David J Jones Info below

Following is my research of some TV documentaries in the order they were broadcast, to give reasonable alternative theory's of past history (See Page 4 for some related other recent points)

 “Decoding Stonehenge”

It is suggested in this TV documentary that many Britons, over thousands of years were travelling to Stone and Woodhenge at least twice a year, at midsummer and midwinter solstices, to a great banquet. It was also evidenced that other Britons resided in a village of at least 1,000 houses near there and, other Britons visited to honour their ancestors, who are assumed to be the stones themselves. It was then stated that ordinary people cast their dead relative’s ashes into the river Avon. Six huge post holes were excavated on a ridge overlooking a track way, of which it was suggested they held three platforms to place the dead upon to rot in the sun; with ritual killings also acted out here.

Can the latter be true, as we are told that the entire ancient monuments throughout the British Isles are burial places; then why carry dead bodies or ashes and all the rigmarole to Stone or Woodhenge?

Strabo, Poseidonius, Caesar and others write that the Britons were a proud refined nature loving nation who dressed in fine plaid clothes, with gold hair-braids and elaborate waxed hairstyles; with neck and armband jewellery and artistic designs displayed on their bodies and fineries. So apparently were not morbid fanatics as most academics otherwise try to portray today. I will identify what has been found in a plausible interpretation of it as follows: -

Caesar wrote that the British could use their chariots with great skills, with trained hunting dogs running alongside, that apparently were bred and trained over thousands of years. So were the 3 platforms or one huge stage on 6 posts possibly for overseeing any games, or 3 separate podiums. Isn’t this evidence that the Britons were using chariots before anyone Romans?

Why do some archaeologists have an unhealthy obsession for incessant morbid death explanations, for it is well documented that Britons cared for their aged, young and infirm; and then surely any event at Wood or Stonehenge was possibly for a seasonal fair or games entertainment, in very much the same way as the festivals and athletic events are the traditional venues of today; “rather than any morbid twice yearly funerals” over thousands of years.

The Britons could have raced chariots, called trotting today, or coursed hares, or raced horses or dogs, archery, or entered into any number of entertaining competitions. Isn’t it more than possible that other countries since have copied our British event of these earlier times? Do these academics have any fun in their lives?

Isn’t it more plausible that thousands of Britons and invited Europeans came to partake at this magnificent complex at Stonehenge and other local venues, culminating in the magnificent sights of the rising and the setting of the Sun; with the Moon playing its part perhaps in fertility or wedding rites.

It was estimated in this TV program there was 1 death every two years over thousands of years, with one injured archer; suggesting these were ritual killings. How can the latter be ritual deaths; and more likely some fights would have broken out, usually for the love of a beautiful British woman, surely are normal incidents of death?

The Amesbury Archer burials were also said to be linked with new pots and a bit of gold brought in by him; and another skeleton said to be his family member, that was evidenced he originating from the (Welsh Britons) area of western Britain, contradictory don't you agree?

These academics seem to conveniently forget the huge mining and smelting technologies of the Britons on the Great Orme and Pumpsaint and other locations in Britanishan of the day. Surely by evidencing these simple clay pots and a little gold of the Amesbury Archer, it is absurd to say this one European is the source of all the industry including metallurgy and the lost wax process of casting on the Great Orme in Britain prior to his burial? Is it more than possible that the Amesbury Archer came to Britain to learn British skills or to attend at Wood and the Stonehenge arenas?

“The Great Druid Massacre”

In this documentary, a grave was excavated in Stanway on the east coast of Britain, of a (Welsh) Druid doctor and his possessions of medicinal pots, fine surgical instruments, and metal rods; of which it was said he used to throw onto the ground to create shapes for divining the future, surely this is a bizarre comment? It must also be remembered that there was no Welsh in these days, because that is a Saxon name. The Britons evolved, and certainly resided in Britanishan from at least 30,000 BC.

In any normal opinion, these grave finds of this Druid doctor of finely manufactured surgical instruments, metal cauterizing rods and various medicinal pots, evidence that the Druids were a well educated people indeed.

It was also said in this TV film that the Romans asserted that the Druids sacrificed people to cut out their entrails to forecast the future. It was also noted “there is no evidence of this” so what is the point of citing this unfounded speculation? Or is it to malign the Britons again?

It was then suggested that 150 individual skeletons found in a sink-hole crevasse in Alveston Gloucestershire, was a Druid single event ritual killing of these Britons, to the Gods, which would give them the ability to massacre thousands of Romans, is another off the wall comment to make by these academics? What is wrong with these academic, they have to make stupid remarks?

When a cracked thigh bone was found, it was said it was evidence of cannibalism. A beautiful British bronze figurine of a greyhound was also produced to relate it to a Dog God?

These academics then advise that these were Druid ritual killings of 150 Britons, in order that thousands of Romans would die in battle, is an off the wall tactic to presume don’t you think?

Logically, it would have been more sensible for these moral and educated Britons to have fought against the Romans, if they were able. In fact there is good reference that the Britons cared for their aged, young, and infirm, so why would they massacre their own beloved people and obedient dogs? Is it possible these 150 individuals were the old, very young and infirm who were hiding out, and it was the Romans who massacred them and their dogs and then dumped them all into the sink-hole crevasse? Also, how can it be established out of thousands of bones which had been hacked, bludgeoned and battered by the well know practice of the Romans of stoning people to death, that one cracked thigh bone was the evidence of cannibalism? Does the academic finder of the this one cracked bone, think that one Briton survived this single event, or crept down into this stench hole, cut the flesh from this one thigh bone and smashed it to extract the marrow, and why, with all the flesh about. Would this single Briton then leave that one bone in the cave after eating the marrow, and then crept back out again? Are these academics serious in what they teach our British children, or are these off the wall advices of this academic the old Roman propaganda again?

Evidently, the beautifully crafted bronze figurine of a greyhound dog has absolutely nothing to do with these killings at all, for it is from another site. But surely the figurine does evidence a highly educated British people who had the ability to produce fine (lost wax moulded) bronze work, and had bred and trained greyhound type dogs. Perhaps this beautiful bronze figurine was a prize for winning a greyhound race, or hunt at the Stonehenge arena is a more than plausible normal theory?

It was then alleged, because the ritual killing of 150 Britons did not work, for the Gods to allow the defeat of the Romans, because they were still marching to Anglesey. It was then said that after the latter the Druids then ritually killed a high status Briton (Lindow Man). It was also said that this was a 3 death ritual killing, because Lindow Man was bludgeoned, garrotted and had his throat cut; and also had 4 mistletoe pollens in his stomach.

Is the latter academics three death ritual theory of Lindow Man realistic, or is any other academic bizarre theory? Accordingly, should the Druids have killed 3 people? Or is it a better explanation that this high status Briton was tortured by the Romans?

The evidence is, he was smashed on the head twice (is not any Celtic 3) then slowly torque garrotted, with his hands tied behind his back, possibly to gain information of the Britons whereabouts and strengths at this time, and when nothing came forth, the Romans cut his throat for good measure and tossed him into the bog.

The academics mistletoe theory is also suspect, why 4 grains of pollen not three (why not the Celtic 5)? Is it simply possible that this pollen was used in a medicine preparation, or a fruit brew, or cooking procedure, which Lindow man had for lunch?

Are not 150 bludgeoned individual Britons who were killed and dumped in a crevasse, which had numerous bone fractures, a little more than 3, so why do these academics always trump up a Celtic 3 death ritual, when logically more than three incidents are usually evidenced in any torture or massacre? Surely it was only one death this man encountered?

Why is there this never-ending hum-drum morbid tripe to try to portray the British as barbarian heathen (cannibals), savages and peculiar mystics? What is the presenter’s evidence that proves that the British threw metal rods onto the ground to forecast the future?

Why would the British frequently ritually kill their family and friends, to place them onto platforms to rot in the sun, or pull out their entrails to forecast the future; or strip the flesh off their thighs, to crack open the bones to eat the marrow. Is this disingenuous academic reporting a continual Roman deception in order to degrade the Britons?

It was then alleged, the Romans marched up to Anglesey with their specially made boats, or made them when they arrived at the Menai (it was not indicated which), crossed over to Anglesey and massacred all the Britons there. And then cut down all the Oak and Apple groves. It was then suggested that finds in a Lake of buckled swords, and bones etc. evidence that the Britons were offering expensive items and performing ritual killings, to the Gods. Did the Britons have all this time on their hands to perform all these rituals when they were allegedly being killed off by the Romans? Or is this more academic tripe.

Let’s consider the latter academic reporting: -

Did the Romans carry their hundreds of sea-going boats with them on their backs, or pull them along on trolleys on their very long march? Did they ferry at least 10,000 heavily armed legionaries across the Mighty Menai Strait? Also how long would it have taken to execute this gargantuan dangerous task?

Lord Nelson is an authority on the Menai Strait which he describes as one of the most treacherous areas of sea in the world, with rock-bottoms from 30 foot, and in some instances raising directly to within 3 feet, with whirlpools, eddies and tides running to at least eight knots (of which the Britons would have known about). It is not an easy passage to cross the Mighty Menai at anytime, and this is a commonly well-known fact by the amount of ferries and boats that have been lost there.

Let’s do the sums for a minute: - Did the Romans make their boats and march with them from London to Anglesey and also fought the Britons along the way, bit unlikely don’t you think? Consider 10,000 men divided to say about 20 men per boat is 500 boats; a lot of large boats to make near London and carry them all the way to Anglesey, and a little bit conspicuous, that would suggest where they were going I imagine, so wouldn’t the Britons have seen through this strategy? If the Romans did make their 500 boats at or near London, then surely they would have boated around the coastline and up to Anglesey?

