Fomenko's "New Chronology"
- Thread starter blindpsychic
- Start date
Re: Free Will
On Fomenko: I read all the criticisms in advance of reading Fomenko so when I began to read, I was quite antagonistic. And frankly, that's not a bad way to read a book. If the author can persuade a hostile reader with his arguments and evidence, then he must have something!
Anyway, Fomenko really, REALLY has something here and his mathematical graphs and charts and so forth are impressive as all get out. You can't gainsay those things. He also cites an astonishing amount of evidence. It's worth reading just for that.
There are things that he writes about that are so logical and compelling that you wonder why you never thought of that before, one example being his analysis of the Book of Revelation.
Thing is, over the past few years as I have been reading a LOT, LOT, LOT of biblical studies, I've realized that, as they continue to study and analyze these things, as their skills develop and as evidence comes forward, the dates of composition keep moving forward in time. At least for the honest ones. The latest idea of the Copenhagen school is that the Old and New Testament were pretty much written at the same time, around 2 BC to 2 AD. That is astonishingly late for the Old Testament. And of course, they talk about glosses and additions and outright fakes that were added later.
Anyway, the idea that the two were composed pretty much at the same time is already sitting there in mainstream research, so when Fomenko comes along and can prove that both were composed a LOT later than anyone EVER thought (and I think he does), it just boggles the mind.
But, having said that, let me add that there is one thing that I haven't yet come across in Fomenko, and that is the idea that Western Civilization suffered a severe set-back as recently as the time of the Black Death and even later, and everything was "rebuilt," so to say. That is constantly in my mind: how bad it must have been during those times for so much to have been destroyed. How traumatized people must have been that their entire history could have been re-written without a protest.
But, when you look at some of the numbers and consider what we have just witnessed with 9-11 and the "re-writing of history" and things like what was done regarding JFK's assassination and so on, it becomes a little easier to believe that it could be done and that Scaliger et al DID do it!
Remember what I wrote about that period of time in my article about Baillie's book "New Light on the Black Death"?
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/145683-New-Light-on-the-Black-Death-The-Cosmic-Connection
Now, just think what Europe must have been like with this sort of thing going on? Imagine that going on in our own day? And imagine it coming from cometary bombardment, earthquakes, weather run amok, and so forth?
Do read also my "Wars, Pestilence, and Witches."
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/147339-Wars-Pestilence-and-Witches which proposes a reason for the cover-up at the end.
If you read Fomenko with the knowledge of these types of events firmly in mind, things begin to make a lot of sense.
Fomenko, of course, does not talk about cosmic catastrophe and that is a huge weakness in his entire work, (at least I haven't come across it yet), but what he does write about sure makes you realize that it is going to take some serious work and thinking to tease out the threads of what really may have happened, where and WHEN, in our history. It is a devastating critique of the way history is done and I think what he notices and the way he looks at it, though it is not the whole banana, is vital for anyone interested in this topic.
On Fomenko: I read all the criticisms in advance of reading Fomenko so when I began to read, I was quite antagonistic. And frankly, that's not a bad way to read a book. If the author can persuade a hostile reader with his arguments and evidence, then he must have something!
Anyway, Fomenko really, REALLY has something here and his mathematical graphs and charts and so forth are impressive as all get out. You can't gainsay those things. He also cites an astonishing amount of evidence. It's worth reading just for that.
There are things that he writes about that are so logical and compelling that you wonder why you never thought of that before, one example being his analysis of the Book of Revelation.
Thing is, over the past few years as I have been reading a LOT, LOT, LOT of biblical studies, I've realized that, as they continue to study and analyze these things, as their skills develop and as evidence comes forward, the dates of composition keep moving forward in time. At least for the honest ones. The latest idea of the Copenhagen school is that the Old and New Testament were pretty much written at the same time, around 2 BC to 2 AD. That is astonishingly late for the Old Testament. And of course, they talk about glosses and additions and outright fakes that were added later.
Anyway, the idea that the two were composed pretty much at the same time is already sitting there in mainstream research, so when Fomenko comes along and can prove that both were composed a LOT later than anyone EVER thought (and I think he does), it just boggles the mind.
