1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't dare me to write my own book and start my own cult, I've already stared down that temptation. However I do have plans to write a book about advanced wisdom and tech that will not start a cult, so maybe I'll sneak in some digs at Urantia too.

Anyway, I'm open-minded, but the evidence has to be presented before it can be received by the mind.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

But LightBringer, they lie. Even if Wilfred Kellogg did all the handwriting of the book while asleep, why should we trust his source if it's not independently verifiable? I could never read more than a few pages of Urantia at a time because it is exactly the genre of sci-fi that I find the most depressing and dismal of all, namely explanatory fiction apologetic for phenomena that do not exist except in the writer's mind. If it disagrees with observable population growth, recent common ancestor genetics, universal clocks such as ice cores, and Klee diagrams, then I might conclude it was just influenced by them rather than subject to independent research. But Sadler didn't even want to admit who wrote it anyway, because it was probably a group of more than Kellogg.

I would be better off saying everything Tolkien ever wrote was the gospel truth and hobbits are more real than reptilians if Urantia were my only source for the latter. It's the same larp.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

I recalled that you weren't solid on that belief, which is why I referred instead to Y-Adam and mitochondrial Eve, the most recent common ancestors for each gender, who were not necessarily "Adam and Eve" or even contemporaneous with each other.

But others are asking you for sources about the more specific dates and sequences too. This is why I say, remember that some sources lie: it seems you can remember it when it comes to the Bible. And "Lucifer" is a relatively modern title, we should probably stick with the Hebrew word Helel so we know which imp we're talking about. So what research have you got?

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, if you put the dawn of man that far back then yes they'd be newcomers by that standard too. But that early date for man is being challenged by population growth theory and freshly by the dating of Y-Adam and mitochondrial Eve, which together are likely to bring humanity to less than 200,000 years old.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

The giants were all genus Homo, were interfertile with H. sapiens, and qualify as humans just like Neanderthals do. Some call them watchers, some not. Their DNA is probably well-mixed into our own now, i.e., inconsequential, but when there are purer ones it's much harder for them to integrate. Noah and David tell us they remained among us, but it's likely there are none left of them with the full original DNA.

These regressive giants only arise where Homo sapiens gives them the space to thrive. Because they are parasitic if there is no cooperation they cannot survive alone. They are not the same as the extra-tall Homo sapiens we see today in the record books, who are acromegalic rather than gigantist.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Was just looking into it. Each time there is a wave of them, humanity roots them out in decades or centuries; but each wave, because they lie, pretends to be continuous with all the others. They have no continuity whatsoever, only loose confederacy, easily broken. There were some before 1800 but each group gets stamped out only to be replaced by a new infestation from elsewhere that pretends to be the same thing.

5
SwampRangers 5 points ago +5 / -0

Great summary! Going places. But remember:

  1. They lie, so don't take their word for being around hundreds of thousands of years. They haven't been, they're new at this.

  2. They lie, so don't take their word for their needing baby blood. They don't, but pretending they do makes them sympathetic to those who get a high off the blood.

  3. And always crosspost to c/Reptilians.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh, I'm in perfect sympathy with you, I just like to advert to others how much was said and how much we inferred; and we need to be alert to what the new proposed control will be.

Scored has been a godsend to break up these lockdowns.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +4 / -1

Good gloss. But what they actually said was:

Social media and content moderation experts said Twitch’s quick response was the best that could reasonably be expected. But the fact that the response did not prevent the video of the attack from being spread widely on other sites also raises the issue of whether the ability to livestream should be so easily accessible.

“I’m impressed that they got it down in two minutes,” said Micah Schaffer, a consultant who has led trust and safety decisions at Snapchat and YouTube. “But if the feeling is that even that’s too much, then you really are at an impasse: Is it worth having this?”

The argument is that you should have 50 followers to livestream. Like you should have 50 "employees" before you're really a business. I'm getting Edison Carter Live & Direct vibes.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not really. Both "melech" and "baal" were neutral words for any human king or lord. In time a particular form of melech, Moloch, became a name, but melech remained perfectly fine, including in modern Hebrew. On the other hand Baal also became a name, without any untouched revocalization, and so it was largely lost for other purposes.

