"Brit-Am Now"-852
1. Timothy F Murray: Compliment
2. Joan Griffith: "More Brit-Am than Brit-Am"
3. Robert Jones: Present-Day Archery or Artillery?

1. Timothy F Murray: Compliment
From: Timothy F Murray <>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-851

Greetings, Yair--

Once more, as I've done so often in the past, I congratulate you most
heartily for your refusal to take offense at comments and questions that
come from "left field" or which are couched in less than diplomatic
language.  Your replies are Class-A, and could serve as the model for
reasonable dialogue, even with unreasonable writers.

May God speed your Message!
Tim Murray

2. Joan Griffith: "More Brit-Am than Brit-Am"
Subject: RE: "Brit-Am Now"-851

Hi Yair,

My take on the man who wrote to Tamar Yonah is that he has been "struck by lightning" and is trying to find excuses not to believe what he senses is true, but does not find himself able to believe.  I have to agree with the comment about Yair's thick Australian accent--but no doubt it can be understood by those with a mind to do so.  (In fact, you sound like one of the elder Brits to me, the kind who say "Harrumph" a lot and mumble... they were more from the late 19th - early 20th century tho.)

What he wrote to Tamar for was information on whether to trust what Brit-Am says, despite what he says. As for "not enough proof"--only G-d telling him face to face would prove it and he might not believe even then! Yet, It sounds as if he is reading Brit-Am's web site thoroughly, picking and digging to find something "wrong".

I predict that he will soon be "more Brit-Am than Brit-Am."

A minute's success pays for the failure of years. -Robert Browning

3. Robert Jones: Present-Day Archery or Artillery?
From: Robert Jones <>
Subject: Long Bow and Artillery

Mr. Davidiy,

As a former US Army officer, there is no more lethality than Artillery.  The use of the long bow and mounted archers is a primitive form of artillery.  In the last two gulf wars we were able to witness the use of artillery by British and American forces.  You can not win a battle with artillery, but you can take the enemies will to fight which will eventually will lead to victory.

There were various forms of artillery used over the last 1000 years.  The Chinese are credited to a degree with the initial stages of gun powder and the use of a primitive rocket, however it was the British during King Henry the VIII or shortly there after who designed a smooth bore muzzle loading piece.  This was later adopted for ships and ground artillery.  Most of these earlier pieces were direct shot pieces that didn't allow for much movement of the piece.

The British developed in the 1800's the Congreve Rocket which was a revolution in rocket artillery.  It was this same rocket that Francis Scott Key witnessed the British firing at Americans when he wrote the American national Anthem.  This invention by the British is the foundation for all self propelled and towed artillery as well as mortars.

Lastly, the Cruise Missile another form of Artillery was developed by the Americans for the use in WWI.  There has been many modifications to this, such as the Germans V-1 and
V-2, and during the Cold War both Russians and Americans developed an advanced form of the Cruise Missile that is in use today.

However, lately only the United States has demonstrated the clear lethality in war of Artillery.  Many armies attempt to use it, but have in essence created a terror weapon instead of weapon of war.  Over the centuries, I think the prophecy of Joseph has played itself out many times from the mounted archery of the Parthians and Scythians, to today the lethality of modern artillery and cruise missiles.

Who knows what future forms of Archery or Artillery the sons of Joseph will develop, but it will always be an integral part in how they wage war.

Rob Jones