The God Culture: Dishonestly Edited Videos

It was my intent in three blog posts to look at the God Culture's claims and give them an honest critique.  I posted links to two of those blogs on the God Culture's Facebook page so they would have a chance to respond. Instead of dealing with the issues I raised they insulted me and made emotional appeals while copping an attitude of victory as if my criticisms were nothing and they did not care what I had to say. All the while behind the scenes it appears I really struck a nerve so much so that Tim and his gang have taken the time to remove and edit three of the very videos I criticized. I am aware they edited a few other videos too but I didn't watch those so I won't comment on them.

Here is the message they left on my previous post:

There is nothing erroneous in our research. A YouTube Channel quoting a source is normal. It is rare a YT channel sites anywhere near as much as we have and this is a ludicrous track of negative nothing. We have been updating our videos with more extensive sources and even page #s so thank you for pointing this out but let us not pretend you have a gotcha because you do not and you can stop with the act. What is truly laughable is we went back and listened and we never mention Suarez in that slide at all but the Periplus. We have removed Suarez completely and we have added quotes from Nowell proving your thinking that Suarez was right is wrong and Magellan proved that. You found nothing. Enough. We have more than satisfied your questions and we changed our videos already accordingly as one seeking truth should and would. We are also focused on larger print for the sources as the one you criticized was actually even larger than 30 pt but 40 pt in our program but we do get your point on that and we are responding to that as we have responded to your questions fully. There is nothing further to discuss on these

http://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-god-culture-100-clues-philippines.html?showComment=1581003123603#c7535920846141965828

They changed their videos! I couldn't believe it but it's true.  They deleted videos 2, 3, and 4 from their 100 Clues series in order to alter them. You know I feel a little flattered.  Now if only I could get the Senate to launch a proper investigation into the causes surrounding the Marawi siege!

What did they change?  Let's take a good hard look. Here is the playlist once again.

Clue #2

This is the video where they claim that the Philippines is the ancient source of Greek gold. Here is the very first change in their slides.

Original:

Edited:

You see what Tim did here?  He excised the reference to Thomas Suarez's book "Early Mapping of Southeast Asia" from the slide. But that does not matter because he is still referencing it in the audio when he talks about Chryse and Argyre.

Contrary to what the God Culture says their reference is not in 30 or 40 point font but is in VERY TINY FONT at the bottom of the slide. If you do go to the link they provide which is https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/periplus/periplus.html you will find nothing about Argyre, the legendary island of silver, in the whole text of the "Periplus of the Erythaean Sea." Because the audio has not been changed from the original any talk of Argyre in the edited video still comes directly from Suarez who mentions Argyre by quoting Pompoinous Mela. Tim also falsifies what Mela actually wrote about Argyre by claiming it is "placed beyond the Ganges" rather than "in the vicinity of the Ganges."  Here is the quote from Saurez:

Gold and silver, in fact, characterize the earliest extant specific Western Reference to Southeast Asia. Pomponius Mela (37 - 43 A.D.), a Roman geographer and native os Southern Spain, largely carried on the Greek tradition about the East, perpetuating stories about Amazons, people without heads, griffins, and other such characters, but adds two lands which lay to the east of India. One was Chryse, said to boast soil of gold, the other, Argyre, said to have soil of silver: 

In the vicinity of Tamus is the island of Chryse, in the vicinity of the Ganges that of Argyre, According to olden writers, the soil of the former consists of gold, that of the latter is of silver and it seems very probable that either the name arises from this fact or the legend derives from the name.

Early Mapping of Southeast Asia: The Epic Story of Seafarers, Adventurers, and Cartographers Who First Mapped the Regions between China and India, Thomas Suarez, Pg 62-63

This makes the God Culture's claim:

"we never mention Suarez in that slide at all but the Periplus"

just another lie. Did Tim not realize there is no mention of Argyre in the "Periplus?" At 2:20 he says the following:

"Periplus of the Erytheaen Sea in the first century records Chryse and Argyre as being located in "the last part of the inhabited world toward the east, under the rising sun itself beyond the land of China which brought silk to India." Gee, umm I don't know which islands are east of China? Wait! Ethiopia? Nope, that's not it! Yemen?  No. India? Ugh! Someone must know their geography very well in speculating that those guys could possibly be this ancient land of gold. It's the Philippines. Oh yeah! And they also map it.  So really this is not rocket science folks."

