Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

more re Apocalypto

Expand Messages
  • jdaintira@aol.com
    I sent this post to the group on December 14 th of last year. In other posts I sent links which no longer work. ~ JM
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I sent this post to the group on December 14 th of last year.
       
      In other posts I sent links which no longer work.  ~ JM
       
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       
      I set this up to share before reading it as I felt that whatever it said, what had been compiled by Nat. Geo. should be considered as to the current state of knowledge re the Mayans. I now see that it puts forward many of my own points, but does a far better job of it.  ~ Judith Marie 
       
       

      "Apocalypto" Tortures the Facts, Expert Says

      Stefan Lovgren
      for National Geographic News
      December 8, 2006

      Mel Gibson says Apocalypto, his new movie set during the collapse of the Maya Empire, should not be seen as a historical document.

      At least one expert couldn't agree more.

      Though it gave rise to awe-inspiring architecture and surprisingly advanced science, the Maya civilization—which thrived in what are now Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and Honduras—began declining around A.D. 800 (map of Central and North America).

      Archaeological evidence points to a multitude of factors that could have led to this decline, including internecine warfare, the loss of trade routes, drought, and disease.

      But before the fall, the Maya ruled the region from seats of power in dozens of cities. It is this so-called Classic period [A.D. 250 to 900], and especially its end, that the film most resembles, though no date is specified in Apocalypto.

      To find out what the Maya Empire was really like, Stefan Lovgren checked in with Zachary Hruby, a Maya expert at the University of California, Riverside.

      (Related video: "'Apocalypto' Exaggerates Maya Violence, Expert Says.")

      In Apocalypto, the hero, Jaguar Paw, lives in an idyllic hunting village set deep in the jungle. Would this have been typical?

      During Classic times the Maya were an agricultural people. They hunted, but wild game was a relatively small percentage of the diet, and meat in general may have been seen as more of a luxury item.

      At that time, it appears that almost all the forest was maintained, manicured, and owned by somebody, and [the fact] that you have a Maya group [in Apocalypto] that doesn't practice agriculture is virtually impossible.

      Would Maya villagers have lived in stick huts, as they do in Apocalypto?

      Although houses may have been of perishable materials, they had stone foundations and were often built in cleared plazas but certainly not in the wild jungle. House lots were planned and intensively managed spaces where fruits, vegetables, and medicinal plants were grown and where some domesticated animals were raised.

      [In Maya artwork] women are traditionally shown in conservative dress, in huipiles, which covered their breasts. Also, ceramic vessels were ubiquitous.

      The villagers are attacked and captured by men from a Maya metropolis. While the male captives are to be used in sacrificial rituals, the women are sold as slaves.  

      There's no evidence that innocent women and men were harvested from the hinterlands and sold into slavery or to provide flesh for sacrifice. Generally captives appear to have been taken during war between polities.

      Jaguar Paw and the other captives who are brought to the city have never heard of such a place.

      During the Classic period Maya settlement was so widespread that you lived at least within 10 to 20 kilometers [6 to 12 miles] of a large community. Pyramids were never more than 20 kilometers away from anywhere in the Maya world.

      There was a great sense of political connectedness between different groups. Even small villages in the hinterlands of large cities were connected to some political center.

      The city is depicted as one of both great wealth—with a lot of people wearing jade jewelry—and great poverty.

      Jade was usually reserved for royal families. Even in cases of relatively impoverished sites … the king would wear false jade beads made of painted ceramic, indicating that the veneer of wealth was crucial no matter what the reality.

      Jade was the symbol of royal power and wealth. You don't find these goods in commoner graves and even very rarely in nonroyal elite burials.

      The Maya civilization is impressive for a number of reasons—a fully developed writing system, amazing architecture, and a complex political system. But life expectancy was low.

      Near the time of the collapse, people were generally undernourished, which is reflected in their bones, and they had bad problems with their teeth.

      The city features dazzling pyramids but is also seen to be in a great state of disrepair.

