Phantom Time and Chronological Revisionism.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

.
[ Mod-edit: The first 16 posts in the following thread began life over on the thread Banksters of Babylon, Merchants of Venice, and Elders of Zion (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103656-Banksters-of-Babylon-Merchants-of-Venice-and-Elders-of-Zion&p=1241164&viewfull=1#post1241164), before I split them off into this new thread, as suggested by "A Voice from the Mountains". -- Paul. ]

===


How about Sylvi(?) who has been exploring the theory that about 1,000 years have been added to our history & seems to prove it through artifacts she has found?

Of course, I am unable to remember her name, exactly, but I think it was TargeT who first put me on to this theory. It seems quite a bit came from those middle ages monasteries! :confused:

Yes, her work is based largely on Anatoly Fomenko's work (a Russian professor of mathematics at Moscow State University, formerly censored by the Soviets), who I've been studying directly. It's more complicated than just 1000 years of fabricated history. It's a gigantic mess.

There are ~50 year shifts (there is a set of parallel events 50 years apart in the 5th century AD, for example), ~150 year shifts, ~300 year shifts (fairly common, includes the heart of the "dark age," ~500-800 AD), ~800 year shifts, ~1000 year shifts, and even more, when you get back into Egyptian and Sumerian history supposedly going back some 6000 years, but on closer inspection there is very little hard evidence for any of it and dating methods all have serious flaws.

The last ice age supposedly ended 12,000 years ago, around 10,000 BC, and I don't believe that for a second either. Why? Because we have myths from all over the world describing exactly what happened. Now tell me how all of these civilizations with all of these myths were around in 10,000 BC, and how they were able to preserve all of this knowledge so uncannily for so many millennia. It doesn't fit the conventional narrative at all. I could go on and on but it's off topic, and I'll bring it back up later in much greater detail when the time is right. This is almost all the work of the Vatican in the medieval period.

[Foxie Loxie]

Talk about Total Control!! Write your own history! :facepalm:

I suppose we'll never know all the secrets that are "buried" within The Vatican.

[Jayke]

As I pointed out on post 19 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103656-Banksters-of-Babylon-Merchants-of-Venice-and-Elders-of-Zion&p=1238492&viewfull=1#post1238492) of this thread already, I concur with Joseph Farrell about Fomenko's missing centuries theory as akin to the 'Flat Earth' conspiracy theory. Not that Fomenko's research isn't without merit, it definitely blows holes in the Venetian Oligarchs narrative of world history.

My reasoning for why the chronology of history is accurate, is because as its taught, it fits within the model of ascending arc vs descending arc of character development, that you'd expect to see in a cyclic universe. The dark ages follows the pattern of a waning and waxing moon in human development. If you remove those centuries and then just fancifully suggest everything was made up by the Vatican, then suddenly the whole science of systems theory falls about, the Yuga cycles can't be reconciled, and if you watched Keith Hunters presentation posted to Avalon yesterday, the accuracy of the cosmic clocks and ancient calendars (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103793-World-Age-Cycles-of-Destruction-Ancient-Esoteric-Calendars) get thrown out of sync, nothing can be reconciled. It becomes a mess, as Voice suggested.

As Joseph Farrell stated though, the chronology of history is largely accurate, it's the NARRATIVE overlaid on that chronology that has been majorly tampered with.

I'd suggest the reason why we don't have many source documents for ancient texts (before the middle ages) is not because those texts were all forged from thin air during that period – but because the texts that did exist before then, were translated AND EDITED – to fit a new narrative they were trying to create. In the copy of 'Manilius Astronomica' on my shelf for example (the 'G. P. Goold, Harvard edition'), the scholarship is actually excellent. They highlight passages and phrases that don't seem to fit within the original writing style of the text; passages and phrases that seem to have been edited in, at a later date, by a different author. The same can be said for Plato's book of Laws. There's controversy over whether Plato even wrote that book, because firstly, it was published after his death, and second, the literary style is such a departure from Plato's usual writing that people have been baffled if it was even from the mind of the same person.

It's more likely in my opinion, that the anomalies Fomenko highlights, can be explained by a mass editing campaign, rather than full and complete forgery. Designed to edit out of history any mention of certain advanced cultures, that would have contradicted their narrative that the only advanced culture that arose on the planet, was the culture of the oligarchs. Starting in Sumer, then Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome etc.

The Ancient Spooks: Part 4 (http://mileswmathis.com/phoen4.pdf) (shard by Paul above) demonstrates that an Ancient culture clearly existed, and may have even been global. What I'd say about that though is if the Phoenician oligarchs had such a strong global dominance over the world (even way back in antiquity) why the need for the protocols of Zion? They would've had enough global dominance for full outright hegemony from the start, like they nearly attained today.

UNLESS – and this is where Robert Sepehr's previous video comes in – the Phoenicians were, at one point, the EXACT high culture that have been whitewashed from the history books. The original Phoenicians might have been an advanced culture, with high values and high morals, who were slowly usurped and taken over as the mindset of oligarchism began to gain dominance at the onset of the Kali Yuga. What passes for the narrative of history in academia then, is really just a narrowing of perspective, to focus on the history and rise of the oligarch class, while demeaning all the advanced, high cultures – that were in simultaneous co-existence during that era – labelling them as barbarians, to demean and belittle THE OPPOSITION for their plans of global dominance.

Robert Sepehr posted a new video today on the Scythians and the tribes of Dan (makes me wonder if he reads Project Avalon for inspiration, as he's touched on several points pertinent to this thread)
d5Xjnh5VZsY

[A Voice from the Mountains]

As I pointed out on post 19 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103656-Banksters-of-Babylon-Merchants-of-Venice-and-Elders-of-Zion&p=1238492&viewfull=1#post1238492) of this thread already, I concur with Joseph Farrell about Fomenko's missing centuries theory as akin to the 'Flat Earth' conspiracy theory. Not that Fomenko's research isn't without merit, it definitely blows holes in the Venetian Oligarchs narrative of world history.

Just out of curiosity, how much of his material have you actually read?


My reasoning for why the chronology of history is accurate, is because as its taught, it fits within the model of ascending arc vs descending arc of character development, that you'd expect to see in a cyclic universe. The dark ages follows the pattern of a waning and waxing moon in human development. If you remove those centuries and then just fancifully suggest everything was made up by the Vatican, then suddenly the whole science of systems theory falls about, the Yuga cycles can't be reconciled, and if you watched Keith Hunters presentation posted to Avalon yesterday, the accuracy of the cosmic clocks and ancient calendars (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103793-World-Age-Cycles-of-Destruction-Ancient-Esoteric-Calendars) get thrown out of sync, nothing can be reconciled. It becomes a mess, as Voice suggested.

There is still a cycle going on, but we've been in the process of rebuilding from the destruction of "Atlantis" in this interpretation. Not the collapse of the Roman Empire.

And those cycles as literally interpreted out of the Sanskrit involve amounts of time which are astronomical:


According to one Puranic astronomical estimate, the four Yuga have the following durations:[3]

Satya Yuga equals 1,728,000 Human years[4]
Treta Yuga equals 1,296,000 Human years[4]
Dvapara Yuga equals 864,000 Human years[4]
Kali Yuga equals 432,000 Human years[4]

Together, these four yuga constitute one Mahayuga and equal 4.32 million human years.[3] According to one version, there are 1,000 Mahayugas in one day of Brahma or 4.32 billion human years. A Mahakalpa consists of 100 years of Brahma.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga

I know it's Wikipedia but they give additional sources and I've read about the Yuga cycles before. I personally think there must also be some mistranslation or something going on here, just because I can't recognize those enormous amounts of time to anything meaningful for us, when we are dealing with 12,000 years max back to the last ice age even according to conventional dating.


As Joseph Farrell stated though, the chronology of history is largely accurate, it's the NARRATIVE overlaid on that chronology that has been majorly tampered with.

This is true after around 1600 AD, when the printing press came into more widespread use in Europe and it was harder to control what was printed. Before that, you are mostly taking Catholic monks and their manuscripts for granted when it comes to the historical narratives you are familiar with, because those are the oldest surviving documents we have today.


I'd suggest the reason why we don't have many source documents for ancient texts (before the middle ages) is not because those texts were all forged from thin air during that period – but because the texts that did exist before then, were translated AND EDITED – to fit a new narrative they were trying to create. In the copy of 'Manilius Astronomica' on my shelf for example (the 'G. P. Goold, Harvard edition'), the scholarship is actually excellent. They highlight passages and phrases that don't seem to fit within the original writing style of the text; passages and phrases that seem to have been edited in, at a later date, by a different author. The same can be said for Plato's book of Laws. There's controversy over whether Plato even wrote that book, because firstly, it was published after his death, and second, the literary style is such a departure from Plato's usual writing that people have been baffled if it was even from the mind of the same person.

It sounds like you are trying to argue that the manuscripts must be authentic because scholars acknowledge they are full of inconsistencies which they have attempted to reconcile. Is that really a good argument?


It's more likely in my opinion, that the anomalies Fomenko highlights, can be explained by a mass editing campaign, rather than full and complete forgery. Designed to edit out of history any mention of certain advanced cultures, that would have contradicted their narrative that the only advanced culture that arose on the planet, was the culture of the oligarchs. Starting in Sumer, then Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome etc.

At this point I'm fairly certain that you've never actually read Fomenko at all, because he doesn't argue that they invented these narratives out of thin air. They are duplications. Thus the time shifts. When I talk about a time shift of 300 years, for example, I'm talking about something that happened in 1100-1400 AD being shifted backwards to 800-1100 AD artificially with the names changed, sometimes not even by much, and also possibly the locations changed. This can be accomplished as easily as using a source script from a foreign language and assuming that a foreign name is a completely different person.

It's not just Fomenko who has noticed this, but the German researcher Heribert Illig, Gyula Toth from Hungary, Immanuel Velikovsky, Jean Hardouin from France, Peter James of England, Wilhelm Kammeier, Friedrich Horst, Nikolai Morozov, Uwe Topper, Hans-Joachim Zillmer, Raja Ram Mohan Roy from India, Christoph Pfister of Switzerland, Alan Wilson from Wales, and even Isaac Newton.

All of those people have found significant chronological problems and offered revisions. Not just Fomenko. They have each found different aspects to latch onto, but they each make an independent case. And that's not even an exhaustive list of chronological revisionists.


The Ancient Spooks: Part 4 (http://mileswmathis.com/phoen4.pdf) (shard by Paul above) demonstrates that an Ancient culture clearly existed, and may have even been global. What I'd say about that though is if the Phoenician oligarchs had such a strong global dominance over the world (even way back in antiquity) why the need for the protocols of Zion? They would've had enough global dominance for full outright hegemony from the start, like they nearly attained today.

You answer your own question. The Phoenicians/Jews/merchant class never did have hegemonic control. Also no one is saying ancient cultures didn't exist. The problem is the dating.


UNLESS – and this is where Robert Sepehr's previous video comes in – the Phoenicians were, at one point, the EXACT high culture that have been whitewashed from the history books. The original Phoenicians might have been an advanced culture, with high values and high morals, who were slowly usurped and taken over as the mindset of oligarchism began to gain dominance at the onset of the Kali Yuga.

By the conventional dating that you claim to support, the Kali Yuga began in 3100 BC. That is way before the Phoenicians even existed according to this same conventional chronology.

According to conventional chronology, the Phoenicians were only active between around 1500 to 300 BC, and they weren't using an alphabet until around 1000 BC. You're talking about them being usurped two millennia before they even existed, by this version of events.

[Jayke]

I did state where my knowledge of fomenko comes from in post 19, as linked to. I'm trusting Farrells assessment based on his library like knowledge of history. And the Yuga cycle I talk of is the same as the precessional cycle. 26,000 years. So my interpretation is that the original Phoenician, before it was usurped by the oligarch class, is the same remnant of the survivors of Atlantis that Silvia Ivanova talks about in her New Age videos.

If the chronology has been falsified, why do the dates in Keith Hunters presentation align so well? Riddle me that one batman :sherlock:

Edit: I did try and read some Fomenko directly, but his narrative was such a contrived and banal superimposition of conflicting data points that I didn’t see the value in reading further (he was talking about the origins of Britain, and how Brutus and Caesar were the same person, or something like that) he sounded like a true mathematician, in the vein that Tesla described, “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Edit 2: Keith Hunter points out in his presentation that the high culture of the ancients measured their calendars in terms of days, not years. Maybe try dividing those astronomical numbers of the Yuga ages by 360, see if that seems more reasonable within the timeframe of a precessional cycle.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

And if there is anything to what Edgar Cayce was saying, he painted a picture of a corrupt and evil faction at the end of the Atlantean era, which caused that cataclysm and was then dispersed around the world along with those who weren't on board with what they were doing. I don't think we can actually prove anything like that right now but I also wouldn't be surprised if that were the real ultimate root of today's international bankers and merchants, royal bloodlines and all the rest.

In my opinion, 100% correct. Negative karma moves through time like a sine wave, always returning until its flattened out, expunged (by positive). Cayce called the group from Atlantis 'the Sons of Belial', who stood in opposition to the Law of One. They have surfaced again in our civilization as 'Luciferians'. Their practices are very much the same, as are their goals. And it goes way beyond that, to secret factions hiding secret knowledge and technology (the SSP).

I don't want to go off on another Atlantis rant and derail the thread! But everything that's happened before will happen again. It's happening NOW!

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Paul, if you want to break some of these posts off into a thread called "Phantom Time and Chronological Revisionism," I can start posting a lot of this kind of information there instead of cluttering up this thread with it.


I did state where my knowledge of fomenko comes from in post 19, as linked to. I'm trusting Farrells assessment based on his library like knowledge of history.

Don't be too quick to build your altar in his image. I was once a moderator on the TOT forum and tried to get Joseph to do an interview with us. He briefly glanced at the forum and somehow came to the completely erroneous conclusion that we were a religious forum and wanted to interview him about theology/patristics, which he studied at Oxford, and said that he had no interest and was too busy to discuss religion. I have no clue what he could have even seen on the forum to lead him to that conclusion. So the guy may do good research when he works on something at length, but at a glance, he can be as ignorant as any of us.

And Isaac Newton? He was a chronological revisionist at the same time that Jesuits were collating history into its modern narrative for the first time. His publication with his arguments on revising the chronology of ancient history was the last thing he ever published, as he died shortly thereafter. In fact he didn't want to publish it at all, but his hand was forced when someone in France got a hold of his notes and published them without his permission. So he went into damage control mode.

All of this is argument from authority anyway (a logical fallacy), but if that's where you're going to make a comfortable bed for yourself, I'm still going to try to turn you out of it. :P

Fomenko himself is no slouch, but a longstanding tenured professor of mathematics, a world-famous mathematician even, at Moscow State University. You can look up his achievements in the field of mathematics and see that is he taken very seriously in his field.

Then there's Garry Kasparov, the world-famous chess grandmaster with an IQ around 185-190, who is a supporter of Fomenko's and is known for arguing the concept of "phantom time" using historical European population estimates. Newton is also suspected to have had a very high IQ, though his chronological revisionism focused upon the ancient Greek era. Obviously he was a great mathematician as well. As a rule, the early chronologers were all mathematicians, not historians.


And the Yuga cycle I talk of is the same as the precessional cycle. 26,000 years. So my interpretation is that the original Phoenician, before it was usurped by the oligarch class, is the same remnant of the survivors of Atlantis that Silvia Ivanova talks about in her New Age videos.

Then you still cannot be possibly talking about conventional chronology. "Atlantis" is a term defined by Plato and he gives us a time frame of around 10,000 BC for its sinking. Do you think Phoenicians were around in 10,000 BC, according to the conventional chronology? This time you're off by much more. This time you're off by 8500 years from the conventional chronology's dating of the Phoenicians even coming into existence.

And Sylvie's videos rely almost exclusively on Fomenko's research when she cites any research at all. I've interviewed her personally. Why do you watch her videos and take her seriously when you reject the underlying research behind them?


If the chronology has been falsified, why do the dates in Keith Hunters presentation align so well? Riddle me that one batman :sherlock:

Reminds me of Catholics during the Renaissance. "If the world is really spinning rapidly, why aren't there hurricane-force winds constantly plaguing us and blowing down our buildings?" Maybe it's because your theories aren't as solid as you think they are?

If you are throwing around the idea of Phoenicians being around in 10,000 BC, then I would submit that as pretty good evidence that you don't know as much about the conventional chronology of history as you might think you do, yugas or no yugas.


Edit: I did try and read some Fomenko directly, but his narrative was such a contrived and banal superimposition of conflicting data points that I didn’t see the value in reading further (he was talking about the origins of Britain, and how Brutus and Caesar were the same person, or something like that) he sounded like a true mathematician, in the vein that Tesla described, “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

I don't see any actual arguments here, but a bunch of vague feelings gesturing at something that feelings just don't quite allow you to articulate.


Edit 2: Keith Hunter points out in his presentation that the high culture of the ancients measured their calendars in terms of days, not years. Maybe try dividing those astronomical numbers of the Yuga ages by 360, see if that seems more reasonable within the timeframe of a precessional cycle.

Yes, I'm familiar with the idea of people trying to mathematically manipulate the numbers associated with the yuga cycles in order to try force them into some framework that makes more sense. That's evidence of there being serious problems with the theory which remain unresolved. And yet you are still extremely confident about it?



In my opinion, 100% correct. Negative karma moves through time like a sine wave, always returning until its flattened out, expunged (by positive). Cayce called the group from Atlantis 'the Sons of Belial', who stood in opposition to the Law of One. They have surfaced again in our civilization as 'Luciferians'. Their practices are very much the same, as are their goals. And it goes way beyond that, to secret factions hiding secret knowledge and technology (the SSP).

And there is additional evidence of chronology being wrong even in this, because "Belial" is a very specific term from Judaism for the devil, and it is completely anachronistic to attribute such specific terminology to a time before 10,000 BC. If Cayce were simply using familiar modern language he could have said "Sons of the Devil," but no, he used the very specific early Hebrew term "Belial," which suggests a direct connection between pre-catastrophe "Atlantis" and recorded history.

I am also arguing that we have recorded history of the catastrophe, and what came both before and after it, from many cultures all over the world. But this cannot possibly be reconciled with the idea that this catastrophe occurred around 10,000 BC, while also preserving our traditional historical chronology intact. One of these ideas has to be wrong. Either the conventional dating of things is wrong, or the idea that we still have surviving accounts of the global flood/impact are wrong. And I see lots of myths all over the world with similar flood stories, so I don't think that is the problem.

I realize you were not talking about chronology, Star Mariner, but all of this just goes to show that evidence of giant chronological errors are staring us all in the face, but because of conditioning and the comfort of familiar beliefs, we too often refuse to see it.

And if I am not mistaken, Cayce, in his channelings, often said things like "in your understanding of time." Sounds like the channeled entity's understanding of time was quite different, doesn't it? I'm not sure that was ever adequately explained, though Cayce also said that the next great human awakening would come out of Russia. And that just happens to be where Fomenko is from too.

[Jayke]

Then you still cannot be possibly talking about conventional chronology. "Atlantis" is a term defined by Plato and he gives us a time frame of around 10,000 BC for its sinking. Do you think Phoenicians were around in 10,000 BC, according to the conventional chronology? This time you're off by much more. This time you're off by 8500 years from the conventional chronology's dating of the Phoenicians even coming into existence.

Actually, I think Phoenicians may have been around since 20,000BC, if not longer. If you watch the presentation by Tim and Lee Hooker on the pre-Sumerian, Vedic culture of Aratta (https://youtu.be/hPiuS6UUc1Q) (at least it may have been in the video, it may also have been in the book translated by them written by Dr Yuri Shilov, as linked to in post 19), the Vedic people burnt their villages to the ground every 70 years or so, moved camp several miles and began building again from scratch. This could be where the idea of the Phoenix comes from—being reborn from the fiery ashes—which could be where the term Phoenician originated, only for it to be usurped at a later date by the oligarchs to give them a sense of prestige.

What is it with you and your logical fallacy of appealing to the authority of IQ scores :facepalm: you shouldn’t really bring up the notion of logical fallacies when your rebuttals are riddled with them. I’ve been graciously ignoring them so far because to call you out on all of them would be extremely tedious and counterproductive. One look at the distortions of rhetoric created by your cognitive biases and I can see why Farrell felt he had better things to do :ROFL:, which reminds me, Farrells new book ‘Microcosm and Medium’ has arrived today, good times :happythumbsup:

Paul, if you do break up the thread, please don’t transfer my responses, I’ve no more interest in Fomenko or being a part of that discussion, thankyou.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Actually, I think Phoenicians May have been around since 20,000BC, if not longer. If you watch the presentation by Tim and Lee Hooker on the pre-Sumerian, Vedic culture of Aratta (https://youtu.be/hPiuS6UUc1Q) (at least it may have been in the video, it may also have been in the book translated by them written by Dr Yuri Shilov, as linked to in post 19), the Vedic people burnt their villages to the ground every 70 years or so, moved camp several miles and began building again from scratch. This could be where the idea of the Phoenix comes from—being reborn from the fiery ashes—which could be where the term Phoenician originated, only for it to be usurped at a later date by the oligarchs to give them a sense of prestige.

You do realize that that would be a more radical alteration of chronology than anything Fomenko has ever purported, right?

Do you have any archaeological evidence for 20,000 years of continuous occupation of any historical site? Think about what we've managed to do just in the last 500 years. Now try to comprehend a span of time 40 times greater than that. That's what you're proposing. And you think they just kept riding around in wooden boats, in small tribal populations all that time? Really?


What is it with you and your logical fallacy of appealing to the authority of IQ scores :facepalm: you shouldn’t really bring up the notion of logical fallacies when your rebuttals are riddled with them.

You're the one who decided to make your argument based on authority, by appealing to Dr. Farrell's ill-informed opinion as if that is an actual argument. Like I said, if argument from authority is where you want to make your case, I can make fallacious arguments too. :P


I’ve been graciously ignoring them so far

You ignored most of the information in my post above in fact, and took the easy out by criticizing an argument which I even just admitted to you in my previous post was a fallacy, and which I told you I was only making because you were making an equivalent argument as if that is where you were getting your comfort from.

[Jayke]

I can make fallacious arguments too.

They do seem to be the only kind of argument you’re any good at :clapping:

Did you watch the video on Aratta yet? I would like to hear your thoughts on that culture if you have the time.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I can make fallacious arguments too.

They do seem to be the only kind of argument you’re any good at :clapping:

No, just the only kind that you have the courage to respond to directly. And what do you call it when you put your faith in Farrell's opinions? A logical argument?


Did you watch the video on Aratta yet? I would like to hear your thoughts on that culture if you have the time.

I'm familiar with the culture and the archaeology but the problem always come back to the dating. If you want to talk about carbon-14 that's another issue. If we had a split thread to discuss it, I would love to talk about carbon-14 dating.

Skimming through the presentation, I can see right off the bat that there's all kinds of anachronistic arguments being made. He's jumping from 3000 BC to 22,000 BC in the same sentence as easily as if he's talking about of a couple of generations.

How many hundreds of years would you expect people to be riding around on primitive boats and making scratches on rocks before they start becoming more sophisticated? Why would they be scratching on rocks and clay tablets for nearly 20,000 years straight (remembering that Plato placed the fall of Atlantis around 10,000 BC -- another contradiction), and then suddenly turn around in the last 1000 years or so and we go to the Moon?