The section highlighted in red italics shows just how condescending Tim is to his listeners. He talks this way in every single one of his videos. Here is the section from the Periplus he is referencing.  

63.   After these, the course turns toward the east again, and sailing with the ocean to the right and the shore remaining beyond to the left, Ganges comes into view, and near it the very last land toward the east, Chryse. There is a river near it called the Ganges, and it rises and falls in the same way as the Nile. On its bank is a market-town which has the same name as the river, Ganges. Through this place are brought malabathrum and Gangetic spikenard and pearls, and muslins of the finest sorts, which are called Gangetic. It is said that there are gold-mines near these places, and there is a gold coin which is called caltis. And just opposite this river there is an island in the ocean, the last part of the inhabited world toward the east, under the rising sun itself; it is called Chryse; and it has the best tortoise-shell of all the places on the Erythraean Sea.

Not only does the Periplus not mention Argyre but it locates Chryse as being near the Ganges. "Just opposite this river" in fact. Tim claims this text says it is located "beyond the land of China." Did he even read the Periplus? Or did he pick through it, combine information from elsewhere, and make up his own facts? Let' compare where Tim, Mela, and the Periplus' locate Chryse and Argyre.

Tim: Chryse is beyond the land of China and Argyre is beyond the Ganges. 

Mela: Chryse is in the vicinity of Tamus and Argyre is in the vicinity of the Ganges. 

Periplus: Chryse is near the Ganges just opposite of it and there is no mention of Argyre. 

See how Tim does not agree with the sources he is quoting? He says something completely different from both Mela and the Periplus.

Tim kept the same audio which refers to Suarez and changed the slide to appear as if he did not. He also misrepresents the Periplus as saying it mentions Argyre and that the island of Chryse lies "beyond the land of China" when it makes no mention of Argyre and clearly says Chryse lies just opposite of the Ganges. That is deception. But why be so deceptive? It doesn't make any sense and it doesn't further his cause.  It only exposes him as at best a poor researcher who misrepresents and does not read his sources and at worst a liar.

Starting at 3:26 in this video is where we get an entirely new section. In this part he quotes from a different  source, "Magellan's voyage around the world; three contemporary accounts," by Charles Nowell.

This book contains the account of Pigafetta and other documentation. Tim does not quote from any of the primary sources but only from the introductory material by Nowell. This is all rather dumbfounding because the subject of this video is the Philippines being the ancient source of Greek gold and Nowell's book says absolutely nothing about the Greeks. It's totally out of place.

Tim quotes a bit from pages 21 and 22 but I think it would behoove us to quote a little more starting on page 20 and going to page 23.

Duarte Barbosa, who wrote a geographical account of the countries bordering on the Indian Ocean and those within range of the ocean, has this to say of the Ryukyu inhabitants:  

From Malaca they take the same goods as the Chins [Chinese] take. These islands are called Lequios [in one version ‘Liquii']. The Malaca people say that they are better men, and richer and more eminent merchants than the Chins. Of these folk we as yet know but little, as they have not yet come to Malaca since it has been under the King our Lord.”  

The Duarte Barbosa who wrote this book has been identified by some with the Portuguese of the same name who became Magellan's cousin by marriage and accompanied him on his great voyage. Medina has shown that this was probably not the same man, but it makes little difference.” The Barbosa book was finished by 1516 and was available in manuscript to Magellan as he studied to complete his plan in Portugal before transferring allegiance to Spain. Magellan digested Barbosa's work and with his own hand rewrote one passage, which consisted of a list of places between the Cape of Good Hope and the Lequios that were known but not yet occupied by the Portuguese. Magellan's version substitutes for Barbosa's “Lequios” the words “Tarsis” and “Ofir.”” 

These are, of course, the biblical Tarshish and Ophir associated with Solomon and his trading partner, Hiram of Tyre. In I Kings 10:11 the statement is: “And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of almug trees, and precious stones.” II Chronicles 9:21 says: “For the king's ships went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram: every three years once came the ships of Tarshish bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.” Elsewhere these Old Testament books agree in saying that Solomon received more than four hundred talents of gold from Ophir. 