Did the Romans make these 500 boats when they reached the Menai? Well, given the fact that the Romans would have taken some considerable time to make 500 seagoing boats to carry 20 men in each, to safely cross the Mighty Menai, I don’t think the Britons would have hung around until they did so, do you?

If the Romans at the Menai, made in quick time, say 10 boats, this means they would have ferried across 10 x 20 = 200 divided into 10,000 equals, at least 50 times; and on the first wave, I am sure the Britons could have dealt with 200 men in 10 boats?

If the Romans made 20 boats, clearly this would be another massive task. Also, how many boats would have capsized with the weight of heavily armed men, in this very dangerous stretch of water and, were they all rowing, a bit cumbersome if they were? If they capsized I don’t think the Romans would have been able to swim in heavy armour, shields and weapons? If the Romans were not in armour etc, then all would have been lost to the sea, unless they could carry it while swimming. I don’t think the Romans would have been allowed to land and get dressed before battle though; and how many could swim at all, we must ponder?

Surely, if the Britons were hard pressed on Anglesey, they would have just simply crossed over the island and exited by boat; in more calmer seas than in the turmoil of Mighty Menai Strait, at anytime, to exit to the Isle of Man, or into the Isles of Scotland, or over to Ireland.

It is recorded that after this alleged Roman massacre they then marched back towards London; but why didn’t they boat back, seems bizarre they did not? Are these “Roman” records believable; for the Romans could not possibly march back to London to say they had been unsuccessful at Anglesey, could they? Also how long would anyone have taken to relay a message to the Romans on Anglesey of any Britons attacks in the South?

Why did the Romans march back when apparently it would have been quicker by boat; if they had known that Boudicca had destroyed St Albans, Colchester and London, while the Romans were up the creek without a paddle so to speak; so is the Roman account of their Anglesey campaign believable?

It was also suggested that the Romans destroyed all the Oak and Apples groves on Anglesey, what a task that must have been, for most of the island was Oak and Apple groves at this time; and then what time did that give them to march back to London? I also say that Britons were likely bending and buckling enemy’s swords out of shape and tossing these with the Roman slave chains into the lake, so they could never be used against them again; and more likely the bones were of enemies’ skeletons.

I will admit that benevolent offerings were also made, just as we throw coins into wells today to make a wish and perhaps these benign offerings were to keep the Gods happy and on the Britons’ side, to keep their enemies and their swords from ever attacking the Britons again.

Rome’s depravity was mentioned in this film, but if you blinked you would have missed it. The Romans nor any following Nazi regimes or Reich’s whatever your want to call them have ever been of any good to humanity, so why do academics glorify these dictatorships?

“Stone Age Apocalypse”

In this documentary it was suggested we evolved from apes; and the human revolution started at about 75,000 years BC (not 30,000 BC, as some historians insist). It was also stated by these academics that a vast area around Indonesia was wiped out by a super volcano eruption at about 75,000 BC, after which, it was stated, that most of the origins of man came out of East Africa, from a small leftover DNA pool of people who survived, of which we all belong. Can the latter be correct, let’s consider this following?

It is known that Boxgrove man was in Britain up to and after at least 500,000 BC, who apparently, by date and location, was not effected by the lower latitude Indonesian volcano, because evidences of human existence in Britain follows these dates to present day? 

If we evolved from apes, then why from 4 million years ago are the apes still aping. If evolution predicts that brain capacity gets larger, then why did the alleged first (upright) humans have a head about 30% smaller than the first apes?

All dogs came from the wolf, which apparently dogs are still the same old dogs; so is this evidence of an academic weakest link barking up the wrong tree of “human life”?

I do not refute Darwin’s theory; nor do I think that anyone will deny we have a “human soul”. Have any scientist found the origin of the “human soul”, or the DNA of it, or the natural selection process of the first humans with a “human soul” of which the soul advanced in “humans”?

“Discovering ARDI”

In this documentary a fossilized 4.4 million year old skeletal remains of a (bipedal) female, named Ardipithicus ramidus, was found in a site called Aramis in what is known as the badlands of Ethiopia. Her teeth were small and blunt, suggesting she lived in a hominid social group, possibly partner-bonded with a male, which brought high value food to her, while she tended to the family objective. Her hand and fingers were not that of an ape, suggesting this is a specific species of which traits the human race evolved from (of which my book predicted).

Other skeletal remains are being found in this area to be 5.7 million years old, named Ardipithicus Kaddaba, meaning ancient father. So surely the Britons were first in Britanishan the British Isles from millions of year ago to present day. I say the latter because life began at the fringes away from the magma centre, and if Africa was the magma centre and then life would obviously not have started there first.

"Timewatch"

In this TV documentary the Amesbury Archer hypothesis is televised and it was stated that Stonehenge was built as a healing centre, because the Archers’ bones showed signs of healing? Let’s analyse this:-

The Archers grave is many miles from Stonehenge; so the above is a bizarre comment, without any evidenced connection?

It was also stated that the Bluestone chippings found at Stonehenge were chipped away by the sick and maimed, to be held or kept for healing purposes? But the stone chips actually remain there abandoned; isn’t that contradictory?

It was also suggested that several pieces of organic material found below a newly excavated “re-erected” Bluestone, dates Stonehenge to 2,300 BC. Surely the latter only dates the last phase of building or simply a stone replacement; for there were at least 5 construction phases previously, is 1, 2, 3a, b and c; and then of course the Bluestones would have been transported to Stonehenge perhaps thousands of years before 2,300 BC, which were apparently used in some of these earlier phases of construction; and so the monument must be thousands of years older than 2,300 BC, so is this TV Timewatch article misleading?

 “How the Irish saved British Culture”

Firstly Ireland was and is part of the British Isles and Irish (of which Irish is a Saxon name) are people of the same Britons. In this documentary the TV presenters could not make up their minds to name who brought Christianity to Britain, they say was in 597 AD? But surely they must know that Tacitus wrote that Gwladus (the sister of the Briton Caradoc, the Romans called Caractacus) was accused of embracing her foreign superstition (Christianity) and was converting Romans to Christianity at about 50 AD, which clearly predates any candidate of 597 AD.

“The Seven Ages of Britain”

In this documentary (in the First Age) an academic speculates upon the progression of the Ancient Britons from about 10,000 BC, but fails to identify from apparent archaeology and from the burial time of the Red Lady (Red Man) of Paviland, to highlight the Britons’ superiority in astronomy and founding of the basics of mathematics, thousand of years before Pythagoras.

The academic also fails to mention British construction techniques and following technologies and sciences, particularly in large-scale mining and metallurgy etc. on the Great Orme; from which earlier times the British pedigree evolved and exists today.

The presenter did mention the unique houses of Skara Bray. I elaborate: are the forerunners to our modern semi with drainage systems, draft-proof air conditioning, built in beds and wardrobes etc. with an on-suite indoor toilet, and these were built before any "stone" Pyramids in Egypt.

The academic then cited a Roman pay-as-you-go taxed toilet AD, to say it was a marvellous innovation, but of course it would be, for any Roman Tax Lords. But surely the indoor toilets on Skara Bray BC that were tax-free were better innovations for the Britons, than any Roman Taxed toilet would you agree?

The presenter’s also commented that the flint pits at Grimes Graves were excavated for the white lime-tips above, because ‘they were an awesome site in the landscape’, is another bizarre comment, because who in their right minds would excavate enormous bell-pits for the waste tips left there above? Clearly the old coal bell-pits were mined for its coal as the latter was mined for the flint.

Evidently the flint was mined for the flint, and the limestone was used in kiln construction and the burnt lime by-product for fertilizing the land, whitewashing their daubed houses and not to forget, for spiking up their hair styles and; in fact these bell-pits progressed into the coal mining bell-pits of recent years, to extract coal, evidenced in most coal mining areas of Britain.

In the Second Age, the TV presenter mentions that the British were feasting well and had built fine residences of the day, were correct; but then suggested they were in an arms race. What prompted this silly outburst one must ask, because evidently, the British metalworking was an enormous inventive secret technology that progressed from making implements for working the land, so where does the TV presenter get this "arms race" theory from, because it is evidenced that the Romans entered into Britain to gain this technology for weapons, so apparently weapons were a by-product?

This academic also said that Lindow man was a ritual 3 killing whereby the garrotte finished him off, and then his throat was cut to gush out blood, and was laid in a bog. Surely if the garrotte finished him then his heart had stopped, so how could the blood gush afterwards?

In the Third Age the TV presenter says that the Romans in 55 and 54 BC entered into Britain on scouting expeditions, with at least 4,000 legionaries, Can this be correct? Quite a large expensive force to bring across the channel for a scouting party one would assume. The fact is that on these two occasions the Romans were beaten and sent packing by the Britons.

This academic then said that the British were trading slaves and hunting dogs; but again there is no proof of trading slaves. Slave chains were evidenced, but with no proof they were British chains. Surely the chains were Roman slave chains, because it was they who invaded Britain (and evidently other lands) by this very fact, for supplying Rome with slaves to use and rape, and kill for their entertainments in the Colosseum.

The presenter celebrates the Roman achievement and the demise of the southern British clans with glee, but fails to mention the achievements of any British Kings or Chieftains such as Caswallon, Caradoc or Emrys. Clearly this is all academic Roman propaganda.

