User talk:Chris 80 Callaghan

Editing advice
Don't publish your home address online. I've removed it from the page for your own security. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Chris 80 Callaghan/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:Chris 80 Callaghan/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please help me with...

Chris 80 Callaghan (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Not surprised. Indigestion when faced by a revolutionary, though substantiated, revision of an out-of-date (1699) obviously suspect interpretation is expected. Unfortunately clumsily expressed by me, an ancient self filled with passion but unfamiliar with layouts, rules and presentation requirements.

To demonstrate I am not a grizzled loon I include a photo taken by my dear ex-wife this weekend. Old? Yes. Brain still working? Yes, I would be happy to mail (you ?) a 5 x A4 pp summary of the substantiated 103 x A4 pp dissertation proving beyond doubt that the description that Newgrange is a "burial tomb or passage grave" as favoured by the Irish Establishment, is demonstrably incorrect.

(i.e.) despite much digging and many investigations since 1699, human burial bones or matter, radio-carbon dated to the 4th millennium bce, have not been found. Even the 1962-75 restorer, professor Michael J O'Kelly accepted that such burial material had not been found by Edward Llwyd, the first academic to enter the newly discovered entrance to the Newgrange ruin. Thus a tomb or passage grave without such items, confirmed by radio-carbon testing, represents something other than a tomb or grave.

Try the revolutionary change, circa 3200 bce; from ages' old hunter-gatherer customs to include tillage and pastoral farming. This when births and booming immigration from the Middle East into a post Ice Age "europe" caused the Neolithic food chain to collapse during winter. Evidence is plainly on-site, insight and inside the sun-sensitive 200,000 ton edifice, triggered to perform its annual magic when the dawn rays of the Solstice sun enters the reclining stone torso of a female at Newgrange. Oriented to receive the dawn rays during mid-winter, December 19 - 23 every year and symbolically kick-start the following years' crops and herds to reproduce. In effect, the Brú na Bóinne is a Fertility Temple and Agricultural Calendar, which motivated the Boyne River People to avoid community starvation.

But it is so much easier to leave a major change to accuracy for a further 320 years and preserve all those academic pensions. Even if it means that Wiki continues to support the Irish Establishment within the cold, infertile shadow of St Patrick's Wall.

Why is truth so difficult?

Chris 80 Callaghan.


 * Can you please ask your question directly in 2-3 sentences? This appears to be more of a rant than a question we could possibly answer. Praxidicae (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)