The Black Death and Chemtrails from UFO's

I watched the video (only part 4, the one they talk about the plague), and I think that with the material we have on ATS we could make a much better documentary.

First of all, the source for those "private journals and other publications throughout Europe, which contain accounts of cigar-shaped flying objects emitting noxious mists" is William Bramley.

They only show some (at least one) page of what looks like an ancient manuscript, but I have access to some thousands of images like that, all from real documents, as old as the 16th century, and if I used them on a documentary that would not mean that they were related to what was being said on it.

I saw once a documentary about the Titanic from the History Channel, and they said that that an investigator took some months studying the books where the personnel that worked on the ship were registered, and finally found something "hidden" on those books. The problem with that is that they were showing a book in which both pieces of information (the original information that the investigator found and the one he supposedly took months to find) were on the same line, only in different columns.

Those documentaries are made just for viewing pleasure, they are not scientific.

So, that part about the plague has as its only identified source William Bramley.

PS: if anyone is interested, here is that book that supposedly wrote about people seeing the "pestilent fogs" reported by people travelling in Asia. It's a little difficult to read and it's in Italian, but at least it's something we can see.

reply to post by ArMaP


Why thank you Armap!

Now all we need is someone to translate that into english!

reply to post by GeminiSky


I got some bad news and some good news.

The good news is that we have more books that we can read to try to find that information.

The bad news is that they are also in 14th century Italian.

Cronica universale de suoi tempi (the one I posted on my previous post)
Cronica di Matteo Villani, Volume 1
Cronica di Matteo Villani, Volumes 1-2 (I think it's the same book but a two volume set, while the previous was only the first volume)
Cronica di Matteo Villani(I think it's the same book but a different edition)

Edit: here is a translation of part of one (or all) of those books, in which he speaks about the plague. As usual, the translation is not that good, but it gives a rough idea of what he wrote.
For a better translation we can try to contact one of the volunteers from the UFO-Alien Applied Linguistics Registry

Italian:
schrodingers dog - Send U2U
exteel - Send U2U

[edit on 24/5/2010 by ArMaP]

I think I may have found something in the above translation

"We had by Genoese merchants, trustworthy men who had had news of this country, that some time before this plague in parts of Asia came out top of the ground or fell from the sky a huge fire, which stretches to the west, burned and consumed great [most of] the country with no shelter. It said that some days the smell of this fire generated the corruptible matter of general plague, but we can not ascertain. ... Below we learned from a venerable monk younger bishop of Florence ... United, a trustworthy man, who had been in those parts where the city of Lamech [Mecca, Saudi] it 'time of death, it rained three days and three nights in the country with snakes blood infects and corrupted all districts: in the storm and was demolished the temple of Muhammad and somewhat of his burial."

Can this be a reference to the mist or fog that was reported? A huge fire that "came out top of the ground, or fell from the sky? Who mentioned earlier that this may have been caused by crashing UFOs that disintegrated and caused the plague?

Also could the second reference about it raining blood mean that there was discolored potentially hazardous rain falling from the sky?

Originally posted by GeminiSky
I think I may have found something in the above translation

"We had by Genoese merchants, trustworthy men who had had news of this country, that some time before this plague in parts of Asia came out top of the ground or fell from the sky a huge fire, which stretches to the west, burned and consumed great [most of] the country with no shelter. It said that some days the smell of this fire generated the corruptible matter of general plague, but we can not ascertain. ... Below we learned from a venerable monk younger bishop of Florence ... United, a trustworthy man, who had been in those parts where the city of Lamech [Mecca, Saudi] it 'time of death, it rained three days and three nights in the country with snakes blood infects and corrupted all districts: in the storm and was demolished the temple of Muhammad and somewhat of his burial."

Can this be a reference to the mist or fog that was reported? A huge fire that "came out top of the ground, or fell from the sky? Who mentioned earlier that this may have been caused by crashing UFOs that disintegrated and caused the plague?

Also could the second reference about it raining blood mean that there was discolored potentially hazardous rain falling from the sky?

Or its made up to sound good because they had no idea about how the plague was transmitted etc remember these guys believed in witchcraft and other things we would laugh at
now ,
people have a knack for making things up to make a story seem better.

Hundreds of years ago in China when a solar eclipse happened they thought a dragon was eating the Sun do YOU think that?