The presenter then mentions Boudicca, to say, only because Tacitus did.  The fact is that when Boudicca’s husband died, he had made a will to leave half of his British kingdom to Rome, to try to protect his family, and this is another instance of the Roman “comply or die” for the British people. The Romans honoured his will by taking all of his land and raping and defiling Boudicca and her children in an open despicable animal like display. In fact, as Tacitus wrote, the Chieftain King Caradoc had “predicted” this in 43 AD, “that if the British did not repel the Romans as our ancestors had in 55 and 54 BC then they would enter into eternal slavery”, and isn’t this correct to a great extent?

Tacitus also confirmed on the lines, that the British think they have been brought into civilization when in fact it is a condition of Roman slavery; is quite a clear instruction of events by Tacitus, don't you think?

In the Fourth Age, the TV presenter infers that Britannia is exclusively a Roman name; when actually Britan and Britanishan are the ancient British name for the British Isles, and there were many regions in those days, the Silurian region for one (of which the Saxons later named the whole area as what we know now is Wales)

The TV presenter then inferred, that a chronicle that was written 450 years after the fact of about 1,600 years ago, cited that 50% of the British of the southeastern side of Britain were replaced; can that be believed? We know the Saxons suppressed the British of the eastern side of the country, but surely they would not have killed 50% of their golden-slave-goose would they? Just as the Vikings knew what a values existed, to want to invade in 793 AD to exploit it. The academic then stated that the Saxons taught the British to read and write English. Clearly these presenters have conveniently forgotten that the British were speaking their own tongue BC, and learnt and wrote Latin and other languages in order for Europe to trade with Britain, before Britain was invaded and made downtrodden slaves by Rome. The academic then stated that the eastern side of Britain are Hybrid, cannot be correct because even this presenter stated that the British people were called “pathetic little Brits” (slaves and commoners) of whom any invaders did not mix, so how could they all have become hybrids? Also surely the British Isles is a bit larger than just the southern area, isn’t it?

It was then said that out of this became a stable England and the “Julius work calendar”; but I guess the Britons knew this as the “Julian slave calendar”.

In the Fifth Age the TV presenter explains that the British of the eastern side of Britain are still slaves to foreign invaders, to mention the “Doomsday Book”. I guess the "Britons" knew as the “Doomsday slave book”.

The presenter then said that the landlords carved up the land in order for the peasants to work to supply the manor houses with food and good fuel, while the peasants eat the leftovers. It was further stated that the British were called the "un-free", who slapped horse-dung mixed with straw onto the inside walls of their homes, to dry, to then use as fuel; what a delightful existence the British had under these foreign invaders.

In the Sixth Age the presenter said that government brought in the Pole Tax of 1380. It seems nothing has changed from the Roman occupation, for the British are still under these Roman rules.

This academic then said that a commoner named William Aston married an aristocrat named Poston; but Aston failed to doff his hat to a Norman aristocrat, who then called him a churl (a peasant). Aston then sought through a friend who was a member of an "exclusive" aristocrat club (a house of lords perhaps) a Royal declaration to say that Aston descended from Norman aristocracy (was a lie). This proves that the aristocracy does not mix with who they perceive to be “pathetic little Brit slave commoners”, do they?

In the Seventh Age, the presenter cites Roman Catholic which became the new Roman Empire; and Protestant the Monarchy. So are we are all still under same this Roman machine which is getting even closer to what the Roman Empire demands of a European Super State. Coincidentally the Welsh Labour government now calls their base in Cardiff the “Senate”.

The academic then said that Protestant was a break from Rome, and to the English Nation.

I must say here that our Nation must be kept as a British Nation and must not be diluted into a Roman or Reich type subjugated area. Caradoc predicted this would happen and I believe that we should reject it as our ancestors did.

Does this academic differentiate the British from the English, and what she is actually portraying is from her perspective or of an invaders point of view and not a British point of view? Aren’t all British, British? Scots, Welsh, Irish, Manx and English are Saxon Names; but arrant all Britons British? It appears now that we are being manoeuvred into the same old Roman ploy to be diluted into a slave nation to satisfy the greed of the senators.

“The Roman Invasion of Britain”

In this documentary, the TV presenter says that the British defeated the Romans in the first century BC. This academic then explained that in 43 AD the Romans gathered at least 800 war ships on the shores of France to invade Britain; but were deliberating about crossing because the Roman legionaries were in two minds to cross for they were afraid of what awaited them.

It was then said that Caractacus (British name Caradoc) was in Britain, spoiling for war, but heard that the Romans were afraid to cross the British Channel; and so Caradoc and his warriors thought oh bother, and went home, (What a load of rubbish this comment is, and how can this academic  know this, was she there?

It was then stated that the Romans plucked up their courage and crossed (but the academic could not identify the landing place) and then took Colchester (a place the presenter earlier described in this documentary as a "small" fortified village in these times). She then said the Romans celebrated this as a great triumph for Rome (seems an odd great triumph for taking a small fortified village, so what is this comment all about)?

The presenter then rightly identified the Silures who fearlessly defended Britain at all times, destroying legions; but she identified some tribes (as she put it) became client kingdoms of the Romans. This academic seems to be confused as to what is the truth of this invasion.

The academic then inferred that the British were illiterate primitive savages, ragbag tribes who were continually warring amongst themselves.

She then misinterprets to malign Caradoc’s Speech in Rome, to say it was Tacitus’ words. Another TV presenter likened the British to Vietnamese. Let’s analyze this:-

It is well documented that the British actually defeated the Romans on at least two occasions BC; of which Tacitus referenced that Caradoc recited this in his battle speech to his warriors before their campaign against the Roman invasion in 43 AD, so the British were not all that pathetic were they?

Why would the Romans marshal such a large force of at least 800 warships, to ferry at least 40,000 legionaries and more mercenaries, to deal with a small fortification of a ragbag of pathetic little Brits?

Why did Claudius have to send for more reinforcement to place under the command of at least three Roman Generals on British soil, to attack (as the presenter put it) a small, fortified village called Colchester, a bit contradictory that, isn’t it?

How would Caradoc know what the Romans were thinking, across the expanse of the British Channel? (I say British Channel because there was no England, Wales, Scotland, or Ireland at this time and so apparently there was no English Channel).

How can this TV presenter say that the British were illiterate when there is an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary, particularly the references of, Strabo, Caesar and Tacitus?

Why does another presenter liken the British to the Vietnamese, Al-Qaeda, and infer that the Americans are likened to the Romans?

The TV presenter forgets there was a traitor called Verica of the Atrebates who let the Romans in; and it were the other Clans of Britain who attacked the Atrebates for their treacherous collusion with Rome and, the evidence shows that the true British Clans joined, to remove the Romans.

In the second article, the TV presenter trumped up (again) that Boudicca’s husband had agreed to respect Roman Rule, how does she know that? Surely it was always the Roman instance of “comply or die”.

It was then stated that Boudicca’s husband left half of his British land and possessions to the Emperor of Rome, to protect his family. I would mention here though, the Romans respected the latter by taking all of his land and raping is wife and children in a well know Roman (Nazi type) open mob spectacle. This started another British uprising as we know.

The academic then suggested that Boudicca had only fought Roman old age pensioners. Is this academic disingenuous or has she some information that we do not have?

It was then stated that the Romans built Colchester; but the fact is, the Romans took over any British sites to build upon them; and also built over British paths and drover roads.

The presenter then inferred that 50% of the British became romanized? Does she mean 50% of the southeastern Britons? Does she mean 50% of what she suggests was the peasant’s of the southeast, of which she says the Romans called “pathetic little Brits” were romanized? Seems misleading of this academic to suggest that 50% of the whole British nation was replaced, don't you think?

The academic then mentioned Minerva in connection with amalgamating Roman and British religion 50% 50%. Well we know that the Roman Constantine took the British faith to be superior to his own, to amalgamate, but we know that was a ploy to stop the Christian uprising which was a real threat to Rome. So surely if what this presenter states as matter of fact is true, then clearly these were Roman ploys to try to brainwash the British of the southeastern part of Britain, because the Romans had no real control over the rest of Britain.

It was then mentioned by this academic that the Silures were formidable foes (is the presenter speaking on behalf of the Romans)? The Silures defeated the Romans on many occasions and had destroyed legions; but again the presenter did not mention the Mighty British King Caradoc who was allied to the Siluri. A single stone was then mentioned which was found near Careleon (which was a British Silurian fort before the Romans took it over) with a Siluri name on it, to suggest as a matter of fact the Siluri bowed down to Rome and became Romanized, but this comment is clear fabrication. The latter cannot be true because the Silurians fell back into the depths of what is now known as Wales, Anglesey, Ireland and Scotland, of which these British clans-people and their descendants are the best candidates for smashing the Roman garrison at Deva (Chester) at least twice; of which their descendants routed the Romans from Britain in 410 AD.

The “British” people we now call the Celtic Britons, most all joined as one Nation at this time. Not as suggested were separates as Irish, Welsh and Scottish etc. As a matter of fact there was no English either, because this was a brainwashing idea of a Saxon Monk called Bede hundreds of years later. Why do some academics distort history as a matter of fact, to try to glorify the Romans (Saxons and Normans) in favour of giving some credence to the Britons?

The presenter then suggests that the British became romanised and took up great British residences, is again not true because the British logically once owned such residences. The presenter is confused to identify with Roman Lords placed into British residences and who she frequently describes as pathetic little Brit slaves; who in fact are the majority of the real British people.