[Jayke]

Actually, the first Buddha was recorded in the Siberian Bon shaman tradition at 18,000BC (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/9937506115/?coliid=I4689E8GNDS8M&colid=UMIYAN5Q7POE&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it).

uzn did a thread on the archeology of ancient Russia last year (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99506-Ancient-Russia--Megaliths-Caves-Sacred-Sites-etc-&highlight=Russian+archeology), which adds a lot of weight to Tim and Lee Hookers Aratta presentation.

If by “making scratches on rocks”, you mean ‘building and carving ornate pyramid temples all over the globe by 15,000BC’, then yeah sure, they were scratching and carving rocks in the developmental period of 3000 years since the time of the first Buddha.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Actually, the first Buddha was recorded in the Siberian Bon shaman tradition at 18,000BC (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/9937506115/?coliid=I4689E8GNDS8M&colid=UMIYAN5Q7POE&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it).

Which is also rejected by modern chronologists. I'm curious here. Do you even have a consistent frame of reference for historical chronology? Or are you just shifting between different sources and traditions arbitrarily?

I just did this quick timeline to help you visualize what you are talking about.

https://s8.postimg.cc/lym1v6m3p/timeline.png

22,000 BC until Middle Eastern archaeological sites begin to appear around 6,000 BC is a gap of 16,000 years without any attested history or archaeology according to the conventional chronology. That means according to mainstream academic opinion on chronology, though you've made it clear that you aren't in that camp either. I'm not sure that you even know where you fall yet on this issue.

Your video above is placing ancient rock scratchings prior to the fall of Atlantis, and comparing them to Sumerian Cuneiform made thousands of years after Atlantis fell/the end of the Ice Age. None of this makes any sense in any chronology I'm aware of. It's self-contradictory.

And this is being very generous to the Middle East, because Sumerian records don't even go back to their origin around 4,000 BC, and even when they do later begin, they give us very little to go on, and are generally regarded by historians as mythological. Those texts only really begin to appear around the same time that the Phoenicians are said to appear.

That's not to say that I believe the early texts were just mythology, but neither do I believe that Sumeria was founded some 6,000 years ago. All of this has occurred much more recently. The agenda of pushing things deeper and deeper into antiquity, despite there being absolutely no evidence to justify such huge spans of time, is a psychological trick to separate us from our past, specifically a terrible cataclysm from which we have had to build ourselves back up out of an artificially-induced stone age.


If by “making scratches on rocks”, you mean ‘building and carving ornate pyramid temples all over the globe by 15,000BC’,

The part of the presentation I was watching above was this guy pointing to rock scratchings and comparing them to clay tablets with Sumerian Cuneiform. Are you attributing these extremely advanced works of architecture to the same people who this guy is talking about matching the scratchings on stone and clay in the video above?


then yeah sure, they were scratching and carving rocks in the developmental period of 3000 years since the time of the first Buddha.

I thought you just said he was 20,000 years ago according to Siberian tradition? Which is it?

I could point out that Buddhism has nothing to do with traditional Siberian religious practices but I don't guess there would be any point in that either.

[Jayke]

If you really want to bake your noodle, Voice, you should watch some presentations by Edmund Marriage - Learning from History.

JT1heGsp1aw
I can see the steam coming out of your ears already, Voice: ”does not compute, does not compute” :ROFL:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I can see the steam coming out of your ears already, Voice: ”does not compute, does not compute” :ROFL:

Why would you think that? You don't understand what I believe, and don't seem clear even as to what you yourself believe, at least as far as chronology goes. Projection?

You seem to think I am denying physical artifacts when I have repeatedly said I am only challenging the conventional dating of them. And you watch Sylvie's videos and apparently enjoy them, which confuses what exactly you are trying to argue even more.


We have also featured the O’Brien’s earliest groundbreaking discoveries An Integrated Astronomical Complex – Line A Loxodrome - in East Anglia and Megalithic Odyssey featuring the Bodmin Moor Astronomical Complex of Stone Circles and Giant Cairns, both revealing great sophistication in mathematics, surveying and astronomy, together with the use of the most ancient world-wide standard unit of measure left by the Shining Ones, proving detailed knowledge of the earths dimensions around 2,700BC, and facilitating the authors successful search for the Master Builders of an earlier civilisation recorded by the Sumerians, who arrived in Southern Lebanon around 9,500 BC.

http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/

This is the guy's foundation. I decided to go read summaries of his material instead of listening to the 2 hours of material you just casually dump on me in post after post, as if I have that kind of time for you when you don't even bother to respond to 90% of what I post.

The 9500 BC date is based on the carbon dating of archaeological sites around Jericho. None of this is new to me.


Let's start over here...

I still think Paul (or another moderator, but it's Paul's thread) should move these replies to a new thread about "Phantom Time and Chronological Revisionism."

Why don't you make a bullet point list of items which you are conveying to me, which you think I am rejecting? That way we can take things point-by-point in a very clear way and won't have to keep talking past each other.

What precisely are you trying to say?

[Jayke]

I’ve said everything I care to say. My thoughts have been expressed concisely and clearly enough for anyone that cares to listen. My words were chosen with care and precision. I’ll wait until the thread gets back on topic before re-engaging with the discussion.

[norman]

That was quite interesting stuff, from both of you.

I'm not going to attempt to wade into huge splurges of written stuff. It's not my thing, normally.

The one thing that lingers for me, from the previous posts is the conflict between the fall of Atlantis and the age of the site in Ukraine. While reading the argument, I thought, hey, they could easily both be as right as each other.

As in the current world, why couldn't there have been different groups doing their own things in different parts of the globe. Even though there is a global 'civilization' in 2018 there are lots of groups around the world who just keep on doing their own thing. America could fall into dust and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to several other groups. Future archaeologists would argue about the contradictions in the evidence and the 'dates' and if they believed that America was a sole world civilisation they'd fight like cats and dogs about the discovery of the other groups in the same period.

But, I'm off topic if this thread is about Phantom Time and Chronological Revisionism. I'm all for revising the clap trap we've been force fed, but I like far simpler explanations and far quicker results than scholarly pissing contests. The University libraries around the world are full of all that, and look how well that's served the human race so far.

[Jayke]

Since this thread has now been broken off from the original thread, I can point out Voices fallacies without derailing the other thread. I’ll leave Voices full quote intact but highlight my edits/rebuttals in red.



As I pointed out on post 19 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103656-Banksters-of-Babylon-Merchants-of-Venice-and-Elders-of-Zion&p=1238492&viewfull=1#post1238492) of this thread already, I concur with Joseph Farrell about Fomenko's missing centuries theory as akin to the 'Flat Earth' conspiracy theory. Not that Fomenko's research isn't without merit, it definitely blows holes in the Venetian Oligarchs narrative of world history.

Just out of curiosity, how much of his material have you actually read?


My reasoning for why the chronology of history is accurate, is because as its taught, it fits within the model of ascending arc vs descending arc of character development, that you'd expect to see in a cyclic universe. The dark ages follows the pattern of a waning and waxing moon in human development. If you remove those centuries and then just fancifully suggest everything was made up by the Vatican, then suddenly the whole science of systems theory falls about, the Yuga cycles can't be reconciled, and if you watched Keith Hunters presentation posted to Avalon yesterday, the accuracy of the cosmic clocks and ancient calendars (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103793-World-Age-Cycles-of-Destruction-Ancient-Esoteric-Calendars) get thrown out of sync, nothing can be reconciled. It becomes a mess, as Voice suggested.

There is still a cycle going on, but we've been in the process of rebuilding from the destruction of "Atlantis" in this interpretation. Not the collapse of the Roman Empire. Jaykes edit: did I mention the collapse of the Roman Empire? or did you just assume that’s what I was referring to? I was referring to the whole period from the collapse of Aratta to the fall of Rome, through the dark ages and then back up to where we are now.

And those cycles as literally interpreted out of the Sanskrit involve amounts of time which are astronomical:


According to one Puranic astronomical estimate, the four Yuga have the following durations:[3]

Satya Yuga equals 1,728,000 Human years[4]
Treta Yuga equals 1,296,000 Human years[4]
Dvapara Yuga equals 864,000 Human years[4]
Kali Yuga equals 432,000 Human years[4]

Together, these four yuga constitute one Mahayuga and equal 4.32 million human years.[3] According to one version, there are 1,000 Mahayugas in one day of Brahma or 4.32 billion human years. A Mahakalpa consists of 100 years of Brahma.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga

I know it's Wikipedia but they give additional sources and I've read about the Yuga cycles before. I personally think there must also be some mistranslation or something going on here, just because I can't recognize those enormous amounts of time to anything meaningful for us, when we are dealing with 12,000 years max back to the last ice age even according to conventional dating.


As Joseph Farrell stated though, the chronology of history is largely accurate, it's the NARRATIVE overlaid on that chronology that has been majorly tampered with.

This is true after around 1600 AD, when the printing press came into more widespread use in Europe and it was harder to control what was printed. Before that, you are mostly taking Catholic monks and their manuscripts for granted when it comes to the historical narratives you are familiar with, because those are the oldest surviving documents we have today.


I'd suggest the reason why we don't have many source documents for ancient texts (before the middle ages) is not because those texts were all forged from thin air during that period – but because the texts that did exist before then, were translated AND EDITED – to fit a new narrative they were trying to create. In the copy of 'Manilius Astronomica' on my shelf for example (the 'G. P. Goold, Harvard edition'), the scholarship is actually excellent. They highlight passages and phrases that don't seem to fit within the original writing style of the text; passages and phrases that seem to have been edited in, at a later date, by a different author. The same can be said for Plato's book of Laws. There's controversy over whether Plato even wrote that book, because firstly, it was published after his death, and second, the literary style is such a departure from Plato's usual writing that people have been baffled if it was even from the mind of the same person.

It sounds like you are trying to argue that the manuscripts must be authentic because scholars acknowledge they are full of inconsistencies which they have attempted to reconcile. Is that really a good argument? Jaykes edit: whenever you put “it sounds like” at the start of a conclusion, it demonstrates you’re filtering what I’ve said through your own biases and you’re trying to superimpose what you imagine I’ve said over a pre-existing assumption, which leads to distortion (which isn’t inherently wrong, it’s how we make sense of things, but to use that distortion as a rebuttal?) The end result is the logical fallacy of a strawman argument, which makes your rebuttal Redundant!


It's more likely in my opinion, that the anomalies Fomenko highlights, can be explained by a mass editing campaign, rather than full and complete forgery. Designed to edit out of history any mention of certain advanced cultures, that would have contradicted their narrative that the only advanced culture that arose on the planet, was the culture of the oligarchs. Starting in Sumer, then Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome etc.

At this point I'm fairly certain that you've never actually read Fomenko at all, because he doesn't argue that they invented these narratives out of thin air. They are duplications. Thus the time shifts. When I talk about a time shift of 300 years, for example, I'm talking about something that happened in 1100-1400 AD being shifted backwards to 800-1100 AD artificially with the names changed, sometimes not even by much, and also possibly the locations changed. This can be accomplished as easily as using a source script from a foreign language and assuming that a foreign name is a completely different person. Jaykes edit: would you care to back up these claims with specific examples?

It's not just Fomenko who has noticed this, but the German researcher Heribert Illig, Gyula Toth from Hungary, Immanuel Velikovsky, Jean Hardouin from France, Peter James of England, Wilhelm Kammeier, Friedrich Horst, Nikolai Morozov, Uwe Topper, Hans-Joachim Zillmer, Raja Ram Mohan Roy from India, Christoph Pfister of Switzerland, Alan Wilson from Wales, and even Isaac Newton.

All of those people have found significant chronological problems and offered revisions. Not just Fomenko. They have each found different aspects to latch onto, but they each make an independent case. And that's not even an exhaustive list of chronological revisionists. Jaykes edit: again, specific examples help move the discussion along.


The Ancient Spooks: Part 4 (http://mileswmathis.com/phoen4.pdf) (shard by Paul above) demonstrates that an Ancient culture clearly existed, and may have even been global. What I'd say about that though is if the Phoenician oligarchs had such a strong global dominance over the world (even way back in antiquity) why the need for the protocols of Zion? They would've had enough global dominance for full outright hegemony from the start, like they nearly attained today.

You answer your own question. The Phoenicians/Jews/merchant class never did have hegemonic control. Also no one is saying ancient cultures didn't exist. The problem is the dating. Jaykes edit: I was hypothesising a solution to a paradox, which is answering a rhetorical question, while leaving the door open to other possibilities. But to conclude, if they never had hegemonic control, why not? What other opposing forces were preventing them from having that control? The point I was making is that it’s the opposition to that hegemonic control that have been whitewashed from the historical record.


UNLESS – and this is where Robert Sepehr's previous video comes in – the Phoenicians were, at one point, the EXACT high culture that have been whitewashed from the history books. The original Phoenicians might have been an advanced culture, with high values and high morals, who were slowly usurped and taken over as the mindset of oligarchism began to gain dominance at the onset of the Kali Yuga.

By the conventional dating that you claim to support, the Kali Yuga began in 3100 BC. That is way before the Phoenicians even existed according to this same conventional chronology. Jaykes edit: strawman! I never claimed any conventional dating applied to the yuga cycles, if you’d asked I would’ve told you my dating for that and where I got those datings from. Redundant!

According to conventional chronology, the Phoenicians were only active between around 1500 to 300 BC, and they weren't using an alphabet until around 1000 BC. You're talking about them being usurped two millennia before they even existed, by this version of events. Jaykes edit: from my previous answer, it should’ve been clear that I don’t place much weight on what we’re conventionally taught about the Phoenicians, as this would’ve been one of the areas that have been whitewashed from history and would ‘conventionally’ been tampered with. Again, Strawman argument! Redundant!

The reason I don’t respond to 90% of what you’re saying, Voice, is because you’re not arguing any points I’ve made, you’re arguing against your own fallacious strawman interjections of things you imagine I’ve said. The rest of your replies follow the same pattern, which is why I won’t bother rebutting all your other posts.

If you want to continue this discussion, how about we strive to remove all ad-hominem insinuations and focus purely on the facts that we can build a new chronology around?

[Foxie Loxie]

I have enjoyed Edward Marriage's videos, in fact it was he who first made me start questioning the Christian story we have all been fed down through the ages. So, if we have been lied to about that....I guess we have to question ANY human relating of the events of the Past?! :confused:

I must say I was quite impressed with Keith M. Hunter's being able to link catastrophes here on Earth with certain alignments of the heavenly bodies in our near neighborhood. The "myths" about the past seem to convey what was going on in the heavens. Makes me think of the video, "Remembering The End of The World" by Talbot.

I'll look forward to any chronology you guys can come up with! It's quite clear you are both well studied & highly intelligent & I greatly enjoy reading your posts!!

Just wondering what your opinions are on the findings of Klaus Dona & how he infers a global culture with a specific type of writing we do not understand that he has found evidence of?

Would you say the huge rock structures found around that world are from pre-Noah's Flood. Billy recently put up a very interesting picture of what looks like a mountain, but when viewed closely shows it was enormous weathered figure carvings!

I wonder if anyone has ever taken ALL the writings from ancient cultures & pieced together a mosaic of what they present? Or do we have to assume that any writings we find must inherently embody an "agenda", as does our own recent recordings of history?

[Hervé]

How to double time into overtime :)

Gunnar Heinsohn: Enigmas of 3000 to 300 BC (https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/07/30/gunnar-heinsohn-enigmas-of-3000-to-300-bc/)

by malagabay (https://malagabay.wordpress.com/author/malagabay/) Posted on July 30, 2018
(https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/07/30/gunnar-heinsohn-enigmas-of-3000-to-300-bc/)

https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/enigmas-of-3000-to-300-bc.jpg?w=640&h=480 (https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/enigmas-of-3000-to-300-bc.jpg)


Did the Romans nostrify the history of the Etruscans to prolong their own chronology?

Tim Cullen collected many observations to support such an assumption.
The two maps below also show indisputable similarities between the political constellations in the Phoenician period of the Etruscans (9th-6th c.), and in the Punic period of the Romans (6th-3rd c.).


https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/map-01.jpg?w=640&h=369 (https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/map-01.jpg)


https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/map-02.jpg?w=640&h=390 (https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/map-02.jpg)


Indeed, nowhere can one find Punic (centered on Carthage) or Roman cities (in Italy) with building layers from the 6th-3rd century BC that are super-imposed upon building layers of Phoenician (centered on Tyre) or Etruscan cities from the 9th-6th century BC.

The strata found in the ground are – roughly speaking – dated either 9th-6th or 6th-3rd century.

There is, per individual site, always only a single package of strata to fill one but never two consecutive periods.

Archaeologists don’t deny it.

They explain it by saying:
“Etruscan cities have generally been built over from the Romans onwards, and houses have left little trace“
(Etruscan Architecture 2018).
Their firm belief in our textbook chronology forbids them to imagine the simultaneity of both histories.

Two different narratives about one and the same history were, indeed, transformed into two consecutive histories.

This did not disturb anyone until archaeology began and hard evidence could only be found for one of the two periods.

The similarity of the, e.g., portrait styles (eyes, hair, beards etc.) in the 9th/8th century and in the 5th/4th century were then interpreted as a consciously planned renaissance.

However, such an interpretation cannot replace the missing strata and residential quarters in the ground.

Continue reading the article in PDF format by clicking here (https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/3000-300-bc-august-2018-heinsohn.pdf)


Related:
Gunnar Heinsohn: Exodus (https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/gunnar-heinsohn-exodus/) Posted on August 6, 2018 (https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/gunnar-heinsohn-exodus/)

[Jayke]

Guess I’ll start a chronology with an Andrew Collins presentation on the Sungir people, Russia, 30,000BC (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungir).

xE1sLY5saLU
He begins discussing the Sungir people and their culture at 14:00. Feel free to refute if you have any contradictory info, which dismisses Andrew Collins research.

[Justplain]

I had a brief email correspondence with Sylvie of New Age a few years ago, and it came down to two historical accuracies that couldnt be reconciled:

a) i referred her to an archeological study on pompeii, where i have been twice, which used argon dating to confirm its age of @ 50AD, the date given in 'traditional' chronology. She argued that the dating system was flawed, without being specific.

b) i had visited britain and been to two historical sites, the battle of hastings (1066AD) and the grave of robert the bruce (of a few 100 years later). I told her that the brits didnt argue with this dating, and that the brits had bo reason to agree with some jesuit history rewrite purportedly done after the reformation. Sylvie gave me no response on that issue.

Both of these topics lead me to believe that there is some accuracy to the 'traditional' chronology.

To get to the point of accurately finding dating, i refer to a study done of the age of the submerged city of Dwarka, India. Using Vedic accounts of moon phases, which were very accurately recorded, a researcher was able to calculate, using computer software on the historical moon phases over hundreds of years, that the epic battle of Dwarka occurred somewhere in the range of 3500bc.

Other research, done using star charts and the procession of the equinoxes, date puma punko, bolivia, to somehwere around 25000 years old.

Klaus Dona presents compelling evidence of a prehistorical global civilization which had written text. The Pirris Reis map, made in the early 1500's but based on much older maps, shows a civilization that knew the world was round, knew of antarctica, and used mapping techniques to show a globe that we have only recently redeveloped.

Civilization is extremely old. One only has to look at the eroded elf underground cities of anatolia. Some of these habitations show deposits that could only be accumulated over long periods of submersion, some geologists suggest millions of years. I dont need to be convinced that advanced civilizations existed ages ago, the physical evidence is there to be seen.

[Jayke]

Thanks for your assessment, Justplain. In the words of Graham Hancock, "Things just keep getting older!"

The pre-historic global civilisation Klaus Dona talks of could be the same one mentioned in the book 'Uriels Machine (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Uriels-Machine-Ancient-Origins-Science/dp/0099281821)', where they say a neolithic language, which preceded the indo-aryan languages, was in use – globally – as far back as 15,000BC. Another detail mentioned in that book, is that the Sungir people (the same ones Andrew Collins discusses) had their bodies excavated from a burial site that used red ochre within their burial rituals; a tradition that's also been found on the other side of the world, in the Americas. Robert Sepehr has a presentation on this red ochre burial culture and shows how they were connected to sea-faring, pyramid-building, continent-spanning cultures in the ancient past.

BT2hSZV4tNc
Freddy Silva also mentions in his presentation Secrets of the Andean Temples (https://www.invisibletemple.com/secrets-of-the-andean-temples-dvd.html), that stone carvings on the Andean sites have been matched up to star alignments of the 15,000BC era. My conclusion is that this is the era Confucius reminisces about with his quote...



"When the Great Tao prevailed the whole world was one community. Men of talent and virtue were chosen to lead the people, their words were sincere and they cultivated harmony...this was the age of universality"

I do still find Fomenko's work to be a psy-op of 'Flat Earth' proportions, which does fall apart under the mounting pressure of further evidence, but, as i've previously stated, its not entirely without merit. I did enjoy Sylvie's NewEarth Youtube channel, the archeological evidence she presents is a prime example of just how much we've yet to discover about the richness of our true cultural origins, and how much the parasitical-oligarchical class have tried to hide from us, in order to coerce us into their limited narrative and perspective.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

How to double time into overtime :)

Gunnar Heinsohn: Enigmas of 3000 to 300 BC (https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/07/30/gunnar-heinsohn-enigmas-of-3000-to-300-bc/)

Thanks for posting this Hervé. I'm a fan of Heinsohn and the other guys whose work he's build upon, and who are now building back upon him.



I had a brief email correspondence with Sylvie of New Age a few years ago, and it came down to two historical accuracies that couldnt be reconciled:

a) i referred her to an archeological study on pompeii, where i have been twice, which used argon dating to confirm its age of @ 50AD, the date given in 'traditional' chronology. She argued that the dating system was flawed, without being specific.

The Wikipedia article on argon dating gives this information with additional sources to follow up with:


The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1] An alternative method of calibrating the used standard is astronomical tuning (also known as orbital tuning), which arrives at a slightly different age.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon%E2%80%93argon_dating

In other words, argon dating acts as a proxy for some other form of dating, which must first be used in order to establish a base line for comparison.

It's kicking the can down the road, to obscure earlier methods, the scientific equivalent of money laundering in order to obscure the original source.

Probably it relies on carbon-14 dating which has lots of problems that I can post on later. Fomenko's first volume summarizes the problem very and I may just quote from it. If you do a Google search for examples of obviously erroneous carbon dating, you'll find plenty of examples. Usually the labs try to force the data to fit within a narrow range, and if it won't they discard it as contaminated/etc. and forget all about it.


b) i had visited britain and been to two historical sites, the battle of hastings (1066AD) and the grave of robert the bruce (of a few 100 years later). I told her that the brits didnt argue with this dating, and that the brits had bo reason to agree with some jesuit history rewrite purportedly done after the reformation. Sylvie gave me no response on that issue.

I'm still digging into these details myself, but I've also talked to Sylvie, and I think she plays rather fast and loose with information sometimes. In fact I know she does. But the work that originally inspired her, that she is building upon and drawing interest to, is the work of Fomenko and his colleagues in Russia.


Both of these topics lead me to believe that there is some accuracy to the 'traditional' chronology.

It depends on what you are talking about. As far as content -- I agree, the events described are usually somewhat accurate, taking into consideration that there is always the usual "political spin" and manipulation of facts to cater to those in power.

The real problem is when you have multiple parallel sets of events that appear to mirror each other almost identically, down to uncanny details that Fomenko has even applied statistical methods to and proved are related to one another.


Civilization is extremely old. One only has to look at the eroded elf underground cities of anatolia. Some of these habitations show deposits that could only be accumulated over long periods of submersion, some geologists suggest millions of years. I dont need to be convinced that advanced civilizations existed ages ago, the physical evidence is there to be seen.