We shall not enter into the centuries-old debate as to what and where these lands actually were. The writer of I Kings certainly meant that the journey to Ophir began by way of the Red Sea, because in connection with Ophir (9:26) he says: “And the king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom.” Later Christian writers for centuries associated the gold of Ophir with East Africa, but at the time of the Portuguese discoveries Ophir was thought of as the Aurea Chersonnesus (Golden Peninsula) of Ptolemy, in which that Greek geographer also placed Cattigara, mentioned by Pigafetta as the immediate transpacific goal of Magellan. But Magellan connected Solomon's treasure with something else he had read in Barbosa:  

"Facing this great land of China there are many islands in the sea, beyond which [on the other side of the sea] there is a very large land which they say is mainland, from which there come to Malacca every year three or four ships, like those of the Chins, belonging to white men who are said tobe great and rich merchants: they bring much gold, and silver in bars, silk, rich cloth, and much very good wheat, beautiful porcelains, and many other merchandises.”  

Barbosa, in mentioning this great land across the water from China, might have been referring to Japan. More likely, though, he meant the island of Taiwan, or Formosa, separated by the Gulf of Fukien from mainland China. At the time Barbosa wrote, the Portuguese can scarcely have had information about Japan. They had some regarding Formosa and the Ryukyus, whose exact latitudinal position they did not know but correctly placed northward of Malacca and the Moluccas and hence north of the equator. These are obviously what Magellan took to be Tarshish and Ophir.  

If further proof is needed that he sought these places in addition to the Moluccas, we have it in the agreement between the Spanish crown and Sebastian Cabot. On April 4, 1525, less than six years after Magellan sailed, Cabot, now pilot major of Spain, signed a contract to make much the same voyage, though with objectives more concisely stated. He offered to go with three ships through the Strait of Magellan to reach the Moluccas “and other islands and lands of Tarshish and Ophir and eastern Cathay and Cipangu.” “The Spanish government had preferred to leave the names Tarshish and Ophir out of the earlier Magellan contract, but now that the western route to the Orient had been discovered, security regulations could be relaxed to the extent of openly mentioning the biblical lands. 

We now see what Magellan's aim in the Far East was: He expected to claim for Spain the Moluccas and the lands known to Solomon and Hiram of Tyre. It remains to be shown how he expected to reach those lands, and for this we must understand his mental image of the New World across the Atlantic.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822013755558&view=1up&seq=34

It is a long quote but rather necessary. What we see here is Magellan himself falsifying Barbosa's text and inserting "Ophir" and "Tarshish" when Barbosa had written no such thing. We also see that Nowell refers just as everyone else does, including Suarez, to the Aurea Chersonnesus as being the Golden peninsula. That is literally what the name means. But Tim discounts everything Nowell has written, admits he is a good scholar, and calls his conclusions wrong. He says at 8:44

"One blogger even said, "Why use an author if you do not agree with his conclusions?" Well, a lot can still be gleaned from the research many times so obviously it's a good thing to do that.  It is unwise not to."

Tim is not just gleaning from one author. He is gleaning from multiple sources and no one of any repute identifies the Aurea Chersonnesus as anything except the Malay peninsula.

Yes I know Tim does not quote this book. The title and subtitle is what is important.

However Tim doesn't care what any scholar says. It is Timothy Jay Schwab, (a man who is no trained cartographer, geographer, oceanographer, historian, linguist, or theologian), who is right, and all the academics who have dedicated their entire lives to studying history, languages, cartography, theology, or geography are wrong. Don't misunderstand me here. Sometimes the scholars, academics, and experts are wrong. Case in point Heinrich Schliemann the amateur archaeologist who discovered the ruins of Troy.  But what Tim is doing is rejecting a solid body of geography and history stretching back to Ptolemey which identifies the Aurea Chersonnesus as the Malay peninsula and twisting it to fit his pseudo-history of the Philippines being both the Garden of Eden and Ophir and Tarshish and Filipinos being members of the lost tribes of Israel.

Tim mentions Columbus and says the following at 9:27

Are we to now call America "Southeast Asia" because Columbus said it was Southeast Asia? Of course not. 