Another TV presenter suggested that the Roman atrocities of the British after the Boudicca rebellion were a one off. It was stated on the lines, that by enlarge the Romans were good people. Does the presenter forget all the atrocities in and below the Coliseum?

Does he forget the genocidal destruction of the Dacians; and the European Celts at Alicia? Does he forget Dougga in North Africa whereby the Roman Emperor Scipio in 146 BC destroyed Carthage by fire and the sword, killing most of the men women and children, and assimilated the remainder into being unidentifiable slaves, used for every immoral Roman depravity, absorbing these people into diluted obscurity?

These academics only remember what they want to portray and will distort the rest for their own reporting to what can only be to support their own positions in their TAX funded existence.

I note here, the Romans could not plagiarize anything of the British for there was no knowledge written down, and I say this is the very good reason why the British did not commit their vast amount of knowledge to parchment. Nor could the Romans assimilate, absorb, or dilute all of the British into the obscurity of becoming another Romanized slave nation, nor should this Roman ploy ever be attempted now.

In the last showing of this documentary the academic states that the Roman invasion did achieve its aim by separating the North from England in the South? What “England”, there was no “England”! Can anyone imagine the Romans building a wall separating the western side of Britain what is now called “Wales”, a bit longer than Adrian’s wall don’t you think? The Normans tried a Dyke. Or was it the Welsh who built the Dyke to keep the foreign Tax-Lords out of Wales.

This academic then said that 10% of the Roman Empire was in Britain to control what was only 4% of the Roman Empire (bit of an overkill force for pathetic little Brits don’t you think), does that seem appropriate to compare with what the other academic describes as 50% of Britons being Romanized, either her calculations are wrong or the presenter is misinformed. Or is it a matter of fact that the British were not cowering down to Roman rule, because even the Roman Caesar had written "the Britons had no fear of death and would not willingly yield to any foe".

The academic also mentioned that 5,000 legionaries were placed to fight the Siluri; which is contradictory of her comments of fact that the Silurians were complying with Roman rule and had become Romanized; and from the TV presenters own evidence of alleged fact, it becomes farce and is false witness!

The academic then attributed the Pumpsaint Dolaucothi mines in what was one of the densest forested areas (of Wales), to Roman prospecting and “open cast mining” expertise, again cannot be correct. Firstly how did the Romans know where to go prospecting in a mountainous maze of an expanse of what is now known as mid Wales? Secondly the mines are deep shaft mines and the British open cast mining progressively followed; and thirdly they are of early British mining expertise, likewise the mines on what is now called the Great Orme, up to and from at least 3,500 BC. The academic then said as fact that the mines were run by European miners, using British slaves, suggesting that the British were not experienced in mining? It must be asked - why do these programs mostly denigrate the British people in order to glorify any invaders on any level they can distort?

The presenter then mentions the lead curse tablet of the “native” British (are there any other type of Britons)? Romans are "named on lead folded of the cursed within and sealed with a copper pin" etc; whereas the British were cursing the Romans. I do not think the latter supports the TV presenter's perception of fact, that the British were being romanized, for this is again contradictory.

The academic then mentions (with the Roman name) Ambrosius, who we know is the British King Emrys, who defeated the Saxons at Bath, and he is also linked Emrys with a King called Arthur; well we must thank her for this British mention at least.

This academic then suggested that some Britons were still fighting any invaders, is again contradictory. Does she realise that British descendants are still here? Why is there so much disingenuous misrepresentation of the British; when in fact the Romans were no better than the Nazis, for the Romans actually tried to enslaved all the British and take over the British Isles for the mineral wealth and to keep the British alive (like animals) to exist and breed more slaves to supply the Romans for their every immoral act, to do with as they wished.

Should these academics apologies for making their slanderous’ remarks about the British in their own lands, to liken the British to Al-Qaeda and Taliban; when the latter paragraph is the true description of the Romans who were the indisputable despicable “terrorist” invaders of Britain.

“Britain BC”

In this documentary, I congratulate this academic for his well-presented knowledgeable unbiased report of the sophisticated Ancient Britons, as apposed to the dirty grubby history of the Romans. Although, I thought he should have mentioned Boxgrove or the Red Man of Paviland as a starting point for the identification of the British Nation. I also think there is another explanation for his interpretation of Lindow Man. There is also another explanation for his Seahenge theory, for simply a tree could have tumbled off a bank and into a ditch whereby the sand blew in to cover it; and hundreds of years later the sand blew away to reveal an upturned tree stump; whereby Britons could have used this as a central pole to erect a roundhouse or make a beach windbreak.

Why do most academics trump up incessant death and misery theories of every aspect of British life, when of course we do agree that the British had no fear of death, and we could reasonably place a few good words to describe the British, rather than being labelled as religious fanatics? How about the status’: Honourable, Chieftain, Brave-heart, Warrior, Esteem, Champion, Winner, Defender, and these are the very same principals the British, particularly our British Soldiers have today, and likewise this academic suggested, we should raise a glass to thank them one and all.

“Britain’s real Monarch”

In this documentary the TV presenter exposed a farcical British monarchy, whereby a chap called Michael Hastings now living in Australia, by divine right of succession is the rightful King of Britain. It was suggested that the current Royal family line are murderers and thieves who concealed the rights of Mr Hastings. However Mr Hastings thought the monarchy was a sham and all were pretenders who can never be true British Kings, Queens or Princes, by the very fact they are not "British".

"Seven Ages of Britain 2nd showing"

This academic describes a statue (as seen at the website – Aphrodsias -) of the naked Roman Claudius about to deliver a deathblow to a half naked young women, the presenter names Britannia (of which I say depicts Boudicca or one of her young daughters being raped in an open public spectacle by the Romans). The academic then goes on to glorify this statue to demonstrate the defeat of Britain. Well I must say that the British actually defeated the Romans on at least two occasions and Britain was not defeated entirely, and I cannot see what bravado there is in Claudius raping and killing a defenseless young lady half his size, can you? Nor should these academics glorify the vile homosexual and child molesting acts of Tiberius Caesar, or the child murders and possibly child abuse at a Roman bathhouse in Ashkelon. Or the atrocities carried out in and below the Colosseum in the name of sport. Under the Geneva Convention these Romans would have been tried for their appalling crimes. Claudius and his historians apparently labelled the British as ignorant heathen barbarian savages, clearly was to hide the evidences' of Roman depravity, which deception by Claudius has lasted for nigh on 2,000 years.

"Wales and the History of the World"

In this documentary the academic is misinformed (or this may be what his colleague references as brainwashed pathetic little Brits). Clearly, the British are of the multitudes the indigenous people in the British Isles and abroad, and I am offended by what seems to be a racist remark in this TV program, to be called multicultural. Of course we have welcomed many fine decent people to join our British Nation (not the other way round) and they have worked hard and have fought by our sides as one moral Nation. But it must be realised that we are mostly of existing British lineage which evolved from many thousands of years BC; evidently with our red dragon image and passant. Our huge British Nation has not been absorbed into any multicultural faction at all (of which is an old Roman ploy to suggest, and it is evident that the British actually avoided that part of the Roman scheme). It is however seen today that this Roman ploy to dilute the British nation into obscurity is taking place now.

"Finding the Hoard"

In this documentary there are evidences of 1,600 pieces of "Saxon” treasure found in Britain. Does this program suggest it is all Saxon, or is simply from the Saxon period? Clearly it is Celtic British designs and workmanship, and why would Saxons be dismantling their weapons to bury the precious metal in this area alone? Did the British relieve the Saxons of what were once British artefacts or manufactured by the Britons, to make use of the blades and bury the precious metal for later use?

I must also evidence here: From British mines up to and after 3,500 BC are wherefrom British technologies craftsmanship and designs were being produced. The British taught and remembered in verse suchlike my example for Bronze - "From the earth’s life veins mix copper and one tenth tin, out of the furnace flows blood metal to a stone cast sword within; unto the lady of the lake to be tempered in brine, then honed on blue pennant and polished by time".

As evidenced, the Britons advanced and evolved up to and after 3,500 BC to have progressed to astronomy, mathematics, and in mining for metals such as gold, silver, lead, copper, tin, etc, and to the sciences to exact the combination of metals to produce bronze and so on. The Britons also founded and developed in some of their own specific sciences of inventing the furnace, to metallurgy and smelting and moulding, and all this did not happen overnight, did it?

"Stonehenge Atlantis"

This documentary is of the Mesolithic period, of finds of refined artefacts' found on the seabed around the British Isles recently. These areas are dated from around and after 30,000 BC were flooded by glacial ice melt along with glacial rebound, which lowered the southern land to be submerged. The academic stated that the archaeological world would have to take a U-turn on their thinking, that these middle Stone Age people were ignorant hunter-gatherers.

I note here that very intelligent Britons were at this frontline point and settled on the land at and across the ice-shelf, particularly at the catchment area of the Gulf Stream running into the west coast of Britain and up against the ice-shelf, bringing in superb fishing etc. In this area and particularly on the Gower Peninsula there is ritual burial evidence of the Red-Man of Paviland, provisionally dated at about 30-24000 BC, which evidences that it is these people who pioneered along this latitude. It seems that my findings and format are now being utilised by certain archaeologists, which is the old Roman filch Ploy.

