Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:33 am**

What is there to be accurate? You just posted a picture!

No, The Modern Antiquarian ISN'T a reliable source.
Now; are you going to post evidence to back up your claims that the Picts were in Britain before the Celts, that the Picts built all the passage tombs in Britain.....or not?

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:40 am**

the modern antiquarian wasn't the source for my knowledge of Bryn Celli Ddu
had you bothered to check you would have found this

this is the only other illustration of the tomb available on the net so therefore the only illustration available to post here
heres the one i posted

the only difference between the two is that the one on the modern antiquarian is aligned to the north as genuine archeological maps generally are as are the other ones i posted from newgrange and maes howe respectively
so your claim that it wasn't a reliable source like the claim of your argument in general is invalid
and by claiming it wasn't reliable you were attempting to make the other posters reading this sway to your view which in itself is entirely invalid
the fact that you clearly in this case lied about the validity of the plan speaks volumes

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:53 am**

marduk wrote:the modern antiquarian wasn't the source for my knowledge of Bryn Celli Ddu

What knowledge of Bryn Celli Ddu? You're contradicting yourself

The link for this

Quite clearly indicates that it came from The Modern Antiquarian

Marduk wrote:so your claim that it wasn't a reliable source like the claim of your argument in general is invalid

Why? What makes it so, in your opinion?

Marduk wrote:the fact that you clearly in this case lied about the validity of the plan speaks volumes

I didn't lie about anything, and the fact that you can only bluster, insult me, refuse to post evidence, demand to know where I work etc speaks volumes for the fact that you don't what you're talking about. You never have, and you never will.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:31 pm**

you claimed that because the plan came from the modern antiquarian it wasn't valid. you stated that as relevant to your argument
clearly
it is a highly accurate plan
you claiming to be an archaeologist should be aware that it currently can be viewed as part of an exhibition called Death in Wales 3,000-4,000 BC, at the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/5083436.stm
the exhibition claims that "the passage into a burial mound on Anglesey was built to catch the rising sun on the summer solstice."
you are aware no doubt that the rising sun on the summer solstice is roughly northeast
as is the entrance on the plan of Bryn Celli Dddu from the modern antiquarian
you know all this or not
in which case claiming that the plan was not a reliable map was an attempt by you to once again designate a piece of my evidence to the discard pile in the eyes of other posters
now that I've just proved that you are clearly either lying or wrong i expect that you will claim something else about the modern antiquarian (which i haven't read by the way) to once again make people think that your methods are correct
so once again i ask you
what site are you working on at the moment as a professional archaeologist

Fraus Historicus

the fact that you can only bluster, insult me, refuse to post evidence, demand to know where I work etc speaks volumes for the fact that you don't what you're talking about. You never have, and you never will.

my last post not only completely failed to insult you at any time it also posted evidence and didn't ask where you worked.
so another lie on your part to attempt to cover your previous attempt at misdirection
your colours are starting to show arent they

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:58 pm**

marduk wrote:you claimed that because the plan came from the modern antiquarian it wasn't valid. you stated that as relevant to your argument
clearly
it is a highly accurate plan

But:
a)It's NOT proof that the Picts built it.
b)It's NOT proof that the Picts were already here when the Celts arrived.
c) It's NOT proof that the Tuatha de Danaan weren't entirely mythical.
Therefore, it's irrelevent.

Marduk wrote:you claiming to be an archaeologist should be aware that it currently can be viewed as part of an exhibition called Death in Wales 3,000-4,000 BC, at the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/5083436.stm
the exhibition claims that "the passage into a burial mound on Anglesey was built to catch the rising sun on the summer solstice."
you are aware no doubt that the rising sun on the summer solstice is roughly northeast
as is the entrance on the plan of Bryn Celli Dddu from the modern antiquarian
you know all this or not

Yes. But it can also mark the Midwinter solstice, both midsummer and midwinter full moons, the cycle of Venus every 40 years...and a few other things too, probably, that no-one has worked out yet. Go read Uriel's Machine by Knight & Lomas; it's one of their few decent books. It was also printed several years before this archaeologist made the exact same "discovery" that's actually covered in the book. News, it isn't.

Marduk wrote:in which case claiming that the plan was not a reliable map was an attempt by you to once again designate a piece of my evidence to the discard pile in the eyes of other posters

I said the book wasn't reliable. I never said the plan wasn't.

Marduk wrote:now that I've just proved that you are clearly either lying or wrong

I'm neither wrong nor lying, and you've only succeeded in embarrassing yourself even further publicly.