      It may be modeled after Tikal in Guatemala, a great Mayan city. But it is more of a combination of architectural features from both the southern and northern lowlands on the Yucatán Peninsula.

      If Apocalypto is meant to to show the terminal Classic—the Classic Maya collapse—then it may have looked in a state of disrepair. The decline in social organization may have made the upkeep of public buildings a difficult economic and political endeavor.

      Jaguar Paw and the other captives are to be sacrificed on a column-shaped stone to appease the gods and avert a drought.

      This type of sacrifice resembles one that may have been carried out by the Mexica [an Aztec-related group] in central Mexico.

      The Aztecs [who presided over an empire in Mexico in the 15th and 16th centuries] used a column-shaped stone on which the captive would be splayed out, back arched, allowing the sacrificer to more easily access the heart from beneath the rib cage to make a heart sacrifice.

      This type of sacrifice is unknown within the Maya area.

      In the movie hundreds of people appear to be sacrificed at once.

      The Aztecs are known to have sacrificed large numbers of people, though according to the archaeological record, we are unsure of how many would be sacrificed at one time.

      There are no data to support that the Maya carried out sacrifice on such a large scale.

      The evidence we have suggests that sacrifice was a very personal thing, and so even the captives were personal objects. Even after death, the bones of those captives were owned [by the sacrificer].

      Another form of [nonlethal] sacrifice to the Maya is auto-sacrifice, or bloodletting, which was carried out by males by perforating the penis and by women who would pull ropes through their tongues. This blood was used in ancestor veneration and other rituals.

      The movie suggests that the Maya relished torturing their captives.

      The captives the Maya wanted were the elites from opposing polities, because they represented competition.

      Capture, humiliation, and torture of an elite warrior meant usurpation of their goods and resources. The Maya didn't necessarily relish torture and violence, but they relished making their political opponents suffer.

      Fingernails were torn out, genitalia and breasts exposed, and starvation was common.

      In the movie the king is shown as a bystander to two other individuals during the sacrificial ritual.

      Most monuments depict the king as the central figure—dancing, bloodletting, scattering incense.

      The king was the one who supposedly conducted rituals in front of a large audience. He played a major ceremonial role.

      The Maya kings were seen as potent mediums in terms of communicating with their own ancestors, and the king would also impersonate deities. By doing so, the king could replay important mythological scenes that connected to events that were happening in the city at the time.

      It was a combination of religion and politics, but not in the sense that we think of an Egyptian pharaoh as a living god.

      A solar eclipse plays a pivotal part in the movie.

      There are hieroglyphs to suggest that the Maya observed the eclipse.

      The Maya calendar supposedly ends in 2012, and people have hypothesized that [the Maya thought] the world will end at that time. But even in Mayan creation mythology, there is no explicit connection between the end of the Maya calendar and the end of the world.

      The movie suggests that there were several reasons for the Maya collapse.

      There are many causes for the fall of that form of Classic-period social organization. Multiple historical, economic, and environmental factors were in play simultaneously at that time.

      It was a time of particularly bad drought. There was heavy deforestation. The ancient Maya overused their land and were no longer producing the amount of food they needed.

      At the same time, populations were going through the roof. There were too many people, and the pie simply wasn't big enough.

      There was also increased warfare in some areas. Royals were trying to kill off each other. This appeared to have occurred over a 100- to 150-year period, so it wasn't one single event. And it occurred largely in the southern Maya lowlands.

      In some areas in the north, the construction of pyramids and other buildings continued unimpeded [after A.D. 900].

      It is important to remember that the Maya didn't disappear. They reorganized. So we should think of it more as a social reorganization than a collapse.

      By the time the Spaniards arrived, the social problems associated with the Classic period collapse, as portrayed in Apocalypto, did not exist.

      Spoiler warning: Readers who would like to keep the ending of Apocalypto a surprise should stop reading here.

      In terms of historical accuracy, the arrival of the Spaniards is a problem in itself, right?

      The movie ends with the Spaniards coming [which didn't happen in Mexico until long after the Classic Maya collapse]. So basically we're looking at a 400-year difference in architectural style and history.