You have to take old accounts and stories with a pinch of salt

[edit on 25-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 25-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 25-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

There's nothing wrong with William Bramley being the main modern source for this information with his book The Gods of Eden. To Bramley's credit he did indeed cite his own sources to the phenomena of plague clouds (of which were claimed by eye witnesses to be dispersed from cigar shaped flying crafts and comets) preceding the outbreaks which were not singular isolated accounts. These sources were:

Nohl Johannes -The Black Death, A Chronicle of the Plague-. (London, George Allen & Unwin LTD.,1926.)

George Deux -The Black Death-. 1347 (New York, Weybright & Talley Inc.,1969.)

William R Corless -Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena- (Garden City Anchor Books., 1983)

George Walter Bell -The Great Plague in London in 1665- (Dodd Mead & Company., 1924

William D Halsey -Colliers Encyclopedia- (The Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.,1965) vol.13

He also cautioned the reader (and rightly so) that medieval observers for the most part labeled all flying aerial phenomenas as comets. So don't let the claim of comets being seen in the skies divert you off of the trail. The observer could have still been talking about a cigar shaped craft or UFOs.

I too question the official line as far as the outbreak of the plague is concerned and am not so quick to discount what eyewitnesses reported.

I hope that these sources that Bramley used helps some.

reply to post by wmd_2008


"Or its made up" ??

You have anything to back up that statement? Was your post "made up" to sound better and more intelligent than it actually is?

Baseless posts lead nowhere. Thanks anyway!

reply to post by warequalsmurder



Thank you very much!

I too agree that there is nothing wrong with Bramley being the source, and in fact I see you have found the other sources that this information was taken from.

GOOD JOB and thank you for contributing to this thread!!

reply to post by GeminiSky


The only problem I have with Bramley is that his sources are from the 20th century.

And medieval observers didn't call "comet" to almost everything, as the text from the "Cronica universale de suoi tempi" shows, what the writer called it was "stella comata", meaning, if my Italian is working, "star with a tail", and when things were different they were described.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

"Or its made up" ??

You have anything to back up that statement? Was your post "made up" to sound better and more intelligent than it actually is?

Baseless posts lead nowhere. Thanks anyway!

I gave an example re China and soalr eclipse

People embellish stories one guy posted in a thread on ATS that in the 13th century newspapers were common

He said and I quote

Now the written evidence for the newspapers, journals, and other publications during that time shows a different story.

Cant remember his NAME OH it was you in your OP

YOU MADE THAT UP

[edit on 25-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by GeminiSky

 

The only problem I have with Bramley is that his sources are from the 20th century.

And medieval observers didn't call "comet" to almost everything, as the text from the "Cronica universale de suoi tempi" shows, what the writer called it was "stella comata", meaning, if my Italian is working, "star with a tail", and when things were different they were described.

So let me get this straight. Are you of the opinion that his sources made up these claims being that they are borrowing from eye witness accounts? Or will you not be satisfied until the authentic copies of their accounts are sitting in your hands? You do live in Portugal right? You could acquire their sources by going to the museums that the original authors went to in order to do this and satisfy your unquenched curiosity rather than leaving us with the impression that you are bulking at those sources. Suffice it to say I don't feel that there is any slight of hand here.

And nobody made the claim that medieval observers called "comet" to almost everything. What was said is that Bramley found that they used this term to name most unexplained aerial phenomena and contrary to what you claim did indeed use it as a catch all term for UFOs from time to time even when these flying things were different than bonefide comets. Kudos to you if your Italian translation actually got more detailed. He was eluding to the fact that many observations were obscured by these catch all terms (but not all)and that the reader should not try to read to literally into the name given unlike what you seem to be suggesting that we should do here.

One reason for the comet term being applied to what we would call UFOs was that they did not have many peers to back their assertions (because towns were like isolated islands of civilization at that time with no television or internet)and therefore used what few nouns were availiable to them. An example of this is when ancient writers constantly used the term Fiery Chariots. They did not have the noun spaceship or hovercraft or airplane (etc.) to draw from.

Some cultures did have better nouns to use though, such as in India when the term Vimana could be used but the medieval culture was barely out of the dark ages when the Black Plague struck and therefore still did not have a flowing vocabulary of nouns/adjectives to draw from since the sightings were so novel and rare to begin with. And as indicated earlier there was almost a complete lack of social networking amongst the common people to begin with at that time.