But, having said that, let me add that there is one thing that I haven't yet come across in Fomenko, and that is the idea that Western Civilization suffered a severe set-back as recently as the time of the Black Death and even later, and everything was "rebuilt," so to say. That is constantly in my mind: how bad it must have been during those times for so much to have been destroyed. How traumatized people must have been that their entire history could have been re-written without a protest.
But, when you look at some of the numbers and consider what we have just witnessed with 9-11 and the "re-writing of history" and things like what was done regarding JFK's assassination and so on, it becomes a little easier to believe that it could be done and that Scaliger et al DID do it!
Remember what I wrote about that period of time in my article about Baillie's book "New Light on the Black Death"?
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/145683-New-Light-on-the-Black-Death-The-Cosmic-Connection
Now, just think what Europe must have been like with this sort of thing going on? Imagine that going on in our own day? And imagine it coming from cometary bombardment, earthquakes, weather run amok, and so forth?
Do read also my "Wars, Pestilence, and Witches."
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/147339-Wars-Pestilence-and-Witches which proposes a reason for the cover-up at the end.
If you read Fomenko with the knowledge of these types of events firmly in mind, things begin to make a lot of sense.
Fomenko, of course, does not talk about cosmic catastrophe and that is a huge weakness in his entire work, (at least I haven't come across it yet), but what he does write about sure makes you realize that it is going to take some serious work and thinking to tease out the threads of what really may have happened, where and WHEN, in our history. It is a devastating critique of the way history is done and I think what he notices and the way he looks at it, though it is not the whole banana, is vital for anyone interested in this topic.
dant
The Living Force
Re: Free Will
Reviewed:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29
(I know this is Wiki and it should be taken with a grain of salt...
but as you said, to "...read all the criticisms...")
Fomenco makes some compelling arguments and at
least shines the light on many possible discrepancies,
that may require further study and review. "Word of
mouth" and corrupted documents makes a lot of sense,
at least to me. (Why didn't I think of that!) The C's
have repeatedly "hinted" that much, or so I think.
I will certainly review further, the Fomenko "New Chronology"
PDF document.
Thank you for providing this information Laura!
Dan
Reviewed:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29
(I know this is Wiki and it should be taken with a grain of salt...
but as you said, to "...read all the criticisms...")
Fomenco makes some compelling arguments and at
least shines the light on many possible discrepancies,
that may require further study and review. "Word of
mouth" and corrupted documents makes a lot of sense,
at least to me. (Why didn't I think of that!) The C's
have repeatedly "hinted" that much, or so I think.
I will certainly review further, the Fomenko "New Chronology"
PDF document.
Thank you for providing this information Laura!
Dan
dant
The Living Force
Re: Fomenko's
Hmm... I wonder what year Jesinavarah was said to
have been born. I did not find this in the C Transcripts...
I am thinking that "Jesus Christ" is a moniker and yet
Fomenko is trying to connect "Jesus Christ" = "Andronicus"
Fomenko says:
In pp on text: 64
pp on PDF: 97 / 561
===============
Hildebrand : Birth [1a]: 1020 AD, Death [2a]: 1085 AD
Jesus Christ: Birth [1b]: Not stated, Death [2b]: P = T + 1053, T=33 (Age), P=1086 AD
but says that crucifixion occurred i century later: 1185 AD ??
in 3b, he says that Jesus was born in 1053.
Yet the C's says that Jesinavarah/Jesus was not crucified and lived to old age...
Formenco bases the above on the assumption that Jesus died age 33
so that does not match up too well with the C's "lived to old age" statement?
[Edit]
Hmm.. reading on.. Formenco noted that Jesus age could be older than 33
"not yet 50" and could have been 65 of age. Interesting... so this could
line up with with the C's. So 65 could be said to be of "old age"...
Hmm... I wonder what year Jesinavarah was said to
have been born. I did not find this in the C Transcripts...
I am thinking that "Jesus Christ" is a moniker and yet
Fomenko is trying to connect "Jesus Christ" = "Andronicus"
Fomenko says:
In pp on text: 64
pp on PDF: 97 / 561
===============
Hildebrand : Birth [1a]: 1020 AD, Death [2a]: 1085 AD
Jesus Christ: Birth [1b]: Not stated, Death [2b]: P = T + 1053, T=33 (Age), P=1086 AD
but says that crucifixion occurred i century later: 1185 AD ??
in 3b, he says that Jesus was born in 1053.