      The movie is mixing two vastly different time periods. This Classic form of kingship ended around 900 A.D.


       






      See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
    • mike white
      it is still hard for me to persist in reading mainstream reports on the maya. its like they have given no thought to the ruins and artifacts that they have
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        
         
           it is still hard for me to persist in reading mainstream reports on the maya.  its like they have given no thought to the ruins and artifacts that they have recovered.  no mention is made of the mass graves of the ruling race with dolichocephalic skulls, perhaps the most significant event of the maya. 
         
         
           note the layout of mayan cities on this image.  the central ridge separates two distinct regions, one hilly and uneven, the other flat, probably more recent limestone seabed that was elevated.   the fine temples seem to be located in the rough side of the ridge, and may be much older than sites on the flat lands. 
           as close as the yucatan is, its inexcusable that ive not been there yet.  cayce told of a temple built at uxmal circa 10,000 bce by the atlantean iltar.  the reading suggested that the temple had sunk beneath the water, but this map shows uxmal far from the sea, this is perplexing.  the topography shows a valley leading toward the area, that may have once been flooded.  this temple is given as a cache of atlantean records, just as that at giza, and is of high importance. 
           even if we found them, it would mean nothing.  our lads would misclassify them, and they would scatter to various universities and museums, and lie unread for decades, in boxes in their storage bins, and they have the gall to belittle mystics.  its no wonder that most who think as i do, just keep it to themselves, and watch their antics in silence.  it takes both types of people in our world. 
           land features change dramatically over thousands of years.  the lands of mexico appear to have changed more than most since occupied by cultured man.  parts have uplifted a mile high, and a large portion has sunk beneath the sea.  i base this on the geology of the area, reports by archaeologists, and cayce.  in the end its my opinion.  i bet they would approach it far differently, if they were aware that cultured man has lived there over 50,000 years.  they come with the preconceived notion that nothing there is over 5,000 years old.  often, you look for, and find, what you expect. 
         
        Regards
        mike white
        www.all-ez.com
         
      • jdaintira@aol.com
        In a message dated 11/5/2007 11:19:13 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@verizon.net writes: it is still hard for me to persist in reading mainstream
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 5, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/5/2007 11:19:13 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@... writes:
             it is still hard for me to persist in reading mainstream reports on the maya.  its like they have given no thought to the ruins and artifacts that they have recovered.  no mention is made of the mass graves of the ruling race with dolichocephalic skulls, perhaps the most significant event of the maya. 
          Hi, Mike,
           
          Isn't that a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water?
           
          I am mystified by the apparent assumption that is sometimes voiced here that if it is from an archaeologist it is somehow wrong or suspect.
           
          While they may not yet have pursued skull shape or have reached your conclusions re dating does not mean that they are wrong within their own specializations.
           
          And, especially among the Mayanists it is a highly specialized field.
           
          I certainly admit that that very specialization can prevent them from knowing of other work in their field let alone how it may tie into other cultures.
           
          Which is why they have wild conferences and share and argue and delight in it.
           
          The Mayanists I have met are all very open people, cautiously only pronouncing certainties within current knowledge, but excited to know that those are in the process of change as new information becomes available and is verified.
           
          As for the specific study you mention of skull shapes, few if any of these people are wealthy, and to get the financial backing let alone the permits to dig from the governments involved, they need to put forth a proposal that will be approved and grants given.
           
          Very few of them actually investigate royal graves and are usually much more knowledgeable about the greater society, population densities, what crops, pottery, weaving, dyes, roads, waterways, city design patterns, architecture, etc.
           
          Mayan writing and the history it gives voice to is a special sub study which has its own international conferences. 
           
          I have a friend from North Carolina who is a realtor, and in the years I have known Sue she has become quite adept at reading the glyphs and seeing how they fit together to form patterns.  She has gone to conferences in Europe as well, but most of us cannot afford the time or money to pursue such study.
           