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
So let me get this straight. Are you of the opinion that his sources made up these claims being that they are borrowing from eye witness accounts?

No, but not using direct sources it's the best way of presenting things in a way that's not the original one.

As we say in Portugal, "quem conta um conto acrescenta-lhe um ponto", that can be translated as something like "those that tell tales add a full stop", meaning that the accumulated small changes may change completely the original.

Or will you not be satisfied until the authentic copies of their accounts are sitting in your hands?

There's no need for that.

You do live in Portugal right? You could acquire their sources by going to the museums that the original authors went to in order to do this and satisfy your unquenched curiosity rather than leaving us with the impression that you are bulking at those sources.

I don't know if they went to Portuguese sources, I haven't found the sources used by Bramley's sources yet, but I have already started my search in Portuguese archives. After all, I work in a company that makes software for archives, so I know where to search.

Suffice it to say I don't feel that there is any slight of hand here.

What I mean is that there's no need for slight of hand, just the fact that a source omits or embelishes something and that someone reading that source does the same may result in something completely different.

It's like wanting to see the original photos instead of resized and compressed versions, there's always something that may be missing and that can only be known by looking at the originals (if possible, obviously).

What was said is that Bramley found that they used this term to name most unexplained aerial phenomena and contrary to what you claim did indeed use it as a catch all term for UFOs from time to time even when these flying things were different than bonefide comets.

It was an exaggeration from me, I did not had the time to look at the exact words, so I wrote what I thought was the closest to what he said, and I was wrong.

But that doesn't mean he is right, from what I have seen they used the word comets for comets, what they used most for those unknown things seen in the skies was "bolides".

Kudos to you if your Italian translation actually got more detailed. He was eluding to the fact that many observations were obscured by these catch all terms (but not all)and that the reader should not try to read to literally into the name given unlike what you seem to be suggesting that we should do here.

But then how do we know what were and what were not comets? That way of presenting things, to me, looks more like a way of seeding doubt in the mind of the reader to make them think that, whenever they read "comet", it means a UFO.

I don't think it's a honest way of presenting other people's reports, after all he is the one doubting the witnesses abilities to describe what they saw.

One reason for the comet term being applied to what we would call UFOs was that they did not have many peers to back their assertions (because towns were like isolated islands of civilization at that time with no television or internet)and therefore used what few nouns were availiable to them.

But they weren't stupid, you don't need to know the name of something if you can say that it was round, square or triangular, if it moved or not, if it was red or blue, etc.

If you have read some books from those times (14th century) you can see that the way of putting their thoughts in words was not that different from how we do it today.

An example of this is when ancient writers constantly used the term Fiery Chariots. They did not have the noun spaceship or hovercraft or airplane (etc.) to draw from.

Or maybe they were describing a fiery chariot.

Some cultures did have better nouns to use though, such as in India when the term Vimana could be used but the medieval culture was barely out of the dark ages when the Black Plague struck and therefore still did not have a flowing vocabulary of nouns/adjectives to draw from since the sightings were so novel and rare to begin with. And as indicated earlier there was almost a complete lack of social networking amongst the common people to begin with at that time.

And vimana means...

Also, the "dark ages" were only called that by those that followed it, to make themselves look more civilized, what we call the "dark ages" was a time of many developments in many subjects.

Originally posted by ArMaPNo, but not using direct sources it's the best way of presenting things in a way that's not the original one.
As we say in Portugal, "quem conta um conto acrescenta-lhe um ponto", that can be translated as something like "those that tell tales add a full stop", meaning that the accumulated small changes may change completely the original.

Oh, so now we have completely changed original meanings. I don't think that you're going to sway many readers with this argument especially when such dramatic events are being referred to. I think it's safe to say that the original eye witnesses were not talking about Aladdin and his Flying Carpet only to be misconstrued by Bramley's sources. He, he.

ArMaP
There's no need for that.

Oh yes there was.

ArMaPI don't know if they went to Portuguese sources, I haven't found the sources used by Bramley's sources yet, but I have already started my search in Portuguese archives. After all, I work in a company that makes software for archives, so I know where to search.

Then if you know where to search you should have no troulbe double checking Bramley's sources before you make baseless criticisms against them.