Yet the C's says that Jesinavarah/Jesus was not crucified and lived to old age...
Formenco bases the above on the assumption that Jesus died age 33
so that does not match up too well with the C's "lived to old age" statement?
[Edit]
Hmm.. reading on.. Formenco noted that Jesus age could be older than 33
"not yet 50" and could have been 65 of age. Interesting... so this could
line up with with the C's. So 65 could be said to be of "old age"...
Re: Fomenko's
Keep in mind what I said: Fomenko is not factoring in destruction of society and infrastructure and the necessity for "re-creating" history. There is much that is undoubtedly true about the history that was re-created, but it was done from memories, many of them confused or vague. My guess is that there was an effort made to make things more "real" by utilizing systems, models, dynasties, genealogies, and other things to hand.
Consider the Biblical story of Abraham traveling to Egypt on camels. Obviously, there were no camels in the ME at the time Abraham was supposed to have traveled there. But whoever wrote the story knew some old story about some guy named something like Abraham and he was supposed to have gone to Egypt, so, since it never occurred to the writer that camels didn't always exist in the ME, the story was written with Abraham riding on a camel.
Now, my own thought on this - based on some clues I've found - is that some guy who later came to be known as Abraham - but that wasn't his name - DID go to Egypt, but as a prisoner and certainly not on a camel. He made good, kind of like the story of Joseph, did some deeds of derring do, and later on, the story got wrapped up with some other things, and he was called "Abraham" because it had a certain etymological meaning like "father of the tribe".
So, don't start exhausting yourself trying to figure out what really happened from Fomenko without spending a LOT of time reading other studies and mainly archaeology. He is very useful to read for certain clues that nobody had a real clue what was going on. I keep looking for - and finding - evidence of destruction.
Keep in mind what I said: Fomenko is not factoring in destruction of society and infrastructure and the necessity for "re-creating" history. There is much that is undoubtedly true about the history that was re-created, but it was done from memories, many of them confused or vague. My guess is that there was an effort made to make things more "real" by utilizing systems, models, dynasties, genealogies, and other things to hand.
Consider the Biblical story of Abraham traveling to Egypt on camels. Obviously, there were no camels in the ME at the time Abraham was supposed to have traveled there. But whoever wrote the story knew some old story about some guy named something like Abraham and he was supposed to have gone to Egypt, so, since it never occurred to the writer that camels didn't always exist in the ME, the story was written with Abraham riding on a camel.
Now, my own thought on this - based on some clues I've found - is that some guy who later came to be known as Abraham - but that wasn't his name - DID go to Egypt, but as a prisoner and certainly not on a camel. He made good, kind of like the story of Joseph, did some deeds of derring do, and later on, the story got wrapped up with some other things, and he was called "Abraham" because it had a certain etymological meaning like "father of the tribe".
So, don't start exhausting yourself trying to figure out what really happened from Fomenko without spending a LOT of time reading other studies and mainly archaeology. He is very useful to read for certain clues that nobody had a real clue what was going on. I keep looking for - and finding - evidence of destruction.
dant
The Living Force
Re: Fomenko's
Thank you for the advice. My plan was to simply read
through the chapters in the first round (at the 30,000
foot level), then planned to go back and read it again at
lower lower and lower levels as if in peeling back the layers
of the onion, iteratively, then try to find and read the source
references as well. I am not sure that the source references
will be easily available though. I will be sure to look for the
"evidence of destruction", as you have mentioned, so thanks
for the tip! I am not a historian, but with time on my hands,
I hope this will be an interesting endeavour and good use of
my time.
What is interesting though, is that I am reminded of the "Deja Vu
of the black cat" in The Matrix. Heh! Hopefully I will not get too
bogged down, but to keep on reading, and maybe I will find something
in the cracks along the way.
I will refrain from posting "questions/notes" in this thread until I have
gone though all 7 Chapters and to obtain some semblance of what is
going on.
Thanks again,
Dan
Thank you for the advice. My plan was to simply read
through the chapters in the first round (at the 30,000
foot level), then planned to go back and read it again at
lower lower and lower levels as if in peeling back the layers
of the onion, iteratively, then try to find and read the source
references as well. I am not sure that the source references
will be easily available though. I will be sure to look for the
"evidence of destruction", as you have mentioned, so thanks
for the tip! I am not a historian, but with time on my hands,
I hope this will be an interesting endeavour and good use of
my time.
What is interesting though, is that I am reminded of the "Deja Vu
of the black cat" in The Matrix. Heh! Hopefully I will not get too
bogged down, but to keep on reading, and maybe I will find something
in the cracks along the way.
I will refrain from posting "questions/notes" in this thread until I have
gone though all 7 Chapters and to obtain some semblance of what is
going on.
Thanks again,
Dan
Re: Fomenko's \
Mind blowing Fomnko's recalculations about Egyptian zodiacs, found in Egyptian temples (some found on sarcophagus in the same temples), lot of them are dated to the medieval period??!! Although calculated with complicated astronomical software (more in Chronology 3 (2007), New Egyptian Chronology (Russian, 2003), Zodiacs, Timeline of Egypt Cut in Stone (2005)), seems like following zodiacs are medieval fakes:
* The Round Zodiac of Dendera: the morning of 1185/03/20 AD.
* The Long Zodiac of Dendera: 1168/04/22-26 AD.
* The Greater Temple of Esna: 1394/03/31-04/03 AD.
* The Lesser Temple of Esna: 1404/05/06-08 AD.
* The Upper Athribean: 1230/05/15-16 AD.
* The Lower Athribean: 1268/02/09-10 AD.
* The Color Horoscope of Thebes: 1182/09/05-08 AD
or even worst, the Horoscope of Thebes, discovered by Henry Brugsch, contains 3 horoscopes:
* The horoscope of demotic subscripts: 1861/11/18 AD.
* The Horoscope without Staves: 1841/10/06-07 AD.
* The Horoscope with Boats: 1853/02/15 AD
If only part of these calculations are right, someone should re write history books.
Or how Fomenko debunked written History of Britain:
from: http://lib.ru/FOMENKOAT/engltr.txt
1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that
time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks
more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved
in [1],[24] that Roman history of that time reflects real events
from 9-13th cc. A.D.
2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and
Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real
events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.
3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real history of 9-15th
cc. in Byzantine empire.
4) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-3 and therefore they reflect real history of 9-15th cc.in
Byzantine empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the name
of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)
5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and
medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are
thought by historians to speak about some events from the epoch
before the beginning of 14th century, are in fact devoted to
certain periods of Byzantine history of 9-15th cc. Roughly
speaking, ancient English chronicles are in fact Byzantine
chronicles which were taken from Byzantine to England and then
modified in a such way that they seem to speak about events in
England.
6) The time when written history of the island which is today
called as England really begins is most probably the epoch of
9-10th centuries. Now we have only very few information about
that early period of English history on the island. So the
description of English history of 9-13 cc. is in fact rather
fragmentary. But this information about real island events was
then "covered" by chronicles brought from Byzantine empire. The
resulting sum of two fibers: "island fiber" and "Byzantine fiber"
we can see now as the English history of 9-13th cc.
7) Starting from 14th century English history speaks about
real events in England only. Roughly speaking, traditional
version of English history becomes correct from 14th c.
8) One might ask: "If you are right, how to explain the fact
that in ancient English chronicles there are chronological
details about, for example, how many years there were between the
Flood and a certain event of English history? These chronological
details often agree with Scaliger's (modern) chronological
concept." The answer is follows.
At first, note that chronological and astronomical data from
ancient chronicles in many cases strongly contradict with modern
historical version. See [1],[24].
In the second, even if we see that a direct chronological
statement from ancient text agrees well with modern tradition, it
says really nothing, because all ancient chronicles which we have
today, were finally edited only in 15-17th cc. And it was exactly
the time when modern chronological concept was worked out (in
general). Such direct chronological statements are simply the
traces of chronological computations of 15-17th cc. At that time
historians "calculated" the dates of ancient events and then
placed (for reader's convenience) the results of their
(medieval!) calculations inside ancient historical texts. The
fact that chronological statements in different ancient texts
often agree means that today we have mostly the results of work
of only one medieval chronological school. It was the
chronological school which work was supervised in 15-17th cc. by
Roman-Catholic church.