"Extremely old" is a relative term, though. In terms of numbers, it doesn't really mean anything, does it?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

When I have time later this evening I'll begin posting some things on carbon dating. In the mean time, here's something else from Heinsohn: a new angle on the problems in dendochronology, or using the tree rings of very old trees to calibrate carbon-14 dates and ostensibly establish reference points for further dating.

https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/aegean-tree-ring-chronology-1994.gif

The gaps between the bars represent breaks in the data. Those have always been problematic. In order to be able to confidently use dendochronology to date things, you need a consistent measure of data going back into time without breaks.

Here's some info on Heinsohn's approach to dendochronology as applied in British history: Gunnar Heinsohn: Londinium’s Dendrochronology/ (https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/gunnar-heinsohn-londiniums-dendrochronology/)


Dendrochronologist Petra Ossowski Larsson has repeatedly emphasized that so far it has not been possible to link a post-Roman tree ring sequence directly to timber or roof beams of Roman Imperial Antiquity (1-230s AD):

“Primeval oaks, i.e. those that could grow undisturbed for a long time and therefore have many annual rings […] are abruptly exhausted in England around AD 200 (conventionally), then young oaks and/or branches are used for another 50 years and then one changes to stone and brick as building material”

(Ur-Eichen, also solche die lange Zeit ungestört wachsen konnten und deshalb viele Jahrringe aufweisen […] sind in England um AD 200 (konventionell) abrupt erschöpft, dann verwendet man noch ca. 50 Jahre lang junge Eichen und/oder Äste und dann geht man zu Stein und Ziegel als Baumaterial über;
email, 13 June 2018).

If we examine this finding in Londinium — the largest city in Roman Britain — it is undoubtedly also confirmed there.

Some authors may write early 3rd century AD instead of AD 200.

Yet, after — say — AD 230, no more new Roman period buildings were erected in Londinium.

Some authors believe that very few buildings from the time up to AD 230 were still inhabited in the 4th century.

But nobody claims that, up to the 10th century, new Londinium houses were built upon the ruins of Londinium houses destroyed around AD 230.

Thus, no strong trees were felled for timber and roof beams for buildings upon such ruins on which dendrochronological measurements could be made.

For timber classified as Anglo-Saxon (in the London area outside Lundenwic) from structures that do not stand on Roman ruins, felling dates are given from the 7th century onwards (Tyers/Hillam/Groves 1994, 14).

This brings the earliest Saxons to the Late Latène period, which lies 600-700 stratigraphically, but is set in the textbooks 700 years earlier in the 1st century BC (see in detail Heinsohn 2018).

The sudden end of building in Roman style and technology does not come as a surprise because a catastrophe had destroyed Roman Britain and Londinium.

Continued at the link above.

There is a journal I follow, the Chronology and Catastrophism Review, which often features articles from researchers arguing among themselves how to best resolve these problems. Either way, here is one of several dating methods I'll post more about through this thread, showing exactly what we are dealing with. Have to go for now though.

[Jayke]

The real problem is when you have multiple parallel sets of events that appear to mirror each other almost identically, down to uncanny details that Fomenko has even applied statistical methods to and proved are related to one another.

That’s not actually a problem when you consider that the universe isn’t just cyclical, but algorithmic.

I was reading the book ‘How The Nation Was Won: Americas Untold Story 1630-1754’ by Graham Lowry (https://www.amazon.com/Nation-Americas-Untold-Story-1630-1754/dp/0943235219) and was STUNNED to see how closely the events in that era, mirrored almost perfectly, events that are occurring today. If I was a person 500 years in the future, looking back on today and then reading accounts of the above book, I could easily come to the conclusion that it was the same event. But in doing so negates any understanding of how the cosmic clocks and planetary algorithms dictate human behaviour and help to shape life on Earth. Look into ephemeride astrology to see how mathematical algorithms apply to planetary movement.

There’s only 7 fundamental levels of human character (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103464-What-is-Spiral-Dynamics-And-Why-Donald-Trump-is-Orange-in-more-ways-than-one.). I see no contradiction in recognising how the same events and dynamics of human behaviour have played themselves out over-and-over again, across different times, places and eras throughout history. To take all those sine wave algorithms of human behaviour and condense them down, overlapping them into a single event, is the chronological equivelant of string theory imo; an unnecessary over-complication that bares no relationship to reality.

Beyond that one point of contention, I am interested in hearing the empirical evidence for the shortfalls of timeline dating, so, I look forward to hearing more on that front. :handshake::coffee:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

More on the dendochronology problems in England from the article above, and then I'm going to deconstruct the idea that carbon-14 dates are reliable within the historical era, or for any era at all, for that matter.

These images are showing problems with the dendochronological record and also archaeological strata from Britain, from the article above:

https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/table-1.gif

What the above implies is that, for one thing, the "dark earth" can not be consistently fit into the historical record because of it being dated to completely different time periods, separated by centuries, in different local contexts. Furthermore, the period between roughly 200 AD and 900 AD is filled with history that is not attested by archaeological remains of lumber which could even be attempted to be dated by carbon-14.


Because there are no traces of freshly felled oaks between the 3rd and the early 10th century for structures built upon ruins of the Roman period, scholars use the dates found in our textbooks to date Londinium for the period from the 3rd century onwards:

“Knowledge of the approximate date is used, not as prior evidence, but to save time during the crossmatching process.

All the Roman timbers, for example, can be grouped together, and time will not be wasted in comparing Roman sequences against medieval chronologies”

(English Heritage 2004, 25).

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/gunnar-heinsohn-londiniums-dendrochronology/

In other words dendochronologists didn't even bother to 'waste time' comparing the Roman and medieval periods. Why would it be a waste of time when the transition between the Roman era and the "Dark Ages" is one of the most scrutinized periods of antiquity? There are entire journals dedicated to historical problems from this period.

https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/english-tree-gap.gif


With this non-scientific method a “floating yet fixed“ (Malaga Bay 2017) Romano-British chronology had been created.

Thus, it had been decided not to test the possibility of a direct connection of Roman tree ring sequences (ending around AD 230) to sequences of the High Middle Ages (with primitive beginnings around AD 930).

But it is at this point in time that construction begins anew in Londinium — with simple huts sunk into dark earth.

It is consensus that there was

“only exiguous activity amid Roman ruins before 950” AD

(Blair 2018, 344).

London’s new beginnings mirror Charlamagne’s Aachen.

In the “second third of the 10th century”1 (Erkens 2013, 580), modest pit houses were built there into a “mouldy or alluvial layer, which everywhere overlays the purely Roman layers in great thickness”2 (Sage 1982, 93).

1 zweiten Drittel des 10. Jahrhunderts

2 Moder- oder Schwemmschicht, die […] überall die rein römischen Schichten in großer Mächtigkeit überlagert

Aachen’s dark earth proves once again that an enormous cataclysm must have wiped out Roman civilization just before the onset of the High Middle Ages.

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/gunnar-heinsohn-londiniums-dendrochronology/


Britain may be a unique case in that there is some evidence that (as Graham Hancock argues in Magicians of the Gods) a celestial impact ended the ice age and caused a global cataclysm, but then, some undetermined amount of time later, it appears that debris from that initial impact caused additional destruction after landing very near to the British isles. This is recorded in the Arthurian "legends" when large portions of the countryside were turned into "wasteland" and Arthur had to seek refuge in Brittany for some time, before returning to Britain and being killed in battle against one of his cousins who had usurped power there, according to Alan Wilson's reconstruction of Welsh (ie British) history.


Whatever method is used to date Londinium timber before the primitive buildings from AD 930, the researchers (astronomers, dendrochronologists, C14-daters etc.) have to justify why the Roman-era buildings were not destroyed around AD 930 instead of the early third century.

Dendrochronologically they have no timber, i.e., no new construction upon the ruins of Londinium before c. AD 930.

If they want to put hundreds of years between the assumed end a few decades after AD 200 and AD 930, they should have tangible Londinium evidence to prove this.

Those who insist on about 700 (mainstream) or about 300 fallow years (various dissidents) must be able to show windblown layers.

In such a long time, massive forests have grown whose dead roots, along with the shells of molluscs etc., must be visible.

300 to 700 years worth of plant growth will have left sediments.

You won’t find them upon the dark earth in Londinium below the new construction from 930s onwards.

Thus, the experts have a difficult decision to make.

Do they want to work with tangible evidence or do they insist on serving chronological dogma?

The solution ultimately proposed by this article is this one:

https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/table-5.gif

This represents a shift chronological shift forward in the historical record of about 700 years, these 700 years not being represented by any tangible archaeological or dendochronological evidence that can be independently confirmed by any means. (And I am still getting to carbon-14, which I'll do in a separate post below.)


There is another interesting parallel from this time that I'll throw out here: a parallel between the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England around the 5th and 6th centuries AD, and the Viking invasions of England beginning at the end of the 8th century AD.

The most convenient way for me to show these parallels is through the invasion of Attila the Hun, which was what was going on in continental Europe around the 5th century AD, which is a duplication of earlier events within the same century.

Alaric and German tribes cross the Rhine and invade Gaul - 407 AD
Attila the Hun crosses the Rhine and invades Gaul - 451 AD
Difference: 44 years

Constantine III takes his British garrisons to occupy Gaul - 407
Aetius takes his Roman coalition to Gaul - 451
Difference: 44 years

Alaric invades northern Italy - 408
Attila invades northern Italy - 452
Difference: 44 years

Alaric sieges Rome but is ultimately paid off and leaves - 408
Attila threatens Rome but Pope Leo I appeases him - 452
Difference: 44 years

Top general of western empire Stilicho executed at Ravenna - 408
Top general of western empire Aetius executed at Ravenna - 454
Difference: 46 years

Goths under Alaric sack Rome - 410
Vandals under Gaiseric sack Rome - 455
Difference: 45 years

Two Roman generals take Constantine III to be executed - 411
Two Hun spies assassinate Valentinian III - 455
Difference: 44 years

Gallic nobility proclaims Jovinus emperor in the west - 411
Gallic chiefs appoint Avitus emperor in the west - 455
Difference: 44 years

Alaric takes Honorius’ sister, Galla Placidia, to Gaul - 412
Attila invades Italy to take Valentinian’s sister, Honoria - 452
Difference: 40 years

Jovinus is executed - 413
Ativus is executed - 456/457
Difference: 43/44 years

Constantius III drives Visigoths out of southern Gaul - 414-415
Majorian defeats Visigoths in southern Gaul - 458
Difference: 43/44 years

Wallia makes peace with Rome, sends pregnant wife - 415
Ostrogoth king Theodemir makes peace, sends son - 459
Difference: 44 years

Visigoths invade Gallaecia (Galicia, present-day Spain) - 416
Romans lead Visigoth army into Galicia (Spain) - 460
Difference: 44 years

Visigoths under Wallia invade Spain, expand kingdom - 418
Visigoths under Theodoric II invade Spain again, same - 461
Difference: 43 years

Pope Boniface dies after a 4-year reign - 422
“Puppet emperor” Libius Severus dies after 4-year reign - 465
Difference: 43 years

Aetius campaigns against Visigoths in southern Gaul - 426
Rome requests aid of Britons against Visigoths in Gaul - 470
Difference: 44 years

Nicene Creed declared completed at Council of Ephesus - 431
The compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is completed - 475
Difference: 44 years

Aetius beat by Bonifacius at Ravenna, flees to Dalmatia - 432
Nepos deposed by Orestes at Ravenna, flees to Dalmatia - 475
Difference: 43 years

Bonifacius makes his son-in-law Sebastianus commander - 432
Orestes makes his son Romulus Augustus emperor - 475
Difference: 43 years

Aetius returns from Hun territory to Italy, seizes power - 433
The Germanic king Odoacer invades Italy, seizes power - 476
Difference: 43 years

The list can be continued, but the sack of Rome in 476 AD is a good stopping point.

These parallel sequences of events obviously represent the same historical reality which has simply been artificially duplicated by Catholic scribes in the medieval period, conflating names and dates from different manuscripts.

There are only a handful of contemporary primary sources who are attributed with this information. For the earlier period, Zosimus is one source, who was actually a Greek historian from the 6th century, well after all of this is said to have transpired. So even calling him a "primary source" wouldn't be acceptable by modern standards, except that he's one of the best sources we have for this period, as poor as he is. Zosimus only writes of the earlier sequence and his account ends with the year 410. Orosius is another source whose account ends with the year 417 AD.

According to Ward, Heichelheim, and Yeo, A History of the Roman People (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003), pg. 487,


“After Zosimus and Orosius, however, whose works end in 410 and 417, respectively, there are no general narrative sources of even their limited breadth on which to rely. [!!!!] The more narrowly focused, though useful, ecclesiastical histories of Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates end in 408, 425, and 439, respectively.…From 439 onward, there are some thin chronicles. Prosper of Aquitaine continued Jerome’s Chronicles from 378 to 455. The Byzantine scholar John Malalas and the learned Spanish Bishop Isidore of Seville (Hispalis) both cover the fifth century in chronicles that start with Creation. Another Spanish bishop, Hydatius, continued Jerome to 468. Gennadius of Massilia continued Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus to ca. 500. Medieval Byzantine compilers like Photius and Constantine Pophyrogenitus preserve many valuable fragments from lost works.”


Here is another clue: 44/45 years just happens to be exactly the number of years between the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

The Julian calendar is said to have been inaugurated by Julius Caesar in 45 BC. Our familiar Gregorian calendar obviously begins with the year 0, using it as the same reference point.

So what likely happened is that two manuscripts were erroneously collated in the medieval period: one using the Julian calendar for giving its years, while the other used the familiar Gregorian calendar, creating an artificial split of 44/45 years between events.


This plays into British history because this is precisely the same time that the Anglo-Saxons are said to have began invading England, having come out of Eastern Europe with Attila the Hun, or, alternatively, with the invasion which duplicates it earlier in the same century.

Just as we have mirrored events separated by about 44/45 years (the new year used to fall on the Spring Equinox, thus accounting for some of these discrepancies as far as the exact number of years), I can also show that an artificial shift of 300 years takes us right to the Viking invasions of England beginning in 793 AD, but I'll probably save that for a later post, since this one is already lengthy.

But notice that all of this conflated history exists precisely within the window of time which Heinsohn has identified has having no archaeological or dendochronological evidence to independently support it.

That's not a coincidence.

[Justplain]

I say that prehistory is very old in a relativistic sense, compared to the yuga cycles mentioned earlier our 'recorded' history is an eyeblink. As i mentioned in an earlier post, a good logical way to verify ancient timelines is to analyse how these events are recorded with regards to the lunar cycles, and lunar eclipses. If there is a trustworthy record of these celestial events, and how these coincide with human events, then we have some benchmark to gauge how old these happenings are. As mentioned, the age of the battle of dwarka was reached in this manner.

Another very important thing to remember when discussing the age of civilzation, is that older civilizations, especially advanced ones, would have been centred on the ice age coastlines. The melting ice caps are said to have raised sea levels by as much as 300 feet. Our underwater archeology is embryonic, and possibly because they know it would destroy the current narrative. Here are some examples:

Dwarka: "Mainstream scientists maintain that ancient Indian culture/civilization goes back some 4-5 thousand years. Yet the ruins below the Gulf of Cambay go back at least 9 thousand years, i.e. to the time when the area submerged under water." Also, some recovered artifacts have been carbon dated to 25000 BCE.

http://www.unacknowledged.info/dwark...y-found-water/

The sunken pyramid city off Cuba: "Just over a decade ago, a team of explorers were working on an exploration and survey mission off the western coast of Cuba when their sonar equipment picked up a perplexing series of stone structures lying some 650 metres below the surface. "

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancie...ty-cuba-001883

I remember the author, Dr. Boulter (i believe) of the miniseries 'Pyramid Code' said that the second largest giza pyramid is built on the ruined foundations of a much older structure. Her Egyptian mentor said it was atleast from 50000bce. Other structures on the Earth appear to be even older.

So, i am not sure worrying about rhe potential loss of a few 100 years or more in the middle ages should deter us from examining the physical evidence of civilization that are 10's of thousands of years more distant in the past.

These ancient dates are further supported by homo sapien remains from 300k bce found in morocco and 125k bce found in california. This establishes a historical framework that its logical that these older civilization could reasonably be expected to have existed.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Carbon Dating

When it comes to dating archaeological artifacts, the modern scientific go-to is carbon-14 dating. It is the work horse of modern dating techniques. All other dating techniques that I know of, one way or another, always come back to rely upon carbon-14 dates for their "calibration" and ultimately their "verification." So if carbon-14 dating can be shown to have limitations, or especially if it can be shown that it can produce wildly inaccurate results, then our entire modern system of dating the ancient past comes into immediate question.

Carbon-14 analysis is based on the idea that this isotope of carbon occurs at a certain rate naturally in organic materials, and decays at a steady and predictable rate over time. Therefore, by analyzing a piece of organic material and determining the amount of carbon-14 within it, it is possible to determine how long that organic material has existed, because a reduced level of carbon-14 compared to background levels indicates a certain amount of time which has passed.

Carbon-14 dating also therefore depends upon accurate knowledge of naturally-occurring levels of carbon-14 in a given environment. It also requires knowledge of any other factors which may influence the levels of carbon-14 other than the passage of time. These factors may include anything from cosmic radiation, to the peculiarities of the metabolisms of specific plants. These different factors are currently understood to varying degrees.

So the important question is: how much trust should be put into carbon-14 dating?

Fomenko himself briefly summarizes the history and methods of carbon-14 dating in the first volume of his chronology series (beginning on page 74), which I'll reproduce here. As always, the numbers in brackets represent references to Fomenko's master bibliography, which can be found at the end of any of his works.


15. ARE RADIOCARBON DATINGS TO BE TRUSTED?

15.1 The radiocarbon datings of ancient, mediaeval, and modern specimens are scattered chaotically

15.1.1. Libby's initial idea. The first failures.

The most popular method claiming the capability of dating ancient artefacts independently is the radiocarbon method. However, the acumulation of radiocarbon datings has exposed the difficulty of the method's application.

According to Oleinikov, "Another problem had to be considered. The intensity of the atmospheric radiation is affected by many cosmic factors. The radioactive carbon isotope production rate should also vary, and one needs to find a method that would take these variations into account. Apart from that, over the period when highways and industrial plants have been introduced by the civilization, a gigantic amount of carbon from the combustion of wood, coal, oil, turf, oil-shales and their products emanated into the atmosphere. How does this atmospheric carbon affect the production of its radioactive isotope? In order to get veracious datings, one has to introduce complex corrections into calculations that reflect the changes in the content of the atmosphere over the last millennium. This issue, as well as a number of technical difficulties, casts a shadow of doubt over the precision of many radiocarbon datings." ([616], page 103).

W. F. Libby, the author of the method, wasn’t a historian, and did not question the veracity of the Scaligerian datings, which were used for the justification of his method according to his book. However, the archaeologist Vladimir Miloicic had proved this method to give random errors of 1000-2000 years, while its “independent” dating of the ancient specimens faithfully follows the datings offered by the consensual chronology. Naturally, there can be no talk of “proof ” here ([391], pages 94-95).

Let us quote some rather meaningful details. As we have already noted, W. F. Libby had a priori been certain of the veracity of Scaliger’s datings. He wrote that they “...had no contradictions with the historians in what concerned ancient Rome and Egypt. We did not conduct extensive research related to this epoch [sic! – A. F.] [Note -- this is one of the most hotly-contested areas of chronology even among mainstream historians], since its chronology in general is known to the archaeologists a lot better than whatever our methods could estimate, so the archaeologists were doing us a favour providing specimens [which are actually destroyed, being burned in the radiocarbon measurement process – A. F.]”([478], page 24).

[Note the above very carefully -- The man who invented the carbon dating method originally admitted that archaeologists who did not use his method already had a "a lot better than whatever our methods could estimate"!]

This confession of Libby’s tells us a lot, since the deficiencies of the Scaligerian chronology directly concern the regions and epochs that he and his team “did not research extensively enough.”

We can see that the Scaligerian archaeologists had been most reluctant about letting the radiocarbon method enter the “certainty epochs” of Scaliger’s history for fear of uncovering embarrassing discoveries.

Archaeologists have naturally no objections against applying this method to the undocumented prehistory since nothing capable of compromising consensual chronology can possibly be found there.

In what concerns the several reference measurements that were conducted on ancient artefacts, the situation is as follows. The radiocarbon dating of the Egyptian collection of J. H. Breasted “suddenly discovered the third object that we analyzed to have been contemporary,” according to Libby. “It was one of the findings... that had been considered... to belong to the V dynasty [2563-2423 b.c., or roughly four millennia before our time. – A. F.]. It had been a heavy blow indeed” ([478], page 24).

Why could it have been such a blow? The physicists appear to have restored the veracious dating of the Egyptian specimen, proving the old one to have been wrong. What’s the problem with that?

The problem is of course the simple fact that any such dating would prove a menace to the Scaligerian chronology. Carrying on in that vein would lead Libby to compromising the entire history of ancient Egypt.

The specimen that Libby had been careless enough to have claimed as modern had to be called a forgery and disposed of ([478], page 24), which is only natural since the archaeologists could not have possibly let the heretical thought of the XVI-XVII century a.d. (considering the method’s precision) origin of the “ancient” Egyptian finding enter their minds.

“The evidence that they [the proponents of the method – A. F.] use for proving the veracity of their method is rather insubstantial, with all the indications being indirect, the calculations imprecise, and the interpretation ambiguous, the main argument being the radiocarbon datings of the specimens whose age is known for certain used for reference... Every time referential measurements are mentioned, everybody quotes the results of the first referential datings that had been obtained for a very limited number of specimens [sic! – A. F.]” ([391], page 104).

Libby recognizes the absence of substantial referential statistics. Together with the millenarian dating deviations mentioned above (explained as a consequence of a series of forgeries), we may thus question the very validity of the method as used for dating specimens belonging to the period that we’re interested in, covering the two millennia preceding our century. This discussion does not pertain to the use of the method for geological purposes, however, where millenarian deviations are considered insubstantial.

W.F. Libby writes that “there was no deficiency in materials belonging to the epoch preceding ours by 3700 years for checking the precision and the dependability of the method” ([478], pages 24-25). However, there is nothing here to compare radiocarbon datings to, since there are no dated written documents belonging to those epochs. Libby also informs us that his historian acquaintances “are perfectly certain of the veracity of the datings referring to the last 3750 years [most assuredly a false assumption], however, their certainty does not spread as far as the events that precede this era” ([478], pages 24-25).

In other words, the radiocarbon method has been used most extensively for the period of time that doesn’t allow the verification of the results by any other independent method, which makes life a lot easier for the historians. The example that we quote below is most typical.

“The radiocarbon datings of the three inscription-bearing plaques found in Romania have put archaeologists in a quandary... The ashes that they had been found in prove them to be 6000 years old at the very least. Could the discovery of literacy have happened in a rural community in Europe and not in the urban and highly-developed Sumerian civilization? [Such an awful lot of space for the flight of exalted fantasy – A. F.] The scientists consider this probability to be very low... There have been many theories put forward for the explanation of this discovery that apparently refuted the reigning opinion on the origins of written language. Some of the archaeologists, without doubting the scientific principles of the radio-carbon method have suggested the method to be error-prone due to the effects of factors that haven’t been studied as of yet” ([478], page 29).

Could it be that the errors of the method are rather insubstantial and allow for an approximate dating of the specimens belonging to the last two or three millennia? The state of affairs appears to be a graver one. The errors of radiocarbon dating are too great and too chaotic. They can amount to several millennia in what concerns contemporary and mediaeval objects (q.v. below).