ArMaP
What I mean is that there's no need for slight of hand, just the fact that a source omits or embelishes something and that someone reading that source does the same may result in something completely different.

And once again: I think it's safe to say that the original eye witnesses were not talking about Aladdin and his Flying Carpet only to be misconstrued by Bramley's sources. But do please feel free to take a trip to the museum to prove your suspicions of possible embelishments.

ArMaPIt's like wanting to see the original photos instead of resized and compressed versions, there's always something that may be missing and that can only be known by looking at the originals (if possible, obviously).

And this takes us back to my charge that you should take a trip to the museums to hold the manuscripts in your own hands for further proof to yourself and that there was in fact a need for me to tell you to do just that in my last post.

ArMaPBut that doesn't mean he is right, from what I have seen they used the word comets for comets, what they used most for those unknown things seen in the skies was "bolides".

I call Bull$@@t. Please provide us with the countless references to aerial phenomina across Europe in the Medieval times being called bolides rather than comets. And don't forget to reproduce them all in the original manucript form so that no room for these embellishments can take root!

ArMaPBut then how do we know what were and what were not comets? That way of presenting things, to me, looks more like a way of seeding doubt in the mind of the reader to make them think that, whenever they read "comet", it means a UFO.

The problem with your leading suggestion that he was trying to seed UFO persuasion is that he never made the statement that all comets were UFOs. It would be the context in which he tells of the comet that was described such as in the 1557 book entitled : A Chronicle of Prodigies and Portents by Conrad Lycosthenes that in 1478 -"The comet seen over Arabia had the shape of a pointed wooden beam"-. This story was accompanied by illustrations given by eyewitnesses that clearly depicted portholes in the craft amongst the clouds.
I can quickly deduce that this is no ordinary comet. If you can't than that would be a personal failure for you to work out on your own some time.

ArMaPI don't think it's a honest way of presenting other people's reports, after all he is the one doubting the witnesses abilities to describe what they saw.

He never said that he doubted what the witnesses saw. I think what you are doing here is exposing your own biases and to a suspicious degree at that.

ArMaPBut they weren't stupid, you don't need to know the name of something if you can say that it was round, square or triangular, if it moved or not, if it was red or blue, etc.

I never said that they were stupid. Where did you get this foolish notion from?
I said that their lexicon did not include nouns that we take for granted to describe UFOs and to add insult to injury here, they did make descriptions of those things they called comets that did indeed give values that would lead credence to the belief that what was being described was something more than a comet even though they didn't have the spaceship word at their disposal.

ArMaPOr maybe they were describing a fiery chariot.

The odds are stacked more in favor of my analogy than your vain attempt at sarcasm here.

ArMaPAlso, the "dark ages" were only called that by those that followed it, to make themselves look more civilized, what we call the "dark ages" was a time of many developments in many subjects.

I think it is safe to say that UFO nomenclature was not among those developments.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by warequalsmurder]

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

"Or its made up" ??

You have anything to back up that statement? Was your post "made up" to sound better and more intelligent than it actually is?

Baseless posts lead nowhere. Thanks anyway!

I gave an example re China and soalr eclipse

People embellish stories one guy posted in a thread on ATS that in the 13th century newspapers were common

He said and I quote

Now the written evidence for the newspapers, journals, and other publications during that time shows a different story.

Cant remember his NAME OH it was you in your OP

YOU MADE THAT UP

[edit on 25-5-2010 by wmd_2008]


Hey bud when I made a mistake I own up to it, if you had bothered to read my post on this thread after I made the OP you would have seen that I wrote:

"I did make an error in the OP, The reports came from HAND WRITTEN journals, diaries and the such. There was one individual who cataloged these craft spraying the mist and subsequently died shortly after writing them.

There may have not been any newspapers or printed books at the time,
HOWEVER it seems these sightings were important enough that even the few people that could read and write decided to CATALOG these events by HAND.

You and another poster here seem attempting to derail this thread. I hope my suspicion of this is wrong, but you are doing 2 things at this point, not bothering to fully read posts here and blatantly trying to push your agenda/debunking with baseless posts about the material we are discussing.

which by the way makes pretty much no sense for me to even read your posts at this point.

I hope you one day contribute something of value to this thread like warequalsmurder who has in plain English explained why what you are posting is RUBBISH.