"Britain's Drowned World"

In this documentary it now seems that the “Time Team” also takes up this story. Clearly the human bone finds by the Dutch, in what they call "Doggerland" are evidenced to be that of the short thick-set Neanderthal, which supports my theory's that the British from Boxgrove-man who was at least six foot tall, dated at about 500,000 BC; and up to the Red Man of Paviland who also had modern human features, dated at about 30 - 24,000 BC resided in front of Neanderthal; which is further corroborated with human bones found on Caldy Island West Wales, also dated at about 30,000 BC, who are our true ancestors. I also note that the Britons had progressed from the flint knives, and arrowheads, which were found in great quantities near the Paviland Caves, to use the discarded microlith chips for small hand knife-like blades, by using up these smaller chips from the actually making the arrowheads. These hand-knives were better suited for carving up the meat, or for harpoon design; and logically because these microliths were readily available it was a much easier innovation for novices to utilise these than make a full blown knife or arrowhead point from one piece of flint; which undoubtedly many fractured or snapped. So it was wrong for the TV presenter to insinuate that the British were poor innovators to make microliths into blades, to further note that they were not found in Europe, to try to suggest that the Europeans were somehow superior to the British, is apparently incorrect. I must also remind this academic that the British progressed into astronomy, mathematics, mining, smelting and stone and lost-wax forging of combinations of metals, progressing from 30,000 BC and up to 3,500 BC and thereafter. Here again in these TV programs you can see the use of the format of my book, for I theorised all of the latter pre these programs.

“Great British History”

In this documentary about “King Arthur’s Round Table Revealed”, clearly the table was not revealed, and what has the amphitheatre at Chester they trump up got to do with any round table; so why this continual disingenuous speculation? I must ask here, are we British taxpayers paying some academics to brainwash the British, which academics clearly despise and racially call the British ethnic, Taliban, Al-Qaeda and barbarian ignorant terrorist savages?

Apparently from the evidence it can be extrapolated that the Roman fort of Deva in Chester, (was once a British site) which was raised to the earth at least twice by the only candidates to do so were the “United British” up to 410 AD. Likewise the Britons obliterated Calleva Atrebatum in the south, possibly in a cleansing of the earth ritual in both instances, to destroy any Roman remnants from British soil. Including the burying of the Roman “slaughter” tether stone the TV presenter cited.

Evidently, anywhere the Romans cowardly killed and crucified the British, the British erected shrines in those places in honour and remembrance of the brave Britons who died for Britain. I see these academics cannot refute the many graves of the invading Romans and Saxons that were wiped out by the British, who were actually allowed honorably burials by the British. It was not so for the many British who died at the hands of Romans who dumped some our ancestors in a crevasse and the Saxons were no better.

As historical evidences predict, the possible best defense areas of the British at this time were in their areas in and around the Silurian, Dumnonii, Brigantes and Cauci regions, which are in the areas of Britain of which the Saxons named Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland, using all the “original” British drover roads and systems. Possibly, a British King called Arthur was from the Silurian area, within a mostly United Britain in his time. Apparently the Romans could not keep the British at bay in certain regions up to 410 AD, and then I am sure that no defecting Roman rabble or Saxons could have after 410 AD, as academics suggests.

This academic also insinuates that the Celtic Dragon was a Saxon or Parthian icon, but the evidence is paramount that the Celtic Draig Goch extends from the many named islands and the sleeping dragon image of the Preseli hills outcrop of many years BC, and was also a feature of the British hornpipe (the dragon Viking connection is one of kin people).

“Treasure of the Anglo Saxons”

In this documentary, it seems the academic fails to realise that the British existed through any period, and that the main reason the Romans and subsequent factions invaded Britain was to try take over the British technology’s, mining, metallurgy, agriculture and wealth etc. and most importantly to create their “golden goose” slave nation (but only in the southeast of Britain at this time).

The Romans knew the British did not write anything down, and so plagiarised anything of British historical value as Roman innovation, as the Romans had evidently done at Carthage.

Logically, the Saxons (and Normans) invaded Britain to inherit a Roman setup of an in-house slave nation to bend to their every immoral need and to use the British to make weapons and finely crafted metalwork and art etc. This academic then referenced a field at Stafford, but this reference actually evidences that the Saxons must have been defeated by the British, and the (British) steel of the these weapons etc was thereafter used again for British swords and they buckled the gold and silver to bury for later British use. So in reality the metalwork the presenter talks about was in fact British metalwork with Saxon designs incorporating the far superior British Celtic designs within. Understandably, designs and art progressed and work was copied and improved, so to say that any Saxon work was far superior to British work is a misconception, particularly when it was the British slave craftsmen that were producing it. If you own a dog you do not bark yourself, just as detestable people that controlled a slave nation would use the enslaved Britons to produce their metalwork and used Britons for their "every" immoral need.

The academic then said that St Augustine (the so called missionary of 597) viewed Angle slaves in the Roman/Saxon slave market, to comment “they were Angels not Angles”. However at this time they would have been British slaves in a despicable Angle (Saxon) slave market, which Augustine must have condoned. Augustine did not ask that these British children be freed, did he? It is no wonder that the Saxons Vikings and the Normans invaded after the Romans, for they also wanting a piece of this golden goose slave setup for themselves. And you would not kill all of your golden geese, would you?

 “The God Delusions”

In this documentary, firstly I do agree with the TV presenter who stated that science is the best evidence of evolution (is of nature). Just as the British of BC realised that the natural courses of life are of nature. To respect the Sun as the Father the Moon as the Seed and Mother Earth, is an analogy of 'Man with Woman and Child as Family' is apparent throughout normal nature.

Yet this academic actually refutes evolution by saying that our life on this earth is all there is, but surely he must agree that there is a soul, or should I say an intelligence that is separate from the flesh that can evolve into a higher level or condition.

The academic then suggested that homosexuality is an accepted practice. But I must say that I have highlighted in my book the Roman (Nazi) 'unnatural homosexuality and paedophilia' of which apparently Britons morality did not accept.

The presenter also suggested that these unnatural practices are now rife in the Catholic Church (is the Papal regime of which Constantine had apparently high-jacked Christianity for “Roman Catholic” use) which is not so different from most factions the academic cited which also preach hell and damnation in order to brainwash (meme) control to live off the masses.

“Digging for Britain”

In this documentary this academic at last cites that people resided in the British Isles in front of Neanderthal at about 800,000 BC, but wrongly added that we are not descended from them because they would have been wiped out by the ice age. How can this TV presenter be so categorically sure of her comment when apparently the indigenous North American Indians retreat to a temperate climate, from their ancestral homes, when it got "progressively" colder at certain times “over many thousands of years” (which I identify in my book are possibly descendants of the Britons). Surely the indigenous British did the same.

The academic then cited what she described as the oldest rock art in Britain at Creswell Crags, of a deer and a bird dated at about 12,000 BC; but the academic again failed to cite the Paviland caves on the Gower Peninsula in South-West Wales at 30.000 BC. This latter warm Gulf Stream location on the Gower peninsula is possibly where the British also retreated, in a more temperate climes; where the skeleton of the Red Lady (Red Man), with tangible items of flints arrowheads and sculptured artefacts' of drilled periwinkle and fox incisors adornments and mammoth teeth are evidence that Britons resided here, dated up to and after 30,000 BC.

The academic said the Creswell Crags people were hunter gatherers, but this presenter failed to recognise that the British Isles was partly covered by the ice shelf at this time, with the Gulf Stream running into a catchment area of land and ice-shelf near and above the Paviland caves area where they has settled to reside. Understandably at these times, the hunting and fishing would have been very good indeed, which allowed the pioneering British people to have settled here, for they could not go any further north, but from this ideal settlement area could work behind and across the ices shelf west into the Americas and east.

The academic rightly evidenced there were people on the Orkneys making pottery, growing barley and herding sheep and cattle at about 4,000 BC, but failed to grasp the fact that it would have taken about 26,000 years for the ice shelf to have retreated from the area of Paviland, to the Orkneys.

The academic also identified mundane beaker pottery was made throughout Britain at about 2,500 BC and said the British people were very mobile. Surely children could have made mundane pottery, and logically these people were mobile, so why state the obvious? The term Beaker People (of the mundane pottery)  is another academic misconception to suggest that the British are European Germans; and I must say that the names Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are Saxon names, for the Britons name for the British Isles was Britan or Britanishan with many British Clan regional names as aforementioned. So let’s get it right once and for all - the Britons in our British Isles are Britons - the Europeans are those people.

This academic then cited British finds at Sercombe in South Devon which yielding tin-ingots, iron-ore and refined gold work, possibly for export dated at 2,300 BC; so why do they contradict themselves later, to infer that anything good is Roman or Saxon? In Forteviot Scotland a burial was described as a Celtic Chieftain, which turned up a magnificent crafted dagger; also a dog skeleton with the tender act of placing flowers in the grave and so on, for the presenter to say a complex society developed. But the presenter failed to relate all this to the British technology’s and sciences and of the industrial mining and smelting on the Great Orme from at least 3,500 BC. "British Made" artefacts are not Roman Saxon or Norman are they? The evidence is that the British were first to domesticate breed and train the greyhound dog; and the 4 headed dog ring the TV presenter exampled in these finds from 3,500 BC 'which represents protection from all quarters' can only be of British workmanship; as evidenced above was made by the Britons.

“The Incredible Human Journey”

In this documentary again the evidences are misread, for clearly the British finds dated at 980,000 BC and Boxgrove man from at least 500,000 BC, and the cave burial and associated finds of the Red Lady (Red Man) of Paviland on the Gower Peninsular dated to at least 30,000 BC, are evidences of a specific front line British Nation. This Nation would have exclusively settled in a fruitful landfall to ice-shelf Gulf Stream catchment area, in the farthest habitation northwest. Going further north was not possible up against a 100-meter thick ice-mass that was not accessible by any person or animal.