In 1984 the Technology and Science magazine had published the results of the radiocarbon method-related discussions from the two symposiums in Edinburgh and Stockholm (No 3, page 9):

“Hundreds [sic!] of analysis examples were quoted with dating errors ranging from 600 to 1800 years. In Stockholm the scientists lamented the fact that the radiocarbon method appears to produce the greatest distortions when applied to the history of ancient Egypt in the epoch preceding ours by 4000 years. There are other examples, some of them referring to the history of Balkan civilizations... Specialists have reached solidarity in their opinion that the radiocarbon method remains ambiguous due to the impossibility of proper calibration, which renders it unacceptable since it gives no calendarian
datings.”

PDF located here: http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N01-EN-071-092.pdf


Some additional resources:

7qbnju8fQyI

Over 50% of carbon dating tests are rejected outright for falling so far out of the accepted historical chronology, according to the lecturer above.


QbrklxLqAsw

7UxlRctd1pM


Finally, the guy in the presentation below is a creationist (ie he literally believes the world was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago, as per the Bible -- something which I do not agree with), but the contradictory data he is showing is very real.

2SuIt5BOGns


Some examples of these contradictions:

A mammoth is carbon-dated. One of its legs dates as 15,380 years old, while its skin is dated 21,300 years old.
A living mollusc was carbon-dated to be 2,300 years old in 1963.
The following was stated at a symposium in New York in 1970: "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." A very candid (and completely unscientific) admission.
Robert Lee wrote in a 1981 edition of the Anthropological Journal of Canada that "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends on which funny paper you read," referring to the unscientific nature of C-14 dating.

The video continues on with further examples up to more recent years, but you get the idea.

Once we realize that carbon-14 dating is not an accurate or reliable method of dating ancient artifacts, we are forced to return to the traditional methods of textual analysis and relative dating methods using by historians and chronologists for centuries.

Remember that many other modern forms of dating, such as argon dating mentioned in a previous post, are only forms of relative dating that much anchor onto a more solid foundation. Carbon-14 dating has been that "solid foundation," and as all of the above information shows, it is not a solid foundation at all, but a house of cards.

And what I will continue posting in this thread is a string of evidence that ancient and medieval chroniclers were not the honest and meticulous scribes we implicitly assume that they were. On the contrary, we will see that the medieval Catholic church and its scribes are responsible for attempting to cover up and bury an enormous amount of history.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Since carbon-14 dating is unreliable, and can produce wildly erratic results, how exactly are we dating the end of the ice age and the floods and sinking of land which accompanied it?

This sudden melting of glaciers at the end of the last glacial maximum is the same event that Graham Hancock documents as causing a global flood/cataclysm. It's what resulted in the submerging of ancient ruins underwater by rising sea levels, along with the shifting of tectonic plates that also raised and lowered land in different areas. So how exactly is this stuff being dated in the first place? When geologists say the ice age ended around 10,000 BC, or when archaeologists say ancient ruins were submerged around, say, 6000 BC, where are they getting these numbers?

This lecture provided by Central Washington University geology professor Nick Zentner explains some of that:

3wKOVZKimwg

After explaining that we know that massive flooding occurred in the northwestern United States (the Missoula Floods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods)), in areas that are long since dry and don't even have rivers flowing through them, he also explains that the difficulty is not in establishing that these floods took place at the end of the ice age, but in establishing an accurate date for when they occurred, and thus when the last glacial maximum actually ended.

The way they approach the problem of dating is to go to the places where the water would have stopped flowing the soonest, that have been the most dry for the longest periods of time. In these locations which have remained relatively undisturbed since the ice age floods ended, they seek the sediment left behind by the flooding and attempt to date it.

Mr. Zentner admits that the conventional dates for these events generally range from 12,500 to 19,000 years ago (a vague range of 6,500 years), and that geologists aren't even sure how many floods there were (multiple layers of sediment indicate multiple floods separated by time in some areas). Native Americans only began moving into these areas after the ice age ended and the glaciers were gone, so they would have appeared some time after 12,500 years or so ago, still using the conventional chronology. Notice that this is a form of relative dating to say that the Native Americans came after the glacial floods; it doesn't matter what the specific years are, they just know that the Native Americans couldn't possibly be living on top of glaciers or even in the path of their catastrophic flood waters.

The sediment itself can't be dated either apparently, because it's just finely-ground inorganic material... except that in one location, there is a layer of volcanic ash where a volcano erupted between all of the flooding and deposited a layer of ash between the layers of sediment. With massive repeat floods and a volcano erupting at the same time, this general period of time doesn't sound like it would have been too much fun, whatever the cause of it was.

The volcanic ash is dated by isotopic analysis, according to Zentner, and this is what provides a comparison for relative dating of the surrounding sediment layers. In other words, carbon 14 dating again. The same dating method which I showed in the post above to be wildly erratic in its determinations, and simply discarded by academics when the results don't fit the pre-conceived ideas, was the dating method used to determine, in this case, that the ash is 16,300 years old, according to Richard Waitt based on research in the 1970's.

Note also that the 1970's was prior to the carbon-14 dating method being trashed by Robert Lee in a 1983 issue of the Anthropological Journal of Canada as "13th-century alchemy" based on 'funny papers.' So one cannot argue that carbon-14 dating from this period had been refined into an accurate method, because clearly nothing had changed from the 1950's and 1960's, and still nothing has really changed about it to this day.


I found one of Richard Waitt's reports for the US Geological Survey, from 1983 (https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1983/0671/report.pdf).

He says explicitly on page 3:


Various intercalated tephra layers, radiocarbon dates, varve successions, and the Bonnevilie flood deposits in the region suggest that late-Wisconsin glacial Lake Missoula existed for about 2 millennia within the period 15,000 to 12,700(?) yr ago. Varve beds indicate that the mean period between Missoula floods was about 4 decades, but became shorter during the last several floods. Between 20 and 30 of the Missoula jokulhlaups occurred after the single great flood from Lake Bonneville, which according to 14c dating in the Bonneville basin by W. E. Scott and associates and by D. R. Currey occurred some time between 15,000 and 14,000 yr ago.

Both "radiocarbon dates" and "14c dating" are references to the same faulty carbon-14 dating method. So there is no question that this erroneous method, which also dates a living mollusc to 27,000 years ago, and different parts of an ancient animal as being thousands of years separated from each other, is the same method used to date the end of the last ice age. In other words, the dating of the end of the last ice age is based on a bunk dating method.

We can still figure out ancient events relative to one another based on the placement of the strata, but to pretend that carbon-14 dates are accurate in this case while being proven so embarrassingly wrong in so many other cases is to simply believe what is convenient in the absence of any data which is actually valid.

If carbon dating can take a mollusc which is alive today, analyze its organic matter for C-14, and determine it to be 27,000 years old, then there is no particularly good reason why the last glacial maximum could not have ended in the 4th century BC, only 1600 or 1700 years ago, rather than 12,000 years ago. I know most people have become accustomed out of habit to dealing with numbers in the thousands and tens of thousands of years, but that is why I am posting this here now: I am showing that there is no reliable basis to the dating method which was used to arrive at those numbers in the first place. It was all done via carbon dating.

In order for carbon dating to have "confirmed" the date for the end of the ice age, however, there had to have been some preconceived idea of where to place it, in order for the varying data not to have all been thrown out. The earliest reference I know of to such an early dating comes from the manuscripts of works attributed to Plato himself, regarding Atlantis, which he also dates to roughly 9500 to 10,000 BC or so, or about 12,000 years before the present, in other words. While this cannot count as independent verification, since carbon-14 data is simply thrown out if it doesn't fit the desired result, it does indicate that the Catholic scribes (through which Plato's manuscripts survive) did not censor Plato's dating despite it going clearly against Christian doctrine which was widely believed into the 1800's, that the world is only 6,000 years old or so. In other words, the Catholics had every reason to censor such a date and had no problem censoring other works and heavily editing and even outright forging them, but assuming that they faithfully copied Plato's works, they for some reason neglected to edit this date out despite it being a heretical idea.

Because of all of that, I suspect that the original idea of pushing these events so far back into time, and making them seem so remote and distant from us, despite there being no particular evidence for any of it, was conceived by the medieval church. What would be the interest in artificially pushing history back into the depths of time? For one thing, it makes it seem less relevant, when in fact it could be extremely relevant to our present circumstances. It also makes the idea of an ancient pre-catastrophe civilization seem so detached from us as to be alien, and an almost incomprehensible mystery.

On the other hand, if we knew that these events happened not so long ago after all, we would then realize that we are still uncomfortably close to the "mythological" circumstances surrounding all of those catastrophic events, which, if we go by the ancient texts, involved "watchers" and "Anunnaki" and all the rest. These beings described in the ancient texts continued to rule over human societies up into the historical period, or else there would be no ancient record of them, though they are dismissed today as "mythological" or "legendary." And this could even start us looking for them again today, and trying to pinpoint any remaining influence on us which has also survived the flood.

Notice that Noah's flood in the Bible, despite being a pretty good match to the kind of cataclysm that ended the ice age, must be dated much more recently than when geologists say the ice age ended, because (1) there were people already writing down and recording events, and (2) the Bible gives us a narrative which can be used to plug in Noah's flood to the histories of other nations and eventually connect it to the present day. Since there are flood "myths" all over the world which have many important details in common, and this could only happen if humans from all over the world witnessed the same events and recorded them within a relatively short amount of time, I would argue that the global cataclysm that destroyed "Atlantis" (and advanced settlements all over the world) has occurred within the historical period, and not during the prehistoric period. We might not be able to say whether that was 6,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago, or even more recently than that, but there most certainly is no archaeological evidence of people around 10,000 BC writing down all of these myths, even if we were to assume that the conventional chronology is correct. This all occurred much later, and so I would argue, the catastrophe itself also happened much later. Everything that existed before that catastrophe, must have been what we think of today as "Atlantis," but was really a worldwide civilization, including the beings recorded as the Anunnaki and all the rest.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

In the last two posts here I've gone into some detail about:


Evidence that carbon-14 dating is an erroneous dating method, producing wildly varying data and being used far beyond what it was originally intended for.
This same carbon-14 dating method has been used to establish the floods and other cataclysms which accompanied the end of the last glacial maximum, using the specific example of the Missoula Floods.
According to the conventional chronology, no human civilization existed when the last glacial maximum ended, and yet we have "myths" and "legends" from all over the world precisely describing a global flood and general cataclysm, suggesting that there were in fact people around when this disaster occurred and that a memory of it has been preserved within the historical era.
Using Noah's flood as the most familiar example to Westerners, this global cataclysm can be fit into a historical narrative leading us to the present day, further confirming that this disaster did not occur in the prehistoric period.
These same "myths" and "legends" are consistent in their description of "gods" or other special, advanced beings ruling over human societies prior to this disaster.


Taking all of this into consideration, the scenario presented is that (a) the massive global catastrophe that ended the ice age, destroyed "Atlantis," and ended the reign of the "gods" happened much more recently than 10,000 BC, and specifically must have occurred within the historical period (ie since human writing has existed), and (b) we can therefore identify and connect the history of "Atlantis," the Anunnaki, etc. into the modern era using existing historical evidence.

I'm building this case step-by-step and piece-by-piece deliberately so that I can start tracing these beings and the bloodlines they spawned right into the present era.

What we think of as "Atlantis" is not so far removed from us as we have been led to believe, and we have much more evidence of what their culture, architecture, and language was like than we realize. All we have to do is look back to those things which are on the very edge of recorded history, and we are staring directly at those things which we have been led to believe are beyond the memory of mankind. I am arguing that they are not in fact beyond our memory at all, and that we already have much more information than we realize. Only by intellectual slight-of-hand have we been convinced that this kind of knowledge has been lost to history.

When I pick all of this back up later I'll start building on the migrations that occurred after this disaster and the indications we have of the culture of the pre-cataclysm civilization. It involves Cro-Magnons, ancient Egypt, the Indo-European languages, ancient Indo-European architecture, and related subjects from the edge of recorded history.

[Justplain]

A few interesting circumstances that align with the idea that the great flood(s) occurred more recently than currently believed:

a) the 'water people' who invaded Egypt during the 1-2k bce period are described as refugees of some sort

b) the discovered remains of 'noah's ark' in anatolia was carbon dated (oh-oh!) to about 2.5-3.5k bce

c) the mound builders of America supposedly started mound building in America sometime in the range of 3.5k bce. The mound builders are thought of as possibly dennisovian hominid descent and possible refugees from Atlantis

d) the Peruvian elongated skulls of Brien Forster fame have been dna analysed as from the caucasus area of mid-eurasia, and were likely refugee denisovians from the same general period mentioned in the points above.

e) The buried Atlantis library in the Yucatan, of Edgar Cayce fame, although not excavated, has been carbon-dated (oh-oh, again) to about that 2.5 to 3.5k bce period.

In the longer term, it may be that our dating of more ancient fossils is inaccurate, as evidenced by:

a) hominid footprints being found in the same sediment layers as dinosaur tracks (there are more than two of these anomalies from what i have read).

b) inscriptions on temples in southeast asia depict dinosaurs that are quite anatomically accurate, and couldnt be from any known source. The dinosaur i remember seeing was a triceratops.

[Justplain]

Although i agree that the actual dating of the flood and prehistory may be inaccurate, i still disagree with the postulation that significant time has been erased of european history by some post reformation jesuit conspiracy. While i dont trust the vatican one bit, and have no doubt that they have censored the historical record, there are two prominent histories that chronicle the middle ages, that of the muslims and the byzantines. Here is a very detailed summary of the Byzantine history that bridges the gap of the european middle ages:

This history of the Byzantine Empire covers the history of the Eastern Roman Empire from late antiquity until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. Several events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the transitional period during which the Roman Empire's east and west divided. In 285, the emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305) partitioned the Roman Empire's administration into eastern and western halves.[1] Between 324 and 330, Constantine I (r. 306–337) transferred the main capital from Rome to Byzantium, later known as Constantinople ("City of Constantine") and Nova Roma ("New Rome").[n 1] Under Theodosius I (r. 379–395), Christianity became the Empire's official state religion and others such as Roman polytheism were proscribed. And finally, under the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641), the Empire's military and administration were restructured and adopted Greek for official use instead of Latin.[3] Thus, although it continued the Roman state and maintained Roman state traditions, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Orthodox Christianity rather than Roman polytheism.[4]

The borders of the Empire evolved significantly over its existence, as it went through several cycles of decline and recovery. During the reign of Justinian I (r. 527–565), the Empire reached its greatest extent after reconquering much of the historically Roman western Mediterranean coast, including north Africa, Italy, and Rome itself, which it held for two more centuries. During the reign of Maurice (r. 582–602), the Empire's eastern frontier was expanded and the north stabilised. However, his assassination caused a two-decade-long war with Sassanid Persia which exhausted the Empire's resources and contributed to major territorial losses during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century. In a matter of years the Empire lost its richest provinces, Egypt and Syria, to the Arabs.[5]

During the Macedonian dynasty (10th–11th centuries), the Empire again expanded and experienced a two-century long renaissance, which came to an end with the loss of much of Asia Minor to the Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. This battle opened the way for the Turks to settle in Anatolia as a homeland.

The final centuries of the Empire exhibited a general trend of decline. It struggled to recover during the 12th century, but was delivered a mortal blow during the Fourth Crusade, when Constantinople was sacked and the Empire dissolved and divided into competing Byzantine Greek and Latin realms. Despite the eventual recovery of Constantinople and re-establishment of the Empire in 1261, Byzantium remained only one of several small rival states in the area for the final two centuries of its existence. Its remaining territories were progressively annexed by the Ottomans over the 15th century. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 finally ended the Roman Empire.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Byzantine_Empire

[A Voice from the Mountains]

A few interesting circumstances that align with the idea that the great flood(s) occurred more recently than currently believed:

a) the 'water people' who invaded Egypt during the 1-2k bce period are described as refugees of some sort

I'm glad you mentioned this. The next thing I was going to post, was some info on ancient Egyptian texts which describe their ancestors coming from an island to the west, which was destroyed.

The implication is of course that the earliest Egyptians were survivors from Atlantis. So when you look at all those strange headdresses, the elongated skulls and all the rest... you are likely looking at what we might call Atlantean culture. It has been right in front of us the whole time.


From the Caribbean, all one has to do is hit the trade winds, specifically the Gulf Stream, that blows from the Gulf of Mexico, across the Atlantic Ocean to the western coasts of Europe. From the Strait of Gibraltar you enter the Mediterranean, which may have still been relatively small at that time, not much more than a river which was beginning to flood into a sea when the ice age ended. The fact that the Mediterranean was once much smaller, even a river at one point, in indicated in Edgar Cayce's work too.

There is a book entitled L'Histoire commence à Bimini which devotes an entire chapter to references in ancient Egyptian mythology to ancestors sailing from a sunken western island called "Amenti" to found Egypt as a colony. It's in French, but these are the highlights:


The Egyptian "Book of the Dead" references a lost terrestrial paradise to the west.
This paradise was also called the "kingdom of the dead."
Upon death, the Egyptians hoped to regain access to this lost paradise. (This is probably a later corruption of the story, turning it into a superstitious religion whereas it was originally a history.)
Chapter XXXII of the Book of the Dead has Osiris referencing this "country of the dead" and naming it "Amenti."
Chapter LXII Osiris is given as further stating that this lost country to the west was full of lakes, as the Caribbean would have been during the ice age when sea levels were lower.
Amenti is also said to have had a capital named "Sekhem," where the altar of Osiris was located.
Osiris' material body was offered up to the forces of evil in this myth, foreshadowing the story of Jesus and various other "pagan" cults of old.
Amenti's capital of Sekhem experienced warfare and finally total destruction, including "the terrible night of storms and inundations."
Some texts add references of fire to the storms and inundations.
Amenti was also a country of "canals and currents."
It was called the land of the setting Sun, again referencing the fact that it was to the west.
"Divine masters from the horizon of the west" who had survived the night of destruction at Amenti arrived in Egypt and founded a colony.



b) the discovered remains of 'noah's ark' in anatolia was carbon dated (oh-oh!) to about 2.5-3.5k bce

See, there is no evidence of any such cataclysmic flooding in North America during that same time period. If carbon dating were accurate, you would expect a worldwide flood to have the same dates in North America as it would in the Near East. On the contrary, the dates for such flooding vary enormously in different parts of the world, and yet the floods were of such biblical proportions that it is virtually inconceivable that they could have only affected a localized area and not impacted the whole world at once. So the obvious solution to this problem is to conclude that the cataclysm did in fact affect the whole world at the same time, and that the dating is simply wrong, just as it is with live molluscs or different parts of the same mammoth.


c) the mound builders of America supposedly started mound building in America sometime in the range of 3.5k bce. The mound builders are thought of as possibly dennisovian hominid descent and possible refugees from Atlantis

The unit of measurement used at the North American mound sites was also the same unit of measurement used in the Middle East, and this has been remarked upon by other researchers. If I remember correctly, Fritz Zimmerman covers this info in some detail.

And the "Egyptian" artifacts in said to have been found in America? In this interpretation, they wouldn't necessarily be Egyptian. It would be more likely that the Atlantean survivors of the catastrophe simply started a separate colony (or colonies) in the Americas, while some of them made it to Europe. They were scattered after the disaster.


d) the Peruvian elongated skulls of Brien Forster fame have been dna analysed as from the caucasus area of mid-eurasia, and were likely refugee denisovians from the same general period mentioned in the points above.

These elongated skulls are also attested in Egypt. Another connection.

http://nationalufocenter.com/artman/uploads/16egyptianprincess.jpg

These are the most obvious candidate for the "gods" that ruled over early human societies and created the bloodlines of kings for many centuries.

There was even a noble house from the medieval period in Italy that was depicted with these elongated skulls.

http://www.rivagedeboheme.fr/medias/images/pisanello..portrait.d.une.jeune.princesse.-v..1435-40-.jpg

This is a painting of a "young princess" dated to the 1400s AD!!



e) The buried Atlantis library in the Yucatan, of Edgar Cayce fame, although not excavated, has been carbon-dated (oh-oh, again) to about that 2.5 to 3.5k bce period.

By the way, these similar carbon dates, while totally meaningless in an absolute sense, might still provide some information as to relative dating. So we shouldn't pay much attention to the exact numbers, because they're likely way off, but the fact that similar results keep being returned might give us some confidence that they come from around the same time period, whenever it actually was.

But, as mentioned, we still don't know all of the environmental factors that impact C-14 levels, so we can't even be too sure of that.



In the longer term, it may be that our dating of more ancient fossils is inaccurate, as evidenced by:

a) hominid footprints being found in the same sediment layers as dinosaur tracks (there are more than two of these anomalies from what i have read).

b) inscriptions on temples in southeast asia depict dinosaurs that are quite anatomically accurate, and couldnt be from any known source. The dinosaur i remember seeing was a triceratops.

Yes, yes. Exactly.

It's hard to make a precise timeline out of these things but something is clearly wrong.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Although i agree that the actual dating of the flood and prehistory may be inaccurate, i still disagree with the postulation that significant time has been erased of european history by some post reformation jesuit conspiracy.

I haven't gotten to that yet, but I will get to it, and hopefully we can go over it in enough detail that you can begin to see the major fault lines in these histories.

There is a reason I wanted to cover the really old stuff, especially the fraud of carbon dating. It becomes important later when you realize how little primary documentation there is of huge chunks of the conventional historical narrative.

The absence of documentation for long sequences of history is very uncomfortable even for mainstream academics who are faced with these same problems, and so they fall back on trying to justify their narratives with .... dendochronology and carbon dating. So like I said, there is a reason I'm tackling those issues first. ;)

And if you still trust carbon dating, now would be a good time for you to help me understand why a living mollusc could be dated to 27,000 years old, along with all of the other problems shown above. These very basic problems with carbon dating need to be addressed first.

[happyuk]

We might not be able to say whether that was 6,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago, or even more recently than that, but there most certainly is no archaeological evidence of people around 10,000 BC writing down all of these myths, even if we were to assume that the conventional chronology is correct. This all occurred much later, and so I would argue, the catastrophe itself also happened much later.

I just wanted to make one contribution with a possible explanation why this might be so - the lack of evidence of the writing down of these so-called "myths", that is. I realise this kind of veers off topic so feel free to critique in any way:

Paper and stone are subject to the obliterating effects of time, which would would go some way to explaining the lack of evidence of really ancient writing. Better methods of preserving history may have been considered in the form of "myths" and "legends" recited throughout the ages, but containing pearls of truth nonetheless.

For example, in the immense literature of India, the extremely ancient Vedas (root: vid, to know) are the only texts to which no author is ascribed. For milleniums the 100,000 couplets of the Rig Vedas were not written down, but were orally transmitted by Brahmin priests and committed to memory.

The Vedas (myths) were a "revelation by sound" that have persisted through being a literature of chant and recitation from age to age to those whose memories were rigorously cultivated. The ancient rishis (literally seers) understood the superiority of mind over matter as the proper and permanent means of transmittal.

By observing the particular order in which Vedic words occur, and with the aid of phonological rules for combinations of sounds, and by proving in certain mathematical ways the accuracy of memorized texts, they have been able to preserve, from time immemorial, the original Vedas.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

By observing the particular order in which Vedic words occur, and with the aid of phonological rules for combinations of sounds, and by proving in certain mathematical ways the accuracy of memorized texts, they have been able to preserve, from time immemorial, the original Vedas.

There is a major problem with this, too, though: Sanskrit is an Indo-European language.