But the creator was never tied down to a title, and for the most part when the name Yahweh was revealed it worked so well that very few tried to counterfeit it (that's happened more in our era than theirs). Basically either you worship Yahweh, or it doesn't matter what you worship because you're toasted by natural consequences.

Usually comparing consonants would work, but Amalek is really Amaleq and has a different, foreign root (some suspect Emeq). Moloch, Molech, Molek, Milcom, Milchom are all the same, but melech, melek, melchi are generic words of kingship. Most certainly king and deity are confusable, and continue to be in the present day. The solution is to find the one deity that rules all others and is a reliable source of good and justice (hint: talk to Jesus).

It's true that, after the Israelites left Egypt (a phase of the Hyksos Expulsion, 15th dynasty, 1539 BC), they were rapidly beset by, and acceptant of, worshippers of Baal and Moloch claiming to attribute those names to Yahweh. The key to remember is that Yahweh worshippers left no artifacts, but the others left plenty of sex toys and other figurines. The only way we can spot a good city of Yahweh worshippers is the lack of pig bones; and that doesn't help us determine the counts of nomads at all. So you summarize it pretty well as half this half that, because many archaeologists fail to note these points and say all Baal and hardly any Yahweh at all.

Nebo was the Hebrew spelling of Assyrian Nabu as in Nebuchadrezzar and works out to be the same as Thoth, Mercury, and Hermes. Because of identifications, you want to be very sure of your source if it says that Lucifer, Satan, Abaddon or the like are independent; sometimes they're just sockpuppet accounts. If your source is from the spiritual side, remember that they lie. If it's from a human testimony it can be tested.

Anyway, all that was to say the OP is a great opening dossier page and it helps to know who influenced whom when. The symbols and patterns haven't changed much today.

cc: u/Primate98

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +3 / -2

Hitler never officially got caught, but he was very supportive of masculine homosexuality and did most all the things we are accusing the pedos of doing based on public evidence. Details in the Swamp Rangers affiliated book, The Pink Swastika by Lively and Abrams.

4
SwampRangers 4 points ago +5 / -1

You must be referring to the new board c/Reptilians, where u/LightBringerFlex should repost this. However, TLDR for now, may read later, IDK.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +4 / -1

TLDR: Celestial Seasonings founder and CEO until 2002, Mo Siegel of Boulder, was also president of the Urantia Foundation (and is still their trustee).

Octopus: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hain_Celestial_Group&oldid=1086260448#Subsidiaries_and_Brands

4
SwampRangers 4 points ago +4 / -0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeannie_Saffin

Skeptic Joe Nickell is quoted with pertinent facts and plausible theory; he loves finding flaws in cases like this. "Spontaneous human combustion" has never been proven, primarily because by definition you're talking about someone who caught on fire for unknown reasons and usually didn't live to tell about it.

Now spontaneous combustion directed by humans to other materials is indicated by the Bible and may be replicable in the present day. Our friend u/Graphenium would love to inform you more about that.

But a single image of a debunked ambiguous case isn't going to carry the day.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

I was rereading this old comment suggesting that one meaning of the seven churches of Revelation was seven world regions (Russia, Africa, India, Latin America, China, America, Europe). It was interesting that it corresponded with the 1974 Club of Rome document, which I summarize as the three market centers (US-UK-Japan), the BRICS, and pan-Africa and pan-Arabia (see OP).

Since these divisions continue under other names today (help me out anons), and since we're all reviewing the early 70s suddenly, is it possible these regions still have application to global governance?

If so, the idea that the antichrist will subdue three of ten world leaders in very interesting. And Daniel 11:43-45 may hint that these three are first the Egypt-Libya-Ethiopia region plus one east of that and one north of that. If we subtract the hinted regions of the typology in the link from the Rome list, we get the Saudi Arabia bloc, the oceanic bloc regarded as Australia-Israel-South-Africa, and Japan. Could these be the three world regions that are suppressed by market collapse in the globalists' plans? (I'd previously said Russia instead of Australia but link makes me rethink!)

What have you heard about the ten global regions? The ITU phone regions don't count!