          I certainly reject some of the conclusions that are the present "given" in the field, especially re dating in the Americas and the Being Strait as the basis of migration, and that screws all of the dating up.
           
          But I also have learned so much from the archaeologists I have met and what they have shared and can see how many pieces can fit into my own much larger overall pattern.
           
          ~ Judith Marie




          See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
        • mike white
          actually, i respect the archaeologists more than they respect my view, or that of mystics in general. i understand your position, since you know some
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
             
               actually, i respect the archaeologists more than they respect my view, or that of mystics in general.  i understand your position, since you know some personally, and respect their efforts.  as you said, their thinking is inhibited by peer pressure, and the mainstream concensus acceptance of fallacies, like the migration from asia, supposedly about 12,000 bce.  it only takes a few of these false assumptions to completely distort the facts, so that they would overlook the truth if it was right in front of them.  i dont fault them personally, i suspect the system that trained them, and the restraints placed upon their scholarship by funding directives. 
               the geologists clinging to uniformity carries over into archaeology, and leads our lads far afield from the truth i believe.  when one can see seashells on every continent, even on the mountains, how can any say that former continents are not on the seabed now? 
               in general, i state my opinion, as did you.  i cannot convince scientists that im correct, neither can they prove that im wrong. 
               i think its safe to say that there were cultured men in the americas thousands of years earlier than thought.  as it stands now they say the olmec began about 3000 bce, and the maya about 1800 bce.  they know that hunters ranged the americas by 26,000 bce.  they dont talk much about the olmec and maya already having a calendar and writing at the beginning. 
               i was looking at images of stonehenge recently.  im no expert, but i can study and think with the mind the good Lord gave me.  phds dont have exclusive rights to thinking.  as i looked at the hard stones, i could see where blows from stone tools had smashed off unwanted rock.  i invite others to look closely at the obvious size of the chunks that their blows removed.  a modern strongman could not knock loose fragments that large.  it convinces me that giants built stonehenge.  now consider how many scientists and archaeologists have examined stonehenge, and not seen it, as i have.  they have the high degrees and respect, but it dont necessarily make me a fool.  when ive criticized their findings, i often give my reasons, such as patina, that others are invited to look at, and give it some thought.  i dont labor for fame or fortune - but the truth.  with the hope that our words will be heard by those scientists in a position to make a difference. 
             
            mike
             
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:23 AM
            Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] more re Apocalypto

            In a message dated 11/5/2007 11:19:13 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@verizon. net writes:
               it is still hard for me to persist in reading mainstream reports on the maya.  its like they have given no thought to the ruins and artifacts that they have recovered.  no mention is made of the mass graves of the ruling race with dolichocephalic skulls, perhaps the most significant event of the maya. 
            Hi, Mike,
             
            Isn't that a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water?
             
            I am mystified by the apparent assumption that is sometimes voiced here that if it is from an archaeologist it is somehow wrong or suspect.
             
            While they may not yet have pursued skull shape or have reached your conclusions re dating does not mean that they are wrong within their own specializations.
             
            And, especially among the Mayanists it is a highly specialized field.
             
            I certainly admit that that very specialization can prevent them from knowing of other work in their field let alone how it may tie into other cultures.
             
            Which is why they have wild conferences and share and argue and delight in it.
             
            The Mayanists I have met are all very open people, cautiously only pronouncing certainties within current knowledge, but excited to know that those are in the process of change as new information becomes available and is verified.
             
            As for the specific study you mention of skull shapes, few if any of these people are wealthy, and to get the financial backing let alone the permits to dig from the governments involved, they need to put forth a proposal that will be approved and grants given.
             
            Very few of them actually investigate royal graves and are usually much more knowledgeable about the greater society, population densities, what crops, pottery, weaving, dyes, roads, waterways, city design patterns, architecture, etc.
             
            Mayan writing and the history it gives voice to is a special sub study which has its own international conferences. 
             
            I have a friend from North Carolina who is a realtor, and in the years I have known Sue she has become quite adept at reading the glyphs and seeing how they fit together to form patterns.  She has gone to conferences in Europe as well, but most of us cannot afford the time or money to pursue such study.
             