More of historical dillemas:
The Peloponnesian war broke out in 431 BC (using traditional dates) and Thucydides wrote that he began writing memoares of Peloponnesian war "at the moment that it broke out." (according to his own writings: All was at last ready, and they were on the point of sailing away, when an eclipse of the moon, which was then at the full, took place")
Thucydides actually wrote of three eclipses, two solar and one lunar, that occured during the war. From his writings we learn the first and second eclipse were solar, the third was the lunar one. The time between the first and second was 7 years. The time between the second and the third is 11 years. The first eclipse is a full eclipse, in the summer, after midday, local time. He mentions the stars can be seen, which cannot happen in a partial eclipse. The second eclipse is at the beginning of summer, the third eclipse is around the end of summer.
Mathematicians and astronomers can determine from this information (and given the location) exactly when this would have occurred. Look at your calendar and newspapers, the calendar makers, astronomers, mathematicians routinely tell you when and where eclipses will occur and where and when they did occur in the past. There are computer programs that can do this for you if you do not have the math skills. Some astrologers can do this.
In the 16th Century A.D., the chronologer Dionysius Petavius determined a date that fit the first eclipse - 3 August 431 B.C. The start of the Peloponnesus war was then dated 431 B.C. The famous astronomer/mathematician Johannes Kepler confirmed the date.
Petavius then figured out the date for the second eclipse, 21 March 424 B.C. Kepler also confirmed that date.
Then Petavius choose 27 August 431 B.C. for the third eclipse.
When more modern astronomers tried to verify these dates, heated debates broke out in the 18th to the 20th centuries. The problem is the first date would not have been a total eclipse - and Thucydides in the original Greek clearly stated you could see the stars - it was a total eclipse. It would not have been total anywhere on earth. Prominent historical 'experts' who tried to solve this 'Thucydides triad problem' over the years included Petavius, Zech, Heis, Struyck, Kepler, Riccioli, Hofman, Ginzel, Johnson, Lynn, Stockwell, and Seyffarth. They did not want to get too far away from the 'well-known' date of the birth of Christ and were not able to solve the problem.
Finally a Russian mathematician named N. A. Morozov determined that an exact solution does exist. The eclipse actually occurred 2 August 1133 A.D.
Then A. T. Fomenko pointed out the real date: 22 August 1039 A.D. This means that Thucydides and Herodotus were 1,000 years AFTER the traditional date of Christ's birth. This means the date of Christ's birth is at least about ONE THOUSAND YEARS too old, too far back. When you pursue the ramifications of this mathematically proven fact, you will begin to see how massive are the lies that have been perpetrated upon you, upon all Western humanity.
more on: http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/history/illusionsofhistory.shtml
I would like to know what really happened and when, the only problem is, how to get the whole picture with so many deviations. At least should feel gratitude to ward Fomenko's work because he found out so many discrepancies in recorded history and he did not hesitate to publish whatever he found out despite negative critics stated by conservative historians.
Mind blowing Fomnko's recalculations about Egyptian zodiacs, found in Egyptian temples (some found on sarcophagus in the same temples), lot of them are dated to the medieval period??!! Although calculated with complicated astronomical software (more in Chronology 3 (2007), New Egyptian Chronology (Russian, 2003), Zodiacs, Timeline of Egypt Cut in Stone (2005)), seems like following zodiacs are medieval fakes:
* The Round Zodiac of Dendera: the morning of 1185/03/20 AD.
* The Long Zodiac of Dendera: 1168/04/22-26 AD.
* The Greater Temple of Esna: 1394/03/31-04/03 AD.
* The Lesser Temple of Esna: 1404/05/06-08 AD.
* The Upper Athribean: 1230/05/15-16 AD.
* The Lower Athribean: 1268/02/09-10 AD.
* The Color Horoscope of Thebes: 1182/09/05-08 AD
or even worst, the Horoscope of Thebes, discovered by Henry Brugsch, contains 3 horoscopes:
* The horoscope of demotic subscripts: 1861/11/18 AD.
* The Horoscope without Staves: 1841/10/06-07 AD.
* The Horoscope with Boats: 1853/02/15 AD
If only part of these calculations are right, someone should re write history books.
Or how Fomenko debunked written History of Britain:
from: http://lib.ru/FOMENKOAT/engltr.txt
1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that
time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks
more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved
in [1],[24] that Roman history of that time reflects real events
from 9-13th cc. A.D.
2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and
Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real
events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.
3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real history of 9-15th
cc. in Byzantine empire.
4) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-3 and therefore they reflect real history of 9-15th cc.in
Byzantine empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the name
of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)
5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and
medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are
thought by historians to speak about some events from the epoch
before the beginning of 14th century, are in fact devoted to
certain periods of Byzantine history of 9-15th cc. Roughly
speaking, ancient English chronicles are in fact Byzantine
chronicles which were taken from Byzantine to England and then
modified in a such way that they seem to speak about events in
England.
6) The time when written history of the island which is today
called as England really begins is most probably the epoch of
9-10th centuries. Now we have only very few information about
that early period of English history on the island. So the
description of English history of 9-13 cc. is in fact rather
fragmentary. But this information about real island events was
then "covered" by chronicles brought from Byzantine empire. The
resulting sum of two fibers: "island fiber" and "Byzantine fiber"
we can see now as the English history of 9-13th cc.
7) Starting from 14th century English history speaks about
real events in England only. Roughly speaking, traditional
version of English history becomes correct from 14th c.
8) One might ask: "If you are right, how to explain the fact
that in ancient English chronicles there are chronological
details about, for example, how many years there were between the
Flood and a certain event of English history? These chronological
details often agree with Scaliger's (modern) chronological
concept." The answer is follows.
At first, note that chronological and astronomical data from
ancient chronicles in many cases strongly contradict with modern
historical version. See [1],[24].
In the second, even if we see that a direct chronological
statement from ancient text agrees well with modern tradition, it
says really nothing, because all ancient chronicles which we have
today, were finally edited only in 15-17th cc. And it was exactly
the time when modern chronological concept was worked out (in
general). Such direct chronological statements are simply the
traces of chronological computations of 15-17th cc. At that time
historians "calculated" the dates of ancient events and then
placed (for reader's convenience) the results of their
(medieval!) calculations inside ancient historical texts. The
fact that chronological statements in different ancient texts
often agree means that today we have mostly the results of work
of only one medieval chronological school. It was the
chronological school which work was supervised in 15-17th cc. by
Roman-Catholic church.
More of historical dillemas:
The Peloponnesian war broke out in 431 BC (using traditional dates) and Thucydides wrote that he began writing memoares of Peloponnesian war "at the moment that it broke out." (according to his own writings: All was at last ready, and they were on the point of sailing away, when an eclipse of the moon, which was then at the full, took place")
Thucydides actually wrote of three eclipses, two solar and one lunar, that occured during the war. From his writings we learn the first and second eclipse were solar, the third was the lunar one. The time between the first and second was 7 years. The time between the second and the third is 11 years. The first eclipse is a full eclipse, in the summer, after midday, local time. He mentions the stars can be seen, which cannot happen in a partial eclipse. The second eclipse is at the beginning of summer, the third eclipse is around the end of summer.
Mathematicians and astronomers can determine from this information (and given the location) exactly when this would have occurred. Look at your calendar and newspapers, the calendar makers, astronomers, mathematicians routinely tell you when and where eclipses will occur and where and when they did occur in the past. There are computer programs that can do this for you if you do not have the math skills. Some astrologers can do this.
In the 16th Century A.D., the chronologer Dionysius Petavius determined a date that fit the first eclipse - 3 August 431 B.C. The start of the Peloponnesus war was then dated 431 B.C. The famous astronomer/mathematician Johannes Kepler confirmed the date.
Petavius then figured out the date for the second eclipse, 21 March 424 B.C. Kepler also confirmed that date.
Then Petavius choose 27 August 431 B.C. for the third eclipse.
When more modern astronomers tried to verify these dates, heated debates broke out in the 18th to the 20th centuries. The problem is the first date would not have been a total eclipse - and Thucydides in the original Greek clearly stated you could see the stars - it was a total eclipse. It would not have been total anywhere on earth. Prominent historical 'experts' who tried to solve this 'Thucydides triad problem' over the years included Petavius, Zech, Heis, Struyck, Kepler, Riccioli, Hofman, Ginzel, Johnson, Lynn, Stockwell, and Seyffarth. They did not want to get too far away from the 'well-known' date of the birth of Christ and were not able to solve the problem.
Finally a Russian mathematician named N. A. Morozov determined that an exact solution does exist. The eclipse actually occurred 2 August 1133 A.D.
Then A. T. Fomenko pointed out the real date: 22 August 1039 A.D. This means that Thucydides and Herodotus were 1,000 years AFTER the traditional date of Christ's birth. This means the date of Christ's birth is at least about ONE THOUSAND YEARS too old, too far back. When you pursue the ramifications of this mathematically proven fact, you will begin to see how massive are the lies that have been perpetrated upon you, upon all Western humanity.
more on: http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/history/illusionsofhistory.shtml
I would like to know what really happened and when, the only problem is, how to get the whole picture with so many deviations. At least should feel gratitude to ward Fomenko's work because he found out so many discrepancies in recorded history and he did not hesitate to publish whatever he found out despite negative critics stated by conservative historians.
Re: Fomenko's
I want to know what really happened too, but I'm in more and more despair as I read on. I'm almost done with volume 1... and it's been a rough go, for sure.
His evidence about the triad of eclipses is, IMO, unassailable. And the zodiacs... and the dating of Revelations.
But, I don't think that history was made up as he describes it exactly. As Hildegarda said, it's a bit Russo-centric.
I'm going to keep reading and looking for clues.
I want to know what really happened too, but I'm in more and more despair as I read on. I'm almost done with volume 1... and it's been a rough go, for sure.
His evidence about the triad of eclipses is, IMO, unassailable. And the zodiacs... and the dating of Revelations.
But, I don't think that history was made up as he describes it exactly. As Hildegarda said, it's a bit Russo-centric.
I'm going to keep reading and looking for clues.
dant
The Living Force
Re: Fomenko's
Ugh. Looks like I only have access to Chrono-2, missing the rest.
I think I will need to search the local libraries before I can actually
start at the beginning: Chrono-1.
I actually started reading Chrono-2, and I was not paying attention!
Sigh... But gee whiz - these books are loaded with lots of data in need
of verification and I tended to see a Russian bias, which expected anyway
- which is why independent verification is needed.
I checked Amazon and I saw only 2-3 books, no 1-7 volume set, but geez,
look at their pricing! Anyway, I'll look around.
Ugh. Looks like I only have access to Chrono-2, missing the rest.
I think I will need to search the local libraries before I can actually
start at the beginning: Chrono-1.
I actually started reading Chrono-2, and I was not paying attention!
Sigh... But gee whiz - these books are loaded with lots of data in need
of verification and I tended to see a Russian bias, which expected anyway
- which is why independent verification is needed.
I checked Amazon and I saw only 2-3 books, no 1-7 volume set, but geez,
look at their pricing! Anyway, I'll look around.
Re: Fomenko's
This bit about Cassiopeia was just fascinating (and it is just a BIT!)
One of the reasons I find it so fascinating is because I noticed that Cassiopeia was at the "end of the Milky Way" so to say - the Chemin de St. Jacques. I also see the figure in the Last Supper as I described in Secret History. Fomenko's material on this just adds weight to what I was seeing though I'm not quite sure what it all means ultimately. But obviously, Da Vinci knew these things because he put Cassiopeia in the Last Supper as clear as anything.
This bit about Cassiopeia was just fascinating (and it is just a BIT!)
One of the reasons I find it so fascinating is because I noticed that Cassiopeia was at the "end of the Milky Way" so to say - the Chemin de St. Jacques. I also see the figure in the Last Supper as I described in Secret History. Fomenko's material on this just adds weight to what I was seeing though I'm not quite sure what it all means ultimately. But obviously, Da Vinci knew these things because he put Cassiopeia in the Last Supper as clear as anything.
dant
The Living Force
Re: Fomenko's
Wow, that is awesome! I love a mystery!
And as the C's said, the last Christ was a woman
and Cassiopaea is a woman?
[Edited: added reference to where I got this information]
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12514.0
Note the quotes around "Christ", hmm...
Wow, that is awesome! I love a mystery!
And as the C's said, the last Christ was a woman
and Cassiopaea is a woman?
[Edited: added reference to where I got this information]
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12514.0
Session 30 May 2009 said:
Note the quotes around "Christ", hmm...
