Time Cube Redux: Space Moors, Freemasons, black means white, there was no slavery

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yaboosh

Super Sleuth
Mar 18, 2010
24,395
0
0
My dad just dropped the bomb on me and told me he had gone back to the original spelling of his last name, which apparently was changed when he was 9 and incidentally is the one I was born with but he says is incorrect. I told him I'm not changing right now. I don't even understand the legality of it as I'm sure he hasn't actually changed it but for all intents and purposes he has as in he has reverted back to birth certificate status, no one seemed to care before or after. Now I have to figure out if this "original" spelling is a variant of the one I'm using now, or if I'm actually just living a lie.

This post hasn't gotten enough love. It is actually on topic to the original post, using a metaphor that makes the entire discussion much much more interesting.
 
Sep 27, 2010
9,538
0
0
Seattle, WA
I only posted the link for the photos, I didn't say "read what this author has to say." You see the photos and you gain a basic background of what the statues are about, simple as that. There are many articles about the Olmecs, I simply picked that one because I wanted a quick link.
Yes. And one of the sources people linked showed that Olmec statues had a great degree of variability in their features, had designs that may have been the way they were due to the material used, and also showed physiognomical similarity to people native to those areas today (through photographs).

So, we have two possibilities.

We have people with similar facial features as the statues that are native to the areas where these civilizations were once found, sharing no known African ancestry (as evidenced by genomic analyses).

The alternative, as you seem to be proposing, is that the statues are in fact depicting the Moors (whose descendants are usually identified as the Maghrebis), or some African peoples, and not the Olmecs due to the exaggerated lips and wide noses characterized by the statues.

Which of the two options do you think is more reasonable given the evidence?
 

Des0lar

will learn eventually
May 31, 2007
8,144
0
0
If it was propaganda, then why tell your subjects that they were brutally ripped from their homeland?

If the goal was to legitimize the takeover of the Americas, why teach that another group (Native American nations) was living there first?
See I will explain this:

The white men invented slave trade as a story to make black people feel illegitimate on the continent of America. Every time you teach a little black kid in school that his ancestors were slaves and brought here from Africa, not only are you tarnishing his history, but you also let him know that he is actually NOT an American! He may be a US Citizen, but that's all. Now at this point, you have established white supremacy over the blacks for once and all

Teaching Native Americans lived here first was easy, because you could show how the white men have conquered the continent with little to no resitance, defeating the weak and underdeveloped natives.

It all makes sense.
 
Sep 1, 2012
1,973
0
0
I'm going to need some proof here. NOT photographs. Automatic writing and astral visions only.
You're going to need five pounds of Lysergic acid diethylamide and a completely quiet room. Once your mind is properly dilated the universe will pour the knowledge in. Just try not to think about clowns, the universe abhors a clown.
 
Sep 23, 2009
1,542
1
0
If it was propaganda, then why tell your subjects that they were brutally ripped from their homeland?

If the goal was to legitimize the takeover of the Americas, why teach that another group (Native American nations) was living there first?
When Columbus first came to the Americas he thought he was in India, hence why Native American's were called Indians. Well now we must look into the past of India during the times of Columbus and see what the Indians from India looked like.
 
Jul 30, 2013
1,319
25
345
I have both of the books, reason I linked them.
that doesnt change anything. you take these books into account because they fit your agenda. someone even supplied you with a link that debunks one of em step by step...
(in a logic manner)

just because someone can write and publish a book, doesn't mean hes definately right.
if you can't even comprehend this fact..

everything you say has no logic at all.
you won't even answere the important questions.
what are the native americans than?!
where do blacks come from?
how old are you?
and why the fuck won't you even get the fact that you don't supply any sources (that are atleast believebal or scientificaly proven)
you didn't even say anything to the forged source you gave on page 2 or 3?!

if you can life in your dream world, fine for you. but don't even try to propagate your stiupid foolish lies. you waste of oxigen.
 
Jul 19, 2005
3,715
0
0
When Columbus first came to the Americas he thought he was in India, hence why Native American's were called Indians. Well now we must look into the past of India during the times of Columbus and see what the Indians from India looked like.
Wha? What does that have to do with any of the rebuttals of your theories thus far? Stop muddying the water, and address some of these other questions before going off on another tangent.
 
Oct 8, 2013
2,462
0
0
Since there is no drinking water, does cobra mean the ocean is too cold? How does that...does the cold water make the ship cold? Would warm water, but everything else the same, be better? Cobra, pls respond, my model diorama depends on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.