalty. (((They))) thing is(((they))) take whatever is Phoenician and make it (((theirs))) then (((they))) can become the Clan of the King of kings and make the Evil Couple the ruling Royal Couple; as in convincing we = the public, that the Evil One is the King of kings. (((They))) are imitators, copycats of the original, but (((they))) also add (((their))) twisted religion and ideology in it.

So here, they are saying it very clearly = purple is the color used by the people higher in rank = royalty, nobility and those whom hold high positions like chief priest etc. This is very important because this is hinting at what the Sebetti and their entourage used to wear before the Fall of Atlantis.

Then there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolinus_brandaris

“Bolinus brandaris (originally called Murex brandaris by Linnaeus and also Haustellum brandaris), and commonly known as the purple dye murex or the spiny dye-murex, is a species of medium-sized predatory sea snail, an edible marine gastropod mollusk in the family Muricidae, the murex snails or the rock snails.

This species is known in the fossil record from the Pliocene (age range: from 3.6 to 2.588 million years ago). Fossil shells of this species have been found in Cyprus, Spain and Italy. It was used by the Phoenicians in ancient times to extract imperial Tyrian purple dye.”

>> So this specific seashell also called Murex brandaris was found in other parts of the Mediterranean Sea: like in Spain, Italy and Cyprus. And yet, the purple dye was solely extracted by the Phoenicians. Doesn’t this have a meaning behind it?

“Distribution and habitat

This snail lives in the central and western parts of the Mediterranean Sea and has been found on isolated coral atoll beaches in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. It was known since ancient times as a source for purple dye and also as a popular food source under various names, among which sconciglio, from which comes the word scungilli. This species lives on rocks in shallow water.”

>> And yet, the Phoenicians live in the EAST part of the Mediteranean Sea, not the West and they were the ONLY ONES whom managed to extract and use the dye.

“Human use

This species, like many other species in the family Muricidae, can produce a secretion which is milky and without color when fresh but which turns into a powerful and lasting dye when exposed to the air. This was the mollusc species used by the ancients to produce Tyrian purple fabric dye.

Sea snails of the species Banded dye-murex Hexaplex trunculus were also used to produce a purple-blue or indigo dye. In both cases, the mollusks secrete the dye in the mucus of their hypobranchial glands.”

• Page 1 717 –

>>15219074

(Please read from the start)

“In Spain, and more specifically on the Mediterranean coast and the Gulf of Cádiz, they are called cañaílla, and are appreciated as food.

It is a cannibalistic species; evidence suggests that intensive breeding by the ancient Minoans resulted in pierced shells, perhaps by other snails, due to the population density in breeding tanks.

[…]”

>> Isn’t Greece in the East part of the Mediterranean Sea as well? Let me say it clearly = the Murex Brandaris was all over the Mediterranean See, and not just located in some parts of it. And yet, ONLY the Phoenicians had the knowledge and the patience to extract the Purple dye from it. Anyone wondering why? Like why hasn’t Ancient Egypt also extracted this rare, precious purple dye from the Murex Brandaris?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple

“Tyrian purple (Ancient Greek: πορφύρα porphúra; Latin: purpura), also known as Phoenician red, Phoenician purple, royal purple, imperial purple, or imperial dye, is a reddish-purple natural dye; the name Tyrian refers to Tyre, Lebanon. It is a secretion produced by several species of predatory sea snails in the family Muricidae, rock snails originally known by the name 'Murex'. In ancient times, extracting this dye involved tens of thousands of snails and substantial labor, and as a result, the dye was highly valued. The main chemical is 6,6′-dibromoindigo.

Background

Biological pigments were often difficult to acquire, and the details of their production were kept secret by the manufacturers. Tyrian purple is a pigment made from the mucus of several species of Murex snail. Production of Tyrian purple for use as a fabric dye began as early as 1200 BCE by the Phoenicians, and was continued by the Greeks and Romans until 1453 CE, with the fall of Constantinople. The pigment was expensive and complex to produce, and items colored with it became associated with power and wealth.”

>> This is correct. It was not easy to extract and create that color. The production details were kept very secretive. It wasn’t even shared with Ancient Egypt despite the Phoenicians have extremely close ties with them. I think the production of the purple dye is much much older than what is admitted here. Let’s say I’m suspecting it is. And I’m really curious to know how the Greeks then the Romans got their hands on the well-kept secrets in the production of this dye? Could they have gotten the secret information from the “stolen” Phoenician archives? Or was it infiltrated spies? And…once more….why is this dye was exclusively Phoenician? Why the formula was kept secretive? Was it truly as some claim? = to monopolize the market? Or was there something else behind all of this?

• Page 1 718 –

>>15224296

(Please read from the start)

“Tyrian purple may first have been used by the ancient Phoenicians as early as 1570 BCE. It has been suggested that the name Phoenicia itself means 'land of purple'. The dye was greatly prized in antiquity because the colour did not easily fade, but instead became brighter with weathering and sunlight. It came in various shades, the most prized being that of black-tinted clotted blood.”

>> As I’ve just said, I’m suspecting the usage of the purple dye is much much older than the date given to us. The Greeks named the people living on the East coast of the Mediterranean Sea as Phoenicians. In the Etymology of the word, there is the “Red” component, just this same component exist in the etymology of the word Phoenix = the Bird of fire. This doesn’t mean both words are one and the same. This means that one people = the Greeks referred to 2 different things using the color Red.

“Because it was extremely difficult to make, Tyrian purple was expensive: the 4th century BCE historian Theopompus reported, "Purple for dyes fetched its weight in silver at Colophon" in Asia Minor. The expense meant that purple-dyed textiles became status symbols, whose use was restricted by sumptuary laws. The most senior Roman magistrates wore a toga praetexta, a white toga edged with a stripe of Tyrian purple. The even more sumptuous toga picta, solid Tyrian purple with a gold stripe, was worn by generals celebrating a Roman triumph.”

>> “The purple-dyed textiles became status symbols”. It was during the Greek period, but mostly during the Roman period that the “Bloodlines” took = stole the “meaning” of the purple color and made it (((their))) symbol. Because (((they))) understand what it means, what it really means.

“By the fourth century CE, sumptuary laws in Rome had been tightened so much that only the Roman emperor was permitted to wear Tyrian purple. As a result, 'purple' is sometimes used as a metonym for the office (e.g. the phrase 'donned the purple' means 'became emperor'). The production of Tyrian purple was tightly controlled in the succeeding Byzantine Empire and subsidized by the imperial court, which restricted its use for the colouring of imperial silks. Later (9th century) a child born to a reigning emperor was said to be porphyrogenitos, "born in the purple".

>> For the Bloodlines the purple dyed clothes have 2 meanings = it’s symbolic of “special” Royalty in Atlantis. And it also reflects (((their))) purple blood, literally purple blood cause by the McLeod Syndrome.

“Some speculate that the dye extracted from the Bolinus brandaris is known as argaman (ארגמן) in Biblical Hebrew. Another dye extracted from a related sea snail, Hexaplex trunculus, produced a blue colour after light exposure which could be the one known as tekhelet (תְּכֵלֶת), used in garments worn for ritual purposes.”

>> “Some”?! Whom are these “Some”? See how (((they))) try to insert the Jews in it once more. It MAY BE, it’s NOT SURE, but let’s just glue it to the Phoenician making a purple dye, despite what the Jews produced was Blue (supposedly). (((They))) truly like to ride on the coattail of the Phoenicians. Even if it turned out to be true the Jews used to produce a Blue color dye, it wasn’t as old as what the Phoenicians did. The Jewish “supposed culture” started to show somewhere in the first millennium BC, but the Phoenician culture and civilization was there since at least 7 thousand BC. There are at least 6 to 5 thousand years of difference and the Phoenicians are way much older than the Jewish culture. The Jews copied, imitated or stole what the Phoenician had and whom they were.

• Page 1 719 –

>>15224316

(Please read from the start)

Don’t forget, (((they))) are copycats whom added (((their))) twisted logic and religion on top of everything.

“Production from Sea Snails

[…]

In nature, the snails use the secretion as part of their predatory behaviour in order to sedate prey and as an antimicrobial lining on egg masses. The snail also secretes this substance when it is attacked by predators, or physically antagonized by humans (e.g., poked). Therefore, the dye can be collected either by "milking" the snails, which is more labour-intensive but is a renewable resource, or by collecting and destructively crushing the snails. David Jacoby remarks that "twelve thousand snails of Murex brandaris yield no more than 1.4 g of pure dye, enough to colour only the trim of a single garment.”

>> That’s an insane amount of work.

“Many other species worldwide within the family Muricidae, for example Plicopurpura pansa, from the tropical eastern Pacific, and Plicopurpura patula from the Caribbean zone of the western Atlantic, can also produce a similar substance (which turns into an enduring purple dye when exposed to sunlight) and this ability has sometimes also been historically exploited by local inhabitants in the areas where these snails occur. (Some other predatory gastropods, such as some wentletraps in the family Epitoniidae, seem to also produce a similar substance, although this has not been studied or exploited commercially.) The dog whelk Nucella lapillus, from the North Atlantic, can also be used to produce red-purple and violet dyes.”

>> So other parts of the world made a similar reddish dye using seashells but it was only the one made by the Phoenicians that was prized because it was purple.

“Royal blue

The Phoenicians also made a deep blue-colored dye, sometimes referred to as royal blue or hyacinth purple, which was made from a closely related species of marine snail.

The Phoenicians established an ancillary production facility on the Iles Purpuraires at Mogador, in Morocco. The sea snail harvested at this western Moroccan dye production facility was Hexaplex trunculus also known by the older name Murex trunculus.

This second species of dye murex is found today on the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts of Europe and Africa (Spain, Portugal, Morocco).”

>> Looks like the Phoenicians also produced the blue dye, but let’s just attribute it to the Jews, shall we? Having a production facility in Morocco shows 2 things: 1 – how far the Phoenician colonies reached – 2 – the blue dye had reached mass industrialized production levels.

• Page 1 720 –

>>15230493

(Please read from the start)

“History

The colour-fast (non-fading) dye was an item of luxury trade, prized by Romans, who used it to colour ceremonial robes. Used as a dye, the color shifts from blue (peak absorption at 590 nm, which is yellow-orange) to reddish-purple (peak absorption at 520 nm, which is green). It is believed that the intensity of the purple hue improved rather than faded as the dyed cloth aged. Vitruvius mentions the production of Tyrian purple from shellfish. In his History of Animals, Aristotle described the shellfish from which Tyrian purple was obtained and the process of extracting the tissue that produced the dye. Pliny the Elder described the production of Tyrian purple in his Natural History:

The most favourable season for taking these [shellfish] is after the rising of the Dog-star, or else before spring; for when they have once discharged their waxy secretion, their juices have no consistency: this, however, is a fact unknown in the dyers' workshops, although it is a point of primary importance. After it is taken, the vein [i.e. hypobranchial gland] is extracted, which we have previously spoken of, to which it is requisite to add salt, a sextarius [about 20 fl. oz.] to every hundred pounds of juice. It is sufficient to leave them to steep for a period of three days, and no more, for the fresher they are, the greater virtue there is in the liquor. It is then set to boil in vessels of tin [or lead], and every hundred amphorae ought to be boiled down to five hundred pounds of dye, by the application of a moderate heat; for which purpose the vessel is placed at the end of a long funnel, which communicates with the furnace; while thus boiling, the liquor is skimmed from time to time, and with it the flesh, which necessarily adheres to the veins. About the tenth day, generally, the whole contents of the cauldron are in a liquefied state, upon which a fleece, from which the grease has been cleansed, is plunged into it by way of making trial; but until such time as the colour is found to satisfy the wishes of those preparing it, the liquor is still kept on the boil. The tint that inclines to red is looked upon as inferior to that which is of a blackish hue. The wool is left to lie in soak for five hours, and then, after carding it, it is thrown in again, until it has fully imbibed the colour.”

>> Dog-Star is Sirius. This is a detailed description of the process.

“Archaeological data from Tyre indicate that the snails were collected in large vats and left to decompose. This produced a hideous stench that was actually mentioned by ancient authors. Not much is known about the subsequent steps, and the actual ancient method for mass-producing the two murex dyes has not yet been successfully reconstructed; this special "blackish clotted blood" colour, which was prized above all others, is believed to be achieved by double-dipping the cloth, once in the indigo dye of H. trunculus and once in the purple-red dye of B. brandaris.”

>> No one was able to replicate one of the shades, the most prized one.

“The Roman mythographer Julius Pollux, writing in the 2nd century CE, asserted (Onomasticon I, 45–49) that the purple dye was first discovered by the philosopher Heracles of Tyre, or rather, by his dog, whose mouth was stained purple from chewing on snails along the coast at Tyre. This story was depicted by Peter Paul Rubens in his painting Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye. According to John Malalas, the incident happened during the reign of the legendary King Phoenix of Tyre, the eponymous progenitor of the Phoenicians, and therefore he was the first ruler to wear Tyrian purple and legislate on its use.”

>> This is just a “fairy tale” version written in later dates, just like it was the case with the story of Elissa.

• Page 1 721 –

>>15230501

(Please read from the start)

“Recently, the archaeological discovery of substantial numbers of Murex shells on Crete suggests that the Minoans may have pioneered the extraction of Imperial purple centuries before the Tyrians. Dating from collocated pottery suggests the dye may have been produced during the Middle Minoan period in the 20th–18th century BCE. Accumulations of crushed murex shells from a hut at the site of Coppa Nevigata in southern Italy may indicate production of purple dye there from at least the 18th century BCE.”

