/qresearch/ - Q Research

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 l`insegnamento di Filologia Semitica, relatore Sabatino Moscati, con una tesi sull`insediamento 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 l`Istituto per la Civiltà fenicia e punica, del quale è stato Direttore dal 1997 al 2002. Attualmente è Professore Straordinario di Archeologia fenicio-punica presso l`Università 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 dell`Università di Sassari, dell`Istituto 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 dell`XI 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 dell`Istituto Italiano per l`Africa e l`Oriente. 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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –

>>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 –