That means it shares a common origin with Latin, Greek, English, German, Russian, Persian, Irish, and many other languages.

So you can't argue that the Vedas go all the way back to 10,000 BC in this carefully-preserved oral form without having to stop somewhere along the line and account for the fact that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language not only existed first, but had to be given enough time to organically evolve into classical Sanskrit.

Furthermore, linguists are confident that what became Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek all split from PIE at the very end of the pre-historic period, shortly before written records first appeared.

Linguists are forced to recognized the conventional dates given for the emergence of Latin/Celtic/German/Slavic and Sanskrit in their respective regions, but if we were looking for evidence to support the New Chronology, that these languages split from each other much more recently than appreciated, we can find it:

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/87/1987-004-D63CCA80.jpg


Sanskrit compared to Lithuanian:

http://oi46.tinypic.com/2le2w4x.jpg


The Sanskrit of the Vedas is dated to around 1500 BC.

Latin emerged with the early Roman Republic, somewhere around ~700 BC or so.

The earliest Lithuanian text is from around 1500 AD.

That's a difference of 3000 years, and linguists are well aware of the very clear relation between the two languages. This is not only a problem of bridging distances but of bridging an enormous gap of time in linguistic terms. Lithuanian is called a "conservative" language for this reason, but that is only recognizing the problem, not explaining why this could be so.


By comparison, this is how English has evolved in only the past 1000 years:

https://scioel.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/6/2/13628701/2626862.png

Granted, some of the words in the above chart were introduced by the Norman invaders (Norman = Norsemen = 'Northmen' = Vikings), but this is also an Indo-European language from a common root, so it only goes to further illustrate how varied the original PIE had become by this time.

And none of this even remotely approaches a date so far back as 10,000 BC. Look at the dates thrown around for Noah's flood and you're much warmer, though still too far back. And again, there is only enough room in the archaeological record for one era of truly global cataclysms. So trying to split these events into multiple events only creates additional problems. The ice age could only end once.

[happyuk]

By observing the particular order in which Vedic words occur, and with the aid of phonological rules for combinations of sounds, and by proving in certain mathematical ways the accuracy of memorized texts, they have been able to preserve, from time immemorial, the original Vedas.

There is a major problem with this, too, though: Sanskrit is an Indo-European language.

That means it shares a common origin with Latin, Greek, English, German, Russian, Persian, Irish, and many other languages.

So you can't argue that the Vedas go all the way back to 10,000 BC in this carefully-preserved oral form without having to stop somewhere along the line and account for the fact that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language not only existed first, but had to be given enough time to organically evolve into classical Sanskrit.

Furthermore, linguists are confident that what became Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek all split from PIE at the very end of the pre-historic period, shortly before written records first appeared.

Linguists are forced to recognized the conventional dates given for the emergence of Latin/Celtic/German/Slavic and Sanskrit in their respective regions, but if we were looking for evidence to support the New Chronology, that these languages split from each other much more recently than appreciated, we can find it:

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/87/1987-004-D63CCA80.jpg


Sanskrit compared to Lithuanian:

http://oi46.tinypic.com/2le2w4x.jpg


The Sanskrit of the Vedas is dated to around 1500 BC.

Latin emerged with the early Roman Republic, somewhere around ~700 BC or so.

The earliest Lithuanian text is from around 1500 AD.

That's a difference of 3000 years, and linguists are well aware of the very clear relation between the two languages. This is not only a problem of bridging distances but of bridging an enormous gap of time in linguistic terms. Lithuanian is called a "conservative" language for this reason, but that is only recognizing the problem, not explaining why this could be so.


By comparison, this is how English has evolved in only the past 1000 years:

https://scioel.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/6/2/13628701/2626862.png

Granted, some of the words in the above chart were introduced by the Norman invaders (Norman = Norsemen = 'Northmen' = Vikings), but this is also an Indo-European language from a common root, so it only goes to further illustrate how varied the original PIE had become by this time.

And none of this even remotely approaches a date so far back as 10,000 BC. Look at the dates thrown around for Noah's flood and you're much warmer, though still too far back. And again, there is only enough room in the archaeological record for one era of truly global cataclysms. So trying to split these events into multiple events only creates additional problems. The ice age could only end once.

Those are solid points about the origins of Sanskrit, which I am not able to dispute and have no problem with. However this is not quite what I was getting at and the Vedas was given as an example. To me the language of choice is not the issue. Languages evolve. Humans have always needed to communicate in order to hunt, farm, interact etc.

The Rig Veda assigns a "celestial" origin to the hymns and tells us they have come down from "ancient times", re-clothed in new language.

The idea I am trying to put forward was the reason why there is a dearth of artefacts and evidence of written myths from that long ago.

The spiritual sages of yore, of whatever country and denomination, would have known acutely that the universe around us is transitory, changing and perishable.

They viewed the tangible universe around us as nothing more than dreams, illusions, and castles in the air.

Therefore they rightly concluded that committing certain truths to memory in the form of recitals and incantations would have been a superior means of preserving certain knowledge than pen and paper. "Mind over matter".

Veda simply means knowledge and you cannot put a date on knowledge, just as knowledge does not simply appear from out of a void - it is passed on - always.

[Foxie Loxie]

Excuse my ignorance here, but is there evidence that there WAS more than one catastrophic happening here on earth besides Noah's Flood?

The asteroid that supposedly slammed in & jolted the earth's crust....thus we find the woolly mammoths with buttercups in their mouth....is that what caused the Great Flood?

The Atlantian Disaster....makes me think of the writing that Kaus Dona is finding in various parts of the world. We are unable to read it. The giants that have been found?

As you can tell; I am enjoying immensely what you all are writing....trying to understand!! :bigsmile:

[Justplain]

Excuse my ignorance here, but is there evidence that there WAS more than one catastrophic happening here on earth besides Noah's Flood?

The asteroid that supposedly slammed in & jolted the earth's crust....thus we find the woolly mammoths with buttercups in their mouth....is that what caused the Great Flood?

The Atlantian Disaster....makes me think of the writing that Kaus Dona is finding in various parts of the world. We are unable to read it. The giants that have been found?

As you can tell; I am enjoying immensely what you all are writing....trying to understand!! :bigsmile:

Hi Foxie, i believe that the evidence shows that there have been numerous floods at various times over history, of varying magnitude. Apparently there was a really big one in Noah's day, often that one's associated with the demise of Atlantis.

If one looks at the ruins at Petra, Jordan, for instance, one can see water erosion marks (in the middle of the desert) at more than one level.

The 'doggerland' incident is suggested that a large glacial lake at the time of the end of the last ice age, had a wall collapse and the deluge of water swept away the land between England and europe and gouged out the English channel.

Supposedly the black sea was a lake before the sea rise burst through the dardenelles and flooded the area.

There was apparently a huge glacial lake in north america whose wall collapsed and the cold fresh water flooded the north atlantic and changed ocean currents for a while, which dramatically affected the climate of europe.

These types of catastrophy would likely occur after each ice age, so floods would result, thusly occuring over time.

Graham Hancock sites sources that he believes a comet strike ended the last ice age. His sources postulate that the main impact was on the north american ice sheet which released a deluge of water. This was likely Noah's flood.

The issue being discussed in this thread is when these events occured. Voice from the Mountaine rightly points out that carbon 14 dating is unreliable, and a lot of historical dating is faulty as a result. There seems to be an agreement that the flood may have happened more recently than generally held.

The other bone of contention is Fomenko's questioning of the current historical narrative. I believe he contends that most of the middle ages was a fictional period that didnt really exist, with this fraud permanently foisted by a guy the RC church hired in the early reformation to write up history, a guy named Scaligery (or similar). What Jayke and i contend is that there are too many corroborating evidences that contradict Fomenko's conclusion on this count. The last point i raised was that two parallel histories to Europe, that of the muslim arabs and the byzatines, make it highly unlikely that the middle ages did not occur.

Other interesting topics are the pre-history global civilization, the giants of antideluvean times, mound builders of america, the peracus elongated skulls, denisovians, etc.

All fascinating stuff.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The 'doggerland' incident is suggested that a large glacial lake at the time of the end of the last ice age, had a wall collapse and the deluge of water swept away the land between England and europe and gouged out the English channel.

Supposedly the black sea was a lake before the sea rise burst through the dardenelles and flooded the area.

There was apparently a huge glacial lake in north america whose wall collapsed and the cold fresh water flooded the north atlantic and changed ocean currents for a while, which dramatically affected the climate of europe.

These types of catastrophy would likely occur after each ice age, so floods would result, thusly occuring over time.

Actually all of those things you just mentioned occurred since the end of the last glacial maximum around 10,000 BC. They might be dated to later times by geologists, and maybe they did in fact occur after the main disaster, from some subsequent impact, but there has only been 1 global ice age which has been suddenly ended within the last 12,000 years. Geologists might talk about mini ice ages in different regions and climates changing in different parts of the world at different times, but this is all based on carbon dating again and I don't trust it. In the grand scheme of things, they really only have evidence for one really critical event ended the most recent glaciation.

I don't want to stray too far off the topic of chronology but what we think of as the "ice age" may not have been an ice age anyway. Siberia was temperate during the last "ice age," and supported plants that require warmer climates, when New York was simultaneously supposed to be under miles of ice. So to me that sounds like the Earth may have been slightly tilted on its axis by the impact (which Hancock argues hit around Montana, a pretty high latitude and good place to knock the Earth off balance), rather than the whole world actually being substantially cooler than it is today. It's kind of frightening to consider, but who knows.


The other bone of contention is Fomenko's questioning of the current historical narrative. I believe he contends that most of the middle ages was a fictional period that didnt really exist, with this fraud permanently foisted by a guy the RC church hired in the early reformation to write up history, a guy named Scaligery (or similar).

No, there is a really important misunderstanding about this. All of that history was not just written up by some guy. It was collated from different manuscripts from different times and places in different languages. All of that created duplications of the same events and a general confusion across the board. To what extent the Catholic church knew what they were doing, and did it on purpose, isn't really even relevant to the methods that can demonstrate that this is in fact what happened, which I'll eventually get into.

The whole thing is actually really complicated because of how much of a mess it is. There are different dating systems, different ways of counting when years begin, the different languages cause places and names to be translated inaccurately. There is a lot that is simply taken for granted as if the medieval scribes were 100% accurate all the time, when they most definitely were not. But because modern chronology was first assembled around the 1500s by Jesuits (prominently including Joseph Scaliger), and then passed down through subsequent generations to the established academic authorities to safeguard, we have never really been afforded a fair opportunity to scrutinize the underlying foundations of this chronology.


What Jayke and i contend is that there are too many corroborating evidences that contradict Fomenko's conclusion on this count.

In all fairness, you clearly don't even understand Fomenko's argument. Hopefully you'll get what I just posted above and realize what is probably the biggest difference between your understanding of his work and what the guy is actually saying. You have to get his argument straight before you can argue against it.

And I have to get a bunch of sources and documentation together before I can argue on his behalf too, because it involves digging into the historiography rather than just the history, and the provenances of manuscripts have to be considered along with the statistical analyses that Fomenko did on them. It's a lot of heavy reading and I'm trying to find ways to illustrate the major points with a minimum of reading.

You see all of those events I posted previously that were only separated by 44 years or so each? What do you think that's about? A pure coincidence, that just happens to fit the different in years between the Julian and Gregorian calendars? Think about it.


The last point i raised was that two parallel histories to Europe, that of the muslim arabs and the byzatines, make it highly unlikely that the middle ages did not occur.

Forgeries were a serious problem in the Arab world as well, and these chronological problems also appeared in Indian history after the British colonial period, and also in China and Japan, when traditional historians were forced to come to grips with Western academia, and Western civilization in general, which had literally forced its way into their societies during the colonial/imperial periods of European history.



Back to the evolution of languages...



Those are solid points about the origins of Sanskrit, which I am not able to dispute and have no problem with. However this is not quite what I was getting at and the Vedas was given as an example. To me the language of choice is not the issue. Languages evolve. Humans have always needed to communicate in order to hunt, farm, interact etc.

Right, and they tend to evolve over time. They can evolve a lot even within a relatively short amount of time, and this is usually true for languages, especially when they're only orally transmitted. The process of writing a language down is what allows for establishing a standard grammar, and helping to preserve it so that changes more slowly, but it will still evolve anyway, just as English has over the past 1000 years or so.


They viewed the tangible universe around us as nothing more than dreams, illusions, and castles in the air.

Therefore they rightly concluded that committing certain truths to memory in the form of recitals and incantations would have been a superior means of preserving certain knowledge than pen and paper. "Mind over matter".

I think there may be some truth to this, but I suspect it only applies to a past time period when "humans" (if we can even think of them in terms of modern humans -- just look at those skulls!) were much more intelligent than your typical human today. It may even be possible that the race which existed before the flood was capable of telepathy. I don't know that, but I've seen a lot of others kind of anecdotally make that argument based on the lack of carved writings on these megalithic sites (or even the pyramids at Giza), and I can't dismiss it. I just can't prove it either.

But since the disaster happened and humanity arrived at its current state of development, it tends to work out the other way around in practice: that where traditions have only been preserved orally, they tend to change much more rapidly than traditions which are preserved in a written language. All the variations on the medieval romances are one example, that the troubadours went around reciting. It becomes like the game of "telephone" where people pass around some complicated message back and forth until the message changes entirely. At least that's how it always seems to play out in our current state of development.

At any rate, if the language itself is changing, then the myths are bound to be changing too. Think of all the words and idioms we have in English that people don't think about anymore.

One example...

What does marshal mean? It's a law enforcement officer, but the word originally comes from "maior de cheval," or the military officer assigned to managing the king's horses for his cavalry. So "maior de cheval" eventually becomes mushed into "maréchal" by the French, and finally "marshal" in modern English. So we've preserved some sense of the fact that it's an officer, but we've forgotten a lot too, that we only remember because of the written trail of evidence. (Maior from Latin is also the source of major and mayor in modern English.)

So even though we don't mean to, we accidentally lose memory of the past all the time just from the way language itself evolves, and the connotations of words change. A lot of words are being redefined in the Internet age. This seems to be how the Indo-European languages all split apart from each other after the flood in the first place.



Excuse my ignorance here, but is there evidence that there WAS more than one catastrophic happening here on earth besides Noah's Flood?

The asteroid that supposedly slammed in & jolted the earth's crust....thus we find the woolly mammoths with buttercups in their mouth....is that what caused the Great Flood?

That's my take on it, Foxie. It's hard to prove a negative, that no other major floods occurred. Actually we know that other floods did occur, but not necessarily some cataclysmic global one on the scale of Noah's flood as described in the Bible, which is echoed in many other stories from all over the world.

At any rate, there was only one event that ended the last ice age, and it ended very suddenly. And now here we are.

Because the ice age is conventionally dated to have ended suddenly around 10,000 BC, which is an almost incomprehensibly long time ago, archaeologists and geologists in different parts of the world have tried to stttrrreeeeetttccchhh oouuutt the big geographical changes that occurred following that event, such as the Black Sea growing and flooding its banks, the Mediterranean becoming a true sea rather than a large river basin, much of the Caribbean sinking underwater, the Great Lakes forming, and a lot of other things. So they wait until around 6000 BC or so to say that the Black Sea was breached by the waters of the Mediterranean (which in turn had been breached by the Atlantic Ocean) and starts becoming a saltwater sea and things of that nature.

All of this could have in fact occurred very rapidly from a comet impact, but instead of piling everything back at 10,000 BC to fit that kind of utterly catastrophic scenario, they like to stretch things out as if to make the developments more gradual, despite there being no particular reason to explain why all of these things would keep happening over time (or even why the ice age ended in the first place, for that matter).

I have no problem with Hancock's theory that chunks of the comet later fell to earth and caused additional destruction. One of them appears to have landed near Britain and made it into the King Arthur stories, which must have taken place well after the ice age ended, when the Celts had already established a kingdom in what is now Wales. But I don't think any of these disasters could hold a candle to the one that ended the ice age. There is just no comparison to the magnitude, from any subsequent global event that geologists talk about.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Here is the duplication I am referring to, Justplain, for easier reference.

This covers Roman Empire history during the 5th century alone, between Alaric's invasion and Attila's invasion, ending with the sack of Rome in 476.


Alaric and German tribes cross the Rhine and invade Gaul - 407 AD
Attila the Hun crosses the Rhine and invades Gaul - 451 AD
Difference: 44 years

Constantine III takes his British garrisons to occupy Gaul - 407
Aetius takes his Roman coalition to Gaul - 451
Difference: 44 years

Alaric invades northern Italy - 408
Attila invades northern Italy - 452
Difference: 44 years

Alaric sieges Rome but is ultimately paid off and leaves - 408
Attila threatens Rome but Pope Leo I appeases him - 452
Difference: 44 years

Top general of western empire Stilicho executed at Ravenna - 408
Top general of western empire Aetius executed at Ravenna - 454
Difference: 46 years

Goths under Alaric sack Rome - 410
Vandals under Gaiseric sack Rome - 455
Difference: 45 years

Two Roman generals take Constantine III to be executed - 411
Two Hun spies assassinate Valentinian III - 455
Difference: 44 years

Gallic nobility proclaims Jovinus emperor in the west - 411
Gallic chiefs appoint Avitus emperor in the west - 455
Difference: 44 years

Alaric takes Honorius’ sister, Galla Placidia, to Gaul - 412
Attila invades Italy to take Valentinian’s sister, Honoria - 452
Difference: 40 years

Jovinus is executed - 413
Ativus is executed - 456/457
Difference: 43/44 years

Constantius III drives Visigoths out of southern Gaul - 414-415
Majorian defeats Visigoths in southern Gaul - 458
Difference: 43/44 years

Wallia makes peace with Rome, sends pregnant wife - 415
Ostrogoth king Theodemir makes peace, sends son - 459
Difference: 44 years

Visigoths invade Gallaecia (Galicia, present-day Spain) - 416
Romans lead Visigoth army into Galicia (Spain) - 460
Difference: 44 years

Visigoths under Wallia invade Spain, expand kingdom - 418
Visigoths under Theodoric II invade Spain again, same - 461
Difference: 43 years

Pope Boniface dies after a 4-year reign - 422
“Puppet emperor” Libius Severus dies after 4-year reign - 465
Difference: 43 years

Aetius campaigns against Visigoths in southern Gaul - 426
Rome requests aid of Britons against Visigoths in Gaul - 470
Difference: 44 years

Nicene Creed declared completed at Council of Ephesus - 431
The compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is completed - 475
Difference: 44 years

Aetius beat by Bonifacius at Ravenna, flees to Dalmatia - 432
Nepos deposed by Orestes at Ravenna, flees to Dalmatia - 475
Difference: 43 years

Bonifacius makes his son-in-law Sebastianus commander - 432
Orestes makes his son Romulus Augustus emperor - 475
Difference: 43 years

Aetius returns from Hun territory to Italy, seizes power - 433
The Germanic king Odoacer invades Italy, seizes power - 476
Difference: 43 years


Again:

The difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars is 45 years!

Purely coincidence?

You take Manuscript A in the Gregorian calendar, you add it to Manuscript B in the Julian calendar. You don't realize they're using two different calendars. They're also in two different languages, with different proper nouns for names and places. And what do you get?.... You get exactly what you see above!


And as I also posted previously, from my university textbook from when I took Roman history as part of my history major:


“After Zosimus and Orosius, however, whose works end in 410 and 417, respectively, there are no general narrative sources of even limited breadth on which to rely.

So not only do we have a massive series of coincidences, but we have virtually no real documentation from this exact same period. In other words, who are you really going to cite to say what really happened during the 5th century AD? There were no significant historians around whose works have survived!

Are you starting to get the picture?


And then we have pairs of events such as this:


Alaric takes Honorius’ sister, Galla Placidia, to Gaul - 412
Attila invades Italy to take Valentinian’s sister, Honoria - 452

Note that it was not uncommon for that period to describe women by relation to the men who were their custodians. In other words, "Honoria" is the feminine version of "Honorius," and could simply indicate that Honoria was under the custodianship of Honorius, just as wives are still sometimes referred to as "Mrs. (Insert husband's name here)" to this day. If the husband is John Doe, it'd be like writing "Mrs. John Doe." No different at all, except that it might have been extended to a sister in this case rather than a wife, but under Roman law, the patriarch had custodianship of all within his household.

The names "Alaric" and "Attila" are themselves not dissimilar, and Hungarian researcher Gyula Toth has some interesting takes on the significance of these names.

If you take the time to watch this presentation of his you'll get a much better idea of what's going on during this period:

zVNT5MELS7c

[norman]

I have a point for consideration that may or may not have value here.


If any of the known megalithic sites around the world are very ancient, their alignment to stars or 'true north' will give us a clue about whether there has been a tilt of the planet or not.


So many sites are so perfectly aligned that it would be quite exiting to find an ancient one that is NOT aligned.

[Foxie Loxie]

WOW! Many thanks! This is all so interesting & quite a puzzle to try & comprehend! I will have to go over it all VERY slowly!!

Norman....according to Michael Tellinger, "Adam's Calendar" in South Africa is NOT aligned to how the stars are now. He & Kerry did a video about it. :confused:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I have a point for consideration that may or may not have value here.

If any of the known megalithic sites around the world are very ancient, their alignment to stars or 'true north' will give us a clue about whether there has been a tilt of the planet or not.

So many sites are so perfectly aligned that it would be quite exiting to find an ancient one that is NOT aligned.

You mean the ones made of unshaped boulders?

Those are the ones I'm arguing were built in the wake of the disaster. They aren't anywhere close to the level of sophistication of the jigsaw-fitted block you see in the sites which I assume are pre-flood and which are often called "cyclopian" for whatever reason.

So the sequence would go like this:

Pre-flood advanced civilization, high technology --> Comet impact --> End of "ice age," massive global calamity --> Survivors all over the world immediately build "primitive" (relatively speaking) astronomical observatories to get a sense of what the hell just happened and to try to predict the timing of secondary impacts (the Taurid shower which happens around Halloween every year).

So I would actually expect all of those sites to more or less align to the exact same positions of stars as we see today, without even much allowance for procession of the equinoxes.

On the other hand, anything pre-flood may be radically off from any obvious alignments that we would notice today, because the Earth may have even had a different tilt to it. That's the wild card that I'm not sure of: whether or not the comet impact affected the tilt of the Earth.

[Jayke]

On the other hand, anything pre-flood may be radically off from any obvious alignments that we would notice today, because the Earth may have even had a different tilt to it. That's the wild card that I'm not sure of: whether or not the comet impact affected the tilt of the Earth.

When calculating the due North alignment of various sacred sites around the world, researchers have noticed that there have been at least 5 different alignments of the Earths Due North position. The Teotihuacan pyramid in Mexico and Chinese pyramids for example find alignment in Greenland. This causes some people to estimate the date of pyramid construction for these temples to be anywhere from 100,000 to 225,000 years old.

A gif image from the following website depicting the shifting North Pole positions during different epochal building stages of earths loooong history.

https://mariobuildreps.com/how-old-is-teotihuacan/

https://mariobuildreps.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Pole-V-to-I.gif



Fig. 8: This animation shows how the crust has been displaced in 4 stages over the last 350,000 years. Teotihuacan belongs to Pole III. The red dot represents the geographic North pole, i.e. the rotation axis of the Earth. The red dots become larger for older geographic poles; this indicates the growing deformation of the crust. All 5 geographic poles (including our current pole) are mathematically proven. The skin of the Earth deforms radically during high eccentric orbit around the Sun due to the gravitational oscillation. And this is what has caused the waxing and waning of “Ice Ages”

[A Voice from the Mountains]

If they're using a point on the Earth as a reference rather than astronomical alignments, do you want to take a wild guess what kind of dating method is fundamental to geological dating?