>> This is written with the assumption the Phoenician invented the dye somewhere in the first millennium B.C. without considering the possibility this could actually thousands of years old. Also there are indications that some of the Greek islands were initially Phoenician colonies Don’t disregard the possibility of southern Italy being a territory run by the Phoenicians, long ago.

“The production of Murex purple for the Byzantine court came to an abrupt end with the sack of Constantinople in 1204, the critical episode of the Fourth Crusade. David Jacoby concludes that "no Byzantine emperor nor any Latin ruler in former Byzantine territories could muster the financial resources required for the pursuit of murex purple production. On the other hand, murex fishing and dyeing with genuine purple are attested for Egypt in the tenth to 13th centuries." By contrast, Jacoby finds that there are no mentions of purple fishing or dyeing, nor trade in the colorant in any Western source, even in the Frankish Levant. The European West turned instead to vermilion provided by the insect Kermes vermilio, known as grana, or crimson.

In 1909, Harvard anthropologist Zelia Nuttall compiled an intensive comparative study on the historical production of the purple dye produced from the carnivorous murex snail, source of the royal purple dye valued higher than gold in the ancient Near East and ancient Mexico. Not only did the people of ancient Mexico use the same methods of production as the Phoenicians, they also valued murex-dyed cloth above all others, as it appeared in codices as the attire of nobility. "Nuttall noted that the Mexican murex-dyed cloth bore a "disagreeable … strong fishy smell, which appears to be as lasting as the color itself." Likewise, the ancient Egyptian Papyrus of Anastasi laments: "The hands of the dyer reek like rotting fish …" So pervasive was this stench that the Talmud specifically granted women the right to divorce any husband who became a dyer after marriage.

In 2021, archaeologists found surviving wool fibers dyed with royal purple in the Timna Valley in Israel. The find, which was dated to c. 1000 BCE, constituted the first direct evidence of fabric dyed with the pigment from antiquity.”

>> It’s very interesting isn’t it to find out almost the same exact dye was produced in Mexico. Not said which civilization or culture did it, but I found out it was practiced in the region called Oaxana. They used almost same sea snails, same technique, same secret. And the value of the purple dye clothing was as high as what it was in the Mediterranean basin. It was also worn by “high ranking” people there. What does this tell you anons?

For the papyri from Ancient Egypt, it talks about dyers in general, it doesn’t specify at all which dye color they worked on. Same thing goes for the stuff mentioned about the Jews. And (((they))) have to insert (((themselves))) in this one more time. From the hundreds of examples out there, Wikipedia only picked purple fibers found in Israel, not from anywhere else in the world. This is how (((they))) play with your mind and program it to think of the Jews and Israel each time you think of the pruple dye. This is so that your mind would connect them to royalty = redirecting your thoughts into thinking of the Jews as royalty. It’s all a mind game anons. All of this is very psychological. Mind control and thought manipulation = this is what the Jews are good at and (((they))) have been at it for at least 2 thousand years now.

• Page 1 722 –

>>15237034

(Please read from the start)

“Murex purple production in North Africa

Murex purple was a very important industry in many Phoenician territories and Carthage was no exception. Traces of this once very lucrative industry are still visible in many Punic sites such as Kerkouane, Zouchis, Djerba and even in Carthage itself. According to Pliny, Meninx (today's Djerba) produced the best purple in Africa which was also ranked second only after Tyre's. It was found also at Essaouira (Morocco). The Royal purple or Imperial purplewas probably used until the time of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) and before the demise of the Roman Empire.”

>> What are the odds almost each and every single one of those purple dye producing facility we have all around the Med Sea are Phoenicians? Since they monopolized the secret formula for the dye…they must have dominated the trade in the entire Med basin. Also isn’t it strange that the formula remaind a secret despite so many facilities….until the Romans came?

“Dye chemistry

[…]

In 1998, by means of a lengthy trial and error process, an English engineer named John Edmonds rediscovered a process for dyeing with Tyrian purple. He researched recipes and observations of dyers from the 15th century to the 18th century and explored the biotechnology process behind woad fermentation. After collaborating with a chemist, Edmonds hypothesized that an alkaline fermenting vat was necessary. He studied an incomplete ancient recipe for Tyrian purple recorded by Pliny the Elder. By altering the percentage of sea salt in the dye vat and adding potash, he was able to successfully dye wool a deep purple colour.

Recent research in organic electronics has shown that Tyrian purple is an ambipolar organic semiconductor. Transistors and circuits based on this material can be produced from sublimed thin-films of the dye. The good semiconducting properties of the dye originate from strong intermolecular hydrogen bonding that reinforces pi stacking necessary for transport.

[…]”

>> I don’t know about you anons, but for me, the formula and method of dye indicates advanced knowledge. This shows the Phoenicians knew the biology of the Murex and they knew the chemical reactions of the dye, including if affected by the light. This is pushing me to believe this is ancient knowledge, like Atlantean knowledge – and not just some random discovery.

Like it or not this specific purple dye is called TYRIAN dye because it was believed to have originated from that City-State. The truth is, other Phoenician City-States also produced it as some point in time; and we have a confirmation Sidon did. But it seems that the dye production of Tyre was the biggest and largest one around and with time it over shadowed the other Phoenician City-States; which might have gradualy dropped/abandon the production, making Tyre mostly (Sidon a bit too) the dominant Phoenician City-State producing the purple dye. Remember the Phoenician City-States were rivals and they competed with one another over dominance and number 1 spot.

It is also very clear that the Phoenicians opened a lot of purple dye “facilities” all around the Med Sea, in their colonies. I think the choice = picking which colony produced purple dye was most probably due to the quantity of Murex shells and what type = color of dye, the seashells produced in that region. It was not a random selection as to where the dye facilities were opened which indicates the Phoenicians knew their environement well and utilized it for their benefit.

• Page 1 723 –

>>15237078

(Please read from the start)

It’s also clear that the production of the purple dye by the Phoenicians is very very old but it’s not admitted = it remains stuck in (((their))) throats and cannot come out. I’m sure that place in South Italy, dating back from 18th century B.C. was a Phoenician center = because the Phoenicians kept the formula secret and no one else managed to re-create that same purple coloring, until the Romans stole it many centuries later. So for a center of purple dye with the same coloring was found in South Italy it must be Phoenician because they were the only ones with the formula. The FACT the Phoenicians monopolized the formula pushes me to say that all the facilities around the Med Sea making this purple dye were Phoenicians despite it not being admitted by the Main Stream History. I’m talking way before the first millennium here, way before the Romans and the Greeks showed up.

To create a dye facility in a colony, you must create the colony first, build, have enough people in it to work on providing food and defend it. Since the dye was so prized, the city-state producing it must have had a strong military unit in order to defend it in case someone tried to rob the place. Of course, to establish these, it needs time. Establish the dye facility also needed time to start producing because time was needed to “grow/breed” the Murex shells in big quantities and then it was also very time consuming to extract the dye from the seashell. So this didn’t happen in a decade or 2 anons. To become a purple dye producer, it takes time. And it takes an even longer time to establish a colony and create enough man power to feed it and defend it.

All of these are indications that the production of purple dye in Southern Italy by the Phoenicians was older than 1800 B.C. This knowledge was brought by the new settlers from Phoenicia Motherland to the new colony, no matter where it is established. This means, the Phoenician Motherland must have mastered the dye extraction and production way for quite some time before establishing a new colony. This also indicates that a scouting process took place to find the needed spot with enough quantity of Murex to be able to produce the dye in big numbers. Scouting needs time and it results in finding many sites. So a selection process also took place once the scouting was over to select the most convenient spot to build a new colony producing the purple dye. This cannot be done in a flash = overnight. It takes time. This is why I say the purple dye extraction by the Phoenicians is much older and it probably dates back more since they established it first on the Eastern Coast of the Med Sea.

Please take a look at this: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/kaunakes/

“[…]

Additional evidence of the importance of wool fabric comes from archaeology. An excavation of the tomb of a queen from Ur (c. 2600 B.C.E.) included fragments of bright red wool fabric thought to be from the queen’s garments. Evidence for costume in this region comes from depictions of humans on engraved seals, devotional, or votive statuettes of worshipers, a few wall paintings, and statues and relief carvings of military and political leaders.” (51-59).”

>> Do you recognize whom we are talking about here? This is the Sumerian queen Puabi whom we’ve already mentioned in page 54. If anons could read the whole article from the link, it would be great.

• Page 1 724 –

>>15241998

(Please read from the start)

Two notables to talk about here:

1 – The color red of her clothing: The fibers/clothing found in her tombs dates back to 2600 B.C. and they are red exactly as the seated royalty on the Nergal relief (page 790). I would like to caution anons about the shade of the red in both cases. It might NOT be as bright as what you see now because these artifacts were exposed to the “elements” = wind, sun, earth, moister, water etc. So the shade we see right now, might be a bit different than what it was originally.

Both are queens in Mesopotamia and both wore RED. This indicates that ever since the Sumerian times, it was worn by royalty. The Sumerian royals did not wear purple, but red. Red is the closest thing there is to purple, along with blue. Actually purple is the combination of red and blue. This indicates that the Sumerians were not acquainted with purple dye. But they know the red one and since it’s the closest thing they can produce to purple, their royalty wore red. And there are no Murex seashells in Mesopotamia since it’s a desert and it has a small access to a coast in the South of Mesopotamia = cannot find big quantities of Murex shells.

2 – Anyone noticed the Sumerian wore wool? Do you realize what this means? Can you wear WOOL in a desert country? Do you even know how boiling hot it is in Iraq? It’s like a furnace out there, mostly during summer. Don’t you find it ODD to wear wool in that furnace like climate? Wool is worn in cold climate. The Sumerians had access to linen as written in the link but it was not used for clothing. This indicates the Sumerians were “used” of wearing wool. To have such a “habit” and not let go easily of it despite living in a hot climate means this “habit” is deeply imbedded in the Sumerians.

Do you find it logical for anyone to wear wool in a desert? For it to be logical, wool must be worn in a COLD climate. Cold weather is the reason Sumerians used it to make clothes out of it. This indicates the Sumerians used to live in a cold climate “before” they migrated to Mesopotamia. And since they didn’t let go of this “habit” and they kept using it while living in a desert. If I combine the use of the Kuphar and everything I’ve talked about, then this puts the Sumerian in the East Taurus mountains chain = where the weather is cold = this why they used to wear clothes made of wool = they came from the mountains. And from there, we can retrace the route via the Euphrates River all the way up Mount Ararat where the Ark rested. Studying the trade routes from Armenia sure came in handy for the old man. ^_^

Now let’s take a look at Ancient Egypt: that is another country with a huge desert crossed by a big river = the Nile. So it’s another furnace there. What do the people in Ancient Egypt wear = linen clothing (mostly for the nobility and royalty). Using linen to make clothing in hot climate is very logical and a natural thing to do as linen keeps the body cool. And what is the color of the clothing used in Ancient Egypt? = WHITE. It’s to keep the heat and sunlight bounces off the white color while it’s absorbed by black color. This is why the houses in Santorini are all painted with white by the way.

The reader already know that Neith = the Queen of queens was settled in Ancient Egypt = lived there. But why can’t we see any royal from Ancient Egypt wearing purple? We know they were in a very good relationship with Phoenicia for thousands of years and yet, not even their royalty wore Purple in Ancient Egypt.

As I’ve stated before, Red was worn in Mesopotamia by royals. It’s the closest thing there is to the color purple. And we also know that the Evil Lady resettled in Mesopotamia after she first lived in the East of the Taurus Mountain chain.

• Page 1 725 –

>>15242027

(Please read from the start)

Both Neith and the Evil Lady are Sebetti royals. But one is showing her royalty via dressing in Red (in Mesopotamia) while Neith is not flaunting her royalty and is not wearing red or purple. Throughout History the color purple is famous for being worn by all the kings and queens – including nobility and the high religious figures, worldwide. Here is a quick read about it: www.pheniciens.com/articles/pourpre.php?lang=en

“Between legend and reality, purple has always been linked, in one way or another, to the Phoenicians, it contributed to their reputation. Some historians reported that the Greeks gave them the name of Phoenician (Greek phoenix) in relation to the purple color, which they had made as one of their principal specialties.

The legend tells that the discovery of the purple was attributed to the god Melqart Heracles. While he was walking on the beach with the nymph Tyros, his dog found a Murex and munched on it. Its jaws tinged purple color. The nymph admired the color and asked the God to offer her a cloth with such a beautiful color. In order to please his sweetheart, Melqart, ordered to collect the seashells and to prepare a tincture of this crimson color, and make a dyed tunic witch delight the heart of the nymph.

From an archaeological point of view, the old remains of the dye-works discovered on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, proved that the purple dye industry existed there since ancient times. In 1934, François Thureau-Dangin (1872-1944), archaeologist and French epigraphist published a cuneiform text from Ugarit, which stipulated that in about 3500 years ago, a local merchant noted the quantity of purple wool owed to him by some persons, who appear to be dyers. Such texts lead us to think that the wool was distributed to the dyers in order to be colored, and then recuperated by merchants who resold it locally or exported it. Those commercial transactions indicate the presence of the purple industry on the Canaanite coast in the middle of the second millennium BC.”

>> We’ve already seen all of this information but here it’s more details and explained in a better way. This is why I’m putting it. B.M.C. = British Museum Catalogue.

“In written documents, testimonials about purple great value are numerous and varied. Two biblical texts talk about it: Chronicles 2: 2-14: "Hiram Abi, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and a Tyrian father, skilful to work in gold, silver, brass and iron, stone and wood, and with purple and blue …". Or Chronicles 2: 3-14: "He made the veil of blue and purple and crimson yarn and fine linen, with cherubim worked into it". Through these two examples, it is important to emphasize that the impact of the Phoenician craftsmen, since the first millennium BC, has been recognized and was very important in ancient times.”

