From the Beginning of Mankind

Cro-Magnon 1, discovered in France. Dated to be about 30,000 years old, and was found as a solo skull. This was the first evidence of evolved man...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon_1
Until we found...

The Grimialdi Man, in Italy. Dated to be between 28,000 and 38,000 years old, a full male and female skeleton, with plants and stuff from their time around them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimaldi_Man

So, Caucasian and Negroid (not a racist term, it's a scientific term) Cro-Magnons have been discovered and dated to be around 30,000 years old.

BUT, somehow Caucasians did not continue with this development, as is evident when looking at fossil records from 10,000 BC. 20,000 years after the evolution of the Cro-Magnon man, Caucasian Neanderthals were still present.

Now, let's skip fossils for a few thousand years, and get to human record.

3,000 BC AKA 5,000 years ago. The civilization in Egypt at Gaza is booming. Africa is the center of civilization. The Asian region, and Aryan region were developing, but Egypt had columns, chariots, language, literature, structured politics, etc.

So 3,000 BC we see written, spoken and intelligent language... But Greece does not pick up on any of this until around 900 BC (Which, if the Grimaldi man is evidence of anything, the White tribes stole Europe from Black tribes) Look at the Egyptian religion, and gods. There is not a SINGLE mention of war. They do not speak of any honorable soldiers, or heros that took land from other nations. There is not even a war god... Then came the white man.

Then came Alexander the Great, and Rome. Alexander was not a bad man, but he did start the Hellenistic era. This had good and bad effects. Good, because it spread arts through the Eastern world, which allowed for the building of statues and other things that we can look at today to learn from. But bad, because it opened up the mostly peaceful Eastern world to the mostly violent western world, which ended in it eventually being conquered.

Rome was homosexual (Women were trained on the island of "Lesbos", hence the name "Lesbian"), and pedophiliac. Gymnasiums were places where young men were educated and molested, and December 25th was known as "Saturnalia", a holiday where men had sex with each other (and did other strange things, like slaves being the master for a day and vice versa) and beat their wives.
And saviors were crucified by the roman government FAR before Jesus. Spartacus, leader of the great slave revolution in Rome would have been crucified if captured, as 6,000 of his men were crucified for revolting.

Hannibal, you may have heard mention of him. I won't get into too much detail here, but he was from Carthage (AKA Africa) and was a great hero against Rome. His father had fought in battles against Rome's advances, and had written plans to conquer Rome. So when he died, Hannibal took up his place and plans, he was called into the military by a family member, and he launched a campaign against Rome. Then conquered most of Europe before getting there, crossed the alps with 37 elephants (with only 1 survivor) losing 1/3 of his men. Then did battle with armies that usually about 1.5x the size of his using ambush tactics. His most successful battle was against an army 2x the size of his, and the victory gave him control of Rome for 15 years. The Roman Senate still existed, but only because he did not actually go to Rome to destroy it, he simply planted seeds for revolution. If you want to read more about him: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=475770&f=244

Hebrews were being persecuted around this time (most likely because of the violence of their ancestors), and around 200 years AFTER Hannibal, Jesus was born (Hannibal was also alive around the time of the Rosetta stone's creation). There were actually many candidates for "messiah" during the time of Jesus, John the Baptist was actually more popular at the time, and when Jesus got baptized by him, it was more of a political move. The messiah was supposed to lead the Hebrew people back to their homeland of Israel, and conquer any who lived there. Jesus did no such thing. 30 years after Jesus' death, the Bible begins being written. This marks 1 AD (which is the beginning of our time period, ex: 2013 AD).

I'll stop here and continue later. If you want to add anything I skipped, PLEASE DO.

 

Gotta love faux history!

 

Gotta love people who stalk me no matter what section I go to, only to say things with no real evidence or even substantial personal evidence to back themselves up.

 

Also,
I think I know why Jesus was so greatly accepted. I believe he invented distillation.

No one knows who actually invented distillation, but it was said to be invented sometime between 1 AD and 100 AD... Now, if we just add 40 years to that, and say maybe it was invented around 10 BC... It may have been invented by Jesus... And if you look at the Bible, that would explain the "water into wine" story. That was the only way they could describe something like Vodka the first time they ever saw it and tried it.

 

First, but not the oldest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnons#Grotta_del_Cavallo

The fuck? Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are two entirely different species that developed independently of each other. Modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals. Indeed, Homo Sapiens Sapiens developed in Africa and spread from there.

As was civilization in what we call the British Isles. Stonehenge was being built at this time, for example. Along the Rhine we see evidence of pottery, organized agriculture, and wooden structures.

You're trying to explain accidents of geography by claiming differences in intelligence.

Now whites "stole" Europe from black tribes? Are you fucking serious? That is all the Grimaldi is really evidence of? Hell, Cro-Magnon man, which is considered to be the for runner of the "whites", was in Europe before, or at the very least at the same time as, your Grimaldi man.

If you were a true student of history and science at all you would understand the saying "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

You cannot reasonably say that the men and women of ancient Europe had no religion, had no gods, and any sort of intelligent or spoken language, simply because they didn't write it down.

Likewise, you cannot reasonably say that war or conflict was unknown in Egypt before your bogyman, the white man, arrived.