As always, whether a poster agrees or disagrees I still welcome GENUINE contributions to this thread, as long as its something of SUBSTANCE.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by GeminiSky]

reply to post by GeminiSky


Yes you did admit the mistake I know BUT you embellished your story I am not saying it was deliberate did I , I only said YOU did it.

Now these events happened a long time ago so its possible the account had similar problems to your OP ie mistakes were made.

In this modern time with all the ways we have of recording stories you can read a report in 2 newspapers of an event that happened the day before and they will not be indentical you know why?

PEOPLE WRITE THE STORY THATS WHY!

read my sig for some REAL good advice!

[edit on 26-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

Embellished?


em·bel·lish

–verb (used with object)
1.
to beautify by or as if by ornamentation; ornament; adorn.
2.
to enhance (a statement or narrative) with fictitious additions.



So did I "Embellish" my op? or did I just make a mistake because I could not remember the EXACT words that were spoken during the AA broadcast?


I don't think Embellished is the correct word to use here. Wether or not I made a minor error in my post has NO BEARING on the information that is being discussed. It certainly has no bearing on information that was cataloged back in the 13th century.

The mistake was made due to me not fully being relay the exact words spoken during the ancient aliens program.

It was not because I wanted to make a FICTITIOUS ADDITION to my OP.

Please read the dictionary before you use words so liberally.

Having said that, do you have anything to add that will further our collective research that is presented in the op? Or will you continue to pick apart word for word my typographical errors?

As always thank you to all the contributors who provide something of SUBSTANCE.

I didn't read the whole post but was curious where did you get you source from on this one....

What stands out is that shortly before the plague went into full swing, Europeans were reporting seeing "cigar shaped" objects in the sky "dispensing clouds or mists" Shortly after these objects were seen over a town, the inhabitants would start dying rapidly of this plague.

Not being a smart alyke but would like to read more.

reply to post by Software_Pyrate


Why dont you re-read my post to understand what source I was talking about.

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
Oh, so now we have completely changed original meanings.

I didn't said that, I only said that the more intermediaries we have the less sure we can be of what is told, just that.

I don't think that you're going to sway many readers with this argument especially when such dramatic events are being referred to. I think it's safe to say that the original eye witnesses were not talking about Aladdin and his Flying Carpet only to be misconstrued by Bramley's sources. He, he.

I don't want to sway anyone, I was just pointing out why I never take something like this as sure.

Oh yes there was.

What I meant was that there is no need for me to have the "authentic copies of their accounts are sitting in" my hands.

Then if you know where to search you should have no troulbe double checking Bramley's sources before you make baseless criticisms against them.

Could you please point where did I made baseless criticisms against Bramley? The only thing I criticise in him is the way he apparently tries to make people think of comets as other things.

And the fact that I know more or less how archives work (most of these things are not in museums) was one of the reasons behind the fact that I could find the Italian book that was referenced.

I just need more time.

And this takes us back to my charge that you should take a trip to the museums to hold the manuscripts in your own hands for further proof to yourself and that there was in fact a need for me to tell you to do just that in my last post.

You keep talking about that as if those manuscripts are on a museum near the place where I live. If you could point the sources used by those writers it would be easier.

I call Bull$@@t. Please provide us with the countless references to aerial phenomina across Europe in the Medieval times being called bolides rather than comets. And don't forget to reproduce them all in the original manucript form so that no room for these embellishments can take root!

I didn't said that there are "countless references" to bolides, I said that, "from what I have seen", bolides was the most used word, and when things were clearly different from a common bolide they would described them, pointing the differences to a common bolide or comet.

The problem with your leading suggestion that he was trying to seed UFO persuasion is that he never made the statement that all comets were UFOs.

Yes, and to me that is worse than saying that all comets were UFOs. If he said that people would think "this guy think everything was a UFO", but the way he wrote it makes it impossible to have faith in any testimony if the witness calls it a comet. Was it a real comet or was it one of those occasions that they called it comet but it wasn't?

It would be the context in which he tells of the comet that was described such as in the 1557 book entitled : A Chronicle of Prodigies and Portents by Conrad Lycosthenes that in 1478 -"The comet seen over Arabia had the shape of a pointed wooden beam"-. This story was accompanied by illustrations given by eyewitnesses that clearly depicted portholes in the craft amongst the clouds.
I can quickly deduce that this is no ordinary comet. If you can't than that would be a personal failure for you to work out on your own some time.