>> Everyone think the Phoenician were great craftsmen, but they place this skill in the first millennium B.C. What if this was earlier, much earlier but kept hidden on purpose?

• Page 1 726 –

>>15247589

(Please read from the start)

“In Assyrian registers, a mural inscription, from the eighth century BC, mentions this wool in the tributes list of an Assyrian king. Under the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-721 BC), the Phoenician cities added rich clothing in purple, with the precious gifts in gold and silver, sent to the Assyrian monarchs.

During the Persian period (550-330 BC), only kings were worthy to dress with purple fabrics. After the conquest of Egypt, Cambyses, king of Persia, prepared an expedition, in 525 BC, against Ethiopia. Herodotus relates that he dispatched spies, "the fish eaters, with gifts of which a purple coat, a collar and braided gold bracelets, and alabaster box containing incense with an earthenware jar filled with palm wine. The king of Ethiopia was suspicious of Cambyses. Seizing the purple garment, he was curious as to how it was manufactured. When he learned the truth about the purple dye, he says that these people, as well as their clothes, were full of guile"

In the beginning of Roman times, the prerogative of wearing the purple was extended to senators and priests, becoming the symbol of power or high dignity. Plutarch in the Life of Aratus narrates about "the priest of Aratus, who (during sacrificial ceremonies) wore a headband, not pure white but purple and white". Plutarch also mentions the purple color in the Life of Romulus: "And many were the people who came together, while he (Romulus ) himself sat in front, among his chief men, clad in purple", and by reporting the criticism against him, "to renounce his popular ways, and to change to the ways of a monarch, (…). For he dressed in a scarlet tunic, and wore over it a toga bordered with purple".

Pliny the Elder (AD 23 – AD 79), in the ninth book of his Natural History, describes the splendor and luxury represented by the purple. "In Asia the best purple is that of Tyre, […]. It is for this color that the fasces and the axes of Rome make way in the crowd; it is this that asserts the majesty of childhood; it is this that distinguishes the senator from the man of equestrian rank; by persons arrayed in this color are prayers”.

At the time of Nero, the capital punishment was imposed, with confiscation of properties, for those who would dress, or even buy, the imperial purple. In Constantinople, the emperor's bedroom was painted with purple color, and his son, who was born in this room, enjoyed the prestige of having the nickname of Porphyrogenitus: "born in the purple".

The scarcity of murex provoked the disappearance of the manufacturing techniques of the purple dye, but this color remains, to the present day, a sign of magnificence. The cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church keep the privilege to wear the purple color.

[…]”

>> This is a good summary of historical events where the Phoenician purple is mentioned and in the same time, it’s provides a good list of Ancient Sources for anons researching. They did the work for me here.

We know the Bloodlines are the ones throughout History whom wore purple as a sign of (((their))) royal status. The purple blood is also what’s running in (((their))) veins because of the McLeod Syndrome. But let’s go back to the origins: The Evil Lady and the descendants of the Evil Couple wore at first red in Mesopotamia as it is attested by Nergal relief (page 790) but when (((they))) got (((their))) hands onto the Tyrian purple dye industry starting with the Greeks and mostly during the Roman times, (((they))) forbade anyone else from wearing that color and wore it exclusively since then. In recent times we see them mostly wearing it during coronations, or big importqnt events for (((them))). We even saw it worn during Killary’s concession speech. I just love how she looks like she’s got a rat stuck in her throat in this picture. And we also know the clergy wear purple or shades of it, mostly high ranking clergy. We know this is a way for the Bloodlines to assert (((their))) royal blood and flaunt it. As for (((their))) minions, they wear it to confirm their loyalty to their bloodline masters.

• Page 1 727 –

>>15247605

(Please read from the start)

We’ve seen many examples already about the Bloodlines hating the Phoenicians/Carthaginians in this thread and trying to destroy them. This includes Lilith = the Evil Lady personally going to attack the Phoenician City-States. If the Bloodlines hated the Phoenicians to a point that their founding queen = the Mother of Demons, personally had to travel to attack the Phoenician City-States, then why adopt a color that was “created” by the Phoenicians? Why switch from the Red (((they))) used to wear in Mesopotamia to Phoenician purple? I don’t think it’s because the color was rare. If that was the case then purple would have been the color worn by the rulers of Ancient Egypt during both pre-dynastic and dynastic times. It’s important to remind anons how close was the relationship between Ancient Egypt and Phoenicia. But the Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt never wore purple during the dynastic times = for thousands of years. As for Mesopotamia = Sumerians, they could have simply bought the purple fabrics and worn them. The red color being worn by the Evil Lady is projected in the movie Dracula where Lucy wears red (page 1 215).

So how does the old man explain this? How does the old man explain the Bloodlines “kidnaped” / “hijacked” the purple color and made it theirs? Why did the Bloodline switch from the Red (((their))) ancestors and founding queen used to wear while being in Mesopotamia, to the Phoenician purple? Why didn’t the Ancient Egyptians do that since Neith used to live there? Why no one was able to produce that purple apart the Phoenicians? Are all of these factors linked together? I believe they are anons.

I believe this is not SIMPLY connected to royalty and royal blood. I believe this goes a notch further up: Purple is the color of the King of kings. It was worn by Him.

The Evil Couple, by doing the coup and killing the King of kings consider themselves as the Royal Couple of Atlantis. Since the Evil One, in his delusional megalomaniac mind used to think he is the next King of kings, then he considered everything that the Great King is, to be actually him and his. The Evil One considered in his dellusiona mind that the throne and all of the characteristic, powers, epithets, even the clothing of the Great King are his. In other words, the Evil One considered he was the only one whom was allowed to wear the color of the King of kings = purple. He projected whom the Great King was onto him during in his twisted delusions. We’ve already seen this in this thread and talked about it and how the younger generation confused both of them and merged them, thinking they were one person because of this projection and delusion the Evil Clan still carried, starting with the Evil One.

This is also applied to the color purple = only the King of kings wore purple. Purple was the color = sign = symbol of His kingship on everything and everyone, including the other Sebetti rulers. The Evil One thought this was his color now since he imagined himself as the king of kings. It’s this ideology that he passed on to his followers = projected himself in this image to his followers and to the Evil Lady. The Evil One died but his followers and the Evil Lady as their head, kept this ideology = this doctrine and applied it to themselves. As in, in (((their))) twisted and delusional minds, the descendants of the Evil Couple see themselves, consider, believe (((they))) are the rightful heirs to the throne of Heaven. (((They))) see themselves as the top royal whom rules above all. (((They))) see themselves as the masters of the Universe. While (((their))) people = the clan members see themselves as the Chosen People of god = (((their))) god = the Evil One. (((their))) people see the Evil One as god, creator of life and the light of the world. (((They))) take whom the Great King was and give those attributes to the Evil One whom wanted to be the Great King. This is why he is a FAKE god = Yahweh. The real God never reveals His name. The Bloodlines truly, TRULY, believe purple symbolize (((their))) powers because (((they))) believe (((they))) are the rightful heirs to the Throne of Heaven.

• Page 1 728 –

>>15252270

(Please read from the start)

So what happened here: The Evil Lady and her direct descendants used to wear Red while they were in Mesopotamia and this was passed on to the younger generation regardless of which side they belonged to (good or bad) as a sign of being a royal = locally, it was a royal privilege. The younger generation only understand this is an exclusive color belonging only to the one whom sits on the throne – any throne. It was a symbol of his status. The younger generation in Mesopotamia thought ANY royal could and should wear Red to point to his higher status than the average commoner.

As an example from Hollywood, I’m going to give you the movie Black Panter again where we can see Zuri as a high priest wear it. The flower which provides the kings of Wakanda their powers is a purple flower which is prepared by the High priest Zuri as a pruple liquid, drank by the young king. It’s this liquid drank during a ritual which gives the new king his Black Panther powers.

The King of kings was the King-Priest of Atlantis. He held the highest position in both politics = government and in religion. This is why we see the high ranking clergy wear purple robes as well. At first the system of King-Priest was still observed and was in use in the entire world. Until at some point in time, they separated and the religious power was filled in by another person that the one holding the political power. Initially, they were held by one person = the King-Priest whom was none other than the King of kings.

The descendants of the Evil Couple couldn’t replicate that shade of color = purple when they were in Mesopotamia despite the presence of fish-men = the spiritual healers living in Mesopotamia as we’ve seen them on reliefs from there. We know they existed as well with the Dogon culture and they might have existed in Northern America with the Native American. Yet, it was found in Mexico and mostly in Phoenicia. This indicates that this was an exclusive knowledge, rare and not just anyone knew of it. This was a knowledge run in an exclusive circle = group and it landed in Mexico and in Phoenicia.

We didn’t see Neith wear it because she was not the top ruler of Atlantis = she didn’t carry the Light. It was her husband whom did. Neith was not “allowed” to wear purple because it was not her symbol. Since the Evil Lady and her descendant in their twisted hallucinations thought they were the rightful rulers of Atlantis, then they thoughts purple was their color to wear, but they couldn’t produce it because they lacked the knowledge despite fish-men = spiritual healers living in Mesopotamia.

But this was done in Phoenician and in Mexico. And Royalty from both places were also allowed to wear purple. If I add to all of this that the Evil Lady attacked herself the Phoenician City-States, but didn’t attack Mexico. I add as well Neith came to repel her but didn’t go to Mexico. As well as the cult of Dea Gravida and how it’s connected to Baalat of Gebal and to Isis myth after the death of her husband. If I also connect how the “thief” Bilulu whom had a young child was accused of killing Inanna’s husband. And if I add the presence of the Griffin/Sphinx iconography in Phoenicia = taken as a symbol of royalty. If I combine all of these with the idea that only the King of kings was allowed to wear purple = only the true King whom sits on the throne of Heaven is allowed to wear purple, then this is pointing me in the direction that there was a King of kings in Phoenicia.

• Page 1 729 –

Wishing you a blessed and happy Christmas.

>>15252308

(Please read from the start)

We don’t have the griffin or Dea Gravida in Mexico. The presence of craftsmen producing the purple dye there only indicates that some of the exclusive group whom knew the secret of the purple dye landed there after the Cataclysm. You will understand this point better and why I’m saying this later on in this thread when I explain how everyone was scattered this way on the planet.

The purple dye was produced for the Crown Prince to wear because after the death of his Father, he became the new, the young King of kings. But as said in the stories of Baal from Ugarit, he lost his throne and he had to work hard to find his way back to it. For me, the production of the purple dye in Phoenicia combined with the other evidences, is indicating the presence of the Crown Prince there. I think the production of the purple dye started a long time ago, around the time Gebal was most probably founded or maybe a tad before that. It took many generations for this dye production to spread to the other Phoenician City-States. And the younger generation didn’t know this was the exclusive color worn by the ONLY person whom sits on the throne of Heaven. It’s worn by the One whom carries the Light and wears the Crown of Heaven on his head. Gradually, this spread to all the Phoenician City-States and it seems Tyre was the best one in producing it, to a point that it overshadowed the other Phoenician City-States and kinda became the primo producer of this dye. Somewhere in this timeline, the production of this dye was also commercialized and sold by the younger generations of the Phoenicians whom have forgotten the true meaning of this color. But it was not forgotten by the Bloodlines since (((they))) kept such little secrets in (((their))) famous little book of blood.

What happened to the purple color is exactly what the Bloodlines did to the Elongated hat worn by the Phoenicians originally = (((they))) took it and made it (((their))) own because (((they))) understood this is a symbol not just of Atlantis, but a symbol of the King of kings. (((They))) thought by getting (((their))) hands on such items and claiming them as (((their))) own, (((they))) make (((their))) claim to the throne of Heaven legitimate. I told you many times before anons….the Jews and the Bloodlines are Phoenicians wanna be = (((they))) want to have what the Phoenician have and (((they))) want to be whom the Phoenicians are. So (((they))) stole the identity of the Phoenicians while in the same time (((they))) pinned the crimes (((they))) committed (((themselves))) onto the Phoenicians. (((They))) also brainwashed/ programed the public to hate the Phoenicians so the public won’t follow the clan of the Crown Prince = the real Light, but instead follow (((their))) king = the false, fake light.

This is for evidence number 4 about the Crown Prince being in Phoenicia and the Phoenician being his people, his clan. I want to point out to anons that all the evidences I’m providing about this subject are interrelated and interconnected. It’s a spider web and not a straight line. It’s a 5D puzzle, everything is linked to everything in this part and it’s linked to the reason = WHY the Phoenicians were accused by the Jews and the Bloodlines of practicing human sacrifice. This is very intertwined. I just hope I’m explaining things clearly enough for the reader to understand this.

I have more evidence, about the Crown Prince of Atlantis being in Phoenicia, I didn’t only rely on the evidence I already presented to you. Let’s check the next one.

• Page 1 730 –

>>15257036

(Please read from the start)

Evidence # 5: “Sidon” name, Fish men, temple of Eshmun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidon

“Sidon, known locally as Sayda or Saida (Arabic: ‎), is the sixth-largest city in Lebanon. It is located in the South Governorate, of which it is the capital, on the Mediterranean coast. Tyre to the south and Lebanese capital Beirut to the north are both about 40 kilometres (25 miles) away. Sidon has a population of about 80,000 within city limits, while its metropolitan area has more than a quarter-million inhabitants.