But this is exactly what Tim is doing with the Philippines! He is calling this place Ophir because Magellan falsified Barbosa's book and introduced the names Ophir and Tarshish. Tim is ok with this falsification.  In fact in the video "Solomon's Gold Series - Part 6: Little Known History of Ophir. Philippines History" at 7:46 Tim says the following:

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk

"In "Magellan's Voyage Around the World" the author Charles E Nowell, notes that Magellan himself had rewritten part of Barbosa's book referring to the Lequios and in his version Magellan substituted "Tarsis" and "Ofir" for the word "Lequios." So "Lequios" equals "Tarshish" and "Ophir." This is huge."

Wow this really is huge!  Magellan falsifies a book and Tim thinks what he wrote is the truth. In Tim's world truth is whatever you want it to be. Lequios is Ophir and Tarshish because Magellan said so. Just as, despite the Philippines being comprised of 7,000 islands, two tiny islands on an old map are the Philippines because Tim says so.

In numerous videos Timothy Schwab claims the two mythical islands of gold and silver, Chryse and Argyre, are Luzon and Mindanao respectively and he uses Mela's map as proof. However not only does Mela have Argyre located at the mouth of the Ganges near India while Mindanao is nowhere near India but none of the rest of the Philippines is accounted for! Tim expects us to believe that the Greeks visited the Philippines and accurately mapped the Philippines BUT somehow forgot to include the Visayas and misplaced Mindanao thousands of miles away at the mouth of the Ganges River!

The next edited slide is the one with the Greek armor.  

How can Tim with a straight face tell us at 13:56

"The thing is these are indisputably Greek from the symbols and structure and they are dated all the way back to 800 B.C. up to about 480 B.C."

when on the slide he has written "Archaeology confirmation pending?" Is it confirmed and indisputable or is the confirmation still pending? As with the first edited slide he keeps the original audio and only changes the slide. The result is a contradiction between the audio and the visual. What a boner from Tim the Joker!

Thankfully Tim listed the place where he saw this armor which is the Balanghai Hotel and Convention Center Museum in Butuan. Sadly there is no website for this hotel/museum and thus no online collection to look at.  However I was able to find a picture of the armor displayed in a glass case outside the entrance to the museum.

Why not just tell everyone the first time around where he saw it? How is anyone supposed to confirm all things when information is being withheld? 

That's it for Clue #2. Let's recap everything we have learned so far.  Tim excises Suarez as a a source but still utilizes him when talking about Argyre because the Periplus of the Erythaean Sea does not mention Argyre. He misrepresents the Periplus' location of Chryse and Mela's location of Argyre. He quotes from Nowell but ignores everything he says especially his identification of the Aurea Chersonnesus. He is ok with the fact that Magellan inserted "Ophir" and "Tarshish" into Barbosa's book thus falsifying it. He says the armor is indisputably Greek while on the slide he contradicts himself by having written "Archeological confirmation pending!"

This edited video is worse than the original because it contains blunder after blunder as Tim tries to cover up his tracks, like removing Suarez from the slide but not from the audio, and it is also about 10 minutes longer because he added the totally unnecessary section with Nowell!  Moving on.

Clue #3

This is the video where we are told Philippine gold was found in first century Egypt. My criticisms of this video were that Tim did not quote from any of the three sources he cites and one of them, J.T. Peralta, he cites erroneously. So what does Tim do to rectify this mess? Does he make a correction of the Peralta citation? No! He gets rid of Peralta altogether!

Original:

Edited:

Let's look at his new sources which are still in the same VERY TINY FONT!

Sources: Wikipedia, Ancientblogspot.ph cite 

1. Legeza, Laszlo, "Tantric Elements in pre-Hispanic Philippines Gold Art," Arts of Asia, July-Aug, 1988, pp 129-136. 

2 Villegas, Ramon N. "Ginto: History Wrought in Gold", Manila: Bangko Central ng Pilipinas", 2004

Tim in his infinite wisdom eighty-sixed the Peralta citation as if that clears everything up. If he was attempting to be honest he would have corrected the citation and not deleted it. He still does not prove to us Philippine gold was found in first century Egypt by quoting the relevant matter from the two remaining sources he listed. It is also still badly cited. What Wikipedia page is he sourcing? What is Ancientblogspot.ph? That is not even a website! It is just another boner on Tim's part. How many more boners can Tim make?