One academic said that the Chinese were a specific species. Perhaps correct, because DNA evidence only proves that people mixed, and by the passage of at least 980,000 years of mixing DNA I do not think you can prove a person is from an original specific species out of Africa; as this academic wrongly said you could.

The latter is evidenced by Britons evolving white or becoming white in the British Isles area millions of years ago on the fringes of any original magma plate shelf, and later pioneered east to mix with darker skinned people along this latitude, as the presenter suggested these brown colour people possibly pioneered north; and perhaps travelled the coast around Alaska to colonize down the west coast of America, in a more recent temperate climate. The relevance this academic misses is that British people evolved or were first in the British Isles areas, who are the only candidates to have pioneered west; and also east on this latitude from very early times (and also back into the south). Black people out of Africa can only be the last to reach any fringes, because to become white you must have evolved in the British Isles area or had arrived there first in order to become white. People coming behind are of lighter colours of brown and black because they are not has old as the first whites out from the hottest magma centre original plate or those who evolved in a specific area. Black people must have evolved or had remained in Africa and possibly pioneered east by a different lower latitude route.

This academic bizarrely suggests that Britons are black people that came out of Africa who had turned white because of a vitamin "D" deficiency, and had arrived in the British Isles area. I say that cannot be correct because rickets would have wiped out all whites and no rickets have been detected in any British skeletal finds. Or from being so weak would have been wiped out by beasts. I cannot imagine a vast Nation evolving from black people with a vitamin D deficiency or Rickets, to remain white and healthy, can you?

It is more likely that the British colonised the British Isles from where they originated or had been first to migrate there from the earliest of times of human evolution. I suggest the latter because Pangaea as we know had dispersed from its magma epicenter, of which academics say was Africa. If the latter is so then of course the outer regions of the Earths crust from the baron magma epicenter are where humans could have first originated and evolved, whence vertebrates first ventured from sea to land from about the Silurian period. Thereafter people could only have migrated back into the Africa area when it had cooled down over further millions of years.

When the Americas plate separated from the British Isles perhaps it was below sea and had not developed any substance for human evolution, because no human evidence have been found there yet as I know that is older than any British archaeological finds. It amazes me that some academics and authors always present their theories as a matter of fact when clearly it is not.

“The History of Ancient Britain”

This seems to be a copy of the format of my book.

26-04-11 BBC: “The History of Celtic Britain”

This seems to be a copy of the format of my book.

 28-09-11 BBC: “Digging for Britain”

Apparently the format of my book is being followed, for evidently the layers beneath Calleva are now being excavated for these historians to recite what my book realises, that there was a cultured British society in place before Roman occupation, which is evidenced in the approximately 87 acres of “British” foundations at Calleva (and other “British” sites), which proves that the British had planned and developed sophisticated large towns and theatrical and sports arenas before any Roman sites (such as I mention in my book may be likewise at Wood and Stonehenge). So the historian Roman/aristocratic comment “the British were ignorant barbarian savages”, and “it was Rome that civilised Britain”, is barefaced aristocratic Roman propaganda.

 22-10-11 Time Team Special: “Boudicca’s Lost Tribe”

This was mostly about the Boudicca uprising and her British Clan the Iceni up to about 60AD. The presenters rightly identified British master craftsman engineering gold crafted objects which were technologically superior to anything in Europe or the east (logically from which the Britons had developed over thousands of year BC). Doesn’t this contradict these presenters argument that the treasure they featured in “Finding the Horde” was Anglo Saxon? The presenters then trumped up again their fanatical obsession of miserable religious theory, to say that the gold was cut through and damaged to offer it to the gods. Strange that comment when it was “specifically” buried in layers in the ground (not in a lake as they usually trump up; I say was also to hide it from Roman use). You do not have to be a genius to work out that the Britons were damaging and burying their gold so that the Romans could not find and use it. The presenters then said the Romans massacred all of the Iceni; but do you think the Romans would kill their slave golden goose? More than likely the Romans would have put these people who they identified as British Technologically Advanced Superior Craftsmen to work, don’t you think? Just like the Saxons who followed them. Yes the Romans probably raped and killed a few thousand more women and children, as the presenter also portrayed the scull of a 3 year old sliced through, was in order to bring the Britons into line again, because Roman comply or die was the order of these times. Unbelievably, another academic said - that while Boudicca was attacking Colchester and London, the Roman legions “charged” back from Anglesey, but when they arrived just outside London they could not prevent London being destroyed and so retreated. Well let analyse this academic advice: - In my reasonable estimation it would have taken a small party of Romans about 20 days or more to manoeuvre through about 300 miles over ancient drover’s roads from London to Anglesey, without being seen. It would then have taken the Roman legions about 40 days or more to have manoeuvre back to London, without being seen. Hardly a “charge” was it, which took over two months or more? Why are the private taxpayers of Britain funding these presenters to brainwash our children with this Roman propagandist tripe.

 O8-01-12 Military: “Roman Lost legion” and Discovery History “Pagans”

Both articles were considering academic evidence as to their other name for the British is Pagan; and asking who annihilated Rome’s 9^th and 20^th legion; but apparently these presenters who must be brainwashed Roman sympathisers cannot comprehend that it was the “British”. Please Note: - Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Manx are Pagan-Saxon names, and any Roman invasion predates Pagan-Saxon. These presenters conveniently skip over again to not mention Caradoc and the Silurian who in fact with kin Britons defeated many Roman legions. These presenters will however instantly malign the British as being multicultural ignorant heathen barbarian drunks and in my opinion these comments are also racist. Then in the next instance these presenters cite magnificent British artwork on crafted bronze, gold and ironwork swords; including to cite an historian of the time saying the British had many cavalry and were well organised. These presenters cannot simply comprehend that the British would have been very able to overcome adapt and reorganise to defeat any Roman strategies over time? These presenters then bizarrely suggested that hundreds of thousands of Britons masturbated into blue-woad to spread it onto their bodies in some weird ritual before combat; and then suggested that some Britons were homosexuals? Is it a fact that the only creepy masturbators and unnatural homosexuals are those who trump up these stupid comments?

 22-02-12 BBC 1 Wales film, of “The “Story of Wales”

Clearly this is all relative to the basic principals and the format of my book “Footprints in the Stone”, from Boxgrove and Red Man from about 500,000 and 30,000 BC, highlighting the Paviland Caves on the Gower Peninsula South Wales and progressing to a Celtic Culture emerging from 6,000 BC and then to the Great Orme mines from 4,000 – 3,500 BC. The presenter said that what he was taught was wrong, because the technologies etc. were going out from Wales not coming in; and if this presenter did not know this before and then he or his colleagues must have learnt it from my book. The presenter then mentions the Lyne Fawr Lake near Hirwaun in South Wales in the Rhigos Mountains and the first smelting and forging process’ of the Britons, and then to identify with an hill Forte of Tre Gare near the Lyne peninsular. The presenter then mentions Silurian’s who destroyed legions who were lead by Caractacus (whose Briton name was Caradog or Caradoc) and then mentions the first speech in history which Caradoc gave at the Roman Senate. The presenter then mentions a stone tablet near Carewent (is actually the Silures fortification before the Roman occupation). He then mentions Constantine and Christianity and Arthurian legend of which the Britons defeated the Saxons in the battle of Mount Baden, and then goes onto mentioning Llantwit Major as the first centre of learning, but that cannot be correct because the Druids had centres of learning before all this. The presenter then jumps to 700 AD to link the basics of my book. He then cites Llangorse Lake and a royal family living on a Crannog in Wales to link artefacts, found here 20 years ago, to the Mediterranean or China. If this academic or any archaeologist could not identify and link the significance of these artefacts 20 years ago and then they must have used the basic principals of my book? The presenter then says that Wales had a sophisticated society and distinct culture with written laws with an international trading set-up before and at these times, to say it became a European Wales (is Roman propaganda tripe again). But of course it can only be a British Wales. He then identifies the Princes of Wales and that Britons were trading with the Vikings, to say this was made prevalent by citing Strata Florida where most Princes of Wales are buried. But of course these places had a connection with Europe as is identified in my book. Is it clear that these people are placing my basic principles and format of my book? The presenter then goes onto Llewellyn AP Griffiths Prince of Wales (Llewellyn the last); Henry the 3^rd and to Edward the 1^st and of the suppression of the Welsh once more, is in the latter part of my book. Owain Glyndwr was then mentioned including the legend of the sleeping red dragon that will again awaken and rise against the oppression of the Welsh; of which is also mentioned in the first draft of my book which was also sent to these academics. The presenter then said Glyndwr had a vision of a Senate on Welsh soil? How does the presenter know this for fact, his he psychic? A Roman Senate no less; why does the presenter leave out some of the true facts of Welsh (British) oppression by the Romans and following invaders?