Name

The Phoenician name Ṣīdūn (DN) probably meant "fishery" or "fishing town". It is mentioned in Papyrus Anastasi I as Djedouna. It appears in Biblical Hebrew as Ṣīḏōn (Hebrew: צִידוֹן‎) and in Syriac as Ṣidon (ܨܝܕܘܢ). This was Hellenised as Sidṓn (Greek: Σιδών), which was Latinised as Sidon. The name appears in Classical Arabic as Ṣaydūn () and in Modern Arabic as Ṣaydā ().

As a Roman colony, it was notionally refounded and given the formal name Colonia Aurelia Pia Sidon to honour its imperial sponsor.

In the Book of Genesis, Sidon was the first-born son of Canaan, who was a son of Ham, thereby making Sidon a great-grandson of Noah.

During the crusades, Sidon was known in Latin as Sagittus and in French as Saete, Sayette or Sagette.”

>> Notable = Sidon name meaning is “town of fishermen”, fishery, fishing town. It’s to indicate that whomever lived there practiced “fishing” as a profession.

“History

In the years before Christianity, Sidon had many conquerors: Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and finally Romans. Herod the Great visited Sidon. Both Jesus and Saint Paul are said to have visited it, too (see Biblical Sidon below). The city was eventually conquered by the Arabs and then by the Ottoman Turks.

Prehistory

Sidon has been inhabited since very early in prehistory. The archaeological site of Sidon II shows a lithic assemblage dating to the Acheulean, whilst finds at Sidon III include a Heavy Neolithic assemblage suggested to date just prior to the invention of pottery.”

>> So there are traces in Sidon that human settled in there around 1.76 Million years ago – date given according to the Main Stream History of course.

“Phoenicia in early classical antiquity

Sidon was one of the most important Phoenician cities, and it may have been the oldest. From there and other ports, a great Mediterranean commercial empire was founded. Homer praised the skill of its craftsmen in producing glass, purple dyes, and its women's skill at the art of embroidery. It was also from here that a colonising party went to found the city of Tyre. Tyre also grew into a great city, and in subsequent years there was competition between the two, each claiming to be the metropolis ('Mother City') of Phoenicia. Glass manufacturing, Sidon's most important enterprise in the Phoenician era, was conducted on a vast scale, and the production of purple dye was almost as important. The small shell of the Murex trunculus was broken in order to extract the pigment that was so rare it became the mark of royalty. In AD 1855, the sarcophagus of King Eshmun’azar II was discovered. From a Phoenician inscription on its lid, it appears that he was a "king of the Sidonians," probably in the 5th century BC, and that his mother was a priestess of ‘Ashtart, "the goddess of the Sidonians." In this inscription the gods Eshmun and Ba‘al Sidon 'Lord of Sidon' (who may or may not be the same) are mentioned as chief gods of the Sidonians. ‘Ashtart is entitled ‘Ashtart-Shem-Ba‘al, '‘Ashtart the name of the Lord', a title also found in an Ugaritic text. Nebuchadnezzar II subjugated the city to be part of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. At the end of the Persian era, in 351 BC, Phoenicia was invaded by Artaxerxes III.”

• Page 1 731 –

>>15257038

(Please read from the start)

>> Here, they said that the rarity of purple made it the mark of royalty. I see it the other way around as in = being a mark of royalty is the reason purple was created/produced by the Phoenicians. It is correct that people from Sidon resettled and founded Tyre = Sur. Sidon is considered as the mother city of Tyre = Sur; just like Tyre is considered as the mother city of Carthage.

By the time 5th century B.C. came, the cult of Astarte = the Evil Lady had already entered in the Phoenician City-States. Astarte was a goddess of the Sidonians but not THE goddess of the Sidonians. As we’ve already seen the Patron of Sidon = it’s the god Eshmun (starting page 1 426). Eshmun was the god of Sidon, the primary god and the patron of the City-State for thousands of years. He had a temple inside of the royal citadel and we’ve already seen his temple outside of the city walls. His cult is probably as old as the City-State itself. The cult of Astate was “introduced” or should I say “injected” at a much later date into Sidon. So saying Astarte is THE goddess of the Sidonians, is totally wrong and a lie. She was A goddess but not THE chief deity there.

The mother of Eshmun-azar was a priestess of Astarte so does this mean the cult of the Evil lady was practiced there? The answer is NO. Because we didn’t find any of the signs in Sidon indicating the sacred prostitution was practiced or children sacrifice occurred there. I honestly think the situation in all Phoenician City-States were similar to what the situation was in Arwad and Aleppo = there was laws forbidding the practice of human sacrifice in City-State territory which consisted of the City-State itself and a territory under its jurisdiction where there were many small villages. And we think the cult of Astarte in Phoenicia was her cult merged with the cult of Neith = the younger generation confused both queens and thought they were one and the same deity. We think that because of the clothing of Astarte = fully clothed with a veil covering her entirely replaced her nude form; while the myths and legends of Astarte were kept. This merger of both female deities occurred in all the City-States of the area and this is why there are so many mutated aspects of the Evil Lady, with local characteristics.

The competition between the Phoenician City-States is true and it did exist for a long time. I’ve mentioned this before. As for “Astarte the name of the Lord” is absolutely correct = she was a Lord = a Sebetti ruler after all = One of the original 7 rulers of Atlantis before she turned evil.

• Page 1 732 –

>>15262008

(Please read from the start)

Lord of Sidon….Eshmun and Baal. We couldn’t figure out if we are talking about 2 deities here or about one….that is….until I came to this board. Let me repeat it one more time = Eshmun is the patron deity of Sidon, there is no question about that since his temple was placed inside the walls of the citadel = a privilege only given to the patron deity of a City-State. The temple we saw on page 1 426 is extra muros = outside the city walls and it was built there due the curative waters of river Awwali.

We wondered as archaeologists for a long time if Baal in Sidon is not the thunder god whom had a regular temple in Sidon, while Eshmun was the Major deity = patron deity of Sidon = god of healing. Two different gods with 2 different attributes and characteristics, each having a temple in the city. They were polytheists after all, right?

Now this was submitted to re-evaluation:

1 -The Crown Prince had the Light in him just like it was the case of the King of kings. He had a high Holy Spiritual power just like his Father did. This means he could HEAL just like his Father used to, using the Spiritual power he had.

2 - The King of kings was also the head = the chief of the FISH MEN = the spiritual healers. At His death, the Crown Prince became the head of the Fish Men.

3 - Baal means Lord, it can be used as a name, but in this case, it’s clear it’s used to point to a ruler which had the power of healing = Eshmun. The word Baal when usually used by the Phoenicians to refer to a deity, it’s either the ThunderBird warriors or refers to the Higher God = I believe it’s a Sebetti ruler.

4 - We don’t have any type of iconography or symbol of the god Eshmun at all = we simply don’t know what he looked like. All we know about him is that he was a healer god. It was forbidden to have an image = iconography of the Sebetti rulers and we don’t even know their names, so I doubt Eshmun is the name of a Sebetti ruler. I see it more like an epithet indicating his healing power.

5 - Sidon city name means = the fisher town or the fishermen town.

6 – According to Main Stream History, the earliest human presence in Sidon dates back to 1.76 Million B.C. – that is if you believe the Main Stream History timeline. I don’t agree with the given date. When the survivors came out of the Ark, they wandered around in the Armenian Plateau. Some of them then resettled in the Taurus mountain range as long as the water level was high. When the water receded, they came down from the mountains and resettled, some into Mesopotamia and some went West to the East Coast of the Mediterranean Sea = Phoenicia.

• Page 1 733 –

>>15262024

(Please read from the start)

It’s incredibly hard with what I have so far as information to determine which is older Gebal/Byblos, Sidon or another Phoenician City-State. It doesn’t matter to me at this stage which is the oldest; it can be determined later. For now, with what I’ve got, my chronological evaluation place the Phoenician City-States at 10 000 B.C. and maybe a bit beyond that. It’s not accurate, I’m not certain of it. It’s just an estimation with the information I’ve got so far, which is shared with anons here, like the age of Ancient Egypt before the formation of the 2 kingdoms and Gobekli Tepe and when the Ark MIGHT have landed on Mt Ararat. This is uncertain, it’s just an evaluation from the old man. At least this is one of the possibilities. I will be talking about this much later in this thread. Look, I see it as we have 2 options here: either the dinosaurs are as old as us, or we are as old as the dinosaurs. For now, I don’t see us being out of the Ark for millions of years.

If I combine all 6 previously stated points together, I get a clear image despite having gaps in the puzzle = the one we know as Lord Eshmun in Sidon is actually the Crown Prince whom seems to have lived there for some time. I’m saying this because the Evil Lady attacked ALL the Phoenician City-States (in plural). This means 2 things:

1 – She didn’t know in which City-State the Crown Prince was.

2 – While all 3 Sebetti rulers were alive there were more than 1 Phoenician City-Stated already founded.

The healing power of Eshmun is the Holy Spiritual powers inside the Crown Prince. The fact we don’t have a single iconography of Eshmun which’s cult must have been around for thousands of years, is because it was forbidden to have an image of the Sebetti rulers or know their real name. It’s also very highly possible, since the Crown Prince became the new head of the Fish Men and was living in Sidon for some time, that the town was named after the Fish Men Spiritual Healers. It had a double meaning as a fishing town and as the town founded by the Fish Spiritual Healers.

If you think this is farfetched….then remember Christ and whom he picked to be his disciples = fishermen. And what did he say to them back then? = “follow me and I will make you fisher of men.” Christ made his disciples Spiritual healers = the Fish Men we see in the reliefs of Mesopotamia and in the Dogon legends.

If you believe this or not will be up to you. In this second part of this section, FAITH, your FAITH will play a big part if you believe what I write or not. It’s up to you.

Let’s continue where I left off with Sidon Wikipedia page:

“Persian and Hellenistic periods

Like other Phoenician city-states, Sidon suffered from a succession of conquerors, first by the Persian Achamenid empire in the 6th century BC, ending with its occupation by Alexander the Great in 333 BC, and the start of the Hellenistic era of Sidon's history. The Persian influence seems to have been profound, as is observed in the change of the architectural style of the city. Under the successors of Alexander, it enjoyed relative autonomy and organised games and competitions in which the greatest athletes of the region participated. In the Hellenistic-period necropolis of Sidon, important finds such as the Alexander Sarcophagus, the Lycian tomb and the Sarcophagus of the Crying Women were discovered, which are now on display at the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul.”

>> These sarcophaguses and other artifacts should be returned to their rightful owner = place of origin.

• Page 1 734 –

>>15262038

(Please read from the start)

“Roman Period

When Sidon fell under Roman domination, it continued to mint its own silver coins. The Romans also built a theater and other major monuments in the city. In the reign of Elagabalus, a Roman colony was established there. During the Byzantine period, when the great earthquake of AD 551 destroyed most of the cities of Phoenice, Beirut's School of Law took refuge in Sidon. The town continued quietly for the next century, until it was conquered by the Arabs in AD 636.

[…]

Archaeology

Sidon I is an archaeological site located to the east of the city, south of the road to Jezzine. An assemblage of flint tools was found by P. E. Gigues suggested to date between 3800 and 3200 BC. The collection included narrow axes or chisels that were polished on one side and flaked on the other, similar to ones found at Ain Cheikh, Nahr Zahrani and Gelal en Namous. The collection appears to have gone missing from the Archaeological Museum of the American University of Beirut.”

>> I can assure you we don’t live in Harry Potter world of magic = nothing goes missing on its own = it was stolen.

“Sidon II is said to be "near the church" at approximately fifty meters above sea level. P. E. Gigues suggested that the industry found on the surface of this site dated to the Acheulean.

Sidon III was found by E. Passemard in the 1920s, who made a collection of material that is now in the National Museum of Beirut marked "Camp de l'Aviation". It includes large flint and chert bifacials that may be of Heavy Neolithic origin.

Sidon IV is the tell mound of ancient Sidon with Early Bronze Age (3200 BC –) deposits, now located underneath the ruined Saint Louis Castle and what are also thought to be the ruins of a Roman theater.

The area around Sidon contains a number of important necropoli (below in order of age, and noting their principal excavators):

• Dakerman (Roger Saidah, 1968–1969)

• Tambourit (Saidah, 1977)

• Magharet Abloun (Aimé Péretié, 1855; Ernest Renan, 1864; Georges Contenau, 1920)

• Ayaa (William King Eddy, 1887; Osman Hamdi Bey, 1892; Contenau, 1920)

• Ain al-Hilweh (Charles Cutler Torrey, 1919–1920)

• El-Merah (Contenau, 1920)

• Qrayé (Contenau, 1920)

• Almoun, (Conenau, 1924)

• El-Harah (Theodore Makridi, 1904; Contenau, 1924)

• Magharet Abloun, Greco-Roman part (Renan, 1864; Contenau, 1914–1924)

• Helalié/Baramié/Mar Elias (William John Bankes, 1816; Renan 1864; Contenau, 1914; M. Meurdrac & L. Albanèse, 1938–1939)”

• Page 1 735 –

>>15266615

(Please read from the start)

“In indication of the high-profile of the old city of Sidon in archaeological expeditions, and mainly in the 19th century, in October 1860 the famous French scholar Ernest Renan was entrusted with an archaeological mission to Lebanon, which included the search for the antique parts of Sidon. The Phoenician inscriptions that he discovered, and his field data, were eventually published in his notebook the: Mission de Phénicie (1864–1874; Phoenician Expedition).”

>> Everything taken should be returned to the rightful owner.