I suppose you didn't noticed it when I wrote that "when things were different they were described", that's why we have illustrations, because it was not a common comet (if they really called it comet, I haven't seen that text yet ).

He never said that he doubted what the witnesses saw. I think what you are doing here is exposing your own biases and to a suspicious degree at that.

No, he didn't said it, he said that the word comet could have been used in two different ways, and that makes it impossible to know, without more information, what the witnesses were reporting, making their reports even harder to interpret.

And please could you tell me what my biases are? It would help me understand your way of thinking.

I never said that they were stupid. Where did you get this foolish notion from?

Nowhere. When I write it doesn't mean that I am implying that the person to who I am answering used those words or that exact meaning, it's just my way of presenting what I am thinking, and in this case I was thinking that only a stupid person would be incapable of describing what they saw just because they didn't had a specific name for it.

After all, you can describe anything that you never saw before, even if you don't have the right words.

The odds are stacked more in favor of my analogy than your vain attempt at sarcasm here.

Yes, I was never good at sarcasm, specially in English.

I think it is safe to say that UFO nomenclature was not among those developments.

UFO nomenclature is still needing some developments, but I guess they were capable of saying that they saw an flying object that they could not identify.

Originally posted by ArMaP
You keep talking about that as if those manuscripts are on a museum near the place where I live. If you could point the sources used by those writers it would be easier.

The sources were provided on this very page! Look a few posts up! Go purchase their books and knock yourself out.
And if you don't want to make the trip to England for some of these manuscripts that you keep crying about than how can you hold others like Bramley to present them for you after he went to the trouble to cite them in the first place? He cited his sources and then I cited those sources for you and the reader. If this ain't good enough for you than you need to buy those books or make that trip and stop squaking.

ArMaP
I didn't said that there are "countless references" to bolides, I said that, "from what I have seen", bolides was the most used word, and when things were clearly different from a common bolide they would described them, pointing the differences to a common bolide or comet.

And I've seen no evidence to support your claim that bolides were used more often than comets but let's just drop this one in the interests of peace.

warequalsmurderThe problem with your leading suggestion that he was trying to seed UFO persuasion is that he never made the statement that all comets were UFOs.

ArMaPYes, and to me that is worse than saying that all comets were UFOs. If he said that people would think "this guy think everything was a UFO", but the way he wrote it makes it impossible to have faith in any testimony if the witness calls it a comet. Was it a real comet or was it one of those occasions that they called it comet but it wasn't?

This is a very odd response that I don't think does your argument much service. But for the sake of clarity, please provide us some examples of where he made it impossible to have faith in any testimony when witnesses called it a comet. If anything he made it ten times easier to believe the testimonies when he provided the additional information that was given by the said witnesses and provided the sources to back it up.
I would tend to think that blanket statements would do far more damage than using caution with the comet claims as he tended to do. I'll let the reader make their own minds up here.

ArMaP
I suppose you didn't noticed it when I wrote that "when things were different they were described", that's why we have illustrations, because it was not a common comet (if they really called it comet, I haven't seen that text yet

).

That's not our fault. It's yours for not obtaining the additional verification that you think that you need. And until you do just that perhaps you should stop trying to criticize the guy for his investigations. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?
The man quoted the source that used the word "comet". I've seen no proof to the contrary that he was lying about this testimony. But you'll need to just go ahead and prove me wrong if you don't buy it on the simple reason that you haven't read his source yet.

ArMaP
No, he didn't said it, he said that the word comet could have been used in two different ways, and that makes it impossible to know, without more information, what the witnesses were reporting, making their reports even harder to interpret.
And please could you tell me what my biases are? It would help me understand your way of thinking.

You obviously have not read his book and this does not shine well on you as a sceptic. When he came to a reference that used the word comet he gave attention to the instances that were supported with additional information that would lend credence to the fact that it was no ordinary comet. When there was no supporting evidence and just a claim that a comet went across the sky he made no efforts to say it was anything other than what was described.
What makes you look highly biased here is your eagerness to criticize his investigative techniques when in every instance you are wrong about the way he went about them which leads further evidence to my claim that you haven't even read his book yet.

Hey ArMap... Have you read The God's of Eden by William Bramley yet?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by warequalsmurder]