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're mostly right, except where you make statements about my motive. In this post I was indeed telling a story rather than advocating a theory: the story was that scientific inquiry is so often tainted by political control rather than free expression. It was my own story and research and presentation, though I admitted that some events were taken from McEvoy. I proposed generic solutions so that my story would have an ending rather than a complaint.

If I were to speak more directly of theory I would align with your thoughts. Many of us had conquered central math, psych, and physics in 6th grade. The simple explanation is to refer to the harmony of the totality of the cosmos. Any phenomenon is an expression of that, and when interpretations conflict then each one is incomplete and organically growable. I've already alluded that the new measurement of W boson mass is not the starting point for solving the observational problem, the starting point is the holistic picture of the cosmos in which the alleged discrepancy was observed, and having pursued that method since yesterday I already have new rippling conceptual models, to flow toward solving the present discrepancy.

If I were to characterize my seeking it would indeed be to spill off the mistakes of any theory so that its truth can remain in the cup. The truth will continue to resonate with the cosmos while the lies fail. Then everyone will see that they are holding the same Platonic cup.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sounds good. Yang-Mills theory is running simulations, so why not God too? The published free-energy experiments are mostly charlatans, the problem is that when free energy and extradimensional access are really used they look like "miracle". Last night I was picturing the "particle" as having an associated 3-brane in a higher dimension and that might well lead to results.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am inclined to believe in entanglement, but locality is so weakly defined that we don't get to say Einstein was wrong about it. More accurately, locality should be defined in such a way that apparent nonlocal action is still a L'Engle local folding event that does not involve FTL.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Newton was a very spiritual guy, not the materialist Dubay's first paragraph makes him. Did you not post these to c/FlatEarth yet? My alt is interested but gets no time.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

I completed my historical evidence for the Exodus. The exodus is simply one facet of the well-known Hyksos expulsion of the 16th century. The primary reason people claim to find no evidence for it is that they claim it was the 14th or 13th century for spurious reasons. But this discounts the testimony of Judges, Solomon, Manetho (in Josephus), and Ptolemy of Mendes (in Tatian), who all refer to Moses; and the testimony of the exodus event from contemporaries like Ahmose I, Ahmes the mathematician, Hatshepsut, Ramses II, and the Hearst Papyrus. The exodus was one big part of the sudden historical change from the contemporary 15th and 17th dynasties to the New Kingdom of the 18th.

Other notes: Thank you for mentioning Mot and Yam, because while I was familiar with their Hebrew meaning I didn't know the Ugaritic history behind them. They deserve investigation too. In terms of tying to a spring festival, there was no connection demonstrated (same for the earlier Dumuzid/Neti saga where Inanna gets denuded trying to recover Dumuzid); there was only a late theory that Baal's connection with the rain cycle was recalled in spring, which was not accepted as mainstream. So they're more in a mythopoeia limbo where the whole story is incomplete but people are trying to weave what parts they have.

The problem with JEDPR is that there is no disunity in the MT where a knife can successfully be inserted between Yah and El, they are never treated as separate gods. You could divide El from Baal while at other times identifying El with Baal, but that's because they are both titles in the earliest Hebrew (apparently the names are more personalized in Ugaritic so they're always separated). There's just no Tanakh text or forebear text that speaks of any equal-opportunity pantheon at all. So to claim that the source is polytheist honors neither the text nor polytheism nor the legend of Abram as iconoclast.

I also found an Egyptian Iah, who appears to be a syncretization of Yah that makes him primarily the moon god as squeezed into the pantheon. This too will reward study.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +3 / -2

I already knew the OP site was biased, but it needs to be rejected on sight. It gives an entire one-sided story with no context and then its ad says every story has two sides and the Palestinian side needs more focus, which are two contradictory angles.

Reuters at least gives the other side in the subleads: "Israel on alert after recent deadly Arab street attacks." OK, so it's Ramadan Bombathon, there's a series of killings by Arabs, and Israel responds by cracking down on worshippers leading to injuries for those who resist.

People who don't provide context are sloughing the job onto other anons. Too many times and they will get reported for propaganda rather than just downvoted.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +2 / -1

Grumbling, as I had an excellent writeup of Pharaoh analysis that vanished into cyberspace. Will need to wait. I now believe Apophis, 15th dynasty, is the pharaoh of the exodus, with cartloads of evidence.

