Phantom Time and Chronological Revisionism.

[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

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]

Posted by Jayke (here)
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.

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

[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]

Posted by Jayke (here)
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/Sci...ng/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]

Posted by Jayke (here)
Was it this study you referred to with the carbon dating again?

No, my post is here.

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:


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]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)

Posted by Jayke (here)
Was it this study you referred to with the carbon dating again?

No, my post is here.

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/pa...n-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 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/pa...dyssey-ms-5069

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]

Posted by Jayke (here)
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]

Posted by Justplain (here)
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]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)

Posted by Jayke (here)
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 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.
Whatever dude! I just see it as banter.

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!

[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

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!! Much here to reflect upon!

[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]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
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]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
Too many cups are too full here. So nah. Maybe later.

Me: Can you explain your theory without insulting anyone?
Voice: ...Nah!



Classic Voice!!! You're such an endearing rascal! For the entertainment value alone, I love you man, bring it in for some healing hugs

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
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!



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!

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

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
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:

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
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 .

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=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.