 16-04-12 BBC Yesterday film of “A History of Ancient Briton”- 1^st showing

Again this seems to be in line with the basic principals and format of my book “Footprints in the Stone” from Boxgrove and the Red Man of Paviland in South Wales from about 500,000 and 30,000 BC (however the presenter places other misleading information into this film). This presenter disingenuously and misleadingly interprets what he says, are matters of fact. He states that there was no habitation in Britain at about 12,000 BC. He then cites a Deer Scull found in Yorkshire dated at 8,000 BC, a fishing camp in Scotland at 7,000 BC and Cheddar Man dated at 7,000 BC, logically were all in habitation at this time. Then it does not take a super mathematician to work out that it must have taken about 19,000 years for the ice-shelf to have receded from the Red Man (Red Lady) on the Gower Peninsula in South Wales dated at about 30,000 BC to the Deer Scull found in Yorkshire at about 8,000 BC or the fishing camp in Scotland at 7,000 BC. Therefore logically the land of middle and lower Britain was habitable from 30 and 20,000 BC and at least 12,000 BC and thereafter, because we know that the ice-shelf did not return. He then said that only about 5,000 people existed in Britain at this time, and a Tsunami from a landslide in Norway wiped out the inhabitants of Scotland at 6,100 BC? Is this presenter sure that there were only 5,000 people in Britain from I imagine their sexually active co-habitation of over at least 500,000 years? Are all of his matters of fact just disingenuous misleading tripe, if he has no valid evidence to prove it as fact? I do not either agree with this presenters comment that these people became a different special people; I say this because I believe the Britons are an original remarkable Nation.

23-04-12 2^nd showing: Here it emerges again that it seems as if the format of my book is followed. However the presenter states that the British Isles was attached to Europe at 8,000 BC and that it was the Europeans’ who brought farming to the British Isles at about 4,000 BC; can this presenter’s comments he cites as fact be correct, let’s analyse this? Clearly the Britons evolved and were settled in their “British Isles” from at least 30/20,000 BC since evidences of the Red Man (Red Lady) on the Gower, where in fact flint arrowheads with bone fragments have been dated there of these times. Yet above, the presenter in his 1^st programme cited a fishing camp in Scotland at 7,000 BC, but unwisely fails to realise that due to glacial rebound the channels had formed, and so with this and other dated evidences Britain was not connected to Europe after at least 10,000 BC. Further historical evidences record that the Britons mining flint at Grime’s Graves and also copper on the Great Orme “on an industrial scale”, up to and after 3,000 BC; and were thereafter smelting and casting bronze, gold, silver and iron etc before any European evidences of such. The Britons actually mined an estimated 5 miles of tunnels to produce at least 1,700 tons of copper; and then of course these mines were worked from perhaps 6,000 BC. After 3,500 BC evidently the Britons produced enough copper for home and export. Obviously there is always a mixed transition period of progressing from hunting to mining to engineering and boat building for export etc. alongside farming communities, in order to actually flourish, in particular alongside these British heavy-metals industries. There is also copious evidence of field systems in the British Isles up to and after 4,000 BC. The tombs he mentions could have been earlier constructions for purposes other than the fictional burial story’s that these academics always trump up. The presenter then said his colleagues were wrong to label the Stonehenge Causeway as a Roman race track; and so it seems that these academics will try to name anything of British worth as Roman (or Saxon) invention, no matter what the true facts are. It must be asked why these academics continually force upon us this old Roman brainwashing propaganda ploy to try to denigrate the British Nation and dilute us into something we are not.

 Surely British history should mainly feature in any teaching of the British people in order to acknowledge the magnificent "British" early achievements up to and after the Roman and following slave masters.

 25-04-12 BBC 2 “The Great British Story”- 1^st and 2^nd showing

Since I produced the route plan which is the basis and format of my book it seems that it is now followed by the BBC. Conversely it’s now great to see that some of these academics are openly admitting that the Welsh, Scots and Irish are the true indigenous peoples of the British Nation and its lands. But how do these academics explain, when there is no evidence to prove that the invented so called England region was overrun by foreign invaders, to say that the English are in fact Saxon as they claim? In fact most evidence suggests that the British were the main enslaved population of the invented England region through all the invaders periods of history. So have the British in the invented England region simply taken on the identity as being Saxon English, when arguably they are mostly of the true indigenous British Nation? And if the people of the invited England region are mostly British, are they now ashamed for some reason to be associated with the original remarkable indigenous British Nation?

 20-06-12: Nat Geo “New Ancient X Files”.

Does it appear here that the deceit goes on by these academics to follow the basic formula of my book without my consent. The presenters in this broadcast now realise that the Picts and the Welsh are the same peoples (the Britons); to cite they had at least two alphabets including Ogham, and with a command of Latin, that was used by the Druids of both regions. They support this with such evidences as the Nevern Maelgwn Stone, and related words that exists in place names and in both relative languages. They stated that the Stones the Picts erected were placed to reject Christianity, but what they fail to realise is that the Britons religion became to be based on the laws of one God and Nature which became known as Christianity, and any Saints coming over from Ireland were actually the same Britons visiting their same people, as these academics apparently now evidence but fail to see.

 21-06-12: Nat Geo “Roman Murder Mystery”.

I comment on this here because logically in the above “New Ancient X Files” these presenters agree that the Picts and Welsh are the Britons. They cite that the Romans in the Picts region built an “enormous” five meter high wall to repel who they labelled as Celtic barbarian uncivilised savage Britons; and then in the next breath say the Romans were cohabiting with the Britons, contradictory that don’t you think? They then trump up all sorts of excuses for the burial of a discarded child below one of the eight cell barrack rooms on this site of the Romans (other similar Roman sites of such deplorable acts are identified in my book). Can’t these presenters remember that the clear disposition of most Romans was to enslave our British and other people for every immoral appalling act they wished to carry out, including child molestation and murder? The only way a child could be under the floor of this barrack room of eight Roman men in any immoral acts against this young child must have been by the collusion of all eight Roman (shameful) men.

 27-07-12: “The Olympic Games”.

Congratulations to Mr Coe and his team for all the hard work completed for and the opening of the Olympic Games, it was truly a spectacular start. Just one oversight though, in one of the songs, surely the correct location in ancient times should be Britan or Britanishan; because the correct wording is - “And did those feet in ancient time. Walk upon Britans’ mountains green” and so on, is further explained in my book “Footprints in the Stone”? Good luck to all competing at the London Olympics, especially to all our “British” athletes.

 31-07-12: Discovery Channel “Building Wonders”.

This presenter could not work out how Stonehenge was built, so perhaps he should take another look at my book “Footprints in the Stone”. My simple basic explanations of the Stonehenge construction is that the “Britons” used earth with animal and manpower teams to haul and manoeuvre the stones up onto and to drop into ground holes in various stages of the construction, to a more or less a complete infill. The Britons then removed the earth infill to the outer banks to expose the Stonehenge structure. The presenter then described his trough type water level was interesting, but a more basic uncomplicated devise was available. Again as in my book I theorise from my experience as a Mason including Bricklaying and Civil Engineering that the device was possibly the Celtic-Cross. All is needed are two plumb bobs against each 90 degrees centre line through the shaft of the Cross from top to bottom, in order to plumb it upright to the centre of the earth, and then either sight through the aperture or the cross-arms to another Celtic-Cross. More details are in my book.

 03-10-12: BBC 2 the 2^nd Broadcast “The Story of Wales”.

 Again this broadcast seems to follow the format of my book. Firstly he says the Britons are a refined Nation with a sophisticated society and art with foundries and metal working etc; and then goes on to say it was the Romans who civilised the Britons. It seems he cannot work out who the aristocracy are; nor the true Britons. See above in the “The Seven Ages of Britain” this gives and aristocratic identification of the Britons and what they say they are.

 25-10-12: BBC 2 “Prehistoric Autopsy” broadcast on the 21, 22 and 24-10-2012.

 It appears that these presenters have nailed their colours to the mast, and so what I say here is from my earlier research and my book “FOOTPRINTS IN THE STONE”… Although this broadcast was very interesting, these presenters miss fundamental facts; and to imply that a large scull would hold a more knowledgeable or more intelligent brain than a smaller scull, would be a racist remark against the Pygmy or Ethiopian and small sculled races of today (and what about the great Apes with a large scull, are these animals more intelligent than humans)? Clearly the intelligent brain has evolved to be more knowledgeable and the intelligent brain has progressed for millions of years in order that any human will only use a small part of their brain in any size of scull. Understandably to become or remain white you must have evolved or resided in a certain northern part of the world over many millions of years to have progressed to develop a hard white skin. The Britons were evolving in what is now called the British Isles, ancient name is Britanishan, possibly as long as Lucy Australopithecus Afarensis in Africa; and we know that British soils will not preserve bones of millions of years, except in more recent instances of Boxgrove and Paviland Man and other British finds. Clearly the Britons resided in their northern location before Neanderthal reached France even, because the Britons are white, and being first had possibly progressed to be more intelligent than Neanderthal. Understandably black people coming out of Africa would have to live in a northern area for millions of years to evolve to turn white, but it is evident that Africans remain black in Africa. Britons would have undoubtedly travelled back to the south, east and west from their very early existence in the British Isles area, as is evidenced by the lighter colours of people now outside the British Isles on the same latitude, but the fact remains that black people in Africa remain black, until they are now these days assimilated in with white people. Logically white people must have been in the northern regions for millions of years before any black people came in from behind them, later. Or as I say - the Britons evolved in their northern areas. It is also evident that white people evolved to become the Indians of the Americas, because if they were firstly black and then they would have remained black in the very hot locations of the Americas; and you cannot have it any other way, because in any scenario the Britons were the first people to evolve white, or became white. In another example it could possibly be that the Britons travelled down into Africa to become black. However in any scenario it must have been the Britons who were the first humans because to achieve any of the latter to become white, they must have been first white in any event.

