“Grandpa Was A Deity” another perspective

The answer is 141 generations ago. Allowing 30 years a generation, that yields a date of 2217BC. Obviously, this is not a precise date. But it is probably good to within a century or two. And that is interesting for two reasons. One is that the 23rd century BC is slap-bang in the middle of the period when Indian civilization was emerging. The other is that it coincides with a shift in both the culture of Australia and the composition of the continent’s wildlife.

The third thing that arrived in Australia at this time was the dingo. The origin of these wild dogs, which are believed to have outcompeted and exterminated the native thylacine (also known as the Tasmanian tiger, because it lingered into modern times on that dingo-free island), has always been obscure, though their resemblance to certain breeds found in India is well known.

The second shift was gastronomic. Sadly, the archaeological record has yet to reveal tandoori ovens or fossilized chapattis in Australia. But it does show changes at this time in the ways that cycad nuts—an important crop that Australians had long cultivated by the “fire-stick” method of burning vegetation that competes with the trees that bear them—were processed. Such nuts contain toxins. After about 2000BC several methods for removing these toxins, such as leaching them out with water and fermenting them away, spread through Australia. To this day, cycad nuts are familiar food in Kerala, in southern India. There, they are detoxified by being dried in the sun or by the fireside.

“Grandpa Was A Deity” & “Genesis of Genesis”  place the arrival in Australia to the Biblical Flood era – when man (those we know as the Hebrew-Aryans) spread across the globe.  Arpachshad, the son of Shem was born in Hebrew Year 1660, or 2104bce.  The calculated 2217bce equates to the birth of Shem (2202bce) who is actually mentioned – along with his two brothers – three years earlier (when Noah is 500).

As more scientific evidence emerges, there is more evidence that the Bible Calendar reports the migration of Hebrew-Aryans with their connection to Stonehenge and the other megalithic circles

Great For Writer

OK now we know why the book has the familiar mythology – un addition to the science and medical information

Washington Post incompetence

An article posted to the Washington Post by Sean Sullivan demonstrates not only his incompetence by the incompetence of his editor.  The article in question is “Pelosi defends altered photo of Democratic women”, and, supposedly, relates to a digitized alteration of a group photograph – rather than the apparent fact that it was a probably hasty reshoot  when the four women arrived late.

Why a reshoot and not digitally altered?

As shown in earlier Mystic Voice posting of a comparison between the images, there are too many differences in the allegedly unaltered segments of the picture – including an obvious relocation of the camera relative to the Capitol Building in the background.

Clearly the Washington Post staff are either willfully dishonest – seeking to blindside Pelosi – or simply too incompetent to look at the pictures they are reporting on … the differences are, in fact, rather glaring … and there are far too many for it to be digitized …

My favorite being the insertion of a coat, on the steps, in the second picture.  In reality, the alignment of architectural features make it clear the camera angle changed … as confirmed by the changes in the people in the main group … at least one woman turned her head 60 degrees to her left, and another raised her hands to her collar.

Anyone looking at the two pictures – rather than just the circled women – would have seen that … unless they are republicans and unable to see their own hands in front of their own eyes.

Pelosi defends altered photo

One needs to wonder what information Pelosi was working from when she defended the photo.  Her are the two versions… the one with the additional four women being the one supposedly altered digitally to add them … hence the one being defended.

NOW, Why is there an issue?  Is it a petty partisan attack on Pelosi – and one she lacked the information to respond to appropriately?

Or is it really a digitally altered photo?  Let’s look.

QUESTION – just to add four women, did the digital artist really build a new composite photograph of all those other women present – finding images that were roughly the same pose and inserting them?

Or were there two pictures taken?  And nobody on her staff bothered to tell Pelosi … or maybe the reporter blindsided her … intentionally seeking to embarrass her by indicating there was a fraudulent intent?

I certainly would like an explanation.  Not an explanation of the addition of four respected women into a group photo of their colleagues. 

NO!  I want an explanation of why a digital artist would make so many clear alterations … and let’s start with the idiot reporter, and the incompetent media that ran his story.

IF (s)HE CANNOT EXPLAIN ALL THESE DIFFERENCES – and more that exist between the images -- FIRE THE IDIOT REPORTER and bar them from any job in the media.  We do not need deceitful and dishonest reporters overseeing Politicians…. makes for bad watchdogs.