Brit-Am Historical Reports (25 January 2016, 15 Shevet, 5776)
Contents:
1. Cross used as a religious symbol of Edomites in ca. 300 BCE
2. Paul Porter: WW2 Notes
3. Phoenician coins and Phoenician exploration by Prof. Dr. Mark A. McMenamin (Phoenicians in North America?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. Cross used as a religious symbol of Edomites in ca, 300 BCE
Judean Cave City Yields Trove of Ancient Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/24/science/judean-cave-city-yields-trove-of-ancient-secrets.html?pagewanted=all
By JOEL BRINKLEY
Published: July 24, 1990
TEL MARESHA, Israel
Cross used as a religious symbol of Edomites in ca. 300 BCE
Extract:
Last year Professor Kloner's diggers came upon an especially enigmatic find in one newly discovered cave: the symbol of a cross, carved well before the time of Christ.
This cave was filled with debris, as they all are. When the dirt was scooped out, the archeologists found the usual trove of oil lamps, cooking vessels, dishes, pots, cooper coins and other artifacts, many of them intact.
In dating the material from the cave, Dr. Kloner said, ''we can tell without any doubt that it was cut during the fourth century B.C. and was in use into the second century'' before the birth of Christ.
''We don't have even one single shard from the Roman or the later Byzantine period,'' he added.
Yet there on the back wall, four feet high, two feet across, cut very deliberately six inches deep in the stone, is an unmistakable cross that looks very much like the Christian symbol. Nothing nearby explains its meaning, and Dr. Kloner declines to venture a guess.
''Clearly it has nothing to do with the Christians,'' he said, since it was cut at least 100 years before Christ was born. Crucifixion was practiced here in at least part of the period when the cave was in use, he noted.
He would offer only one vague suggestion: that the cross ''is probably some sort of cultic schematic of the Edomites.'' These were a Semitic people who had no clear religious orientation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2. Paul Porter: WW2 Notes
Re
TR-76. Tribal Report
#1. The French were better in WW2 than is commonly acknowledged!
http://hebrewnations.com/features/tr/tr76.html
Dear Mr Davidiy,
All commentators /students of history have their own perspective of events that have taken place. However, if there exists enough material available from more than one source, then it follows that the conclusions drawn by the student, after careful analysis, is more than likely to be accurate than incorrect. There are immutable facts that can be discovered through research.
It is with this approach that l wish to address the points raised by the commentary of Philippe Dangin that appears to be relevant to an earlier commentary that I wrote.
The purpose of my commentary was to question the relationship that existed between the nations of Britain and the USA at the beginning of WW2 (in terms of a brotherly nature).  When l used the term " The fall of France "(sic), l was using the term as it has been recorded in history. I also referred to the decision taken by Churchill to "Scuttle the French Fleet "(sic).  Referring to the latter, the decision on what should be done with the French Fleet had been debated in Parliament. The British Government had requested that the French Fleet be sailed to British ports. There were a number of vessels that sailed from their ports in the North of France to French ports in the Mediterranean at the time of the Nazi invasion into Northern France. I personally do not know the true reason why the French authority, at that time, refused repeated requests from the British government to sail their ships to British ports. I could speculate and say that there was ill feeling towards Britain by some within the ranks of French governance but it will be just that, mere speculation. Further, the action taken (five minute salvo) by Britain was after considerable attempts by the British naval command to achieve a none combative outcome. The point being that the 'fate' of the French Fleet should and could have had a very different outcome.
Referring to another point raised, the British Expeditionary Force was stationed in North East France during the nine month period some historians term the " phoney war" after the outbreak of WW2. These troops had faced some ' heavy action ' from the German military action in Belgium. However, the thrust of the German advance had been to circumvent the heavily fortified Margino Line. This spearhead of German forces had effectively ' cut off' the northern British /French forces from their troop positions further south. This gave rise to the incident known as the "Evacuation of Dunkirk". Some 200,000 British and 150,000 French troops were rescued from the beaches of Dunkirk. This action had come about after a huge number of commercial vessels had sailed the English channel in support, with other British navel vessels, to rescue the troops. Some 200 commercial vessels and several navel vessels were sunk by German airborne action. Given the huge losses by the RAF who were airborne in defence of the Evacuation, l would question the assertion that during the Battle to save France, that maybe half the aircraft of the German forces had been lost. There is a suggestion that Germany incurred heavy losses of aircraft during the early stages of WW2 but l have not, as yet, uncovered a figure relating to half of the airborne capability.
A point of note at this juncture is that there was a view after WW1 that any future war would be decided by aerial supremacy. This view was driven, in part, by the sheer horror of loss of life sustained during the trench warfare of WW1.
Another point of note is that Churchill believed that the way to defeat Germany and Italy was via North Africa and NOT through Europe. He tried repeatedly to persuade F.D.R. to agree to this strategy after the USA entered the conflict. This thinking was, in part, what drove the urgency to acquire the French Fleet ( fourth largest at that time after Britain, USA, Japan). The strategy behind this thinking can be researched but does not form part of this discussion.
