Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

7
I don't know which is dumber. The Children's book or Stonehenge (www.telegraph.co.uk)
posted 2 years ago by Ep0ch 2 years ago by Ep0ch +9 / -2
Stonehenge was built by black Britons, children’s history book claims
Readers of the newly-released book are told that monument was built while Britain was ‘a black country’
www.telegraph.co.uk
36 comments share
36 comments share save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
▲ 0 ▼
– Ep0ch [S] 0 points 2 years ago +1 / -1

There aren't images of anything except a ruin. I have said it numerously. You're drunk I keep repeating myself. Then you look it up on Google reading what you want.

The first mention is like when 1400-1500s a book reference suggesting a stone henge, it might as well be in reference to Camelot. It's not Salisbury plain. These were mostly left by Romans, stone ruins. Literally Bath, and many more. It was known as Roman by Kings of England and the Lordships who were the county's governance. All the way up until the late 1700s when the druid society partied on it. Later early 1800s a very good landscape painter painted it, John Constable. It looks nothing like it does today. Nothing at all. Look at his painting laugh. Why is there the lightning on it. It suggest what kind of motivation. Fake. Not real. Artistic impression. The other is a Knight on a horse, it suggests what period? It's riding out into a ruin of?

Instead of dumb artwork. Go look at the actual photos of how it was arranged. Now read the dumb Wiki telling you they've kept adding stones to it.

At what point was it anything else you blowhard? Literal autism. So they added stones, with cranes, diggers, surveyors, and trains, but it was made by the neolithic neanderthals from Africa?

At what point can't they forge its insertions. Believe me Britain has been doing for a while. I can think of lots. We won't go there.

Simple problem is they added a bunch of stuff today, but it was built by a lost reference? No it wasn't. Any picture wasn't a stone circle missing half its stones. It definitely didn't align into anything. It was just ruins.

I can link pictures of demolished castles and ruins crumbling, and all that is left is? Ruins, often standing stones, and a lintel. We are talking stone.

But regardless you're claiming who built it? Druidic Celts. Where are their burial mounds in England. Look next door Ireland. At what point did Rome not demolish the most famous piece of druidic feces if it was that site? Honk. Honk. Wrong try again.

Celts of Greekish origin. Northern Italy threatening Rome itself, across all of Europe.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Eisenhorn 0 points 2 years ago +1 / -1

This is what you wrote about Stonehenge:

It wasn't built by anybody except modern man all of 150 years ago

Your cannot even be consistent in your own ramblings.

So when was it build? 150 years ago or by the Romans? Can you make up your mind?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Ep0ch [S] 0 points 2 years ago +1 / -1

What are you arguing. They built stonehenge then. You retarded dumbass.

It wasn't anything except a ruins. A ruins known as Roman for almost 1000 years. Until all of a 150 years ago. What is stonehenge today. A freaking stop watch. A lunar calander marking the solstice by supposed ancients worshipping the stars. It glitters.

No it wasn't. Its alignment, all those added stones and arrangement came 150 years ago until today, it keeps adding stones. All it took was funding. What was so freaking hard to read?

Arabs weren't called Arabs then, they're a modern name. A population of hugely different demographics. Are they Africans. No they're not, despite some inhabitanting North Africa. They aren't blacks as a generalisation at all. Many are white, or much lighter. Like Turks. Etc etc.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Eisenhorn 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

Arabs weren't called Arabs then, they're a modern name.

Arabs have been called Arab for literally thousands of years.

Please stop making shit up. It's embarrassing.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Ep0ch [S] 0 points 2 years ago +1 / -1

Stop it you fucking dumb retard. Arabs are 5th century. 2000 years. It referred to a fringe population at the time before the region adopted Arabic. It specifically does this after Islam.

The time period we're referring too, they didn't exist.

They aren't Persians Summerians Egyptians Phoenicians etc etc

The language is different.

As I said it's autism with you. Your understanding is based on association, and I might as well be speaking with a Neanderthal. It simply doesn't understand there was vastly different demographics speaking in different languages of competing Empires, and tribes. Your association is modern based off Islam.

No wonder where outta Africa came from. Listen to this guy.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - 9slbq (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy