I take your point over changes to calendars (which effected a change in days and not years) and real time. However, I must assume that the C's added "AD", and not Laura, deliberately to stress that that year date reflects our current calendar as we measure time going backwards from today. Thus, I would assume it is intended to be accurate.1302 A.D. Hmmm Given the recent revelations regarding the added years to the first millennium, it would seem C.E. might be a better way to go (back from the present vs. forward from a date that is not really 0?). It confuses me, anyway. And then there is the Julian calendar vs the Gregorian which makes me wonder further still. Is there a bigger difference than just a couple weeks? Is the Gregorian associated with a timeline shift? LOL This sounds like a job for MJF!! Kidding. Kinda.
Main Point: All these dates get tossed about in a supposed chronology and I am not sure what they really mean. So MJF, how do you factor in the potential confusion over just what is meant by "1302 AD"? Because the "AD" part is the spanner in the works. But if you just assume 1302 as measured backwards from today, or approximately 700 years ago, then it keeps a certain linearity which our minds tend to be more comfortable with.
I doubt if the switch to the Gregorian Calendar was associated with a timeline shift other than a man-made contrived one. The reason for the switch from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar was that the former used an incorrect length of days in the year. The main difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars is that an average year in Julian calendar is 365.25 days while an average year in Gregorian calendar is 365.2425 days. The Gregorian Calendar is the normal calendar we currently use to determine the date. Before the switch, using the Julian Calendar meant that you gained a day every 128 years. The Julian Calendar was used from 46 B.C to 1582. Extending the Gregorian calendar backwards to dates preceding its official introduction produces a proleptic (meaning the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so) calendar, which should therefore be used with some caution. Hence you have a point, although the difference you speak of would seem to equate to about two days in reality.
A far more difficult issue would be if the length of year was much less in the past due to changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are those who advocate that the Earth once had a 260 day orbit rather than its present 365 days. If so, what could have changed the orbit? Two things spring to mind. The first is the destruction of the planet Kantek 80,000 or more years ago. If Bode's Law is correct, then the planets line up around the sun in accordance with Bode's formula. That formula suggests that, extending outward, each planet should be approximately twice as far from the Sun as the one before. Bode's hypothesis correctly anticipated the orbits of Ceres (in the asteroid belt, where the missing planet Kantek once orbited) and Uranus, but failed as a predictor of Neptune's orbit (which may be affected more by the twin star). Kantek's destruction may therefore have caused the need for a planetary realignment. This may be reflected in ancient Sumerian texts, which suggest that the Anunnaki gods had to recalibrate the measuring of the deep (the solar system) after the destruction of the planet Tiamat (meaning in Akkadian "salt waters" - their equivalent of Kantek - although the C's have said that Tiamat was in fact Sirius).
However, a more recent event, which could have caused a more drastic change of orbit is the arrival of the wandering orphan planet Venus that finally took up a defined orbit between Earth and Mercury after several erratic swings through the inner solar system (at least seven according to the C's):
Session 16 November 1994:A far more difficult issue would be if the length of year was much less in the past due to changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are those who advocate that the Earth once had a 260 day orbit rather than its present 365 days. If so, what could have changed the orbit? Two things spring to mind. The first is the destruction of the planet Kantek 80,000 or more years ago. If Bode's Law is correct, then the planets line up around the sun in accordance with Bode's formula. That formula suggests that, extending outward, each planet should be approximately twice as far from the Sun as the one before. Bode's hypothesis correctly anticipated the orbits of Ceres (in the asteroid belt, where the missing planet Kantek once orbited) and Uranus, but failed as a predictor of Neptune's orbit (which may be affected more by the twin star). Kantek's destruction may therefore have caused the need for a planetary realignment. This may be reflected in ancient Sumerian texts, which suggest that the Anunnaki gods had to recalibrate the measuring of the deep (the solar system) after the destruction of the planet Tiamat (meaning in Akkadian "salt waters" - their equivalent of Kantek - although the C's have said that Tiamat was in fact Sirius).
However, a more recent event, which could have caused a more drastic change of orbit is the arrival of the wandering orphan planet Venus that finally took up a defined orbit between Earth and Mercury after several erratic swings through the inner solar system (at least seven according to the C's):
Q: (L) You said that the Lizzies lived among humans for a thousand years. When, in our illusion of time, did this occur?
A: During peak of Atlantis.
Q: (L) And how long was the Atlantean civilization in existence?
A: 70,000 years.
Q: (L) Was mankind living on the earth as a sentient being during the time of the large dinosaurs?
A: Yes and no.
Q: (L) What does that mean?
A: Transitory time warp.
Q: (L) When did Venus enter the solar system?
A: 80000 years approximately.
Q: (L) How many close passes to the earth did Venus make?
A: Seven.
Q: (L) Was Venus involved with the planet Kantek which you said exploded due to psychic energies generated by its inhabitants?
A: No.
Leaving aside that interesting reference to a transitory time warp (suggestive of time travel perhaps), according to the C's, Venus (an ancient wanderer from Arcturus) first entered the solar system approximately 80,000 years ago, which puts it in the same ball park as the destruction of Kantek, hence the reason for Laura's question. It could be that Kantek had already been destroyed by then, who knows. That event might have even led to Venus' subsequent capture by the Sun to repair the disharmony to what Plato called the Music of the Spheres. Could Venus's arrival have changed Earth's orbit and positioned the planet further from the Sun, leading to a longer orbital year? If so, it would help to explain why dating becomes more problematic for the C's the further back in history you go. Remember the C's said that the close passage of Venus to the Earth interrupted the construction of the complex at Baalbek:
Q: (L) What year did the Exodus occur counting backward from now according to our calendrical system?
A: 4670.16
Q: (L) At that time did a cometary Venus pass close to the earth and cause disruption?
A: Yes.
Session 5 October 1994:Q: (L) You said the Exodus occurred in 2676 B.C., is that correct? [MJF: This was the Sumerian Exodus not the Exodus of Abraham/Moses from Egypt a thousand years or so later]
A: Close. [MJF: which may reflect the problem of dating we have identified and possibly a change to Earth's orbit and consequently the number of days in the calendar year.]
Q: (L) Was that the last passage of the cometary Venus? [MJF: which means that at some stage not long thereafter Venus took up a regular orbit around the Sun.]
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Was this activity of Venus interactive with the close passing of the cluster of comets you have mentioned?
A: Close. One of three cataclysms close together.
Session 20 October 1994:
Q: Who built the city of Baalbek?
A: Antereans and early Sumerians. We meant Atlanteans. {Who are the Antereans? [MJF: The name suggests to me a link with the star system Antares - ref. my previous post]}
Q: What is the reason for the enormous proportions of this building?
A: Giants.
Q: Who were the giants?
A: Genetic effort to recreate Nephalim
Q: What happened to interrupt or halt the building of this city?
A: Venus first appearance and pass. [MJF: That is a pass close to Earth since it first appeared in the solar system 80,000 years ago.]
Q: What year was this project brought to a halt?
A: 3218 B.C.
Could Venus have caused a drastic change in planetary orbits? The answer would appear to be yes given what the C's said here about Mars:
Session 5 October 1994:
Q: (L) What caused Martek [Mars] to pass close to the earth at that time since that was many thousands of years before the Venus interaction?
A: Planetary alignment gravitational aberration related to Venus.
Q: (L) So, there was a planetary line-up that caused Mars to be pulled out of its orbit?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And the two appeared to do battle in the sky to the inhabitants of the Earth as Velikovsky described, is that correct?
A: Close.
[....]
Q: (L) What caused Martek to pass close to the earth at that time since that was many thousands of years before the Venus interaction?
A: Planetary alignment gravitational aberration related to Venus.
Q: (L) So, there was a planetary line-up that caused Mars to be pulled out of its orbit?
A: Yes.
And remember it was this displacement of Mars from its orbit by Venus that led to the Deluge or Noah's Flood:
Session 30 September 1994:
Q: (L) Was Noah's flood caused by the close passage of another celestial body?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Which body was that?
A: Martek.
Q: (L) Do we know this body in our solar system now?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What name?
A: Mars.
Q: (L) Was Martek an inhabited planet at that time?
A: No.
Q: (L) Did it have water or other features?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) When it passed close to the earth did it, in fact, overload our planet with water we did not have prior to that time? [MJF: which suggests that Mars' lack of water is a far more recent phenomenon than planetary geologists would have us believe.]
A: Yes.
Session 16 November 1994:
Q: (L) And you said that the "flood of Noah" was the story of the final deluge and destruction of Atlantis?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And that was caused by what?
A: Venus.
Q: (L) I thought you said it was caused by Martek?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, how can it be caused by Venus if it was caused by Martek?
A: Venus also "caused" Martek.
So, as you can see, there was a period of chaos in the inner solar system caused by Venus that may well have affected Earth's orbit and with it the length of the year. This would make the process of dating accurately events that occurred at that time extremely difficult even without taking into account the 300 year time difference noted by Velikovsky and more recently by Pierre. This last point reflects in the dating of the age of Pharaoh Akhenaten and therefore Abraham/Moses, which we learn coincided with the last passage of the cometary cluster. Akhenaten supposedly reigned between c. 1353–1336 or 1351–1334 BC as quoted in Wikipedia. However, Laura operates on an earlier dating given what she said in this exchange with the C's:
Session 23 August 2001:
Q: (L) Now, I have a little problem with my writing. First of all, did the eruption of Thera occur in 1627 BC or thereabouts?Session 23 August 2001:
A: Close.
Q: (L) What stimulated the eruption of Thera?
A: Venus.
{Here I think that "Venus" is a code for the giant comet described by Victor Clube} [MJF: or perhaps Venus was Clube's giant comet?]
Q: (L) Well, about 40 years after that there was the comet cluster, in 1588 BC, correct?
A: Yes.
If the 1588 BC date is accurate as the C's affirm above, this would mean that over 3,600 years have now transpired since the last pass of the comet cluster, which happens to be the orbital period of the comet cluster as confirmed elsewhere by the C's.
Session 5 October 1994:
Q: (L) Was Mars knocked out of it's orbit by Venus?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And the two appeared to do battle in the sky to the inhabitants of the Earth as Velikovsky described, is that correct?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Now, this cluster of comets, when was the last time it came into the solar system?
A: 3582 yrs ago?
Which would make it 1,586 years BC based on our current calendar and almost the same as Laura's date of 1,588 BC. The admission of Venus to the solar system would also seemed to have had an impact on astrology, harking back to my previous post:
Session 26 July 1997:
Q: Why was astrology absent from the myths of ancient Greece?
A: Not absent, "Stalinized."
Q: What does that mean?
A: Soviets removed Stalin from the history books when he fell from popularity. So, Greeks, Astrology... "Stalinized"...
Q: Why?
A: Deadly secrets would be revealed. [MJF: which supports the notion that the earlier Zodiac may have told a story associated with mankind's true history rather than the one it tells now.]
Q: Revealed to whom?
A: You.
Q: If we could find the pieces and put them together, they would show us the drama and the connection between 3rd and 4th density?
A: You would have to use the original astrology, before cosmic changes of a planetary nature; there was no Venus, for one example, and earth was oriented differently axially speaking.
Hence, the advent of Venus as a new planet in our solar system would appear to have changed the earlier astrology prior to 2,676 B.C. (the last passage of Venus) and we see that stellar precession of the Zodiac would also have been different after the Earth's axis was altered (N.B. the last major comet strike immediately changed the axis by as much as 7 degrees of tilt).
But just to complicate things further, the C's have told us that in reality there is no time, which is just an illusion our linear minds are attuned to. However, that is a debate for another day.
But just to complicate things further, the C's have told us that in reality there is no time, which is just an illusion our linear minds are attuned to. However, that is a debate for another day.