Towards the end of the video he inserts a new section which is a timeline. 

This timeline is supposed to prove that the Philippines has more gold than any nation in the world at any time. I never disputed that. What I did dispute is Tim's baseless assertion that Philippine gold has been found in first century Egypt. Since he took the time to edit this video and still did not include any quotations from Legeza or Villegas it's a safe bet he has not actually read those sources.

Clue #4

Tim edited this video but I don't care because I never took any issue with what was in the original.  The Boxer Codex shows Filipinos decked out in gold. That was never under question.

Summation and End

I only have a few more things to show before I close out. In my original post I wrote:

I can just hear Tim now excoriating me for watching only 6 videos in the 100 Clues series rather then the whole Solomon's Gold series and saying I am uninformed, a hack, and a fraud. Such would be pure deflection on Tim's part as I have already demonstrated his research is incredibly biased, faulty, and downright dishonest. If he cannot deal honestly with his sources here he won't be dealing honestly with them there either. 

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-god-culture-100-clues-philippines.html

Sure enough I was called all of those names and Tim's editing of these videos shows his outright dishonesty in dealing with sources both in the 100 Clues series and elsewhere. He may have edited out Suarez from Clue #2 and Peralta from Clue #3 but these two sources are scattered throughout the rest of his videos including the Solomon's Gold series. 

In the video for Clue #30 at 12:11 we see Timothy quoting Suarez. 

https://youtu.be/mCM371q6_AU

Of course in discussing Argyre he is compelled to cite Mela via Suarez because the "Periplus" does not mention Argyre. Remember every slide that follows which claims the Periplus locates Chryse "beyond the land of China" and Argyre "beyond the Ganges" is a lie. As I demonstrated above the Periplus does not say that nor does Mela.

Clue #33 at 21:23 contains this same quotation from Suarez.

https://youtu.be/q0zY1NYsJCA

In the video "Solomon's Gold Series Part 1C: UPHAZ GOLD & OPHIR. Origin of Gold Sheba, Tarshish, Havilah" at 8:27 we see the following slide:

https://youtu.be/jQWp_OPfEXA

In the video "Let There Be Light... Philippines? Origin of Ophir, Sheba and Havilah. 12G" at 12:58 we see this slide:

https://youtu.be/Xm6REaRW7nw

Suarez is quoted again in the video "Solomon's Gold Series - Part 6: Little Known History of Ophir. Philippines History" at both 18:19 and 19:29.

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk

It is pretty clear that Thomas Suarez's book "Early Mapping of Southeast Asia" is an important source for Tim. So why did he delete it from Clue #2 when he includes it in several other videos? He still rejects what Suarez has to say as to the identification of Chryse, Argyre, and the Aurea Chersonnesus but that is no big deal to Tim who picks and chooses, or rather gleans, what will confirm his thesis like any good and honest scholar.

At 32:03, and for almost seven straight minutes, in the video "Solomon's Gold Series - Part 6: Little Known History of Ophir. Philippines History" we see the same three citations that were used to claim Philippine gold was found in first century Egypt which are Legeza, Peralta, and Villegas. But again no actual quotations from them.

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk

Look closely because those citations are in VERY TINY FONT underneath all the text. At 41:40 in the same video we see this slide:

It's the same claim of Philippine gold being found in first century Egypt with the same three citations and with no actual quotations from those sources. Tim goes on to show us not actual Philippine gold found in Egypt but the similarity between a Philippine gold necklace and an Egyptian gold necklace. As if similarity of style proves his claim. 

In the video "Solomon's Gold Series Part 1D: Testing the RESOURCES of Ancient Ophir, Tarshish, Sheba" we see the following slide at 21:39:

https://youtu.be/gG39WFEYfiU

The same claim about Egypt with the same three sources as were in the video Clue #3 before he edited it is to be found right here.  Obviously Tim thinks these three sources are important which is why they are included in the main series Solomon's Gold which he tells everyone to watch!

What is going on here? Why is Timothy Schwab and the God Culture being dishonest about their sources? Why edit information out of some videos when other videos include the exact same information? These edits do not make any sense whatsoever. They are totally absurd and don't add to the veracity of their claims. They are not even good edits because, as in Clue #2, the original audio is kept and only the slide is changed!