Yes, Yahweh was a worldwide cult predating the Jews by thousands of years. You won't find that out by splitting the text into JEDPR though; but even as a fundamentalist I can work within those terms. It wasn't trying to get the story consistent, it was people sowing doubt on a consistent story by deliberately misinterpreting it to avoid its implications. To the fundamentalist, Ex. 12:41 and Gal. 3:17 prove that Gen. 15 is the anniversary event, and Abram was working from earlier Hebrew and Chaldean tradition.

Isis and Osiris-Seth-Baal are important, and go back to Inanna and Dumuzid, and I was just discovering the importance of Seth-Baal to Pharaoh Apophis. But when did they become associated with a spring festival? That's the catch. Perhaps on the Egyptian side (my evidence suggests) Seth was seen as responsible for the exodus chaos and thus was the origin of the king's practice in taking an Ishtar-Inanna priestess in spring as protection against a similar chaos in the first full moon of spring? This new data would require deeper review of Kramer.

I have a little separate data on the Yah and El names, suggesting that the Sethite line deliberately chose names afterward to contravene negative messaging from the Cainite line. Thus would also explain why the name Israel was given much later than Ishmael was, as it needed a generation for the connection to be recognized as a responsive improvement rather than a duality. There's no independence to Yam, as it always derives from Yah. And there's no time when Yah and El were ever separate or ever became merged; it was only liberal criticism that attempted to unmerge them. Gen. 1 introduces a deity title El, and Gen. 2:4b repeats 1:1 but adds the name Yahweh as the scope changes, using that personal name with the title afterward, like a deliberate monolithic account rather than a hodgepodge.

So I'll probably need to rewrite the amazing study I just concluded today and post it tomorrow separately and link you. I really appreciate your inspiring me to get through it, I just don't have the text written now.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +2 / -1

Because the Exodus story happened on the anniversary of the full moon of spring that had been kept in Abrahamic tradition. The crucifixion happened on the anniversary of the exodus too, and Christians often forget the exodus for the resurrection, but Jews often forget Abram's covenant for the exodus, and what came before Abram is mostly lost in familial tradition. What Abram celebrated in Gen. 15 in great detail demonstrates a developed cult of a monotheistic god who had five known clean species for sacrifice and who set the equinox and full moon as appointed times to meet with him and who called people to cross over into a covenant of life. Passover builds on all these factors without supplanting any.

I'm all for studying any strand of history if it can shed light on covenant and conspiracy. It's very hard to prove the negative that there was "never" any exodus of slaves; I deliberately haven't reviewed the pharaoh list in recent years because I need another touchstone or two before tackling Egyptology in full, but I remember there have been two good pharaoh candidates proposed whose timing meets the criteria of a year of crushing defeats (only obliquely acknowledged by inscriptions) and a voluntary depop that took a generation to recover from. Nomads don't leave archaeological traces! Obviously a good coordination of Egyptian records with the Bible would shed more contextual light on both, and I hope to get to that in time.

Last year I found a seven-year gap in Nebuchadnezzar's records (592-586) that corresponds nicely with his madness according to Daniel. You don't expect the king to keep annals those years evidencing his madness, though! In this case a gap is sufficient evidence, and the pharaoh records have been read the same way.

I'd love information about the Scottish princess legend, because it may have a valid root even if she weren't called Scots at the time. The fact that the Bible portrays a constant humbling narrative and the obelisks require constant paring back of exaggerations is one factor that gives the Biblical narrative greater weight. Both are very specific about dates, and if we recast the exaggerations of the Sumerian King List we may be able to harmonize the dynasty list sufficiently as well.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +2 / -1

Why does English even have a different word for "Easter" when many other languages generally call it "Passover"?

From Eostre in Britain, which was a strong enough association to retain when Anglic languages received the Semitic traditions.

Why does Easter sound so close to Esther/Ishtar/Eastern Star

Easter, Esther, Ishtar, Eastern, and Star all have rarefied etymological connections, but they are complex enough that distinctions are necessary before any dogmatic statements are made. The "Eastern Star" of Freemasonry is a very recent attempt to reimagine Biblical history and to pretend antiquity.