“The St. Louis land-castle grounds were excavated in 1914–1920 by a French team. Then eastwards a new site was also excavated by another generation of French expeditions in the 1960s. This same site received renewed attention in 1998 when the Directorate General of Antiquities in Lebanon authorized the British Museum to begin excavations on this area of land that was specifically demarcated for archaeological research. This has resulted in published papers, with a special focus on studying ceramics.”

>> Anyone notice how the FRENCH and then the B.M. were interested in a Crusaders castle called St. LOUIS?

“The archaeological fieldwork was not fully undertaken since the independence of the Lebanon. The main finds are displayed in the National Museum in Beirut. The fieldwork was also interrupted during the long civil war period, and it is now resumed but at a timid and slow scale, and not involving major international expeditions or expertise. Perhaps this is also indicative of the general lack in cultural interests among the authorities of this city, and almost of the non-existence of notable intellectual activities in its modern life. There are signs that the locals are beginning to recognize the value of the medieval quarters, but this remains linked to minor individual initiatives and not a coordinated collective effort to rehabilitate it like it has been the case with Byblos, even though the old district of Sidon contains a great wealth in old and ancient architecture.

Biblical Sidon

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

The Hebrew Bible describes Sidon (צִידוֹן‎) in several passages:

• It received its name from the "first-born" of Canaan, the grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:15, 19).

• The Tribe of Zebulun has a frontier on Sidon (Gen. 49:13)

• It was the first home of the Phoenicians on the coast of Canaan, and from its extensive commercial relations became a "great" city (Joshua 11:8; 19:28).

• It was the mother city of Tyre. It lay within the lot of the tribe of Asher, but was never subdued (Judges 1:31).

• The Sidonians long oppressed Israel (Judges 10:12).

• From the time of David its glory began to wane, and Tyre, its "virgin daughter" (Isaiah 23:12), rose to its place of pre-eminence.

• Solomon entered into a matrimonial alliance with the Sidonians, and thus their form of idolatrous worship found a place in the land of Israel (1 Kings 11:1, 33).

• Jezebel was a Sidonian princess (1 Kings 16:31).

• It was famous for its manufactures and arts, as well as for its commerce (1 Kings 5:6; 1 Chronicles 22:4; Ezekiel 27:8).

• It is frequently referred to by the prophets (Isaiah 23:2, 4, 12; [2]Jeremiah 25:22; 27:3; 47:4; Ezekiel 27:8; 28:21, 22; 32:30; Joel 3:4).

• Elijah sojourned in Sidon, performing miracles (1 Kings 17:9–24; see also in the New Testament, Luke 4:26).”

• Page 1 736 –

>>15266619

(Please read from the start)

>> In order for a “miracle” to happen, there is a condition to be fulfilled by the one performing the miracle and the one receiving it = you must have the disposition to have the Light in you. As in your Spirit is strong enough for the Light to do its work on it and heal the body through your Spirit. For Elijah to perform miracles it means, he must have enough Spiritual power to be able to channel the Light through him towards the person whom needs healing. And that person should be well disposed in order to receive that Light channeled through the Prophet. We all have the Spirit in us, but at different percentages; but some turned it off, while with others, there are still sparks in there. The Holy men, as TRUE prophets and saints, are a Bridge between us and the Holy Spirit = they fill the role of the Fish men, just like the apostles chosen by Christ did.

“New Testament

• Jesus visited the region or "coasts" (King James Version) of Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 15:21; Mark 7:24) and from this region many came forth to hear him preaching (Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17), leading to the stark contrast in Matthew 11:21–23 to Korazin and Bethsaida. See the exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter, which takes place on the coast, in the region of Sidon and Tyre.

• From Sidon, at which his ship put in after leaving Caesarea, Paul finally sailed for Rome (Acts 27:3, 4).

[…]”

>> So there is “contrast” between what the Apostles wrote about Christ’s “visit” to Sidon and Tyre. And this is according to whom exactly? I mean; is it possible that some parts were omitted on purpose to hide what truly happened during the visit of Christ to Sidon and Tyre? If Christ performed miracles and preached in Sidon and Tyre, then the locals are rather familiar with Spiritual Healing and the stories which come along with it since they had the temple of Eshmun. I bet it’s true people flocked to hear Christ talk because they were mostly curious to see whom was this person whom could heal humans like Eshmun did.

I keep on wondering why = the reason, Christ went to preach in those Phoenician City-States. Did he know something about them we don’t?

• Page 1 737 –

>>15266631

(Please read from the start)

Evidence # 6: Phoenician coinage.

Coins are considered as a late date invention. The first king to strike coins is attributed to king Croesus of Lydia whom reigned from 560-546 B.C. He used electrum, a natural mixture of gold and silver to strike his coins; some had as a standard design a feline attacking a bull, while the reverse of the coins had 2 incuse squares on it. From there on, the usage of coins spread and it was adopted by all the ancient civilizations in the Mediterranean basin.

Ancient coins, in general, are amazing. They are like a miniature photographic catalogue which enables us to see how the rulers looked, back then. We also get to see what they wore, including jewelry, hair style, we see buildings, animals, flora, different types of objects….and of course deities. We also have as a bonus some inscriptions on them which project a lot of how they used to think back then and what they preferred and what was their set of beliefs. Also the “quality” of the coin, from the metal alloy, percentage, purity and the quality of the design indicate the financial state the authority emitting them was in = as in if it was facing money problems or if it is in opulence. The coins are like a little window allowing us to take a look at the civilizations where the coin was struck.This includes the Phoenicians.

We have some very nice coins from the Phoenician City-States. The designs on them vary a lot from one city-state to another and from one era to another. We have some with a 100% Phoenician design and inscription on them. Others have Greek, Persian or Ancient Egyptian influence in them which is clearly visible and easily recognizable. While others are a cocktail of all the above. During Hellenistic and then Roman times, the Phoenicians kept on striking coins but the design was of the era they lived in as in either Hellenistic or Roman = no more Phoenician designs or influence of the older cultures is depicted on the coins.

For anons interested in such studies, the British Museum has a very nice collection of Phoenician coinage from all eras. B.M.C. is the abbreviation used for the British Museum Catalogue. And you can find the catalogues online. Here is link for those whom are interested: https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/phoenicia/sidon/i.html

Josette Elayi is among the few brave out there to have DARED to study the Phoenician coinage and try to put the rulers in sequence = creating dynasty lists of Phoenician kings. She is logical and methodical in her work. But because there are HUGE gaps in the Phoenician coinage, history and lack of supporting artifacts, she stumbbles a bit from time to time and she has gaps too. This is not because she is not a capable lady or her work is back, but it’s because she had nothing to work on. She wrote many books, with good information and good pictures of the coins. This brave lady, dared to do what others didn’t = try to establish a Phoenician king list relying on the coins from the City-States; as in relying on tangible artifact to establish a Phoenician king list and not rely on what is written in the Bible. A type of study which was forbidden to undertake by the mafia in Archaeology. Her work is a good start but it needs to be worked further, by younger generation and combine it with future findings. Anons can rely on her, she is a good base despite the gaps and some stuff she is uncertain of. She is a good starting point.

I’m going to talk about some of the Phoenicia coins which got my attention. They will be from many eras and will be from different designs. Anons will see the influence very clearly on the designs. I’m also going to put some samples = pictures, so that anons would have a visual.

• Page 1 738 –

>>15271864

(Please read from the start)

The 3 pictures I’m attaching with this page are the coins of Baalshilem II, king of Sidon. Remember him? We already saw him as a toddler playing with a bird toy on page 1 447. It’s the supposedly sacrificed boy to Eshmun according to the Phoenician haters. Well, this “already dead” boy, grew up to become the king of Sidon and he struck coins. On the first coin, we see on one side a king with Persian style attire standing on a chariot with 2 of his attendants are represented as well. On the other side of the coin we have a very nice Phoenician ship with oars and waves under it. There are Phoenician letters as well. We have a glimpse at the design of the Phoenician ships here.

The second coins is what I’m caught my attention. This coin is amazing with the messages it’s sending. On one side we can see a man, probably a king, fighting/ hunting a lion standing upright. The king is yanking the lion upwards by the animal’s hair with his left hand, while with his right hand he is holding a dagger and is ready to stab it. What is amazing here is that this scene reminds me terribly with the relief on page 1 366, where we see the Evil One stabbing the King of kings. The similarity is not just in the stabbing but with the yanking and….while taking a look at the heraldic animal symbol of the Great King, I ended up with attributing the Feline symbol as the symbol of the King of kings. So is the lion here actually a symbolic representation of the King of kings? Is this truly a hunting scene? Or is this scene pointing/remembering the murder of the King of kings at the hands of the Evil One?

I don’t know. I honestly don’t know. My thoughts are going in all directions. I used to think that this king stabbing the lion must be either the Phoenician king himself as in Baalshilem going on a hunting trip; or it’s a Persian king hunting a lion. But now, I’m not that sure anymore about this being the right interpretation of this scene. I have to re-think all of this.

The other side of this series of coins with the same design also holds a surprise. Pointing at it with a green arrow, we can see a Phoenician fortress with 4 towers showing. Look at the size of this fortress anons. We know a fortress/citadel did exist in most of the Phoenician City-States. Certainly existed in Sidon because we know that the god Eshmun’s temple was the only one inside the walls of the citadel. The temple we saw (starting page 1 430) is the one extra-muros = outside the city walls. I’ve already explained this before. We also know it existed in Tyre because of the siege of Alexander (the not so great).

Right in front of this fortress, pointing at it with a red arrow, we have a Phoenician ship. Seeing how the ship is right at the feet of this citadel/fortress means that the fortress was built right at the shore and the Phoenician ships used to pass near the citadel/fortress while it was sailing. If you don’t believe me, then please take a look at page 1 435, pictures 1 and 2. See where the megalithic blocks are built?

Last detail, pointing to it with a blue arrow, is a line right under the ship. Under this line we have 2 felines = lions facing outwards = standing back to back. We’ve already seen this before like with the artifact on page 1 363. This is clearly pointing to Atlantis. So what does it mean? The Citadel is the “home” of the Sidonian royals. Having the citadel depicted on top of the lions is indicating that the royal household/family of Sidon came from Atlantis = as in the Sidon royal had Atlantean blood.

• Page 1 739 –

>>15271879

(Please read from the start)

Please combine this evidence # 6 with the findings of Evidence # 5: as in the meaning of Sidon, the Temple of Eshmun, Sidon being the founding city of Tyre and most importantly, Christ visiting both Phoenician City-States and preaching there. Then combine to all of this Evidence # 4 with the Tyrian Purple and Purple being the color of royalty. Combine all of this with the FACT that a huge number of Dea Gravida was found in Tyre and the rest of the Phoenician City-States, just like the Griffin/Sphinx design found on many artifacts from all the Phoenician City-States. All of these evidences are interlinked and intertwined and they are all pointing in the same direction. And I have more of the same. Be patient with me as I show them to you one by one.

The first picture I’m attaching with this page is of a coin from Tyre. There are loads of them and loads of different designs, anons can check them in the catalogues. We see on one side an owl with Ancient Egyptian Pharaonic symbols of power = the crook and the flail depicted behind the owl. What is amazing about this side of the coins is not just the existence of crook and the flail from Ancient Egypt, but the design of the owl = how it’s depicted as well. This is the standard, classical representation of the owl of goddess Athena from Greece. And to add more spice to it all, Owls are ThunderBirds, mistakenly thought by the Bloodlines as being a symbol of the Evil Lady. In Ancient Egypt we don’t have owl as a dominant iconography for the birds of prey, we have Horus = an eagle or a falcon. This is the Athenian owl with the symbol of Pharaonic power represented on one side of this coin. So what does it mean? This is Neith anons, this is Neith. She comes from Ancient Egypt where she settled = lived after the Cataclysm = it’s her land, her country, her kingdom. she was the first ruler of Ancient Egypt, this is why we have the crook and the flail from Ancient Egypt. Also Athena is a mutated partial version of Neith. I will be explaining it when I reach Greece. And Neith was the temporary leader of the ThunderBirds, leading the charge against the Horned Serpent warriors. Now add to this what we found out in Evidence # 1 about Dea Gravida, Baalat of Gebal and the big number of Dea Gravida statuettes found in Tyre.

The other side of this coin is one of the weirdest iconographies out there. We see Pegasus but it has a fish tail. Some call this a Sea Horse = hippocampus with wings. This “winged creature” has a rider whom is holding in his lifted left arm something unidentifiable. Under them we have waves and under the waves we have a dolphin. This entire scene is a mystery and no one was able to understand it or explain what this meant. All we know is that the dolphin the heraldic animal symbol of Tyre and that’s it. In other words, this rider was from Tyre. This is all we know.

The mystery thickens when we take a look at a series of silver coins from Arwad (Syria). By now the reader should be familiar with that Phoenician City-State, since I’ve mentioned it a few times already. On these coins from Arwad, we see on one side of the coin the same “winged hippocampus” depicted with a Phoenician ship in the background. If you look closely at the hippocampus head, it looks like it has an Eagle’s beak, doesn’t it? Is this another mutated form for the Griffin? Are we seeing a SEA GRIFFIN here? Was the Griffin given a fishtail because this City-State had close connections with the sea? Did this mutated Griffin design from Arwad come before or after the Tyrian hippocampus design? I don’t know anons. Loads to think about and I rather take my time about this and not rush into it.

I’m attaching a picture of an artifact from Tyre of this mysterious strange winged hippocampus for anons to have a visual of how the Phoenicians used to see this animal.