The God Culture has been posting HUGE BLOCKS of text in the comment section on this blog. They have insulted me, they have made appeals to emotion (like the testimony of the lawyer), and they have manifested a triumphalist attitude ignoring everything I wrote about their poor research and documentation. In comment after comment they disdain what I have written as the work of an ignorant hack. They even called me a communist agitator twelve times!

But in private it is obvious I struck a nerve or they would not have edited their videos. They put up an offensive front when they knew I was right all along as these edits prove. But the edits cannot obscure what is in the main series Solomon's Gold which is Thomas Suarez and J.T. Peralta being used to bolster their claims.  Is Tim going to edit those videos too?  Will he be an honest man and quote the Periplus accurately? Will he be a good researcher and actually order the articles by Legeza and Peralta from Arts of Asia? The burden of proof lies squarely on Tim, not me. It would be better if Tim and the gang simply believed the sources they cite rather than make up their own facts, like Magellan did when he rewrote Barbosa's book, in order to propagate their pseudo-history.

As I wrote before, "If he cannot deal honestly with his sources here he won't be dealing honestly with them there either." Tim's quick editing and reposting of his videos without the same sources he utilizes elsewhere reeks of dishonesty. This is just a tiny sampling of the God Culture's output. I can't imagine what duplicitous twisting of facts lies in their other videos. And yet thousands of people are being taken in by this garbage.

P.S. 

After writing all of the above I must add a postscript. The God Culture is adding links to their videos which have sources for people to check up on and confirm. That's a good thing. Why didn't they do this earlier? However they are still making blunders.

https://f2568e15-4b6b-4cbb-b68a-3d729eeed9e4.filesusr.com/ugd/e23929_c5850fbfa12d4a3390a6a541db01540d.pdf

Let me this get this straight. Tim edits Suarez out of the video for Clue #2 saying he wasn't quoting Saurez anyway but now he includes him in this PDF as a "Supporting Research Source!?" Then why did he edit him out of Clue #2?  It makes zero sense!

The little note requires our attention.

NOTE: Under Fig. 31 is the exact quote we cited for the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (1st Century C.E.)

“the last part of the inhabited world toward the east, under the rising sun itself”

The note says the exact quote is "“the last part of the inhabited world toward the east, under the rising sun itself.” But in this video Tim says much more than just that. He says at 17:36

"the last part of the inhabited world toward the east, under the rising sun itself beyond the land of This (China) which brought silk to India"

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk

Tim says this making it appear as if he is quoting the Periplus as locating Chryse beyond China! It doesn't. It says it is just opposite of the Ganges. Why doesn't he tell us exactly what he is quoting and what are his own words? It's simply confusing and dishonest. See above where I already discussed this.

In this PDF mention is made of Peralta and the Philippine gold allegedly found in Egypt. See the relevant slide above.

16. PH Gold found in Egypt: Wikipedia, AncientBlogspot. ph and many others cite 1 Legeza, Laszlo. “Tantric Elements in pre-Hispanic Philippines Gold Art,” Arts of Asia, July-Aug. 1988, pp.129-136. 2 Villegas, Ramon N. Ginto: History Wrought in Gold, Manila: Bangko Central ng Pilipinas, 2004. (FYI. Peralta is out of print but cited as well.)

This is basically the same edit as was made in the video for Clue #3. Instead of correcting the erroneous Peralta citation they leave it in the video and remove it from the sources listed in this PDF. Why didn't they just give the correct citation?

They also mess up the citations again. What Wikipedia article or articles are they sourcing? AncientBlogspot.ph IS NOT A WEBSITE!!  The FYI about Peralta being out of print is a non-issue because so is Legeza and it is Legeza, though not cited here as such, that has the reference to Philippine gold being found in Egypt.

"Legeza, Laszlo. "Tantric Elements in pre-Hispanic Philippines Gold Art," Arts of Asia, July-Aug. 1988, pp.129-136. (Mentions gold jewelry of Philippine origin in first century CE Egypt)" 

Both Legeza and Peralta can be ordered and shipped to the Philippines for $15 per article. I'm not going to do any research for Tim and order those articles. The burden of proof lies on him not me.