One cannot say that Easter is older than Passover unless the word is so far changed from its modern meaning as to be thoroughly unrecognizable, and if we were to do that we'd have to offer the same rights to the word Passover too. The question would be whether a spring festival were kept to a goddess under a name and meaning like Easter, and further back than Passover.

When I look, it appears Ishtar was first a tree goddess in Ebla (of the desert poplar), before she was syncretized with the broader goddess Inanna. I don't see a particular spring festival association until about the 20th century BC according to Samuel Kramer, where a night of the spring barley festival may have been dedicated to Inanna, though some consider this a later invention attributed to past kings of Uruk.

On the other hand, Moses specifically states that Passover (which I date to 1539 BC) was the 430th anniversary, to the exact day, of a particular covenant, namely when God "passed between" the sacrifices of Abram the Hebrew in Genesis 15 (1969 BC). This is a different word for passing, "abar", which goes back to Eber (b. 2269 BC) and all his descendants, which were called Hebrews (the word is now much more narrowly defined) and probably Habiru as well, because they were known for passing or crossing over into Eber's covenant.

Therefore, since Abram had the title Hebrew, and knew from Eber that he could hope for God to pass by on the full moon of spring, and he set aside a ram and other offerings with preparation comparable to the Mosaic preparation of the tenth of the month, we would claim priority for him, assuming the documents are not challenged (and challenges have never succeeded).

If we were to hypothesize that "Easter came first", namely that Abram received his unique worship from Sumer under a name of Easter rather than from Eber whose name he bore, all of the following would need to be met. (1) The Akitu spring festival must be pressed backward into the third millennium BC rather than from Sennacherib's Akitu house in Assur (683), as the spring barley harvest common to many cultures is insufficient in itself to count as an origin for Easter in particular. (2) Kramer must be regarded as correct, saying that the kings of Uruk celebrated Akitu, rather than Pirjo Lapinkivi, who cogently evinces it as a later literary backformation to attribute antiquity to it. (3) Kramer's theory that the king of Uruk may have slept with the priestess of Inanna on the tenth festival night (13th or 14th of the moon) would need sufficient documentation, which is not in evidence. (4) We would also need to prove that Inanna here was connected to Ishtar in the consciousness, as her loose connection to the sunrise is insufficient to connect the sunrise with an alleged intercourse ritual on an equinoctial full moon. (5) We would then need to connect this event with the wholly different practice of Abram, laying out clean beasts without eating them, having a vision in a dream rather than staying awake, meeting a creator God as a firepot and torch rather than an underworld goddess in the corporeal form of the mundane priestess, receiving a covenant of protection as an obscure tribal leader rather than putting on a show as a king of an ancient city.

This all seems so tenuous that I cannot accept the idea that Abram's Passover came from Easter without further data. The fact that man had celebrated the annual barley harvest for much longer does not indicate that the well-developed practice of Abram was a neologism and the backward-attributed theoretical sex narrative of certain legendary waning kings of Uruk was a continuous established root of Easter tradition. One can always argue the Bible is unreliable, but that side argument has not worked whenever the history is tested.

It seems to me rather that, once God established to Abram that the first full moon of spring was important to him, the devil started planting various theoretical seeds into his preformed religion of Dumuzid and Inanna in an attempt to anticipate what God would do next and prepare to claim that the devil had it first; this trend is visible at many points in religious history. The messy roots of "Easter" are so variegated and promiscuous ("rising" can mean anything, not just sunrise) that all four of these words come from it: eastern, western, australian (southern), and auroran (northern). So when we have theorizing from secular historians about unknowables and compare it to the firm testimony of Scripture and its historical integrity over time, there's not enough to support a claim that Easter is older.

TLDR: Certain things are older than both, like Dumuzid and barley, but the spring festival was associated with "passing" (Pascha) long before it was associated with "rising" (Easter). A theory exists that puts an Ishtar festival around the same time as the first passover rituals from Eber to Abram, but it has no provable connection and is rejected by later scholars as a literary invention. Certainly the Romans syncretized Christian Passover (the annual Lord's Day) with other elements (Eostre, sunrise, fertility), but tying these to a spring festival is less ancient than tying Passover to it is.

view more: Next ›