Phantom Time and Chronological Revisionism.

[Jayke]

Guess I’ll start a chronology with an Andrew Collins presentation on the Sungir people, Russia, 30,000BC.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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', 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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BT2hSZV4tNc

Freddy Silva also mentions in his presentation Secrets of the Andean Temples, 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]

Posted by Hervé (here)
How to double time into overtime

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.

Posted by Justplain (here)
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%...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.



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/

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 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. 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.

[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:



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...drochronology/

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.

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...drochronology/


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:



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:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QbrklxLqAsw

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3wKOVZKimwg

After explaining that we know that massive flooding occurred in the northwestern United States (the 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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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/Hist...zantine_Empire

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Justplain (here)
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.



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.



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]

Posted by Justplain (here)
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]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
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]

Posted by happyuk (here)
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:




Sanskrit compared to Lithuanian:




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:



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]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)

Posted by happyuk (here)
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:




Sanskrit compared to Lithuanian:




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:



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!!

[Justplain]

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
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!!

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.