• Page 1 740 –

>>15278067

(Please read from the start)

As if this mystery is not enough, on the other side of this coin from Arwad we have a man with a fishtail. He is clearly holding a fish in each hand while we have Phoenician letters above him. Is this a symbolic representation of a Fish Man = the Spiritual Healers? I don’t know, but I’m inclined to believe so, mostly with on the other side of this series of coins we seem to have a Griffin with a fishtail. Could this be a royal fisherman = as in a royal spiritual healer? Loads to think about here as well. Is it telling us that they true heir of the throne of Atlantis was also the head of the Fish Men? = this is the message I’m getting from these coins.

Next I’m going to put some coins, all from the Phoenician City-State of Gebal = Byblos.

In the first picture we can see a Sphinx clothed in Ancient Egyptian style. While on the other side, we see a falcon wearing the Pschent on its head = Ancient Egyptian double crown. The falcon is also holding the crook and the flail = symbol of Pharaonic power from Ancient Egypt. On the top corner, there is some type of plant which looks a lot like olive tree leaves. This last point is open for debate and reconsideration. The influence of Ancient Egypt in Byblos/Gebal shouldn’t surprise anons anymore since we know Neith lived there for some time.

The second picture is of a silver coin from Gebal/Byblos as well, from King Uzzibaal. There is a disagreement about how to pronounce = say the name of the king. Some call it as Uzzibaal, some Azabaal and some Ozbaal. On this side of this specific coin, we have a Phoenician warship. We can clearly see the Phoenician soldiers wearing their nasal helmets and holding spears. The zigzags under the ship are the waves. Right under them there is this mysterious winged hippocampus again, but here, it clearly has the head of a horse. What I’ve put in a red square for anons to notice is a seashell = this is indicating that Gebal/Byblos, just like Sidon and Tyre also produced the purple due, since this is a murex shell we have depicted under the winged hippocampus. If I combine the meaning of all of this symbolism, I can say the Heir to the throne of Atlantis = the Crown Prince was in Gebal/Byblos for some time, at least, just like he was in Tyre – this fits with why the Evil Lady attack all of the Phoenician City-States because she didn’t know in which one the Crown prince was = he kept on moving from one location to another.

The last coin I’m attaching with this page is a bronze coin from Roman times from Byblos/Gebal. I’m interested in the reverse side of this coin because what is depicted on it is simply mindboggling. This is supposed to be the temple of Astarte in Byblos. We see half of the temple from the side = the entrance. While we see the other half of the temple from the front. This is why the design of the temple looks so odd because we see the square court in perspective view. What is mindboggling is what is depicted inside this square inner court of the temple’s back side: what the heck is that anons?

Some call it a columnar type of tree. Others see this as a huge menhir since it’s taller than the roof of the back court (picture in following page). Some see it as an obelisk from Ancient Egypt because in Gebal/Byblos, we have a temple from Phoenician times, with many small obelisks in it. Which is the new evidence linked to this one. Don’t forget anons the evidences I’m providing are all intertwined and interlinked = it’s all connected.

Evidence # 7: Temple of Obelisks in Gebal and kamouh of Hermel = Atlantean technology or something else?

The temple I’m talking about is knowns as the temple of obelisks in Gebal/Byblos. So let’s take a look at it and see what this is about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_the_Obelisks

“The Temple of the Obelisks (French: Temple aux Obelisques, Arabic: ‎ maebad al'ansab), also known as the L-shaped Temple and Temple of Resheph was an important Bronze Age temple structure in the World Heritage Site of Byblos. It is considered "perhaps the most spectacular" of the ancient structures of Byblos. It is the best preserved building in the Byblos archaeological site.”

• Page 1 741 –

>>15278097

(Please read from the start)

“Almost all of the artefacts found in the excavation of the temple are displayed at the National Museum of Beirut. It was excavated by French archaeologist Maurice Dunand from 1924-73. The original temple is now in two parts: the base is known as "the L-shaped temple", and the top is known as the "Temple of the Obelisks"; the latter was moved 40 meters east during Maurice Dunand's excavations.

Dunand uncovered 1306 Byblos figurines – ex-voto offerings, including faience figurines, weapons, and dozens of bronze-with-gold-leaf figurines – which have become the "poster child" of the Lebanese Tourism Ministry.”

>>We’ve already seen these ex-voto figurines with Baalat of Gebal Temple.

“Description

Base: L shaped Temple

The L-shaped Temple was constructed around 2600 BCE, two centuries after the construction of the Temple of Baalat Gebal (approximately 100m to the west) had been built. It was named the "L-shaped" temple by Dunand, as its two rooms and the courtyard were arranged in such a shape.

The temple had well built walls and temples, in contrast to the later Obelisk temple. It is thought that the L-shaped temple was burned down at the end of the Early Bronze Age.”

>> The L-shaped base is very important. This means there was an older temple built in that same and exact spot which is no more = destroyed. I think the L-shaped temple had its base of stone as well as the walls, but the roof was made of wood. The chances are high this temple caught fire and the wooden roof collapsed destroying the temple. The temple of Obelisks was built on top of it. But….I also believe the L-shaped temple was actually a second temple, not the first one built in that spot. Just like it’s the case with the temple of Eshmun, I believe the first ever temple built in that spot is actually made of wood, all of it. At some point in time it was replaced by what we call the L-shaped temple and this one was destroyed too. This is why I believe the temple of the obelisks is the third temple built in that same spot.

“Top: Obelisk temple

The Temple of the Obelisks was constructed around 1600–1200 BCE on top of the L-shaped temple, retaining its general outline. The temple's name, given by Dunand, refers to a number of obelisks and standing stones located in a court around the cella. The Abishemu obelisk has been interpreted to include a dedication to Resheph, a Canaanite war god, although this is disputed. Another obelisk has a hieroglyphic inscription Middle Bronze Age king of Byblos Ibishemu, praising the Egyptian god Heryshaf.”

• Page 1 742 –

>>15283841

(Please read from the start)

>> The dedication of Resheph is disputed as in we are uncertain of it. I’m putting a picture of it for anons. Look closely to the Abishemu obelisk: the inscription is damaged and parts of it are missing. It’s better not to rush about this and not jump into saying this is a dedication to Resheph. Anyone reading noticed how each time we have a Phoenician related inscription, either it’s ’unreadable = parts are missing, making it hard to read. Or the interpretation is disputed and it’s ambiguous. I wonder why is that? As for Heryshaf, it’s a Ram god whom might either be a Ram warrior or the oldest form of Khnum (starting page 1 012).

This is an indication that the Phoenicians also worshiped the Ram warriors as gods in Gebal. Remember the Ram and the Wolf warriors are the most scarce there are out there. We have One Ran in Ometepe, Nicaragua (picture in page 660) and I just mentioned Khnum from Ancient Egypt. I’m unsure if the Ram warrior we have here in Gebal/Byblos is the same one from Ancient Egypt or if this is another one part Khunm and/or Heryshaf (depending if they are one and the same deity or not).

“Since it had been built on top of the L-shaped temple, it was necessary for Dunand to dismantle and move this upper temple in order to excavate the L-shaped temple beneath.

In contrast to the L-shaped temple beneath, the Obelisk Temple was built with irregular walls

Modern identification and excavation

The temple was first identified by Dunand. The majority of the obelisks found were underground in their original positions, standing upright, while a few others were discovered buried in a favissa (a well for votive deposits).”

>>The obelisks at the Temple of obelisks in Gebal are a big puzzle, an unsolved one. I don’t agree with the dates provided to us in this Wikipedia page. I see things being older than what we are told. A lot of people think these are offerings to the temple influenced by Ancient Egyptian art. Others think these are ex-votos, dedications ….some even suggested to me these are tombstones. Well, it’s unclear what they truly are, what their role really consists of and why we have so many of them in one temple.

This is if you think of in a “classical” way as in still put in the box of the Main Stream History narrative. If you want to think in another way, as in the reasoning of the anons and what is taking place in the Awakening, then you gotta ask a different set of questions about these obelisks at the temple in Gebal/Byblos: going back to what I wrote about the Ancient Egyptian obelisks (starting page 193). Do the obelisks in Gebal/Byblos have the same “function” – play the same role – as the ones we have in Ancient Egypt? Both were found near temples, by the way. Is the Obelisk a “device” related to the wireless electrical grid, like some in the Alternative History say it is? Is it something more, like a spiritual channeling tool which channels spiritual energy? We also have the Lanzon (starting page 371) from the Andean Region to put in this category. Loads to think about here.

• Page 1 743 –

>>15283861

(Please read from the start)

Since we are talking about Obelisks, wireless Tesla electricity and spiritual channeling, let me introduce to you to one of the weirdest monuments I’ve ever seen in my life. I’ve visited this twice and it’s still a mystery to me and everyone else whom got to know about it. It’s called the Kamouh of Hermel, or as the locals call it = Kamouh el Hermel. Let’s check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamouh_el_Hermel

“Kamouh el Hermel, the Pyramid of Hermel (also known as God's Pyramid, House of El, the Funnel of Hermel or Needle of Hermel) is an ancient pyramid located 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) south of Hermel in Baalbek-Hermel Governorate, Lebanon.”

>> This is no pyramid and this is no obelisk. We prefer to call it by the name of the Funnel because it’s the translation of Kamouh, according to my notes about it.

“The pyramid has been suggested to date to the first or second century BC due to similarities with architecture of tower tombs of the late Seleucid era at Palmyra in Syria. It was considered by William McClure Thomson to possibly have been of Ancient Greek construction; however, the lack of inscriptions puzzled him as he thought the ancient Greeks to be a "scribbling generation".Thomson also entertained the notion, along with Charles William Meredith van de Velde that the construction may have been Assyrian. René Dussaud later suggested that although the reliefs resembled the Ishtar Gate, the edifice was likely a monument to the hunting prowess of a member of Syrian royalty from the first century BC.”

>> It is impossible to date this and it is impossible to identify correctly to which civilization this belongs to.

There is a slight possibility this could be Assyrian/Babylonian/Neo-Babylonian. Some of my colleagues think so because not far, when you go upward on the mountain after passing through the city of Hermel, there is Neo-Babyblonian inscriptions. These inscriptions are known as the Inscriptions of Brisa or as the Inscriptions of Nabucodonosor. These inscriptions are on the side of the road, a few meters away from the road. They were carved on big boulders. This is why they are terribly worn out = exposed to the elements. But they are still readable for most parts of them and there is a translation along with pictures anons can find online or in big libraries.

The presence of these inscriptions at a walking distance from the Kamouh made some of my colleagues think this funnel is built around that era. The style of the decoration is not Hellenic nor Hellenistic for sure. It’s close to what we see in Mesopotamia = it’s similar to it, but it also has difference in the same time. This is not related at the tower tombs of Palmyra. This has nothing to do with them at all. This is a wrong suggestion/interpretation; which in turn lead to a wrongful dating of the Kamouh.

• Page 1 744 –

>>15290496

(Please read from the start)

Why I say this has nothing to do with the tower tombs of Palmyra? I’m attaching a picture of these tower tombs from Palmyra with previous page, please look at the closely. The tower tombs in Palmyra are differently shaped. They do not have any decoration on the exterior walls. And they have an opening/door like hole in one side of the walls. The Kamouh of Hermel’s shape is totally different, it is decorated on its 4 sides with hunting scenes – displaying the weapons as well. And what is strange is that the Kamouh has no window, no door. It’s hollow on the inside despite not having a door to get inside it, which means this is no tomb. This is supported by the hunting scenes we have decorating its outer walls and in the same time, nothing in it was found.

The Kamouh crumbled at some point in Time and a restoration/reconstruction happened. New, modern stones, you see in the pictures in lighter shade are the new ones added to hold the monument together. While the darker stones with designs on them are the old original ones. If the reconstruction didn’t happen, the entire monument would have been lost for good.

“The pyramid sits on top of a hill that is clearly visible from a distance and has been fenced off to prevent damage. Despite this, the monument was heavily vandalised by locals in 2000–2018, all the four faces of the base being covered with graffiti and no serious measures being taken by the authorities for its conservation. It is between 19.6 metres (64 ft) and 27 metres (89 ft) high and sits on a base measuring around 1.1 metres (3.6 ft) with three steps made from black basalt. On the base site two massive limestone blocks weighing between 40 tonnes (40,000 kg) and 50 tonnes (50,000 kg). The blocks are around 7 metres (23 ft) high and 9 metres (30 ft) wide and are crowned by a pyramid measuring some 4.5 metres (15 ft) high. Some sections of the monument were restored in 1931. A relief on the north side depicts two deer, possibly caught in a hunting trap. On the east side is a carved image of a boar being attacked by dogs and speared. The south side is badly damaged but shows an image considered possibly to be a bear. The relief on the west side shows two wolves attacking a bull.”

>> The description is correct. The blocks are rather impressive as well the measurements. A notable point is that it’s made of limestone, same type of material found in the pyramids of Giza plateau.

About the vandalism: this monument is a great mystery. It’s under the protection of the town of Hermel since it’s close to it. There is a moral responsibility towards this monument from the people of Hermel. This is part of the National Cultural Treasure of Lebanon. Disfiguring this monument and vandalizing it by the people of Hermel shows the lack of respect they have for the national treasure and for their identity as Lebanese. This monument should be protected and preserved, not vandalized and disfigured. The people of Hermel should reconsider and re-evaluate where they stand because by vandalizing this monument they are showing to the entire world whom they are = a bunch of disrespectful, ignorant punks whom nevre had the proper patriotic education to respect their national monuments. This is projecting their lack of moral in regards to the dignity and respect of their own country. The local authorities and the department of Antiquity are no better. Everyone should have their feet held onto the fire and everyone needs to be re-educated into respecting and protecting their national treasures, and stop acting like brainless thugs.

