Roman settlement uncovered in UK, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 01:46 PM by Kryties

reply to post by blupblup

Reg: "If you want to join the People's Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans."

Brian: "I do!"

Reg: "Oh yeah, how much?"

Brian: "A lot!"

Reg: "Right, you're in."

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 06:43 PM by Pr00F

i live in cleveland UK and have "the nose" sir_chancealot speaks of does that mean former king of northumbria? LOL

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 06:52 PM by Jibbs

He’s not the messiah; he’s a very naughty boy.

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 06:56 PM by spacebot

Roman Head from Mexico

Roman Figurine Found in Mexico: Studies in Archaeological Context

That little "roman" head from precolumbian mexico

The Roman Head from Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca, Mexico: A Review of the evidence

The "Roman Figurine" Supposedly Excavated at Calixtlahuaca

Tiny Roman Bust Shows Pre-Columbian Contact With Mexico

The determination that it is specifically Roman from circa AD 200 therefore relies entirely on the artistic evaluations of Heine-Geldern, Boehringer and Andreae, since the TL age range is consistent with many other pre-Columbian possiblities. (A more precise TL date given in the Hristov and Genovés article, viz. 1780 ± 400 B.P., was based on a preliminary calculation made from the same test results, but should now be disregarded in light of Wagner (2000) and Schaaf and Wagner (2001). See Hristov and Genovés (2001) for further details and a reply to other objections to the find.)

Even granting the possibility that a Roman ship might have reached the New World 1800 years ago, how could a relic of such a visit have ended up in a barely pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican burial? Hristov and Genovés cite two dozen instances in which clearly older Mesoamerican objects appear in later burials. The most dramatic of these is a 3000-year-old greenstone Olmec mask that was found in a 500-year-old Aztec burial offering inside the Great Temple of Mexico-Tenochtitlan.

What a relic was doing in an ancient ship bound to the American continent? It had no business there. If you are going to make long trips you certainly don't take unnecessary things with you especially if you are aboard a ship made with insufficient ancient technological means.

It was probably not aboard a ship. It was probably made there, a self portrait, or either picturing someones beloved relative, like his father. He wears a hat belonging to the native fashion of Delian fishermen. This fashion predates even the Roman era.

Reality must be even more stranger than we can imagine.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by spacebot]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by spacebot]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by spacebot]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by spacebot]

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 10:05 PM by pteridine

It seems that peoples settled North America far earlier than the general public believes. Read AMERICA, BC by Barry Fell and check out America's Stonehenge [Mystery Hill, NH]. The Newport, RI Viking Tower? Likely nothing to do with Vikings who were not much for building anything worthwhile except their slave trade [ what, you thought they raided farmers to steal sheep?]. It was built much earlier. Cloumbus, Brendan, Vikings....all late comers.

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 10:11 PM by bodrul

reply to post by bubbles75

roman Ruins in The UK?
joking right

10min from my house (walking distance)
Roman road, roman wall, roman aquiduct and so on

this is nothing new

when they start finding something of intrest drop me a line

reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 02:19 AM by Kryties

Brian: "Have I got a big nose, Mum?"

Brian's mother: "Stop thinking about sex!"

Brian: "I wasn't!"

Brian's mother: "You're always on about it. "Will the girls like this? Will the girls like that? Is it too big? Is it too small?""

----------------------------------------------

Brian: "Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?"

Reg: "***k off! We're the People's Front of Judea"

reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 02:24 AM by Interestinggg

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Kryties

Splitters.

Do you mean they made it like half half on purpose?
So it would confuse people on purpose?
Thats what it looks like to me.
How could you make this mistake.

reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 02:33 AM by Kryties

reply to post by Interestinggg

Actually he was referring to THIS:

Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?

Reg: ***k off!

Brian: What?

Reg: Judean People's Front! We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front! Cuh!

Francis: Splitters.

Brian: Can I... join your group?

Reg: Nah, **ss off.

Brian: I didn't want to sell this stuff, it's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody!

Judith: Are you sure?

Brian: Oh, dead sure! I hate the Romans already!

Reg: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

Brian: I do!

Reg: Oh, yeah, how much?

Brian: A lot!

Reg: [brief pause] Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the ***king Judean People's Front.

Stan: Yeah, the Judean People's Front.

Reg: Yeah. Splitters.

Stan: And the Popular Front of Judea.

Reg: Yeah. Splitters.

Stan: And the People's Front of Judea.

Reg: Yea... what?

Stan: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.

Reg: We're the People's Front of Judea!

Stan: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

Reg: People's Front!

Francis: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

Reg: He's over there. [points to a lone man]

Reg, Stan, Francis, Judith: SPLITTER!

PS: I wonder which will come first: The mods close this thread or I quote the entire movie