I really don't understand the fascination with throwing incomprehensibly huge numbers around when all it does is create massive gaps of time where nothing seems to have happened. So some people build a pyramid in 59803 trillion BC, and then they build another one a gazillion years later? And that's supposed to make some kind of sense to me? Or are the huge numbers just supposed to make me go, "wow," and be amazed? I really don't understand the fetish with it. It makes absolutely no historical sense.

The most absurd thing about it is attributing multiple alignment dates which are supposedly separated by enormous amounts of time, to the exact same architectural styles and even to the same exact sites. I see in the animation above that the Carnac site in France makes alignments with multiple hypothetical poles. So what do you think happened? Someone made an alignment with the pole in Carnac in a gazillion BC, and then somebody came back a trillion years later and used the same stones and construction style and everything, and aligned it to the new pole for no apparent reason?

[Jayke]

The most absurd thing about it is attributing multiple alignment dates which are supposedly separated by enormous amounts of time, to the exact same architectural styles and even to the same exact sites. I see in the animation above that the Carnac site in France makes alignments with multiple hypothetical poles. So what do you think happened? Someone made an alignment with the pole in Carnac in a gazillion BC, and then somebody came back a trillion years later and used the same stones and construction style and everything, and aligned it to the new pole for no apparent reason?

It’s an anomaly in construction that no-one on the planet has any answers for right now. To quote Mario, who created the image above, and left a comment to a question on his blog page:


Hi Greg, thank you for your comment. Why we haven’t published this list has a clear reason which has to do with how the mathematical proof works in detail. I believe it is somewhat difficult to explain in lay terms but I will try. The fact that one specific monument is oriented under a specific angle, let’s say the pyramid of Kukulkan, does not mean that this pyramid is as old as the pole it is pointing to. To proof the age of that specific monument requires much more detailed mathematical proof, so that coincidence can be excluded.
But the simple fact that over 60 monuments point to one specific location provides instantaneous proof, because the odds are simply too small for this arrangement to be coincidental. But it DOES NOT proof that every individual monument in this list of 60 is as old as that pole – that is not how mathematical proof works. I know, it is maybe difficult to grasp.

The same principle counts for studies to mass behavior of crowds; it’s simple how large crowds will behave in a certain situation, but it is impossible to predict with high certainty the behavior of one individual.

That is the reason why this list is not published without a severe study to every single monument, and that work will still take many years to come. Thanks for stopping by, Greg.

This comment was posted on July 30 2018, only several weeks ago. This is a relatively new area of study it seems, and I doubt any of us will have any answers for reconciling these anomolies anytime soon. Would certainly be open to hearing you try though...

[A Voice from the Mountains]

It’s an anomaly in construction that no-one on the planet has any answers for right now.

You mean it's obvious evidence that your interpretation of all of this is horribly wrong, and that what you just posted makes no sense on several levels, including the chronology, the architectural styles, and why these sites were built in the first place.

My interpretation of the same sites explains why they were built (to monitor a turbulent sky), places them in a logical sequence of when they were built (in the aftermath of the flood), and doesn't have the problem of trying to explain these absurd "anomalies" with the chronology.

I don't have to figure out why your theory has major holes in it. It's your theory. Mine doesn't have this problem. :P


Edit to add... You keep ignoring the carbon dating elephant in the room, but it's not going away just because you ignore it. This is exactly what establishment academia does: ignores inconvenient problems with their theories. You'll never arrive at anything even approaching the truth that way.

[Jayke]

It’s an anomaly in construction that no-one on the planet has any answers for right now.

You mean it's obvious evidence that your interpretation of all of this is horribly wrong, and that what you just posted makes no sense on several levels, including the chronology, the architectural styles, and why these sites were built in the first place.

My interpretation of the same sites explains why they were built (to monitor a turbulent sky), places them in a logical sequence of when they were built (in the aftermath of the flood), and doesn't have the problem of trying to explain these absurd "anomalies" with the chronology.

I don't have to figure out why your theory has major holes in it. It's your theory. Mine doesn't have this problem. :P


Edit to add... You keep ignoring the carbon dating elephant in the room, but it's not going away just because you ignore it. This is exactly what establishment academia does: ignores inconvenient problems with their theories. You'll never arrive at anything even approaching the truth that way.

Just out of curiosity, where do dinosaurs show up on your chronology? Do you accept the millions of years ago dating or does the carbon dating data suggest they may have been around much earlier than previously thought?

[ThePythonicCow]

It’s an anomaly in construction that no-one on the planet has any answers for right now.

You mean it's obvious evidence that your interpretation of all of this is horribly wrong, and that what you just posted makes no sense on several levels, including the chronology, the architectural styles, and why these sites were built in the first place.
That some observations of patterns in alignments of sacred temples does not explain why those temples were constructed with those alignments does not invalidate the observations.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

That some observations of patterns in alignments of sacred temples does not explain why those temples were constructed with those alignments does not invalidate the observations.

I don't want to get in another series of three or four posts trying to clarify what I'm saying like I did on the Q thread a couple weeks back or so, but there are more issues here than just what those megaliths align with and why they do. Re-read what has been posted again Paul and see if you can answer these questions:


If the ancient sites in the gif above are supposedly in alignment with different poles from different points in time, separated by vast epochs, why are they often (such as in Mexico/Central America) in the exact same architectural style?
Would it not be a fairly clear and obvious assertion that all of the sites built in the same architectural style were probably built by the same people around the same time frame? If not, why?
Do you believe that some people built these temples/megalithic sites to align with one pole, and then others came back thousands of years later to build more temples in the exact same architectural style to align to a different pole? Or perhaps you believe the same people simply lived to be tens of thousands of years old and just kept building in the same places, in the same architectural styles, after surviving each pole-shifting cataclysm?
If you believe that is the case, then why do all of these sites within a given geographical area (Central America, Northern Europe, India, etc.) fit within a single architectural style, but still vary from one geographical region to another? Do you believe cultures essentially remained static within fixed geographical areas for many thousands of years? Because this goes against everything that the historical record teaches about human migrations and cultural development.
What evidence do you have that these sites were meant to align with the poles in the first place?
Did you read what I posted about carbon dating? If so, how do you explain the numerous errors of tens of thousands of years which have been reported in respectable scientific journals for decades now?

[ThePythonicCow]

I don't want to get in another series of three or four posts trying to clarify what I'm saying like I did on the Q thread a couple weeks back or so, but there are more issues here than just what those megaliths align with and why they do. Re-read what has been posted again Paul and see if you can answer these questions:


...
Did you read what I posted about carbon dating? If so, how do you explain the numerous errors of tens of thousands of years which have been reported in respectable scientific journals for decades now?

I too don't want to get in such :).

I have not studied the various architectural styles and their chronology, so can't comment usefully.

Apparently we agree that carbon dating has problems.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Just out of curiosity, where do dinosaurs show up on your chronology? Do you accept the millions of years ago dating or does the carbon dating data suggest they may have been around much earlier than previously thought?

Some time before the last ice age ended is all I can say, and it appears that gravity was different at that time as well, if you pay attention to the physics indicating, for example, that a pterodactyl's neck would be broken by the weight of its head if it was alive today.

Proponents of the electric universe theory cover this variable gravity theory in a great amount of detail. Essentially they argue that gravity is a function of the electrical charge of the Earth as a whole, and can vary over time. Either the Sun can somehow affect the charge of the Earth, or else they theorize that a celestial body passing close enough to the Earth can cause giant electrical arcs through space that cause changes in the charge differential between planets, changing the gravitational constant.

okMOfYcbdI8

9wJp13z0MVI


I know it's a disappointing idea, but because carbon dating has so many very serious problems, there is no reliable way to date things absolutely across vast amounts of time. Maybe the best method for dating some sites is astronomically, using the known rate of procession and things like that, but if Hancock's comet altered the tilt of the Earth then even that can only go back so far before running into problems. So even astronomical dating has a "known unknown" that could potentially limit its usefulness.

Carbon dating, though, is completely bunk. A living mollusc dated to 27,000 years old? Different parts of a mammoth being dated to different periods thousands of years apart, from the exact same animal? You guys have a lot to explain to me if you expect me to take carbon dating seriously, and to all of the scholars who have been criticizing carbon dating in respectable journals over the past few decades as well.

As one of the journal contributors put it, studies using carbon dating are nothing but "funny papers."



Apparently we agree that carbon dating has problems.

Yes, that's putting it very modestly.

We would be more honest with ourselves if we could all just admit that it's nonsense that is only used as a form of confirmation bias when the results can conceivably be fudged into the "right" time period to fit a given theory.

The absolute maximum credibility I would give it, is for relative dating in cases where results are consistent from the same area. But that would only be relative dating again.

[Jayke]

The dinosaur question was a trick question btw. They don’t use carbon dating to date dinosaur bones. Bones that are fossilised become mineralised and don’t have any reliable carbon left to date. You don’t seem to know that, yet, you expect me to believe you’ve studied every site on the mariobuildreps.com website :confused: including the sites architectural style and archeoastronomy? Give me a break! You’re just doing mental gymnastics to keep your creationist Fomenko worldview intact.

Oh and btw! My worldview is one of cyclical, algorithmic time, there isn’t any holes in that theory of chronology, there’s only anomolies in the narrative (we don’t know who built what and for what purpose). In cyclical time, there’s no issue with trends being re-used and styles coming back into fashion, so, you’re going to have to try harder if you expect us all to generalise the empirical data away as easily as you seem to be able to do.

In my previous post I brought up the topic of archeo-astronomy—for the specific reason that archeo-astronomy has nothing to do with carbon dating—yet you interjected the fact that I didn’t mention carbon dating to try and ridicule my post. If it’s as unreliable as you claim, why would I try and defend it? :facepalm:

The boundary of the ice age in your chronology reeks of creationism, you may as well just say God created everything in 7 days after the ice age floods. I’m not buying that bunkum for a moment.

If you’re going to bring up Electric Universe theory, you may want to get familiar with Eric Dollard. He’s the worlds foremost expert on the physics and mechanics of electricity. He calls Quantum Physics “a khazarian circle jerk”, and his electrical model is built on the notion of cyclical time (Four Quadrant Theory of Electricity), you should really study his Versor Algebra.

You’re claiming to be an expert but you keep getting the basics muddled up. There’s an aspect of rhetoric called ethos (character) and you’ve made too many poor attempts at distinction for me to take you seriously, you’re credibility is fast approaching zero.

I’m more convinced now than ever that Fomenko (and those that follow him) are ‘Flat Earthers’ under a different guise.
I’ll stick to the Joseph Farrells and the Eric Dollards of the world. I haven’t got time for people who claim to be experts in rhetoric yet break every rhetorical rule, or blindly engage in every logical fallacy they tell others we shouldn’t be doing. Have fun proving a negative, Voice. I’ll only be following this thread for the entertainment value from now on.

[Foxie Loxie]

Archeo Astronomy......once again excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't this be the most reliable source for dating as it is possible to tie things in with when the heavens were in a certain alignment? :confused:

[Jayke]

Archeo Astronomy......once again excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't this be the most reliable source for dating as it is possible to tie things in with when the heavens were in a certain alignment? :confused:

Andrew Collins has a more recent presentation (than the one posted earlier in this thread) where he mentions the constellation Cygnus being an important marker for the precessional cycle. It gives us a starting place for understanding when things were being built and why. I’m currently reading through Collins book ‘The Cygnus Key’, and haven’t encountered any heavy reliance on carbon dating yet. It does seem archeo-astronomy is the best way to go for dating sites in relation to chronology imo.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCs4QKa3alc

[Ernie Nemeth]

I think that the farther back one goes the less reliable such a measure would be for many reasons. The obvious one is that earth has a wobble that almost certainly has to do with cataclysm in its past. Another reason is the magnetic alignment of strata that shows Earth's fields fluctuating over time, with varying explanations some to do with the sun's output cycle. Again an indication that upheaval has occurred in the solar system that could have radically altered the orbits of the planets. There are also stories that have since turned to myth from many sources with no connection to each other claiming strange alignments and other phenomena that according to modern views could not have happened. Just to touch on a few of the reasons, and not going into the origins of comets, sunspot cycle, galactic clouds, ice ages, and many more.

Archeo-astronomy is only as accurate as is the accuracy of our own understanding of the history of the solar system, which is not very solid at all. The method is most likely accurate for dates to 100,000 years, fairly good to dates back 1,000,000, and fifty-fifty any further than that.

I really like Mr. Collins. Going to watch the vid this weekend sometime. Thanks.

[Foxie Loxie]

Thanks, Jayke! Most interesting.....makes one question whether we will EVER understand the chronology of what has gone on here in the past!! :facepalm:

[Jayke]

Interesting tidbit from Collins book (page 301, The Cygnus Key)...


Roman Politician and Lawyer Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE) wrote that “Babylonians” as well as “those astrologers who, from the top of Mount Carcasus, observe the celestial signs and with the aid of mathematics follow the stars,” possess “records” of the observation of the stars covering a period of 470,000 years”

If we suspend disbelief for a moment and consider how many times the North Pole may have shifted over a 470,000 year period. It might explain why temples have been aligned to 5 different North Pole positions over the aeons. Any similarity in architectural style could be a result of rebuilding over the foundations of older sacred sites, foundations that were laid by the predecessor of modern Homo sapiens even. Collins mentions the bones of a species of human called Homo Heidelbergensis (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)01607-2) who have been found in the fossil records as far back as 500,000 years, and whose teeth and crania match the profile of giants (over 7 feet tall).

Did we inherit our star knowledge from humanities ancestors? Would certainly explain a lot of anomolies away for me if we did.

Foxie, I doubt we’ll ever know for sure, but it’s certainly fun to hypothesise and make educated guesses :highfive:

[Foxie Loxie]

WOW! "...covering a period of 470,000 years"! Amazing! Thanks for that quote, Jayke!

It IS fun to try to connect all the dots one has collected....at your young age, you're likely to come up with something before you "move on"! :bigsmile:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The dinosaur question was a trick question btw. They don’t use carbon dating to date dinosaur bones.

Did I say that they did? No. And yet the rest of your post was a big rant as if I had. You're out for blood without ever having taken the time to understand any of what I'm posting in the first place. Calm down, dude.


Oh and btw! My worldview is one of cyclical, algorithmic time, there isn’t any holes in that theory of chronology, there’s only anomolies in the narrative (we don’t know who built what and for what purpose).

"Anomaly" is just another way of saying that your theory can't satisfactorily explain reality and produces all kinds of nonsense conclusions that you then have to try to figure out ways to band-aid over.

And in the case of the problems I pointed out above, you're all out of band-aids and just resort to name-calling. If insulting me personally is all you have left in your intellectual arsenal, why don't you move along to another topic that better suits your interests?


In my previous post I brought up the topic of archeo-astronomy—for the specific reason that archeo-astronomy has nothing to do with carbon dating—yet you interjected the fact that I didn’t mention carbon dating to try and ridicule my post. If it’s as unreliable as you claim, why would I try and defend it? :facepalm:

The image you posted obviously wasn't using archaeo-astronomy. It was trying to connect alignments of megalithic sites to points on the Earth. Maybe you haven't taken the time to think this one through either, but astronomical dating involves tracking things in the sky, not on the Earth.

Sites on the Earth are dated by geologists and archaeologists and yes, they fundamentally depend upon carbon dating of organic material. A problem which you still refuse to touch with a 20-foot pole. It realize it's difficult to dance around promoting your theories when there is a massive black hole right in the middle of it, but that's your problem, not mine, and no reason for you to get angry at me about it.


You’re claiming to be an expert but you keep getting the basics muddled up. There’s an aspect of rhetoric called ethos (character) and you’ve made too many poor attempts at distinction for me to take you seriously, you’re credibility is fast approaching zero.

Another example of making this about me personally rather than responding to any of the actual information I've posted. Having fun, are you?


I’m more convinced now than ever that Fomenko (and those that follow him) are ‘Flat Earthers’ under a different guise.

How many flat-earthers do you know with 185-190 IQs like Isaac Newton (one of the first chronological revisionists) or Bobby Fischer? Or world-renowned mathematicians such as Fomenko himself? Not many, I would wager.


I’ll stick to the Joseph Farrells and the Eric Dollards of the world. I haven’t got time for people who claim to be experts in rhetoric yet break every rhetorical rule, or blindly engage in every logical fallacy they tell others we shouldn’t be doing. Have fun proving a negative, Voice. I’ll only be following this thread for the entertainment value from now on.

"Sticking to" people rather than argument is one of the most basic logical fallacies there is. The unintentional irony of your entire point is overwhelming.

[Jayke]

Just get on with providing the empirical evidence that supports your chronology, Voice... you’ve still got a long way to go before you’re able to overthrow the worldly accepted paradigm. :popcorn:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Archeo Astronomy......once again excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't this be the most reliable source for dating as it is possible to tie things in with when the heavens were in a certain alignment? :confused:

This question has been mentioned several times here already:


Whatever method is used to date Londinium timber before the primitive buildings from AD 930, the researchers (astronomers, dendrochronologists, C14-daters etc.) have to justify why the Roman-era buildings were not destroyed around AD 930 instead of the early third century.


Maybe the best method for dating some sites is astronomically, using the known rate of procession and things like that, but if Hancock's comet altered the tilt of the Earth then even that can only go back so far before running into problems. So even astronomical dating has a "known unknown" that could potentially limit its usefulness.


On the other hand, anything pre-flood may be radically off from any obvious alignments that we would notice today, because the Earth may have even had a different tilt to it. That's the wild card that I'm not sure of: whether or not the comet impact affected the tilt of the Earth.


Putting "archaeo" in front of "astronomy" just means that's astronomy in the context of ancient civilizations.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Just get on with providing the empirical evidence that supports your chronology, Voice... you’ve still got a long way to go before you’re able to overthrow the worldly accepted paradigm. :popcorn:

I'm still waiting for your response to this:


Here is the duplication I am referring to, Justplain, for easier reference.

This covers Roman Empire history during the 5th century alone, between Alaric's invasion and Attila's invasion, ending with the sack of Rome in 476.


Alaric and German tribes cross the Rhine and invade Gaul - 407 AD
Attila the Hun crosses the Rhine and invades Gaul - 451 AD
Difference: 44 years

Constantine III takes his British garrisons to occupy Gaul - 407
Aetius takes his Roman coalition to Gaul - 451
Difference: 44 years

Alaric invades northern Italy - 408
Attila invades northern Italy - 452
Difference: 44 years

Alaric sieges Rome but is ultimately paid off and leaves - 408
Attila threatens Rome but Pope Leo I appeases him - 452
Difference: 44 years

Top general of western empire Stilicho executed at Ravenna - 408
Top general of western empire Aetius executed at Ravenna - 454
Difference: 46 years

Goths under Alaric sack Rome - 410
Vandals under Gaiseric sack Rome - 455
Difference: 45 years

Two Roman generals take Constantine III to be executed - 411
Two Hun spies assassinate Valentinian III - 455
Difference: 44 years

Gallic nobility proclaims Jovinus emperor in the west - 411
Gallic chiefs appoint Avitus emperor in the west - 455
Difference: 44 years

Alaric takes Honorius’ sister, Galla Placidia, to Gaul - 412
Attila invades Italy to take Valentinian’s sister, Honoria - 452
Difference: 40 years

Jovinus is executed - 413
Ativus is executed - 456/457
Difference: 43/44 years

Constantius III drives Visigoths out of southern Gaul - 414-415
Majorian defeats Visigoths in southern Gaul - 458
Difference: 43/44 years

Wallia makes peace with Rome, sends pregnant wife - 415
Ostrogoth king Theodemir makes peace, sends son - 459
Difference: 44 years

Visigoths invade Gallaecia (Galicia, present-day Spain) - 416
Romans lead Visigoth army into Galicia (Spain) - 460
Difference: 44 years

Visigoths under Wallia invade Spain, expand kingdom - 418
Visigoths under Theodoric II invade Spain again, same - 461
Difference: 43 years

Pope Boniface dies after a 4-year reign - 422
“Puppet emperor” Libius Severus dies after 4-year reign - 465
Difference: 43 years

Aetius campaigns against Visigoths in southern Gaul - 426
Rome requests aid of Britons against Visigoths in Gaul - 470
Difference: 44 years

Nicene Creed declared completed at Council of Ephesus - 431
The compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is completed - 475
Difference: 44 years

Aetius beat by Bonifacius at Ravenna, flees to Dalmatia - 432
Nepos deposed by Orestes at Ravenna, flees to Dalmatia - 475
Difference: 43 years

Bonifacius makes his son-in-law Sebastianus commander - 432
Orestes makes his son Romulus Augustus emperor - 475
Difference: 43 years

Aetius returns from Hun territory to Italy, seizes power - 433
The Germanic king Odoacer invades Italy, seizes power - 476
Difference: 43 years


Again:

The difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars is 45 years!

Purely coincidence?

You take Manuscript A in the Gregorian calendar, you add it to Manuscript B in the Julian calendar. You don't realize they're using two different calendars. They're also in two different languages, with different proper nouns for names and places. And what do you get?.... You get exactly what you see above!


And as I also posted previously, from my university textbook from when I took Roman history as part of my history major:


“After Zosimus and Orosius, however, whose works end in 410 and 417, respectively, there are no general narrative sources of even limited breadth on which to rely.

So not only do we have a massive series of coincidences, but we have virtually no real documentation from this exact same period. In other words, who are you really going to cite to say what really happened during the 5th century AD? There were no significant historians around whose works have survived!

Are you starting to get the picture?


Any time you're ready.

[Jayke]

What’s the specific point of contention that you expect me to address? A 44 year anomaly in the records due to 2 calendar systems being used simultaneously hardly seems groundbreaking or worthy of debate.

....I’m sat here waiting for the good stuff you’ve got :popcorn:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

What’s the specific point of contention that you expect me to address? A 44 year anomaly in the records due to 2 calendar systems being used simultaneously hardly seems groundbreaking or worthy of debate.

So then you accept the premise that I've laid out above, about a chronological revision in the 5th century explaining an apparent duplication of events separated by about 45 years?

If you have no problem with that, and can accept that idea, then we're already making good progress, Jayke.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

By the way, you say what I showed above "hardly seems groundbreaking or worthy of debate."

So consider the following, and see if this really sounds so trivial to you:

It means that one of these sets of events is a repeat of the other.
It means that conventional history doesn't actually know what took place for 45 years in Europe during the entirety of the 5th century AD.
It means there is at least a 45-year gap in the historical record of the 5th century in Europe.
It means that at least one of these sets of events exists only on paper, though they are based on some form of events that actually happened.
It also means that Alaric and Attila are the same historical character, playing the same role and doing the same things.
It means that the Gothic invasion and the Hunnic invasion were actually the same event.
It means that the dating of the creation of either the Nicene Creed and/or the Babylonian Talmud is a lie too, because they are conflated in this parallel.


Are you sure none of that is worthy of debating? And you're sure you're comfortable with all of this before moving on to something else?

[Jayke]

It doesn’t mean anything specific! Those are all conjectures or speculations. It doesn’t mean nothing happened in the 44 year time span, it just means you don’t know what happened in the missing 44 years yet, or haven’t looked! Have these dates been cross-correlated with the Jewish calendar, which is in its 5778th year (supposedly), or the Chinese calendar? Which is in the year 4716? Or are you working off the assumption all other calendars around the world are also plagiarised? In which case you’ll be trying to prove a negative, and the burden of proof is squarely at your feet, requiring a mountain of evidence to refute.