• Page 1 745 –

>>15290526

(Please read from the start)

This should go to every person from all the nationalities, but mostly the Lebanese, since we are talking about the Kamouh. Your behavior shows = projects whom you are. If you act dirty and nasty, it means you are dirty and nasty on the inside. The only monuments that were vandalized and I didn’t feel bad about it was that of Albert Pike and the Georgia stones. It’s not right to say this, but darn it, when I saw those 2 vandalized; I felt better.

I hope the people of Lebanon in general and the people of Hermel specifically will get the proper education to make them respect their national monuments. The authorities and the people in charge in Hermel should work on this A.S.A.P.

Something said in this paragraph is important = the Kamouh was built on a hill top, in a very strategic place. As I’ve said before, I’ve been there twice. And I stood at that hill top and I looked back at the Beqaa valley. You can see for many kilometers around. And when I turned to the North-East (approximately) you can see inside of Syria, beyond the border.

The notable and strategic location of the Kamouh put us in the mindset of it being a geographical marker = as in this being some type of milestone or a territorial marker informing the traveler it reached a specific location. We also think it has built on that hill top to be seen from far away; which enables travelers to get directions and know where they are while traveling. The decoration on the outer walls of the Kamouh is there to indicate that we reached a certain territory = a milestone telling us we reached hunting territory. But we couldn’t figure out to which civilization built this. Despite some similarities with the Mesopotamian civilizations, there aren’t any indications helping us to be a 100% certain about the Kamouh identity.

This is what we used to think the Kamouh is = some type of geographical marker to indicate a territory and in the same time a marker to guide travelers during their journey. Double function.

“Shepherd Neolithic archaeological site

Evidence was found of a Shepherd Neolithic archaeological site in the area around the monument, on the south and west of the hill. The site was discovered and a collection of flint tools used during the Neolithic Revolution was made by Lorraine Copeland and Frank Skeels in 1965. Materials recovered included blade-butts with scraping edges or notches, borers, cores (one with a twin edge) and small flakes. Some pieces were vaguely bifacial. The flints found were in a grey or chocolate-brown colour with some having a shiny patina.”

>> Makes you wonder how old the site is and whom really lived there, doesn’t it?

As if the Kamouh wasn’t a riddle of its own, there is also another mystery on the decoration. There is no question what we see on the outer walls of the Kamouh are hunting scenes and the description given just earlier about them is correct. Along with the animals, we also see weapons, like spears and hunting gears, like the nets (pointing to them with green arrows – picture in next page. What no one can understand or is able to correctly identify what it is in the first place, is the object that I’ve put in red rectangles.

• Page 1 746 –

>>15295021

(Please read from the start)

We know it’s something used as some type of weapon or something used in hunting, since it’s a hunting scene after all. But what is it exactly? It looks like there is some type of rod and something is wrapped around it. Of course this is not certain, because we don’t know what the heck this is. We’ve never seen anything like it before, so we are uncertain in the suggestions we are proposing. This is a grand mystery.

This was before the Awakening. Now, I see there is another possibility for what this strange object could be.

The Kamouh of Hermel is built without an obvious role/function since it has no windows or a door. It’s built at a strategic location which can be spotted from kilometers away. It’s also built by the same type of stone in which the Pyramids of Giza were built = limestone. Its shape is also very significant. So I’ve been wondering for some time now about the possibility the Kamouh having something to do with Antlantean technology = wireless electricity. The mysterious object on the decoration MIGHT be some type of electromagnet. I’m only saying it’s a possibility.

If this is true = if this turns out to be an electromagnet, then it enhances the chances of the Kamouh being some type of Atlantean device related to electricity. Maybe, part of the electrical grid. Crazy, right? But this still doesn’t solve the riddles of whom built this, whom exactly built this and why in this specific location. If this is truly an electromagnet we see on the decoration, then how can it be used in hunting? So many questions and so many riddles.

Which brings me back to the temple of obelisks in Gebal/Byblos: is this temple, mostly the obelisks, linked to ancient Atlantean technology as well? Is it linked to electricity or is it some sort of device which enables to transfer of spiritual energy? And what about that Menhir like thing, inside the court yart of the temple of Astarte, we see on the bronze coin? I would like to remind anons that Neith lived in Gebal for some time, so did she bring the tech = the knowledge with her and taught it to the people of Gebal? It’s one of the possibilities.

Regardless of which it is = electrical device or spiritual device, one thing is for sure about these 2 monuments in Lebanon = they are giving the smell of being more than what they are, with possibly of being Atlantean technology. Which in turn, this indicates there were Atlanteans living in Phoenicia whom were knowledgeable about such tech.

Since I’m here, I want to add something before I move on to the next evidence. It’s more or less connected to Evidence # 6. This is about a Punic coin on which the map of the Mediterranean Basin is depicted. If the reader think the map is not that accurate. Jesus Christ! Just look where they put the map on the coin. I see it as a miracle they managed to draw anything in that tiny space, drawing a map there. So don’t be picky about how accuratly the map is drawn on the coins. It’s a miracle it’s there. This indicates how good of a navigator were the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians. Such tiny map on the coin makes one wonder if the Phoenicians/Carthaginians discovered the Americas….if this was put in a coin, what did the Carthaginian records/archives contain?

And one last thing I also forgot to mention while taking a look at the L-Shapped temple in Gebal: despite the first temple being destroyed, we still found traces of it = in this case the foundations. In the case of the Temple of Jerusalem, if the first temple really existed, we should have found long ago some traces, any traces of it, similar to what we see with the L-Shapped temple of Gebal. But we didn’t. Now what does that tell you?

• Page 1 747 –

>>15295047

(Please read from the start)

Evidence # 8: Phoenician Ivories – warriors from many clans.

Next, I’m going to get you acquainted to a series of Ivory plates which were produced by Phoenician craftsmen in Phoenicia = Phoenician art. These Ivory plates were decoration of many items like furniture. The furniture was sold to other civilizations, places like to Mesopotamia. This is why we found a big number of these sculpted ivories there, but the reader gotta remember that these originated in Phoenicia and they are Phoenician art. The reader should also remember that ivory is a perishable material and it’s very delicate.

I’m going to start with the Wikipedia page to give anons an idea what this is about and then I’m going to regroup the ivories according to design theme and then talk about them a bit. I also want to point out that anons can go online and take a look at the various designs out there of these ivories.

From the get go (((they))) messed the information about these artifact. These ivories are being called Nimrud Ivories because, in 1830, J.S. Buckingham called the place they were found in Nimrod Tuppé. And everyone got hooked on this, despite not being sure this is the correct name of the site. You are programed to associate the word Nimrud in your head with Evil. By associating these Ivories with Nimrud your brain automatically connects Evil to these Ivories and by extension to the Phoenician. It’s a mind game by word/name programing and manipulation. We had already given many examples of this in this thread and I hope now the reader starts to understand how the Jews and their nobility = the Bloodlines use (((their))) “magic” tricks to hypnotize your brain and direct it in the direction (((they))) want you to go. I’m going to put the name Nimrud in braquets because it’s unsure it’s the incorrect name of the site = still needs to be verified and rectified. Despite a big number of these Ivories were also found in Arslan Tash, Turkey, the correction/ rectification was never done.

“The Nimrud ivories are a large group of small carved ivory plaques and figures dating from the 9th to the 7th centuries BC that were excavated from the Assyrian city of Nimrud (in modern Ninawa in Iraq) during the 19th and 20th centuries. Most are fragments of the original forms; there are over 1,000 significant pieces, and many more very small fragments.

The ivories mostly originated outside Mesopotamia and are thought to have been made in the Levant and Egypt. They are carved with motifs typical of those regions and were used to decorate a variety of high-status objects, including pieces of furniture, chariots and horse-trappings, weapons, and small portable objects of various kinds. Many of the ivories would have originally been decorated with gold leaf or semi-precious stones, which were stripped from them at some point before their final burial. A large group were found in what was apparently a palace storeroom for unused furniture. Many were found at the bottom of wells, having apparently been dumped there when the city was sacked during the poorly-recorded collapse of the Assyrian Empire between 616 BC and 599 BC.”

>> There is a lot of lies and misinformation in this paragraph. It starts with the omission of the place of origin of these ivories = Phoenicia. Look carefully how they worded it here “originated outside of Mesopotamia”, “ thought to have been made in the Levant and Egypt” = (((they))) are dancing around the pot just so (((they))) won’t say it out loud these artifacts are Phoenician art. (((They))) would never admit these are Phoenician, (((they))) would choke on it if (((they))) did. We’ve encountered this behavior from the “manipulators” before towards the Phoenicians. It’s not the first time we see it in this thread; which is clearly indicating there is a pattern and this is “organized” and “planned”. This is no coincidence.

• Page 1 748 –

>>15301138

(Please read from the start)

It is correct that these ivories were decorating different types of objects, as mentioned in this paragraph, like furniture, chests, beds and many other type of objects including sword handles like the example I’ve attached in the previous page. With this page I’m attaching a picture of a Phoenician chair. This is a rare artifact and it’s in a very fragile state. It was this type of objects which were decorated with the ivory plates = the back and the sides. Sorry, I couldn’t find a better picture. It’s probably a unique artifact. The others didn’t survive, and it’s obvious why = It’s made of wood after all.

Anons shouldn’t be surprised at all to see Phoenician and/or Ancient Egyptian art influence on these ivories. I’ve already explained many times before and talked about many times before on how the Ancient Egyptian Art influenced the Phoenician one and why that happened. This type of Phoenician furniture was also found in Ancient Egypt, but it is not admitted it’s Phoenician and it’s called from Ancient Egypt. I’m putting a sketch as a sample for anons to understand what this is about. Please, if you would read what is written on it. Because some see a goat plate design on the side of the chair, it is said this is goat worshiping done by the Phoenicians (face palm for the old man). Do you even know how many types of animals were depicted on these ivory plates? We have so many animals, including lions, cows, eagles etc. and yet, when we see a goat design, it’s quickly linked (hinted) to Satanism = (((They))) are playing with words and with your mind here again. Why didn’t (((they))) mention the other designs as well. The Goat design was one out of many. If it were an exclusive design, as in all the ivory plates had uniquely this design, then I would have agreed with the “accusation” that the Phoenicians worshiped goats. But it’s not the case. And I want to remind the reader these chair were sold to other civilizations; which indicates commercial production.

I don’t agree with the dates given about these ivories. I think the production of these ivories is much older than what we are told. The production dates back to many centuries earlier and not just from the Assyrian era. The ivories that survived, date back from that time and we are seeing them. Just look at the date of the Phoenician chair found in Ancient Egypt = third picture with this page.

“Many of the ivories were taken to the United Kingdom and were deposited in (though not owned by) the British Museum. In 2011, the Museum acquired most of the British-held ivories through a donation and purchase and is to put a selection on view. It is intended that the remainder will be returned to Iraq. A significant number of ivories were already held by Iraqi institutions but many have been lost or damaged through war and looting. Other museums around the world have groups of pieces.”

>> Amazing how some mysterious collectors “deposited” these ivories in the British Museum. The museum didn’t own them for many years. It’s as if this mysterious collector was renting space in the B.M. Or maybe this collector is the real owner of the B.M. What do you think? Wanna bet the mysterious collector was from the Bloodlines? Ask yourselves asnons = why were the Bloodlines interested in these ivories? You will understand why when you take a look at them = it’s because the designs on most of them. These ivories were recently purchased by the B.M. but let’s be honest about it = they don’t belong there, they are the national cultural treasure of Iraq (most of them anyways) and they should be returned to their original owner.

• Page 1 749 –

>>15301220

(Please read from the start)

“Description

The ivories comprise plaques decorated in relief with intricate carvings of sphinxes, lions, serpents, people, flowers and geometric motifs, as well as carvings of female heads and female figurines. They were carved in various locations across the Ancient Near East, including Egypt, modern Syria and Lebanon, with relatively few carved locally. The ivory used to make these objects would originally have been derived from Syrian elephants which were endemic in the Middle East in ancient times, but by the 8th century BC the Syrian elephant had been hunted close to extinction, and ivory for later objects would have had to be imported from India, or, more likely, Africa.”

>> I’ve never seen one of these artifacts with a serpent on them, but the rest of the design list is rather correct – must include the “fabulous” animals as well. And no anons, these artifacts are all Phoenician made. See here, they are talking from the ideology that the Phoenician city-states were just a narrow coastline. They do not consider the city-states inland Syria, Lebanon as being Phoenician. They sometimes call them Canaanites, so that you would think these are not Phoenicians, but it’s a big lie, a very very big one. Aleppo is there to prove them wrong, so does Baalbek. You will understand me more a bit later; it’s coming in another evidence I’m going to present to anons.

“The ivory plaques are thought to have been used to decorate chariots, furniture and horse trappings, and would originally have been covered in gold leaf or ornamented with semi-precious stones such as lapis lazuli. Some pieces still preserve remnants of gold leafing. Many were already centuries old when put in storage and may have fallen out of fashion by that time. The gold may have been removed from the ivories before they were put in storage, or it may have been taken by the Babylonians when they sacked and razed Nimrud in 612 BC.”

>> It is possible some of these were also painted with vivid colors like red and blue, not just covered with gold or had gems inserted in them.

“Some of the ivories have Phoenician letters engraved on their back, which it is thought may have been used as guides to the assembly of pieces onto the furniture to which the ivories were attached. The presence of Phoenician letters on the ivories suggests that they were the product of Phoenician craftsmen.”