Marduk wrote:so once again i ask you
what site are you working on at the moment as a professional archaeologist

Not only is that irrelevent, it's also one of your business.

I'm going to ask you one more time; do you have any reliable scientific or archaeological evidence to prove your claims that the Picts were here before the Celts arrived, that the Picts built all the passage tombs in Britain, and that the Tuatha de Danaan were not an entirely mythical race? Yes or No?

Marduk wrote:my last post not only completely failed to insult you at any time it also posted evidence and didn't ask where you worked

You accused me of lying about the picture-I didn't-and not only did you NOT post any "evidence", you blatantly ignored my request to clarify exactly WHY you think my argument is "invalid". I know why yours is invalid-because you don't have one!

Marduk wrote:so another lie on your part to attempt to cover your previous attempt at misdirection
your colours are starting to show arent they

Your colours have being showing for quite a few pages now. And I have never lied.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:08 pm**

you claimed that the plan wasn't reliable because it came from that book
too late to rush back and change what you said now because i quoted you in the following post
that clearly shows you to be a liar
you have lied and lied again in an attempt to appear knowledgable on a subject you know nothing about
your area is clearly post roman
not ancient
yet you claim to be an authority
thats another lie
you claim to be a professional acrhaeologist yet can't prove it
another lie
thats me finished with this conversation
the evidence i have already posted stands on its own
why don't you go running to michelle and claim that youre being belittled again like you did last time when clearly all the way through you have been the agressor
another lie
doesn't end with you does it
finis

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:21 pm**

marduk wrote:you claimed that the plan wasn't reliable because it came from that book

I said nothing of the kind.

Marduk wrote:too late to rush back and change what you said now because i quoted you in the following post

Again, you're a liar.

Marduk wrote:that clearly shows you to be a liar

What does?

Marduk wrote:you have lied and lied again in an attempt to appear knowledgable on a subject you know nothing about

That's yourself you're describing!

Marduk wrote:your area is clearly post roman
not ancient
yet you claim to be an authority

And your area is clearly New Age bullshit.

Marduk wrote:you claim to be a professional archaeologist yet can't prove it

I don't have to, and especially not to you.

Marduk wrote:thats me finished with this conversation

That's the first sensible thing you've said!

Marduk wrote:the evidence i have already posted stands on its own

You haven't posted any evidence.

I'll recap for you:
a) The Picts were NOT in Britain before the Celts arrived.
b) The Picts did NOT build all the passage tombs in Britain.
c)The Tuatha de Danaan were entirely mythical and did NOT exist.

Marduk wrote:why don't you go running to michelle

Why don't you run back to the nursery, since you persist in behaving like a 7 year old?

Marduk wrote:when clearly all the way through you have been the agressor

And I dare say you honestly believe that.....

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:33 pm**

This timeline makes it pretty clear that the Picts show up in the middle of the 4th century AD...to cause trouble.

http://www.gallica.co.uk/celts/timeline.htm

364 Picts, Scots, Attacotti and Saxons raiding Britain.
367 Great invasion of Picts, Scots and Attacotti, aided by Saxon pirates and a simultaneous attack on Gaul by Franks.Treachery in the Wall garrison. Nectaridus, Count of the Saxon Shore, killed and Fullofaudes, Duke of Britain, routed.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:17 pm**

so if youre saying the picts were Celts
then why were they called picts at all ?

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:33 pm**

marduk wrote:because the name pict is latin derived from pictus for painted

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:47 pm**

Bob,
Here's a bit about the Picts and their maritime abilities. Most of the article concerns symbol stones, but towards the end it has a bit about their ships.
http://www.heroicage.org/issues/8/cessford.html#pnb

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:53 pm**

You don't have to convince me.

I declared you the winner a while ago.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:56 pm**

shucks!

Just thought it was interesting, honest!

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:17 pm**

and the name Celt is derived from the name given to the Gauls by herodotus "Keltoi"
both the Celts and the Picts wore blue Wode in battle
so why bother to differentiate if as you say they were exactly the same ?

for your erroneous version of history to be correct the Romans would have decided to call the picts by that name because they were excatly the same as everyone else who they didn't call by that name
thats common sense in your field is it
ROFLMAO

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:23 pm**

Keltoi meant "Barbarian" in Greek. Picti is Latin.

Archaeologica.org

Europes Oldest Civilization Discovered

reply

REPLY

reply

reply

reply

The Picts & the Sea

reply

reply