            I certainly reject some of the conclusions that are the present "given" in the field, especially re dating in the Americas and the Being Strait as the basis of migration, and that screws all of the dating up.
             
            But I also have learned so much from the archaeologists I have met and what they have shared and can see how many pieces can fit into my own much larger overall pattern.
             
            ~ Judith Marie




            See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.


            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date: 11/5/2007 4:36 AM
          • jdaintira@aol.com
            In a message dated 11/6/2007 2:23:13 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@verizon.net writes: and the mainstream concensus acceptance of fallacies, like
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 11/6/2007 2:23:13 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@... writes:
              and the mainstream concensus acceptance of fallacies, like the migration from asia, supposedly about 12,000 bce.  it only takes a few of these false assumptions to completely distort the facts, so that they would overlook the truth if it was right in front of them.  i dont fault them personally, i suspect the system that trained them, and the restraints placed upon their scholarship by funding directives. 
              Actually, my experience has been that they are cautious about what they say publicly and are privately chomping at the bit for more extensive DNA studies of both the current native populations of the Americas as well as the remains that do have DNS still available.
               
              While the older find that most challenges the Clovis dating is from the Atacama Desert in northern Chile, and due to the methods used the dating claimed is not fully accepted by US Scientists, there are now new finds in the Carolinas that also make Clovis (and the usual Bering Strait theory) impossible.
               
              Archaeology is a hard science. There must be verifiable proof to change what has already been established.
               
              Archaeologists often think things long before they can prove them and thus share them.
               
              It is easy for me to look at weaving patterns from Taquille Island in the north end of Lake Titicaca and see that they are identical to those from Morocco or that the ear flap caps they knit against the cold are virtually identical to those in Tibet.  It is another to prove connections between these very separate cultures.
               
              There are also hints in connected languages, when the ancient languages are still spoken, and those are disappearing at a rapid rate.
               
              I am banking on the DNA work being done as it can provide answers much faster than excavation methods.
               
              ~Judith Marie




              See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
            • mobydoc
              Whether ...Skull ..Nose ...Skeleton... shapes ...without the little bit DNA work ... which we un-literati are lumped together without the where withal or
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 6, 2007
              • 0 Attachment

                 

                Whether ...Skull ..Nose ...Skeleton... shapes ...without the little bit DNA  work ...

                which we un-literati are lumped together without the where withal or backing even ...these grandiose

                idears ... just have to sit and waite for our enlightened  academics with feet of clay to fall over them ...this

                 covers  all  repeaters and drop-outs  from  the major and lesser  [me-too] varsity’s  ...then [lmho] J

                 I have often  been told that  I’m in error ...generally by repeaters ....of  the most amazing persuasions J

                        sawry if I squashed  a few toes [Ge ...I love that brittle sound] J      P/M

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

                 

                   actually, i respect the archaeologists more than they respect my view, or that of mystics in general.  i understand your position, since you know some personally, and respect their efforts.  as you said, their thinking is inhibited by peer pressure, and the mainstream concensus acceptance of fallacies, like the migration from asia, supposedly about 12,000 bce.  it only takes a few of these false assumptions to completely distort the facts, so that they would overlook the truth if it was right in front of them.  i dont fault them personally, i suspect the system that trained them, and the restraints placed upon their scholarship by funding directives. 

                   the geologists clinging to uniformity carries over into archaeology, and leads our lads far afield from the truth i believe.  when one can see seashells on every continent, even on the mountains, how can any say that former continents are not on the seabed now? 

                   in general, i state my opinion, as did you.  i cannot convince scientists that im correct, neither can they prove that im wrong. 

                   i think its safe to say that there were cultured men in the americas thousands of years earlier than thought.  as it stands now they say the olmec began about 3000 bce, and the maya about 1800 bce.  they know that hunters ranged the americas by 26,000 bce.  they dont talk much about the olmec and maya already having a calendar and writing at the beginning. 