It seems to me like you’ve been overly quick to infer meaning, without cross-correlating as many potential variables as possible. You do the same thing when criticising my posts. Your logical process goes:

X must mean Y

When in actuality...

X could mean A, B, C, D or any other variable you haven’t considered yet.

This is why what you’ve put so far hasn’t been worthy of debate. You need to build up a cross-correlational pattern. Let the empirical evidence speak for itself, without superimposing any preconceived ideas over the data. Like I said, you’ve still got a looooong way to go before anyone who accepts the dominant paradigm takes any notice.

There’s a psychologist called Albert Ellis, who talks of the dangers of MUSTerbation. People who jump to conclusions with a binary “either/or” interpretation of data i.e. “if it doesn’t mean ‘that’ then it MUST mean ‘this’”.

Binary logic is one of the first indicators—for people who are trained in rhetoric—to pay attention to, to determine where logical fallacies are creeping into a persons cognitive processing. (We call it ‘clutching at straws’, as in the beginning step of constructing a strawman argument)

GyRE-78g_z0

So, yeah, it’s important to act from the basis that your list of means could mean what you say they mean, but, they could equally mean several other things. You’ll require a much stronger case of cross-correlational evidence before any conclusive meaning can be accurately inferred.

Feel free to continue anytime now.... :popcorn:

[Justplain]

This is a very interesting thread, and i would like to thank the posters for keeping a lively debate, and mostly civil (please keep it that way).

I have some observations:

1) i really like the idea of cross tabulating dating records, particularly for human history of the past 10k years. I previously mentioned the byzantine history, which i posted a summary of, and the muslim arab record. Major events to correlate are justinians rule, the victories of saladin and the mongol sack of baghdad. Cross correlating these to the jewish and chinese calendars would be excellent proof, as well as relating these to lunar cycle records would anchor this. My guess is that the current chronology will generally be confirmed beyond much doubt.

2) the mathematical validation of sites pointing at various poles seems to be as believable as, or more believable than fomenko using mathematics to justify his conclusions.

3) humanoid habitations on the earth may date back millions of years (see the underground cities of anatolia and beyond that have been eroded over eons), so cicero claiming that they had star records back 470k years is no surprise.

4) i dont like Collins' assertion that the giza pyramids were developed as per classical dating of 4500 years ago. A lot of research has been conducted showing that the proportions of those pyramids and the construction of them were way beyond the capabilities of the pharohic civilization, that this ascertion is just an attempt to justify his cygnus key postulation.

[Jayke]

4) i dont like Collins' assertion that the giza pyramids were developed as per classical dating of 4500 years ago. A lot of research has been conducted showing that the proportions of those pyramids and the construction of them were way beyond the capabilities of the pharohic civilization, that this ascertion is just an attempt to justify his cygnus key postulation.

I was surprised to hear Collins make that assertion as well. Graham Hancock has put forward a good case showing how the Khufu markings were forged. I think the pyramids very well could have aligned to Cygnus—which is an important marker along the galactic equator—the problem with archeo-astronomy however is the precessional cycle repeats every 24,000 years, so, which iteration of the cycle is the right one? 4500 years old or 4500+24000+24000+24000??

The fact the pyramid aligns to our current True North position indicates it might have been built within the last 100,000 years (if the shifting of the North Pole position has any merit with geologists, which is an idea that does need further corroborating). Stephen Mehler and John Anthony West were both keen on roughly 50,000BC, since there’s qoutes from Egyptian culture indicating their civilisation to be 2 precessional cycles long.

I know Joseph Farrell thinks they're much older than that, along with some Russian scientists who dated the Sphinx to 800,000 years old (https://www.ancient-code.com/scientists-geological-evidence-shows-the-great-sphinx-is-800000-years-old/). As for me, I’m comfortable not knowing for now...I trust more data will be dug up to help add clarity to the conundrum.

Whatever happened to Carmen Boulter? She did an excellent interview with Dark Journalist at the start of last year! She seems to have gone silent since. I’ve not heard anything about the progress of her new ‘Atlantis’ show for a while. Anyone heard any updates?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=286sjgPOvc8

[A Voice from the Mountains]

It doesn’t mean anything specific! Those are all conjectures or speculations.

You can't have it both ways, Jayke.

First you said it was 'hardly groundbreaking', and not even worth arguing about, but I was right in suspecting that you would change your mind about that quickly once I pointed out the real implications of it. Now you have to backtrack and say it's conjecture and speculation, rather than that it "hardly seems groundbreaking."


It doesn’t mean nothing happened in the 44 year time span, it just means you don’t know what happened in the missing 44 years yet, or haven’t looked!

You aren't paying close attention to my posts at all. I cited my university textbook on Roman history above. There are no contemporary sources for this period of Roman history!

I'll post that bit for you again here so you don't even have to scroll up to read it:


“After Zosimus and Orosius, however, whose works end in 410 and 417, respectively, there are no general narrative sources of even limited breadth on which to rely."

I posted the rest of that passage earlier in this thread. Where else are you going to look to see what happened in the 5th century AD in Europe, Jayke? Tell me what sources you are going to consult. Maybe if Nostradamus looked into the past instead of the future you could use him as a source?


Have these dates been cross-correlated with the Jewish calendar, which is in its 5778th year (supposedly), or the Chinese calendar? Which is in the year 4716? Or are you working off the assumption all other calendars around the world are also plagiarised? In which case you’ll be trying to prove a negative, and the burden of proof is squarely at your feet, requiring a mountain of evidence to refute.

None of that matters, because no Chinese or Jewish scholars recorded Roman Empire history of the 5th century AD either.

There are no contemporary sources.

All of the historical stuff you see paralleled above came from historians who are said to have lived many decades, even centuries, after all of that stuff happened. They weren't there themselves, and there is no way to reconstruct how they learned of this "history."


This is why what you’ve put so far hasn’t been worthy of debate. You need to build up a cross-correlational pattern.

You mean you want me to invent additional sources out of thin air?

What part of "there are no general narrative sources of even limited breadth on which to rely" don't you understand?

And this is a university textbook on Roman history that says this, not me. I'm just the messenger on this one. Your demands are impossible and ridiculous, and ignorant of the reality of the historiographical situation in the 5th century AD in Europe.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

1) i really like the idea of cross tabulating dating records, particularly for human history of the past 10k years. I previously mentioned the byzantine history, which i posted a summary of, and the muslim arab record. Major events to correlate are justinians rule, the victories of saladin and the mongol sack of baghdad. Cross correlating these to the jewish and chinese calendars would be excellent proof, as well as relating these to lunar cycle records would anchor this. My guess is that the current chronology will generally be confirmed beyond much doubt.

You'd be surprised. Problems with astronomical dating of Ptolemy's Almagest are what led Fomenko (a mathematician) to challenge the conventional chronology in the first place.

This is covered in the first few minutes of this video (start around the 3:20 mark):

HN3S8ncDehY


The problems with Ptolemy's dating of ancient celestial events are well-known. A NASA scientist attempted to "resolve" the problem by claiming that the Moon has accelerated within the historical period and then returned again to its previous rate of orbit, for unknown reasons. Another "anomaly" in the bogus chronology.

Fomenko thought the theory of the Moon changing its orbital pattern within recent history was ludicrous, and challenged Ptolemy's dates instead. And that was the beginning of all of his later work.

Nonetheless, in order to defend the conventional chronology, we even have a NASA scientist trying to tell us that the Moon has sped up and then slowed back down within the past 2000 years, without any supporting evidence, just because he ridiculously refused to challenge the accuracy of the dates applied to an ancient text. As if the dating of Ptolemy's Almagest is a harder science than the physics of lunar rotations. :rolleyes:

The cross-referencing to other calendars likewise has limitations, especially considering that most of them have been heavily revised in modern times. The histories of both India and China, for example, have had to be re-interpreted through Western lenses since the imperial period. As you're probably aware, Europe was heavily involved in both India and China in the 1700's and 1800's.

I know of an Indian revisionist, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who has revised Indian chronology similar to what I'm talking about here for European chronology. And this guy is totally independent and came to his conclusions by studying native Indian historical texts, not by consulting with European revisionists. He blames the erroneous chronology on European imperial colonizers trying to cover up India's true history.


2) the mathematical validation of sites pointing at various poles seems to be as believable as, or more believable than fomenko using mathematics to justify his conclusions.

You may have missed my responses to this, so I'll just repeat a single question to you:

If the ancient sites in the gif Jayke posted are supposedly in alignment with different poles from different points in time, supposedly separated by vast epochs, then why are the sites supposedly pointing towards different poles (such as in Mexico/Central America) in the exact same architectural style?

You have to do some critical thinking here. Exactly how long are you willing to believe that the megalithic style of Carnac was executed without change? For so long that the Earth's poles changed before their style of architecture did? These are very primitive works compared to the pyramids or the jigsaw-puzzle-like sites. And the same of the sites in Mexico? Where is the evidence for development over time? And I still haven't seen what leads these researchers to the conclusion that these alignments were meant to point to any pole in the first place. Just because certain alignments converge (often multiple alignments all taken from the exact same sites) doesn't tell us what they were converging upon.


3) humanoid habitations on the earth may date back millions of years (see the underground cities of anatolia and beyond that have been eroded over eons), so cicero claiming that they had star records back 470k years is no surprise.

How are the carved rock structures in Anatolia dated?

You can't date rock structures by any sort of chemical or otherwise objective analysis.

As far as trying to gauge the erosion goes, remember that John Anthony West and Robert Schoch have a related problem with the Sphinx: areas that are now desert once experienced much greater amounts of rainfall, and therefore water erosion would have been much faster before the global climate change that created these deserts.

In order to try to guess how old a rock structure is by erosion, these people are assuming a constant rate of erosion going back deep into the past, when the reality is the past was demonstrably much wetter at some point.


4) i dont like Collins' assertion that the giza pyramids were developed as per classical dating of 4500 years ago. A lot of research has been conducted showing that the proportions of those pyramids and the construction of them were way beyond the capabilities of the pharohic civilization, that this ascertion is just an attempt to justify his cygnus key postulation.

In the version of events I'm laying out, which is reflecting in the Book of the Dead itself, as the Osiris myth, Egypt was a colony of Atlantis.

Except they didn't say "Atlantis," which was Plato's term preserved by the Catholic church. The Egyptian texts are translated as calling this sunken island homeworld "Amenti."

Either way, mythical place names as Atlas/Atlantis/Albion/Avalon/Amenti/Aztlan/etc. could easily all be from a common origin. Languages naturally vary enough to easily account for the differences over time. I posted a bunch of info from a French author on the Book of the Dead and Osiris myth references on a previous page.

[Jayke]

Maybe you should ask Joseph Farrell about the era of time in the 5th century. Being a doctor of patristics, I’m sure he’ll point you in the direction of some source articles, although no doubt you’ll dismiss anything he provides you as being “inauthentic, a Renaissance forgery”. Patristics deals precisely with the era of time you’re talking about, have you ever consulted Farrell for his expertise on this issue?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patristics

Among those whose writings form the basis for patristics, (i.e. prominent early Church Fathers), are:

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 108)
Pope Clement I (c. 1st century AD – c. 101)
Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155)
Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165)
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 120 – c. 202)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)
Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225)
Origen (c. 185 – c. 254)
Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258)
Athanasius (c. 296 – c. 373)
Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379)
Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – 389)
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 – c. 395)
Jerome (347 – 430)
Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)
Vincent of Lérins (d. bef. 450)
Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444)
Maximus the Confessor (580 – 662)
Isaac of Nineveh (d. 700)
John of Damascus (d. 749)

Just because YOU haven’t found any source documents written in the 5th century, doesn’t mean time stood still for the rest of the world during that period. All you’re highlighting is that the Roman Empire wasn’t as prolific as the Venetian oligarchs make out it was, which is what I’ve already agreed is the only part of Fomenkos work that has merit.

Like I keep saying, just continue building your argument with the empirical data that you do have. We can argue all day about opinions, there’s nothing productive about that though, the only thing that’s going to move this debate along is the empirical evidence that you build your argument around.

Lack of evidence doesn’t provide proof of a theory.

You have to build a stronger case based on the evidence you do possess.

How long are you going to keep us waiting, give us some substance already :popcorn:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Maybe you should ask Joseph Farrell about the era of time in the 5th century. Being a doctor of patristics, I’m sure he’ll point you in the direction of some source articles, although no doubt you’ll dismiss anything he provides you as being “inauthentic, a Renaissance forgery”.

Again, I cited a university textbook on Roman history on the lack of 5th century sources. You can go find the same textbook and educate yourself if you feel like it.

Patristics is the study of the early church fathers and has to do with theological material.



Among those whose writings form the basis for patristics, (i.e. prominent early Church Fathers), are:

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 108)
Pope Clement I (c. 1st century AD – c. 101)
Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155)
Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165)
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 120 – c. 202)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)
Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225)
Origen (c. 185 – c. 254)
Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258)
Athanasius (c. 296 – c. 373)
Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379)
Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – 389)
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 – c. 395)
Jerome (347 – 430)
Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)
Vincent of Lérins (d. bef. 450)
Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444)
Maximus the Confessor (580 – 662)
Isaac of Nineveh (d. 700)
John of Damascus (d. 749)

The only church fathers you just listed who are even relevant to this time period are these:


Jerome (347 – 430)
Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)
Vincent of Lérins (d. bef. 450)
Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444)

Out of those four, why don't you look up their historiography and see if it contracts my university textbook? I'll give you a hint: they don't.


Just because YOU haven’t found any source documents written in the 5th century

Come on Jayke. Please read my posts if you're going to respond to me. I know some of them are long, but can you at least do me that favor before making me endlessly repeat myself?

How many times do I have to repeat myself that it's not me who is saying this??

Until you start actually reading what I'm posting? When will that be? Never?


I'll try this again. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

Ward, Heichelheim, and Yeo, A History of the Roman People (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003), page 487 (a textbook on Roman history used in universities):


“After Zosimus and Orosius, however, whose works end in 410 and 417, respectively, there are no general narrative sources of even limited breadth on which to rely. The more narrowly focused, though useful, ecclesiastical histories of Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates end in 408, 425, and 439, respectively.…From 439 onward, there are some thin chronicles. Prosper of Aquitaine continued Jerome’s Chronicles from 378 to 455. The Byzantine scholar John Malalas and the learned Spanish Bishop Isidore of Seville (Hispalis) both cover the fifth century in chronicles that start with Creation. Another Spanish bishop, Hydatius, continued Jerome to 468. Gennadius of Massilia continued Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus to ca. 500. Medieval Byzantine compilers like Photius and Constantine Pophyrogenitus preserve many valuable fragments from lost works.”

This is the full extent of primary historical sources attributed to this period of history.


Like I keep saying, just continue building your argument with the empirical data that you do have. We can argue all day about opinions

The above is not an opinion.


Lack of evidence doesn’t provide proof of a theory.

The fact that the version of history you were (apparently not) taught at school lacks evidence is a problem.


You have to build a stronger case based on the evidence you do possess.

Translation: "It's uncomfortable for me to be on the defensive about the conventional historical narrative which I can't actually defend and has no evidence to support it, so please move on to something else so I can more convincingly make cynical comments and post popcorn animations."

[Jayke]

Did You ever consider that new findings, new research and new discoveries have been made since your university textbook was published? Seems like the book you’re basing your opinion on is 15 years out of date.

Universities are controlled by the same jesuits who rewrote history during the Renaissance anyway, so, how do we know they didn’t just rewrite history again in the book they gave you to read?

EDIT: Are you ever going to give us at least an outline of what your version of chronology is? Is it true Fomenko believes the story of Christ occurred in 1000AD for instance. Where within this whole non-existent Roman scheme of things does Christ fall within your chronology?

So far you’ve established...

Pre-12000BC = dinosaurs
12000BC = end of ice age
12000BC - ???? = an advanced human society aligning temples all over the world to variously random yet surprisingly consistent points (due to a turbulent or shaky sky)

Then you’ve jumped to 5th century AD = Romans didn’t exist

Excuse my ignorance but where are you actually going with any of this? What’s your overall bigger picture? Can you give us a brief breakdown of your general chronology so we can all get back on track?

[Jayke]

Again, I cited a university textbook on Roman history on the lack of 5th century sources. You can go find the same textbook and educate yourself if you feel like it.

Well I thought I’d take your advice and study not the outdated textbooks that Jesuit re-writers of history control, but, the more up-to-date journals that haven’t been through the cultural Marxist whitewashing of Roman history yet. How’s this for a fascinating article (written this year as well :bigsmile:)

================

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X18300671?via%3Dihub

Intestinal parasites from public and private latrines and the harbour canal in Roman Period Ephesus, Turkey (1st c. BCE to 6th c. CE)

Highlights

Investigated intestinal parasite infection at Ephesus during the Roman Period.
Infection with whipworm and roundworm was widespread.
Species present was fairly uniform over 7 centuries of occupation.
Compared with parasites in northern Europe in the Roman Period.

Abstract


To improve our knowledge of the parasite species affecting the inhabitants of Roman period Asia Minor, we analysed faecal material from Ephesus, Turkey. Mineralised material from the drain from a private house latrine (3rd c. CE), sediment samples from the sewer drain of a public communal latrine (6th c. CE), and sediment from the harbour canal (ca. 1st c. BCE to ca. 6th c. CE) were studied for the presence of intestinal parasites. Samples were viewed by light microscopy for helminth eggs, and commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits were used to test for protozoal parasites that cause dysentery. Eggs of roundworm were found in the public latrine, whipworm in the house latrine, and both whipworm and roundworm in the harbour canal. Sequential sampling of the harbour core suggests that whipworm was by far the most common parasite throughout the Roman period, and there was no clear evidence for change in parasite species over the centuries. Whipworm and roundworm are both spread by the contamination of food and drink by human faeces. Despite the large number of travellers to Ephesus, as the capital of its province and a major port city in the Roman Empire, there was a surprising lack of diversity in parasite species found. This is especially apparent when we consider that ten species of intestinal parasite have been found across the Roman Empire. This is the first Roman site to be directly assessed for differences between infection in individuals using private latrines, public latrines, and mixed town effluent (in the harbour) at the same site.

=================

7 centuries of Roman occupation in Turkey, covering the 5th century that the Jewish Banking family man, Heichelheim, didn’t mention in his book “A History of Roman People”.

Pretty sure you’ve just had your point debunked with human excrement :happythumbsup: if you hadn’t been so pompous with your proselytising over these last few posts, I might almost feel sorry for you, because that’s really got to sting!

Here’s the address of the university that helped with the study...

Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, The Henry Wellcome Building, Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge CB2 1QH, UK

I’d love to see the correspondence you have with Cambridge telling them how they got their datings wrong because some guy at Toronto university said in a book 15 years ago that Romans didn’t exist in the 5th century. That’s going to be hilarious...I’m going to have to get the popcorn back out for that one :popcorn:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Did You ever consider that new findings, new research and new discoveries have been made since your university textbook was published? Seems like the book you’re basing your opinion on is 15 years out of date.

It's still in use without correction. Maybe you are so much more knowledgeable about history that you can find the newly-discovered sources for the 5th century that everyone else is missing?


Universities are controlled by the same jesuits who rewrote history during the Renaissance anyway, so, how do we know they didn’t just rewrite history again in the book they gave you to read?

I agree that history as is taught has been completely corrupted, but you are only arguing my point now.

Using your opponent's own sources against them is called using an argument against someone's own interests. It actually strengthens a case, if you take the time to think about it. The opposite would be only using sources from people who believe as I do, and that would hardly be convincing.


EDIT: Are you ever going to give us at least an outline of what your version of chronology is? Is it true Fomenko believes the story of Christ occurred in 1000AD for instance. Where within this whole non-existent Roman scheme of things does Christ fall within your chronology?

Fomenko has an enormous body of literature that you could read if you actually had any interest. I see a lot of defensiveness about things you don't understand, which is rather normal when people feel their beliefs are threatened. Unfortunately you can feel that your beliefs are threatened and still be utterly wrong about all of this, and since you repeatedly show you have no initiative in engaging the material itself, it's very unlikely that you are ever going to get to the truth of any of this.


So far you’ve established...

Pre-12000BC = dinosaurs

You believe dinosaurs existed some time after 12,000 BC?


12000BC = end of ice age

No, closer to 10,000 BC, which is 12,000 years ago. Please try to keep the basic math straight in your head. It's kind of relevant.


12000BC - ???? = an advanced human society aligning temples all over the world to variously random yet surprisingly consistent points (due to a turbulent or shaky sky)

Again, the last ice age ended around 10,000 BC according to conventional dating, based on carbon dating, which I do not believe. So I'm actually not arguing any of these dates for the end of the last ice age at all. After all these posts, you haven't even been paying enough attention to get that right.

As much as I repeat myself, and you still get basic stuff like this wrong, can you see why I am losing interest in even trying to discuss any of this with you? You are so arrogantly sure of yourself that you don't even read what I post.


Then you’ve jumped to 5th century AD = Romans didn’t exist

That's not what I said either. This conversation is going nowhere until you learn to read my posts.


Excuse my ignorance but where are you actually going with any of this? What’s your overall bigger picture? Can you give us a brief breakdown of your general chronology so we can all get back on track?

I posted a video above regarding Fomenko's work directly but as per usual you didn't pay any attention to that either.

HN3S8ncDehY


If you had watched even the first few minutes of it as I had instructed, you would realize that your conventional chronology actually requires the Moon to speed up and slow back down at the end of the first millennium AD.

Do you have any sources to prove that the Moon slowed down and sped back up in the centuries around 1000 AD?

If not, there's another "anomaly" with your chronology.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Well I thought I’d take your advice and study not the outdated textbooks that Jesuit re-writers of history control, but, the more up-to-date journals that haven’t been through the cultural Marxist whitewashing of Roman history yet. How’s this for a fascinating article (written this year as well :bigsmile:)

I guess this never crossed your mind, but the methods they use to establish their dates are also kind of relevant.

I notice you didn't bother to post those, though.


7 centuries of Roman occupation in Turkey, covering the 5th century that the Jewish Banking family man, Heichelheim, didn’t mention in his book “A History of Roman People”.

I didn't realize you've already read my university textbook too, but you know what? You must not have been paying attention to what it said either because you're completely wrong about that too.

What do you think, my university is teaching Fomenko's New Chronology? Of course they mentioned that whole framework. And you know what else? I completely understand the layout of the conventional chronology. I've also spent a lot of time studying the revisionists, of which Fomenko is only one (and the most controversial). You, on the other hand, only have a limited understanding of the former and a complete lack of understanding of the latter. So you aren't in an advantageous position to start with, and to top it all off, you don't even read my posts and repeatedly make very basic mistakes about all of this.


I’d love to see the correspondence you have with Cambridge telling them how they got their datings wrong because some guy at Toronto university said in a book 15 years ago that Romans didn’t exist in the 5th century. That’s going to be hilarious...I’m going to have to get the popcorn back out for that one :popcorn:

You realize Oxford and Cambridge are the British equivalents of the Ivy League in the US, right? As in, the institutions where groups such as Skull and Bones come from? These universities are central to all of the problems in modern academia precisely because of their leading ideological roles.

These same universities don't seem to have any problem with any calendar discrepancies whatsoever, and yet even you just said above:


A 44 year anomaly in the records due to 2 calendar systems being used simultaneously hardly seems groundbreaking or worthy of debate.

[Jayke]

Just go ahead and lay out the case for the chronology you wish to make. I’ve already moved on to other areas of research. I’m sure other people are still interested in your worldview.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

While you have your popcorn out watching the above video like I'm sure you will, I'll post some other aspects of Fomenko's work and you try to make sense of these.