As the "Battle of Britain" has been extensively covered by many academic commentators of merit, l do not wish to comment further only to say that l did not emphasise the bravery of the RAF pilots in my earlier commentary but that l should have! These pilots, though mostly British were also from France; Canada; Australia; New Zealand ; USA; Poland and Czecheslovakia. I sometimes use the term British to include all of the Empire before their independent states and maybe l should be more clear on this.
Now l come to some darker points in French history that will give offence. The reference to the Vichy government after the fall of France was ill advised. This government was complicit in facilitating Nazi policy in relation to the Jewish citizens of France - that is the "Vichy Zone" and the so called " Free Zone". It is fair to say that other nations having been invaded by the Nazis also were complicit in the this despicable policy. However, as l am referencing the points raised in Mr Dangin's commentary l will keep with the specifics of France.Â
At this juncture, l wish to apologise that l have not given more details in the operations and actions of the Vichy French. This period of French history is covered by academics in much detail. It is not for me to pass judgement on the reasons why Vichy France chose this action. I do have an opinion but l will not share this. Either way, l will give offence to the French and Jewish communities in turn. One for my silence and the other for my opinions!  A point of order is when discussing subject matter in generic terms there are usually exceptions to the rule!
This brings me to the "French Resistance ". This group of people were apparently drawn from all sections of the political persuasions that were prevalent in France at that time. They United under a common goal- to relieve France from Nazi occupation. Their efforts and bravery were instrumental in rescuing 'downed' pilots over France. They assisted Jews in evading capture by the Vichy French. They also disrupted German logistics and forwarded valuable information to the Allies. It is this aspect of French History that France should rightly be proud of.
To address the points as to how Britain would have behaved if the Nazis had invaded her territory. I can only offer speculation and offer an opinion. There certainly were Nazi sympathisers in Britain including within the Royal Family. Moseley did march 'his' supporters through the streets of Britain. However, the overwhelming public opinion was NOT in favour of the German cause in Europe. It is reasonable to suggest that any nation finding itself in France's position would have behaved likewise. However, l would disagree with this assertion. This, l must stress, is my own opinion which is rooted in my reading of British history from the Roman occupation to the beginning of WW2. There are many factors that formulate that opinion but sharing them will not add to this discussion as they remain entirely speculative owing to the monumental efforts undertaken by Britain during the "Battle of Britain "!
A small note if l may about Hitler turning his attention East and invading Russia as far as Moscow. Whilst the German military was staffed with competent officers, Hitler's ego and impatience 'railroaded' sound military decisions. It appears the pact he made with Stalin was an 'illusion' designed to lull Russia into a false sense of security. Part of the 'Nazi Masterplan' was to occupy Russian lands with 'good Aryan families ' that would supplant the Slavic people and provide the 'fatherland' with the 'living space' that it so richly deserved (sic). The Nazis faced TWO major obstacles in achieving their goal, the expanse of the country and the 'Russian Winter'. It is not my intention to diminish the bravery of the Russian forces and the huge effort of her citizens during the conflict. I am merely of the opinion that Hitler made the same mistake in attempting to take Russia as had Boneaparte some one hundred and forty years before him! On both occasions, both antagonists were able to reach the heart of Russia but we're unable to hold her. The weather and sheer expanse of the area were key in both incursions.
We can debate the various political factors that led to the outbreak of WW2 but we will not change the history! We can study the behaviour of all the nations involved but we still will not change the history! I have read that history 'repeats itself '. I have also read that it does not. I do however see recurring themes throughout world history. Maybe mankind will reach a conscious state of universal understanding that we do not own this planet - we are however very privileged tenants!! We have been both good and bad stewards of the land.  I personally find it puzzling that given 'our' apparent collective intelligence, 'we' still find it so difficult to learn from 'our' mistakes of the past so as to not repeat them.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Porter.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3. Phoenician coins and Phoenician exploration by Prof. Dr. Mark A. McMenamin (Phoenicians in North America?)
http://www.migration-diffusion.info/article.php?subject=trade&id=30
Summary:
Numismatic evidence favoring the hypothesis of a Carthaginian presence in North America has recently come to light. The evidence is twofold. The first piece of evidence consists of a particular group of early Carthaginian gold coins (called staters) that bear a map (derived from modified Punic letters) showing both the Old World and the New World. Going from east to west, the maps show India, the south coast of Europe above Sardinia and Sicily, and America.
The second piece of evidence consists of a series of seven or eight copper coins found scattered across North America from Nebraska to Georgia to Connecticut. The coins have an image of a Punic horse, the Phoenician palm tree (uprooted as if to be transplanted) and an enigmatic inscription in the Punic Language. It seems unlikely that these coins were brought across the Atlantic in modern times, and if authentic they suggest a Carthaginian presence in ancient America.
Taken separately, these pieces of evidence could be dismissed as some type of fluke or hoax, respectively. But taken together, along with the fact that Carthaginian gold and base metal coins were reported from the Azores in 1778, the available evidence suggests that the Carthaginians had the ability to cross the Atlantic at will. Â