 05-02-13: BBC “The Annihilation of the 9^th Roman Legion”

 The presenters of this broadcast must be Roman because they just cannot bring themselves to understand it were the British who annihilated this 9^th Legion and others. These presenters denigrate the British by continually calling them Barbarian; when indeed the British were more morally civilised than any ancient Roman could ever be, and these presenters know it were the Romans who enslaved the British for their every Roman despicable immoral act. I also take offence to these people calling and labelling my British race “Barbarians” of which I believe this is a vile racist remark.

26-02-13 as I posted on Romans in Wales

 “The Roman agenda was to destroy and assimilate, as Julius Caesar did to Vercingetorix and his people in Alicia in 52 BC (after Caesar being given clemency by the Eburones and the Britons on at least 3 occasions around this time). In 106 AD the Roman Trajan took 13 legions and slaughtered the Dacians. In 146 AD the Roman Scipio destroyed Carthage by fire and sword in a holocaustic attack on this refined nation, to slaughter most and assimilate the remainder into being Romanized slaves, to supply the Romans for their every immoral act and need; the Romans also plagiarized their unique ideals and written works, so not very nice people were they. I am sure there is some Roman DNA that has crept into the greater indigenous populace in most lands; but I would rather be identified as a true moral Welsh Briton from true British stock in my own Welsh British lands, wouldn’t you.

Britons up to about 3,500 BC used river pebbles to heat, to use for slow cooking or heating water, to find forms of molten metals in the ashes. Heated limestone placed in water would create lime-paste; they used for lime-wash and mortar-daub the forerunner to concrete. This lead to metal forging in kilns as evidenced on the Great Orme dated at about 2,500 BC. This lead to the “lost wax process” of sculpturing beeswax, to coat with fine clay, in order to cast intricate cast objects. The Britons excavated at least five miles of tunnels here, producing an estimated 1,700 tons of copper and of course found silver and gold and so on. Britons must have firstly searched the streams and then expanded to strip the soil by excavation as they did on the Great Orme, Paris Mountain and Pumpsaint in Wales. They would have extended to dam streams to divert water, including utilizing what natural rainfall does in any wash or stream situation, to find ore deposits. Also water-formed tunnels existed first and then alongside excavated mining to form all configurations of arches. The Britons engineered drover’s roads for taking their animals for example to what are now called the Welsh Gwent and Kenfig lowland levels, in winter times and so the main infrastructure was in place. There are causeway-roads BC to mention at least at Keenagh in Ireland and Star Carr in Yorkshire. There is a wide causeway road at Stonehenge that Welsh Britons were the main surveyors, bluestone suppliers and engineers on this site. Historians suggested that the causeway was a Roman race track; but it was found to be dated BC and these historians now morbidly say this was a funeral procession walkway, to dismiss the copious amount of cairns and other burial places throughout the British Isles actually used for burial. Historians also dismiss that the Britons bred horses, hunting dogs, had company’s of chariots; so why not British chariot, horse, or dog racing, or any games such as archery etc, at any Stonehenge festival? We know the Britons were a fun loving Nation; simply look at the refined metal worked implements that came out of the Llyn Fawr Lake in Hirwaun from BC, and the abundance of other finds throughout the British Isles, including gilded swords, horse-tackle, funky hair-styles and adornments, and body art, to mention the least. Not to forget what is now called British Celtic Art from BC, and their wonderful original plaid woven garments and the evidence of the recent finds of their gatherings and feasting at Stonehenge, and isn’t this a more likely noteworthy event to value at the end of mining and harvesting for a well earned holiday and games gathering and feasting at Stonehenge; and of course to also remember their ancestors and past and existing leaders, chieftains and Princes, at these annual festivals. Clearly, the British technology’s mentioned here existed long before any Romans in Wales”. All before the Romans don’t you know?

10-03-13 Channel 4 “Secrets Of Stonehenge”.

 It appears that this academic is obsessed with morbid fantasy of burials of the ancestor’s theory, he puts out as fact. I must ask - do any of his students question what he advises or do they follow him like brainwashed bleating sheep? Does he say that the 57 Aubrey holes are actually 63 blue circle tombstone holes for the burial of royalty? Then how does the latter work, for if one family in one generation is buried in one year, and the Britons transported one bluestone from Preseli in what is now known as mid Wales, to place one blue tombstone for a British Royal family at Stonehenge; does he realize that this process would take thousands of years in each generation to place 63 blue tombstones in a very large circle? Isn’t it clear to him that the bluestone circle was constructed in one project in at least 3,000 BC and another circle 500 years later?

 The academic also puts forward that the British Isles was a united one nation of Britons from at least 3,000 BC by evidences of them travelling locally and up to at least 700 miles away from the Orkneys. I say must have been on well established roadways from travelling over these same roads for at least 2,000 years to attend feastings at Stonehenge on each or the winter solstice; of which I theorized in my book FOOTPRINTS IN THE STONE amongst other of my evidences from about 2005. I also cited the Paviland Red-Lady burial in what is now known as South Wales on the Gower peninsular dated at about 30,000 BC, of a “whole skeleton” died with red ochre etc. and also the mining on the Great Orme, farming, herding and droving and so on, from at least 4 and 3,000 BC.

 He then cites the Beaker Folk again, when he must know that the many burials found with Beaker pots in the British Isles are that of British people. Can he not realize, particularly from the at least 1,700 tons of copper mined on the great Orme which must have been mined along with gold and silver, from at least 3,000 BC, the Britons were more than likely exporting or exchanging copper gold and silver goods for imported goods. Or can he not simply realize that visitors may have brought in gold to be crafted by the Britons, who up to this time must have been masters of their trade. Particularly the Britons were also crafting what must have been fine porcelain like clay (pots) were metal casting moulds, in their lost wax process. Just because the Britons copied another design onto their “mundane” pots, does not mean they are beaker people.

 The academic then cites the Amesbury Archer burial again, with his beaker pot, to say that just after this time we were invaded by these people from the area of the Alps, because it was evidenced that this man came from a cold area, and is why Stonehenge was disused after this time; but isn’t the Orkneys a cold area. Does one Amesbury Archer amount to an invasion, when he earlier evidenced a United British Nation of more than 10,000 people (I say is a very low estimate) who had the means and could defend their territory as history evidences? He also says that burial practices changed at this time, but dismisses the Red-Lady Burial and others in the British Isles of whole skeletons. Isn’t it possible that the Britons simply got tired of trekking up to 700 miles once or twice a year to Stonehenge over at least 2,000 years and could just as easily celebrate any solstice from any location in the British Isles? Can’t he also realize that the channel and delta became more difficult to cross in later times, so it was possibly that visiting people could not now easily attend? It is also evident in the Roman attempted invasions of 55 and 54 BC the Britons sent the Roman Legions packing; so the Britons must have remained a United Nation and a considerable force at this time; and the only way the Romans entered Britain in 43 AD was possibly one of betrayal, which is also referenced in my book.

 This academic then says that the Avenue at Stonehenge was a natural feature aligned with each solstice, left after the last ice-age --- wait for it --- he says  – “of which the Britons took to be a message from the Gods”- that they must construct a monument at Stonehenge aligned to it. Does this academic really believe that his fantasy is fact? How does he then explain all the stone circles in the British Isles constructed before Stonehenge, were there visible ice gouge chalk marks in these locations also? Isn’t it a more plausible explanation of a central location of middle British Isles, for the Britons and incoming visitors to meet at an accessible central point in order to holiday, celebrate the solstice, and exchange ideas and goods, and perhaps compete in sporting games of a huge festival? Why does he continually harp-on about his obsessive incessant morbid ritual fantasy without any hard evidence of it, surely there is more to life than incessant Morbid Practices?

Note:- It is written that Roman propaganda served the Roman purpose to try to promote that it was the Romans who civilized the Britons; but the real evidences support that the Britons were morally civilized before any Roman invasion – and the Romans were the Nazi’s of their times, and the Saxons were no better. Is it also clear that the Romans have used the same Roman condition to try to dilute nations into obscurity, to transfer the wealth and power as long as it serves the purpose to fund Roman lifestyles in perpetuity. Is it also clear that Roman government used their powers and taxes to mostly keep their slaves in poverty and continued to subjugate any slave workforce to a Roman condition, including to destroy or export  industries and people for their own Roman benefit.

There is a plethora of evidence in ancient historical documents artefacts and carvings on many ancient stones, to prove an established British Nation. It amazes me that some broadcasts will only reference Roman and Saxon findings, wrongly in most instances, as categorical fact. It is a fact however that Roman archaeology is built over the British sites, of which most archaeologists will rarely venture below the Roman layer. Some academics misleadingly reference post Roman archaeology as Saxon, because they say it is from the Saxon period, but the fact is the Britons were the majority of our people in our British Lands at anytime. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the Britons should be the majority of the people in the British Isles. My book FOOTPRINTS IN THE STONE identifies this Roman deception that continues, and I say that the Roman occupation of Britain is apparently one of the most horrible enslavements of any moral Nation of all time, of which evidence of it has been brushed under the carpet for at least 2,000 years.

On the 12-07-19 I notice that a 210.000-year-old-scull found in Greece, is the oldest modern human discovered outside Africa; as I had predicted in my book. Again these academics cant work it out. I have much more valid information over this and my book, but why should I reveal it to be plagiarised by you know who!

The Ancient Britons are sometimes called “The Lost Nation”. Is the correct description, “The Subjugated Nation”?

Acquire a free PC Kindle Reader at this link amazon.com Kindle for PC