| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Discovery of the First Sacred Language: Fact or Fiction?
by Steven & Evan Strong | MessageToEagle.com
In 1939, two men spent a great deal of time trying to come to grips with what one of those men – Frederic Slater, President of the Australian Archaeological and Education Research Society – claimed to be Australia’s “Stonehenge.”[1]
According to Slater, this ancient complex formed “the basis of all knowledge, all science, all history and all forms of writing, which began in numeration.”[2]
At this stage of proceedings, every claim made by Slater and his colleague (whose name we cannot supply as it would give too many clues in relation to the site’s location), bar one, has been addressed in my previous articles, and in many cases substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.
What We Know So Far
The smaller mound is not natural and nor are the materials selected to construct. It was a sacred burial site reserved for the most spiritual and revered, which was intuitively sensed by Originals and non-Originals alike, and confirmed by Slater’s notes and his co-workers description of “thrice bent man” – and another form of elaborate internment of which we are unfamiliar.
The sandstone rocks (which will number in the thousands once our investigation is complete) were not part of the local geology, and the obvious shaping and worked edges of many of these rocks was achieved with tools and technology that were not supposed to be a part of any Original tool-kit.
Source: http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2014/08/discovery-of-the-first-sacred-language-fact-or-fiction/