>> Take a look at the first picture I’m putting with this page: see the Phoenician letters written on the bottom? But the design is from Ancient Egypt, right? This is Phoenician despite (((them))) not wanting to admit it. It’s not SOME of these artifacts produced by the Phoenicians, ALL of them were. The Phoenicians were the ones whom mastered this art and this is their carving style = it has their signature on it = style. And as I’ve just given the example for anons, the Phoenician letters were not just inscribed on the back, but also on the fitting sections. I agree that these letters were there for assembling purposes = so that the craftsman can recognize which piece goes where. This indicated that these were not just randomly made, but planned in advance. Which in turn means that the buyer must have asked for the designs if it’s a custom made product.

• Page 1 750 –

>>15301241

(Please read from the start)

“In addition to plaques, many small ivory carvings of female heads have been found at Nimrud, most only one or two inches in height, but a few over 5 inches tall. Many of these heads wear a flat cap which is very similar to the flat caps depicted on much earlier ivories from the Tel Megiddo site in modern Israel. Another common carved form found at Nimrud comprises figurines of two naked females joined back to back, which are thought to have been used either as handles for fans or mirrors, or as a decorative element on furniture.”

>> Here we go again: attaching the Jews to it as what (((they))) do to everything else we read. These are Phoenician made artifacts, not Jewish. And yes, they were sold to everyone, so it’s not a surprise to see them in Israel. But why mention them, always picking the Jews and Israel as examples to give, but not pick examples from other places, like from Syria or Egypt. See what I mean? This is how (((they))) control your thoughts and redirect them.

“The plaques show a wide variety of themes, some of which exhibit a pure Assyrian style, and some of which show Egyptian influence, with engravings of Egyptian people or gods, and even Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the Egyptian themes are often misconstrued, and the hieroglyphs do not form valid names, so they would seem to be debased imitations of Egyptian art.”

>> Yes, the designs come from a big variety. And did you notice the last sentence: “they would seem to be debased IMITATIONS of Egyptian art” = this is because this was not done by the Ancient Egyptians but by the Phoenicians whom were using famous designs to sell these. If this was made by Ancient Egyptians, we wouldn’t have any problems reading the hieroglyphs. We have this problem because the Phoenicians didn’t write hieroglyphs and just used randomly the glyphs as designs.

“A far greater number of ivories were found at Nimrud than at any other Assyrian site, and it is thought that they had been brought to Nimrud as booty or imported as luxury goods from cities on the Mediterranean coast. Some centuries later it seems that these objects fell out of fashion, and were put into storage.”

>> The given explanation is good about the furniture being dumped there.

“Discoveries

Layard (1845)

The first group of ivories was excavated from the site of the palace of Shalmaneser III (ruled 859–824 BC) at the Assyrian capital of Nimrud. The palace was rediscovered in 1845 by Austin Henry Layard, on the very first day of his excavations; on the second day, he made the first discovery of ivories.”

• Page 1 751 –

>>15306690

(Please read from the start)

“Loftus (1854-1855)

More ivories were found during William Kennett Loftus's excavations in 1854–1855. They were found in a group of buildings labelled the "South-East Palace" or "Burnt Palace"; Loftus described the circumstances of the discovery in a letter to the Journal of Sacred Literature in February 1855:

The S.E. Palace at Nimroud has just yielded a large collection of beautiful ivories, relics of a throne or furniture, &c. They have been fitted together by means of rivets, slides, and grooves – a complete Assyrian puzzle, and somewhat dangerous to sit on! Many exhibit traces of gilding and enamel, and were probably broken up for the inlaid gold and jewels with which they were once adorned. There is a decided Egypto-Assyrian character about the whole collection, perfect Egyptian heads being mixed with Assyrian Bulls and Lions. The heads were very fine indeed. Some of the articles were maces, dagger-handles, or portions of chairs and tables (for we have undoubted evidence of the Assyrians using such.) Figures back to back form a shaft, and support a flower-headed capital. There are also boxes, and a vase – all elaborately carved. The Assyrians were adepts in veneering, the layers being highly ornamented with sacred emblems and lion-hunts. Phoenician inscriptions are found on two of three articles. They were found strewed at the bottom of a chamber among wood ashes. They had escaped the flames, but are blackened from lying among smouldering wood. I have got up a horse-load of objects, and am fitting them together as fast as possible, preparatory to boiling them in gelatine. The whole room is not yet explored, as the earth must first be removed from above. I propose going down to-morrow.”

>> Did you notice that the designs were a blend of Ancient Egyptian and Assyrian designs according to Loftus? Only one civilizations does that = the Phoenicians. And the letters on the artifacts are there to prove it. This “blending design” style is very Phoenician, it’s like they signature mark = to blend different artistic styles from different cultures and civilizations.

“Mallowan (1949-1963)

Further discoveries were made between 1949 and 1963 by a team from the British School of Archaeology in Iraq led by the archaeologist Max Mallowan. Mallowan found thousands of ivories, many of which were discovered at the bottom of wells into which they had apparently been thrown when the city was sacked, either in the turmoil that followed the death of Sargon II in 705 BC or when Nineveh fell and was destroyed in 612 BC. Mallowan's wife was the famous British crime novelist, Agatha Christie (1890–1976), who was fascinated with archaeology, and who accompanied her husband on the Nimrud excavations. Christie helped photograph and preserve many of the ivories found during the excavations, explaining in her autobiography that she cleaned the ivories using a fine knitting needle, an orange stick and a pot of face cream.”

>> What a small world? From all the people on this planet these 2 had to be married and the husband was the one to find these ivories.

“The collection of ivories uncovered by Mallowan were divided between Iraq and Britain, where they remained at the British School of Archaeology in Iraq (later to become the British Institute for the Study of Iraq) until 1987. They were then put in storage at the British Museum until 2011, but were not put on display. Many of the Iraqi-held ivories have been lost or damaged. Following the Iraq War 2003 the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad was looted, and many of the ivories kept there were damaged or stolen. Other ivories that were stored in a bank vault in Baghdad were damaged by water when the building was shelled.”

>> None of this is a coincidence. All of this was done on purpose. Return the artifacts to their original owner.

• Page 1 752 –

>>15306709

(Please read from the start)

“In March 2011, the British Museum purchased one third of the Mallowan ivories (comprising 1,000 complete ivories and 5,000 fragments) from the British Institute for the Study of Iraq for £1.17 million, following a public fundraising campaign that raised £750,000 in six months, and with the support of grants from the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Art Fund. This is the second most expensive purchase by the British Museum since the end of the Second World War.”

>> This is most probably a huge money laundering operation. And they kept these artifacts for so long without making a single payment to the Iraqi people.

“In addition to the purchase, the British Institute for the Study of Iraq has also donated another third of its collection to the British Museum in recognition of the storage of the collection by the museum over the previous 24 years. It is anticipated that the remaining third of the collection will be returned to Iraq sometime in the future. A selection of the ivories will be put on display at the British Museum from 14 March 2011.”

>> How noble and kind of them! Let’s see how long Iraq has to wait for “some” of the pieces to be returned to it. I bet (((they))) kept the “important” pieces and returning to Iraq the “none important” pieces. It’s all about Atlantis in the end.

“Oates (1957-1963)

The largest single ivory find was made between 1957–1963 when a British School team led by David Oates discovered a room at the Nimrud palace that was dubbed the "ivory room", which had apparently served as the main storage centre for ivory objects amassed by the Assyrian kings. Subsequent excavations by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities unearthed still more ivories.

Other discoveries

In recent years excavations by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities have unearthed more ivories.

Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions

A number of the ivories contain Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions – a few contain a number of words, and many more contain single letters. Some of these were found in the mid-nineteenth century by Layard and Loftus (in particular a knob inscribed "property of Milki-ram " [lmlkrm]), and more were found in 1961 by Mallowan and Oates. Of the latter, the most significant finds were excavated in "Fort Shalmaneser" in the southeast of the Nimrud site. Alan Millard published a series of these in 1962; the code "ND" is the standard excavation code for "Nimrud Documents":

• ND 10151 - a 9cm label with three letters

• ND 10359 - a triangular plaque from a harness, with three letters

• ND 8184 - a curved strip, with six letters, and further smaller fragments

• ND 10150 - the most detailed inscription, on a fragment 9 x 5 cm, with three lines of fragmented text. This is also known as TSSI I 6, having been published in Gibson's Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions

• ND 10304 - an inscribed griffin, with five letters

• ND 10303 - an inscribed griffin, with three letters”

• Page 1 753 –

>>15312315

(Please read from the tart)

“They have been compared to the Arslan Tash ivory inscription and the Ur Box inscription.”

>> See how (((they))) don’t like to use the word Phoenician even to point these letters are Phoenician. Aramean just like Canaanite is Phoenician, just from a different generation. As we’ve seen before, the Phoenician letters or inscriptions were not just on the back, but on the fitting parts as well. This is to recognize to which workshop or craftsman these belonged to = the signature. And in the same time it’s to know which part fitted where = assembling purpose. Sometimes we have both together on one plate, sometimes none of them, and sometimes one of them.

“Collections

Ivories from Nimrud are held at a number of institutions across the world:

• British Museum, London, England: 6,000 pieces excavated by Mallowan which were formerly held at the British Institute for the Study of Iraq; as well as a number of pieces from other excavations.

• Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery 28 pieces from the British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

• National Museum of Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq.

• The Sulaymaniyah Museum, Iraqi Kurdistan. This museum houses about 30 pieces, which were excavated by Sir Max Mallowan. All of them are contained within 2 large display cases.

• Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City.

• Cleveland Museum of Art.

• Erbil Civilization Museum, Iraqi Kurdistan. The museum houses 3 plaques, which were also excavated by Sir Max Mallowan between 1949 and 1963 CE. All of these plaques are on display in Hall 2 of the Museum.

• University of Melbourne, Australia: 3 pieces excavated by Mallowan.

• The California Palace of the Legion of Honor in San Francisco has a group of pieces.

Catalogues

The Nimrud Ivories are being published in a series of scholarly catalogues. Many of these are available free online from the British Institute for the Study of Iraq (BISI).”

>> Well anons, now you are acquainted with the Phoenician Ivories. Next, I’m going to put for you pictures of them, comment when necessary of course. I’ve regrouped the ivories by theme. And, when I have more than 5 pictures of one theme, I’m going to put the page number of the page as I usually do, but If necessary, I’m also going to add next to the line of the page the letter A and numbers next to it as in = Annex 1, 2, 3 etc. I’m doing it this way because I have more than one picture to attach to one page and only have room for 5.

When you see the ivories, you will understand why the Bloodlines were so interested in them = they are an incredible collection of the Sebetti clan warriors. A very rare find. These are simply marvelous pieces.

• Page 1 754 –

>>15312323

(Please read from the start)

Let’s start with the first set of ivories under the Griffin/Sphinx Theme:

I’ve already said many times before that the Griffin, and it’s mutated form the Sphinx, represent royalty = so when you see one of these fabulous animal around, you must suspect there is a Sebetti royal close by. We’ve already seen the Griffin in Evidence # 3 (starting page 1 714). I’ve said back then that there is a big number of artifacts with Griffins/Sphinxes on them in Phoenicia; the ivories fit in there as well. See how the evidences are connected to one another?

These artifacts are simply stunning. Do you even know how small these are? And just look how intricate the design is. These are carved by hand…and on ivory on top of everything. These are projecting a very high level of craftsmanship and expertise in this domain, which is not obtained in a blink. And the designs need TIME to evolve. So, for these ivories to reach this LEVEL at the Assyrian times, then…. How long did they exist before this to reach this perfection and this intertwined, elaborate design?

Please take note and memorize the designs here, mostly how the Griffin looks like. We are going to need it later on. ^_~ It’s very important.

And anons, as I’ve already mentioned about the page number, this one has an annex to it.

• Page 1 755 –

>>15318883

(Please read from the start)

As the reader can see, the Griffin design changed, and it took Horus head over a Feline body. Another change transform it completely into the Sphinx = winged lion body with human head. And it’s more than clear here the influence of the Ancient Egyptian Art on these artifacts. The empty tiny boxes we see on the wings, mostly, are where the gems used to fit in.

• Page 1755 – A1

>>15318887

(Please read from the start)

The Second theme is the Feline Theme:

It’s extremely rare in Phoenicia to see a humanoid Feline. The first 2 ivories are extremely rare. Most of the Feline iconography in Phoenicia depicts the animal as you see in the third ivory with this theme. And there are loads of hunting scenes with felines in them as well, but these do not point to the Feline Clan warriors as the ivories I’m attaching with this page do.

Here, it’s more than obvious we are talking about the Feline Clan warriors and there is no question about the Ancient Egyptian art influence. The second ivory piece is even Bes (starting page 939) from Ancient Egypt. It was said back then in Wikipedia page that his cult reached Phoenicia. Here, you have it in front of you. And Bes was a Feline clan warrior whom used to protect children and pregnant ladies from “demons” = Horned Serpents.

• Page 1 756 –

>>15320259

(Please read from the start)

The 3rd theme is the Ram theme:

Here, the influence of Ancient Egyptian Art is more than obvious. Notice the wings how different they are from that of the Griffin/Sphinx. Back then, I said the empty spaces are where the ivories were decorated with gemstones = where the stones fit in.

Did you notice how the gems are fitting to Griffin/Sphinx themed designs and not the Felines or the Ram? Is this distinction of using luxury products like precious gemstones indicating that the Griffin/Sphinx theme designs are of a higher status people = higher rank? Like maybe royalty? And the absence of it is pointing to a lower rank person, but still part of the nobility? That’s an interesting idea to look into for those whom want to study these artifacts.