The "eastern" world, from the middle east to Japan, was violent long before Alexander ever arrived on the scene. There is plenty of evidence for this. Standing armies and war making were not unknown to the civilizations he and his armies encountered.

Rome was also straight. We know this for a fact. I fail to see your point here. Homosexuality has never been unknown in your beloved "eastern" world.

Men and women were also executed in "eastern" civilizations as well.

Good for him? He was a brilliant commander, no doubt. But even he lost to Rome in the long run, and the power of Carthage was broken forever.

ok?



What the hell is your over all point? The white man is the devil?

 

So you think he invented distillation simply because he may or may not have been alive when it was invented?

So they would call something wine, despite it looking and tasting nothing like wine, because you think there is no other way to describe it? Why couldn't they have called it beer? Or maybe mead? Each of those weren't unknown either. Why wine? Surely even if they didn't know what distilled liquor was they would have at least known what it wasn't (ie wine).

 

To claim that Alexander spread art through the East is simply ridiculous. There were rich artistic traditions well established long before his time.

Similarly, to imagine that the East was peaceful before the coming of the Hellenes is equally nonsense. Just check out the histories of persia or india for example.
Ajatashatru is a name to check out in this context....Cyrus the Great in another, but there are many more examples.

It wasnt until the time of the Mongols, a race untouched by Greek influence, that China (a country with a long history of bloody inter state wars] was conquered.
It was the Muslims and later the Brits who eventually came to dominate India, a long time after Alexander.

So I dont know what you are trying to get at in this thread. But it can help to have some basic notion of world history before making sweeping assertions.

 

According to that it just looks like we had Cro-Magnon style teeth in some regions before we had Cro-Magnon style skulls.

The ones I posted were skulls (which is the REAL indicator of whether or not the person had a Cro-Magnon brain) and bodies with skulls.

 

No. I think that because of the record of him turning water into wine being the ONLY indication of anyone doing any form of distillation in his time...

If you had NEVER seen vodka before, and had been drinking fermented juice to get drunk your whole life. You would PROBABLY be like "That's not going to get me drunk, it's water" then Jesus was like "No, it's not water, it's the best wine you've ever had".

That's not exactly what happened in the story, but it makes more sense that Jesus was chosen as the messiah (The chosen Warlord to win back Israel for the Jews) not because he was a peace monger, but because he had something that made people believe in him.

 

They weren't Cro-Magnon "style" teeth, they were genuine Cro-Magnon teeth.

There is also the upper jaw bone found in Kents Cavern that was dated to over 41,000 years ago.

 

Ahhh, ok, so you're guessing based on zero evidence. All that was said in the bible was that he turned water to wine. You, then, insinuate that this could only have been the process we know as distillation. Why? Because it fits your bullshit view of history.

In your absurd narrative, why would Jesus call something wine he knew wasn't wine?

 

Also to add to this, if you read the Apocrypha (The books that were taken out of the Bible by Constantine, who was the Emperor of Rome) it talks about Adam getting removed from the garden, the working with Satan. Satan convinces Adam to start eating food and stuff, and eventually humans developed digestive organs, and at that time our hope of re-entering the garden was crushed.

And if you look at history, they say there was a time when we became better at eating cooked meat, and unable to eat raw meat. So it would make sense that everything we call "Cro-Magnon" came in small spurts of mutant adaptation that made them better fitted to survive over the Neanderthals.

And teeth are one of the first things that would make you better at eating, considering our Cro-Magnon jaws contain perfect ripping AND grounding tools. So we are perfect omnivores.

 

I'm working on more evidence than the historians that just randomly guess that it happened between 1 AD and 100 AD just to have a date to say "Yes it was invented".

I'm actually pointing to an event where people seem to have been drinking a distilled alcoholic beverage to get drunk. An event that somehow got recorded and passed down the bowls of history.

I'm not "making up" anything, I'm "making sense" of it.

 

You are not making sense if you say things that are clearly untrue, as with the bs about Alexander etc.

You will never make much sense of anything historical unless you are more fully informed as regards actual facts of history.

 

No, you're not. They are working from physical evidence and first hand sources. You're operating entirely in the realm of supposition.

They don't seem to have been drinking a "distilled alcoholic beverage". The text specifically says "wine". You expect us to believe that they wouldn't know the difference, in terms of both taste and smell, between wine and a distilled drink like vodka, regardless of whether or not they had been exposed to a distilled drink before hand? Again, if they knew what wine was, they would also know what wine wasn't.

You're making up your own conclusions, based on little to no actual evidence, and then passing those conclusions off as fact.

 

So taking a story and explaining how it's not a miracle, and putting real world science into what happened, is "not making sense of anything"... LOL

So, TO YOU, it makes more sense that Jesus magically turned water into wine, than that he was the first person to make liquor.

What an asshat.

 

I applaud your exploratory thinking here FinShaggy,but you should know that wine was extensively drunk by the Ancient Greeks well before the time of Jesus,so what you are saying is just completely false.No disrespect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece_and_wine

 

I'm so tired of you


go troll elsewhere

 

Science? You call what you're using science? What are you on?

 

I never mentioned Jesus, only your wrong notions about the history of the east etc.

If you want my opinion on the idea that JC originated distilling, then I think really its just a conjecture with no evidence at all to back it up.