Since you don't bother reading the words I type anyway, why don't you just meditate on that video along with these pretty pictures and what they are showing you:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Fomenko_-_Roman_Empire_parallelism.jpg

http://www.jostemikk.com/bilder/fig-5.jpg

https://andreumarfull.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/taula-18-1fom-ru.jpg

http://www.jostemikk.com/bilder/fig-4.jpg

https://andreumarfull.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/taula-17-1n06b-en.jpg

http://chronologia.org/en/en_history/im/fig-1a.gif

http://chronologia.org/en/en_history/im/fig-1b.gif

[Jayke]

I’ve been meditating on the codex below for a while now...at what date would you place this exhibit on your timeline?


https://www.bl.uk/collection-guides/papyri


https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/subjects%20images/classics/papyrus-aristotelian800.jpg?w=624&h=351
Papyrus 131, frame 1. The Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians. Egypt (Hermopolis), c. 100 AD




About the collection

The British Library holds over 3000 papyri, along with several thousand unframed fragments. Greek and Latin papyri are cared for by Western Heritage Collections. Papyri in other languages are cared for by Asian and African Collections.

The papyrus series runs from Papyrus 1 to Papyrus 3136. The Egerton Papyri (37 in total) form a separate sequence.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I’ve been meditating on the codex below for a while now...at what date would you place this exhibit on your timeline?

You watched that video I posted awfully fast didn't you? It's funny you didn't have any comment on it though.

I think you didn't watch it.

I'll post it again for convenience.

HN3S8ncDehY


And how do you think those papyri are dated?

Hint: they're made out of organic material. Carbon dating must be like a religion to you.


And no comment on these?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Fomenko_-_Roman_Empire_parallelism.jpg

http://www.jostemikk.com/bilder/fig-5.jpg

http://www.jostemikk.com/bilder/fig-4.jpg

http://chronologia.org/en/en_history/im/fig-1b.gif

[Jayke]

I asked where the papyri falls on YOUR timeline, I didn’t say anything about it’s dating as described on the British Library website. It just helps us to get our bearings so we know where the empirical evidence, (i.e. the real world artefacts) can be placed within Fomenkos new chronology. Or does he answer my question in the video? I’ll watch it when I’ve got time for tv watching. I’m reading ‘Prometheus The Awakener’ by Richard Tarnus before bed tonight, the science of archetypal astrology, it’s an excellently insightful read so far.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I asked where the papyri falls on YOUR timeline

As opposed to yours, which you should obviously realize is wrong by now unless you really believe carbon dating is accurate?

You aren't going to accept anything I say until you realize that what you believe is wrong. So why should I bother trying to explain anything to you, when (a) you don't actually try to understand or even read what I post, and (b) you still obviously believe a fairy tale?

Like I said, I started by criticizing carbon dating for a reason, and you still haven't even caught up to that yet.

[Jayke]

Was it this study you referred to with the carbon dating again?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Sci...224...58R


http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/snails.html


Many biblical creationists, convinced that the world was but about 6,000 years old, or certainly not more than 10,000 years old, were posting on the internet examples of carbon dating test that produced obvious wrong results, even extraordinarily wrong results. One example was the story of how living snails were carbon dated and the results showed they were 27,000 years old. Atheist bloggers who make sport of challenging creationists were calling this utter nonsense. One prominent Atheist blogger wrote: “No person in their right mind would try to date--that is radiocarbon date--a living snail." Addressing himself to a particular creationist blogger he added: "Where do you get such ridiculous garbage.”

It wasn’t garbage. It turns out that a scientist had carbon dated living snails and didn't get those results. Alan Riggs with the U. S. Geological Survey did so. In 1984, he published a paper in The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s prestigious journal, Science, which reported that a live snail from an artesian spring in Nevada was found by carbon dating to be 27,000 years old. This, and numerous other such tests have taken on almost mythical proportions. What is often ignored are the explanations. Riggs had attributed the obvious error to the . . .

fixation of dissolved HCO3 [bicarbonate] with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium. Recognition of the existence of such extreme deficiencies is necessary so that erroneous ages are not attributed to freshwater biogenic carbonates.

What this means in simpler terms is that the shells of the snails were formed from existing ancient material from which most of the carbon 14 had been depleted. It is an exception to the normal way carbon 14 is absorbed by living things. There is nothing wrong with carbon dating, per se. Riggs’ point was that what causes anomalies must be accounted for. To hold this example up as a reason to distrust carbon dating is completely bogus. But to suggest that there might be reasons, yet unknown, for being wary of tests on certain organic material was quite reasonable. Was linen such a material? What about Egyptian mummies? They are wrapped in linen.

Some shroud scholars who are not creationists by any means picked up this example as an anomaly that clearly showed that carbon dating wasn't always correct.

Nobody needs to accept either chronology as wrong until all the facts are heard from both sides of a debate. This isn’t religious fundamentalism, this is a sharing and synthesising of data.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Was it this study you referred to with the carbon dating again?

No, my post is here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103822-Phantom-Time-and-Chronological-Revisionism.&p=1241572&viewfull=1#post1241572).

How much longer do you think I'm going to tolerate typing up these long posts to have you not even read them? It's selfish, disrespectful, and insulting if you ask me.

You just tried to summarize everything I've been saying in this thread and couldn't even distinguish between 12,000 years ago and 12,000 BC. And you still don't even realize that I'm arguing against those dates. Sad. Very sad.

Until you actually start reading my posts I'm not going to waste much more time with you.


Nobody needs to accept either chronology as wrong until all the facts are heard from both sides of a debate.

I thought that's what you were here for?

[Jayke]

Selfish, disrespectful and insulting...that has been evident in your tone towards me since the start of this thread, yes. Pretty sure all I’ve been doing is asking you to fulfill the burden of proof for your theories. You’ve been typing up lots of opinions and conjectures, sure, but if you expect a deeper response then you’ve got to ground your opinions in something more substantial. Apologies if you find me asking for evidence to be disrespectful.

Now, where were we on syncing your chronology with this codex, how many years BP would you put this at:

https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/subjects%20images/classics/papyrus-aristotelian800.jpg?w=624&h=351
Papyrus 131, frame 1. The Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians. Egypt (Hermopolis), c. 100 AD

[Justplain]

Voice, sorry, i dont understand those diagrams you posted from fomenko. I really cant see how this explains byzantium or the rise of the muslim arabs which all occurred, according to the conventional narrative, during the period of the middle ages that i am lead to understand fomenko claims didnt exist.

[Jayke]

Was it this study you referred to with the carbon dating again?

No, my post is here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103822-Phantom-Time-and-Chronological-Revisionism.&p=1241572&viewfull=1#post1241572).

The conclusion from the post you linked to:


The video continues on with further examples up to more recent years, but you get the idea.

Once we realize that carbon-14 dating is not an accurate or reliable method of dating ancient artifacts, we are forced to return to the traditional methods of textual analysis and relative dating methods using by historians and chronologists for centuries.

One of the “traditional methods of textual analysis and relative dating methods using by historians and chronologists for centuries” is the field of research called Palaeology, which studies the evolution of alphabets, hand writing styles and the evolution of ideas over geography and time.


https://www.schoyencollection.com/palaeography-collection-introduction


Palaeography, the study of the various types of old scripts and their development geographically and over time, is a vast field. The collection of over 2000 examples is large to cover the Western scripts, comprising Europe, Near East and the Americas. The rest of the world has not been collected with palaeography specifically in mind, but are nevertheless represented in examples elsewhere in the special collections. The first section 4.1. The beginning of writing and the first alphabets, is, nevertheless, aimed at being a fairly coherent presentation world-wide.

The Schoyen collection (https://www.schoyencollection.com) is one such collection of over 840 original source codices, that spans 5000 years of culture and civilisation—non-dependant on carbon dating—because the evolution of ideas within the texts demonstrate how cultural writing styles and key ideas have dispersed in tandem with the growth of civilisations over the millennia. This is the collection of just 1 private individual, Martin Schoyen, how many private collections do you suppose exist like this one around the world?

Example of a source document for ‘Homers: Odyssey’, in the Schoyen collection, for instance:


https://www.schoyencollection.com/papyri-ostraca-collection/greek/homer-odyssey-ms-5069

https://www.schoyencollection.com/media/djcatalog2/images/homer-odyssey-ms-5069_f.jpg


Homer's poems were originally composed orally in the 8th c. BC, and transmitted orally until written down in many different versions several centuries later. The first critical editions were made by the Alexandrian scholars, Zenodotus (325-234 BC), Aristophanes, Librarian of Bibliotheca Alexandrina (195-180 BC), but foremost Aristarchus, Librarian of Bibliotheca Alexandrina (180 - ca. 145 or 131 BC), who published his definite edition in the middle of 2nd c. BC, which is still the standard.

The very few surviving Homeric papyri that date from before Aristarchus' edition, are of the greatest textual importance, since they alone preserve the earlier forms of the poems, as they were recited by singers in the archaic and classical periods. The present MS is the earliest of book 12, and the only one from the pre-Aristarchan period. It has alternate versions of some lines, and there are no less than 8 additional lines not recorded in any MS. This earliest preserved version of the story of Kirke, is about 30 % longer than the standard version. There is a possibility that the present MS also reflects Aristophanes' recension. In that case it would most likely have been copied in Bibliotheca Alexandrina.

Homer is represented in The Schøyen Collection by MS 112/33, The Iliad XV:511-515, ca. 100, MS 112/57, The Iliad II:195-197, 2nd c., MS 112/80, The Iliad XI: 1-5, 2nd c. (the earliest witness to the text and not otherwise extant on papyrus); MS 2628, The Iliad XVI:2-15. 32-37, 40-43, 47-61, 75-91, 1st c. BC-1st c. AD; MS 5094, Homer: The Iliad XVII:637-644, 679-685, + 1 extra and 1 new line (earliest witness to text), 3rd c. BC; MS 5069, The Odyssey XII: 9 - 14; 17 - 28; 41 - 46, late 3rd -2nd c. BC (earliest witness to text); and MS 2629, The Odyssey XI:509-603, ca. 1st c.

If even 1 of the 2000 source documents, used within the field of Palaeology, falls on the worldly accepted chronology—precisely where the accepted chronology says it does—then isn’t that enough to disprove this whole Fomenko madness?

How do you know none of these original source documents are accurately dated?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Selfish, disrespectful and insulting...that has been evident in your tone towards me since the start of this thread, yes.

Except that I've actually taken the time to read and respond to every one of your posts, which is more than you can say.

5 pages into this thread and you still can't tell the difference between 12,000 years ago and 12,000 BC, or even that I've been arguing against the validity of those dates the whole time.

Yes, that is insulting, and borderline trolling. It's clear that your mind was made up before you even knew what the hell I was trying to say, which you clearly still don't. Communication is a two-way street and I don't talk to walls.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Voice, sorry, i dont understand those diagrams you posted from fomenko.

At least you have the honesty to admit it.

Apparently this whole subject is too much for most people to grapple with, so I'm just going to drop it here and just continue it on the forums where people actually read and take the time to understand each other before responding.

A crazy idea, I know.

[Jayke]

Selfish, disrespectful and insulting...that has been evident in your tone towards me since the start of this thread, yes.

Except that I've actually taken the time to read and respond to every one of your posts, which is more than you can say.

5 pages into this thread and you still can't tell the difference between 12,000 years ago and 12,000 BC, or even that I've been arguing against the validity of those dates the whole time.

Yes, that is insulting, and borderline trolling. It's clear that your mind was made up before you even knew what the hell I was trying to say, which you clearly still don't. Communication is a two-way street and I don't talk to walls.

May I remind you that in post 13 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103822-Phantom-Time-and-Chronological-Revisionism.&p=1241097&viewfull=1#post1241097) you made a similarly insulting misrepresentation of the chronology I was proposing. I mocked your version of chronology, just as you’d previously mocked mine. Reflecting back the other debaters own rhetorical tactics is a genuine strategy, which helps test Ethos (character).

In your case it seems what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander. Acting all butt-hurt and misunderstood because you can’t handle the same degree of rhetorical misrepresentation that you troll others with.:facepalm:
Whatever dude! I just see it as banter. :chess:

In the future though, you may want to consider, that, if you can’t handle it back, don’t dish it out to begin with!

Maybe Fomenko is a genius or a revolutionary, but in lieu of the fact that you can’t provide a shred of evidence, or even make any comment on the thousands of pieces of evidence that are held in the British Library and Schoyen Collection that disprove Fomenkos theory. Then we’ve got no other option but to slot Fomenko in with the ‘known hoaxes’. But if it’s not a hoax, and you genuinely believe you have the evidence to support it, then the onus is still on you to learn how to sell it to others better.

Plato described rhetoric as “the ability to explain the truth”, so if you can’t explain your truth in a way that others can understand, then you’ve not been using rhetoric at all! You’ve been using a form of ‘Aristotelian reductionism’ that gets taught in universities these days, as a verbiage attack tool, designed for Social Justice Warriors to insult their victims into submission, and then act all butt-hurt and abused when others reflect their own logic back at them. It’s a style of rhetoric that’s lost all power in the 21st century, as can be seen with its use against Trump and Trumps continually soaring approval ratings regardless of all the names the media calls him.

I do admire your tenacious denial of the reality principle though, Voice, a necessary skill for writing good fiction. I know asking a troll for evidence is like asking a vampire to step into sunlight. So, it’s understandable that you feel the need to flee into the shadows, where you can preach your theory to the more gullible and credulous. I won’t feel insulted for holding you to a higher standard here on Avalon though. The empirical standard of debate is the gold standard afterall. Any form of debate that doesn’t have empirical evidence at the foundation, is nothing but fools-gold!

Thanks for playing, it’s been fun! :highfive:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I'm not "butt hurt" because you insulted me. I'm "butt hurt" because I spend a lot of time and effort putting a lot of information into posts, and you skip over them and don't even read them, and then ask stupid questions that would have been answered if you had just read my posts.

That's why 5 pages into this thread you still erroneously believe(d) I am a proponent of the ~10k BC end of the ice age.

So I'm not wasting any more time in this pointless circle jerk. It's that simple.

[Jayke]

I was happy for you to just lay out your evidence—and make your case without me commenting—at least until the whole theory was explained in detail (which I still am). You’ve been the one incessantly calling me out and challenging me to comment. If you still want to lay out the evidence for your case, feel free, I won’t butt in!

Build your case without insulting anyone and I won’t feel obliged to defend ones honour by putting any fallacious thinking to the sword :fencing:

If I walk away from this thread, can you build your case without insulting me or dragging me back into it? I’m sure others are still interested in hearing a detailed exposition of Fomenkos theory?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Too many cups are too full here. So nah. Maybe later.

In the mean time, plenty enough has already been posted for anyone genuinely interested. For those who are genuinely interested, I would direct their attention to the presentation by Toth Gyula posted previously (who was in turn adding onto the work of German revisionist Heribert Illig), as well as the documentary on Fomenko's work above.

As no one has commented on the explosive information in them, I can only assume that there is no real interest in them in the first place.

The parallel jets are important, but if someone doesn't even spend enough thought to differentiate between 12,000 years ago and 12,000 BC, then that's not going to cut it. This isn't superficial stuff that you can just skim over that sloppily before knee-jerking out a reaction like that.

[Foxie Loxie]

Thanks for all the information, guys!! :highfive: Much here to reflect upon! :bowing:

[gord]

It is a really interesting thread. Something weird happened with chronology, but it's way too tangled for me to unravel.

What a tangled web we weave...

[ThePythonicCow]

Yes, that is insulting, and borderline trolling.
Since you're clearly a skilled and practiced expert in such matters, I suppose I should grant more credibility to your appraisal than I presently am.

[Jayke]

Too many cups are too full here. So nah. Maybe later.

Me: Can you explain your theory without insulting anyone?
Voice: ...Nah!

:ROFL:

Classic Voice!!! You're such an endearing rascal! For the entertainment value alone, I love you man, bring it in for some healing hugs :grouphug:


In the mean time, plenty enough has already been posted for anyone genuinely interested. For those who are genuinely interested, I would direct their attention to the presentation by Toth Gyula posted previously (who was in turn adding onto the work of German revisionist Heribert Illig), as well as the documentary on Fomenko's work above.

As no one has commented on the explosive information in them, I can only assume that there is no real interest in them in the first place.

The parallel jets are important, but if someone doesn't even spend enough thought to differentiate between 12,000 years ago and 12,000 BC, then that's not going to cut it. This isn't superficial stuff that you can just skim over that sloppily before knee-jerking out a reaction like that.

Well, I've started watching the documentary, and I think me and Voice have very different ideas of what explosive information consists of. The narrative of the video for the first 12 minutes goes:

"Some guy had an opinion, upon which another guy had opinion, and then there was this other guy who had an opinion based on those other guys opinions"...
...none of these opinions are grounded in anything conclusive, just interpretations of data-sets that could have multiple explanations.

The real departure from reality begins at 13mins into the video, where they start comparing books to keys (a completely nonsensical metaphor in the context its used) this part gives explosive evidence that proves Nikola Tesla was precise with his declaration that:





"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"

I hope it gets better from here on out, Voice, because if the whole theory is built on the fundamentally flawed premises proposed so far, then, its easy to see how the whole 'straw house' can be blown down by me asking you to date 2 pieces of empirical evidence.

The video is put together in a very specious manner though, so, I can see how the deceptive elements of propaganda could be swallowed – 'Fomenko style' – by the credulous and easily misled. I'm getting closer and closer to 100% certainty that this whole thing is nothing but a circle jerk of explosive proportions!

:shielddeflect:

The thing I find most humorous about all this, is that, my cousin did actually go to Cambridge to get a degree in history, specialising in the 'Anglo-saxon, Norse and Celtic' branches. After which, he proceeded to get jobs in Manchester museum, then onto the British museum, London. If I can tear Fomenko's theory to shreds with a couple 5 minute google searches, imagine what my cousin would do to it; with all the historical artefacts and resources in the vaults of Cambridge, Manchester and the London Museum, combined!

This is why Fomenko had to release his books directly to the public imo, the hundreds of thousands of historians and archaeologists, over the past couple centuries, who've been in the trenches to dig all these artefacts up for themselves, would simply laugh Fomenko out of the room. There's no way Fomenko's theory would pass muster along any academic routes.

Fomenko – "the emperor of false chronologies" – simply has no clothes to hide his flawed superimposition of calculus behind. I'm giving Jospeh Farrell a high five and going "Flat Earth" all the way with this one! :highfive:

I'm still open to being proved wrong though, so, if their are any other Fomenko advocates out there willing to take me to task, it'd be a pleasure to hear from you :bigsmile:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Yes, that is insulting, and borderline trolling.
Since you're clearly a skilled and practiced expert in such matters, I suppose I should grant more credibility to your appraisal than I presently am.

Well Paul, as you probably remember, on another thread I also repeatedly tried to explain to you that I was analyzing someone else's perspective in regards to a subject, and you kept misinterpreting my post as if I were posting my own opinion, and then insinuated that it might be my fault for your not reading my posts.

If you want to think stuff like this is me trolling then more power to you. The fact is, after multiple thread pages, Jayke wasn't paying enough attention to even get straight in his head the difference between 12,000 BC and 12,000 years ago, or what I was even arguing about these dates in the first place. I don't know if it's all the chemicals in the water or what (I suspect it's just the arrogance of pre-conceived ideas leading to easy dismissal in this case, though it makes no difference ultimately), but you can't have a conversation with people when the depth of thinking they're putting into what they're reading is about a centimeter deep. Sometimes you have to slow down and actually read what you're responding to. It's not my fault if people can't do that.

I give you guys that courtesy.


Don't want to just throw out accusations without references here in case it's needed:



I'm looking at others here and analyzing how they are reacting.
My failure to realize that was what you were doing explains a lot.

Now, ideally, one of (1) I should read more clearly, or (2) you should write more clearly, or (3) life will continue, as it has always been, less than ideal.

Good luck :).

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a---Very-Bad-Day---Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters--Nov-2017-and-beyond-&p=1239232&viewfull=1#post1239232


I'm guessing what's happened on this thread falls into the 'life continuing less than ideally' category.

I don't enjoy the fact that it's went off the rails this badly but I'm not going to let people blame me for their own inability to read my posts. Like I said, I read your guys' posts. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same courtesy in return, and it's not like I haven't had insulting language thrown my way through all of this either. I let that roll off my back. I'm used to having controversial opinions, for a long time now. It's just too bad how the debate on this thread has never revolved around actual chronology issues.

[Jayke]

Hmmm...

I never knew Jordan Maxwell had a direct relationship with Manly P. Hall. I’ll be revising my own internal chronology to add space for this little tidbit.

3IVNeXY9ERY

[Foxie Loxie]

Jayke...if you have never watched Bill & Kerry's interview with Jordan, I would highly recommend it! That is how I started understanding there is more going on in the Universe than we can even imagine!

The story of HOW his journey was initiated helped me begin to understand my own life. I had heard he did have some of Hall's writings; nice to hear it confirmed!

The Astro Theology sounds very interesting! :der:

[Jayke]

Hey Foxie, both Manly Hall and Maxwell are great — along with David Icke and Michael Tsarion (who I believe was one of Maxwells protégés) — these were some of the first “conspiracy theorists” who really opened my eyes to the more spiritual dimensions of life. These guys helped me get my grounding, outside of the matrix, so to speak, then Bill and Kerry came along with their video series and started taking things to a whole new level.:star:

I’m going to have to make time for the Astro-Theology series now that Maxwells recommended it, but at 9 hours long, I don’t even know how I’ll fit that into my study schedule :faint2::happythumbsup:

[ThePythonicCow]

Yes, that is insulting, and borderline trolling.
Since you're clearly a skilled and practiced expert in such matters, I suppose I should grant more credibility to your appraisal than I presently am.

Well Paul, as you probably remember, on another thread I also repeatedly tried to explain to you that I was analyzing someone else's perspective in regards to a subject, and you kept misinterpreting my post as if I were posting my own opinion, and then insinuated that it might be my fault for your not reading my posts.
...
Don't want to just throw out accusations without references here in case it's needed:

Whether or not your analysis and evidence regarding the topic at hand, and the flaws in the analysis and evidence, or lack thereof, that you cite in the postings of others, are accurate, insightful and logical, or not ... I don't know. I only closely follow such matters on a few of the many topics discussed on Avalon at any given time, and the topic of this thread doesn't happen to be a topic I am closely following at present.

However, the manner in which you present your commentary has, on a number of occasions, appeared to me to be distinctly more insulting and borderline trolling than is the manner of the others you so accuse.

I did cite such an instance of what I claim, in your words beginning "Yes, that is ...", quoted, again, above in this post of mine.

From what I can tell, as in this cited instance, the words in your postings, such as those words I quoted, have on a number of occasions exhibited what appears to me to be examples of psychological projection. Of course, whether or not your words are actually such, or just exhibiting the appearance of such, I have no reliable way to know or judge. I am not a remote mind reader nor am I a licensed psychologist. I can only speak to what is presented here, in the words you post.

I do follow, at least superficially, the postings of many members here on Avalon, and on rare occasion, where it seems applicable and appropriate, I sometimes explicitly recommend that members not post in such a manner, as I do not find such a manner of posting to be helpful to the quality of the discussions here.

It would not surprise me if my words so far in this response of mine have made you feel, at least briefly, defensive, with your mind rushing to rebut whatever flaws you notice in my claims, analysis and commentary. If that is so, then please consider the possibility that you, too, have in the power, conveyed through the words you post, to cause others to feel similarly defensive.