                   i was looking at images of stonehenge recently.  im no expert, but i can study and think with the mind the good Lord gave me.  phds dont have exclusive rights to thinking.  as i looked at the hard stones, i could see where blows from stone tools had smashed off unwanted rock.  i invite others to look closely at the obvious size of the chunks that their blows removed.  a modern strongman could not knock loose fragments that large.  it convinces me that giants built stonehenge.  now consider how many scientists and archaeologists have examined stonehenge, and not seen it, as i have.  they have the high degrees and respect, but it dont necessarily make me a fool.  when ive criticized their findings, i often give my reasons, such as patina, that others are invited to look at, and give it some thought.  i dont labor for fame or fortune - but the truth.  with the hope that our words will be heard by those scientists in a position to make a difference. 

                 

                mike

                 

                 

                 

                ----- Original Message -----

                Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:23 AM

                Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_ Inscriptions] more re Apocalypto

                 

                In a message dated 11/5/2007 11:19:13 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@verizon. net writes:

                   it is still hard for me to persist in reading mainstream reports on the maya.  its like they have given no thought to the ruins and artifacts that they have recovered.  no mention is made of the mass graves of the ruling race with dolichocephalic skulls, perhaps the most significant event of the maya. 

                Hi, Mike,

                 

                Isn't that a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water?

                 

                I am mystified by the apparent assumption that is sometimes voiced here that if it is from an archaeologist it is somehow wrong or suspect.

                 

                While they may not yet have pursued skull shape or have reached your conclusions re dating does not mean that they are wrong within their own specializations.

                 

                And, especially among the Mayanists it is a highly specialized field.

                 

                I certainly admit that that very specialization can prevent them from knowing of other work in their field let alone how it may tie into other cultures.

                 

                Which is why they have wild conferences and share and argue and delight in it.

                 

                The Mayanists I have met are all very open people, cautiously only pronouncing certainties within current knowledge, but excited to know that those are in the process of change as new information becomes available and is verified.

                 

                As for the specific study you mention of skull shapes, few if any of these people are wealthy, and to get the financial backing let alone the permits to dig from the governments involved, they need to put forth a proposal that will be approved and grants given.

                 

                Very few of them actually investigate royal graves and are usually much more knowledgeable about the greater society, population densities, what crops, pottery, weaving, dyes, roads, waterways, city design patterns, architecture, etc.

                 

                Mayan writing and the history it gives voice to is a special sub study which has its own international conferences. 

                 

                I have a friend from North Carolina who is a realtor, and in the years I have known Sue she has become quite adept at reading the glyphs and seeing how they fit together to form patterns.  She has gone to conferences in Europe as well, but most of us cannot afford the time or money to pursue such study.

                 

                I certainly reject some of the conclusions that are the present "given" in the field, especially re dating in the Americas and the Being Strait as the basis of migration, and that screws all of the dating up.

                 

                But I also have learned so much from the archaeologists I have met and what they have shared and can see how many pieces can fit into my own much larger overall pattern.

                 

                ~ Judith Marie




                See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.


                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date:
                11/5/2007 4:36 AM

              • Paul Bader
                ... No my friend, archaeology is one of the soft sciences as its hypotheses cannot be tested to prove a conclusion like those of a chemist mixing chemicals in
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 6, 2007
                • 0 Attachment


                  --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, jdaintira@... wrote:
                   
                  > Archaeology is a hard science.

                  No my friend, archaeology is one of the soft sciences as its hypotheses cannot be tested to prove a conclusion like those of a chemist mixing chemicals in a beaker.

                  There must be verifiable proof to change what
                  > has already been established.
                  >
                  > Archaeologists often think things long before they can prove them and thus
                  > share them.

                  I wonder if such a generalization is really true.  Certainly not in the Egyptology I am reading.  They dig up so little and make up a bunch  of hooey about it which becomes published as "fact". 

                  We might dig up Charlie Manson in 500 years but if allt he literature was burned, all we might know is what he ate, and know nothing of his history as a psychopathic mass murderer. 

                  Best,

                  Paul

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.