Were 460 years added to the official chronology?
- Thread starter Pierre
- Start date
If 460 years were added to the official chronology, 252 CE would correspond to 208 BC, which match the beggining of the decline of ancient Greece:
I'm wondering of the above mentioned cometary events played a role in this shift of power. Maybe, it was only localized cometary bombardments affecting solely North America.
Last edited:
Ah, you're correct... I think I was doing my math wrong.
It seems so. What I find exiting about all this information is that IMO it is adding more and more credibility to the poo-pooed mud flood event/s world wide in the not too distant past.
It seems to me that the same type of psychos intend to use current events to control and eventually redistribute wealth, titles, ownership and fabricated/distorted records to create a new empire. If you add to that the probable cosmic factors which will inevitably contribute to great changes there is no telling how the future generations will 'remember' their history.
This is all sooo fascinating and exciting!
BHelmet
The Living Force
Totes. And I think it is not just about dominating the matrix, it is also about changing the nature of the soul containers which for some reason seems creepy to me. I mean, we already have soul containers modified to suit the needs and purposes of 4D STS, if the C hypothesis is indeed true… why should I be “attached” to a thing (body) with dumbed-down DNA that makes me blind? (The next human container version 746.04b will be worse somehow. It will be a prison with even less free will. Why do I think that?)It seems so. What I find exiting about all this information is that IMO it is adding more and more credibility to the poo-pooed mud flood event/s world wide in the not too distant past.
It seems to me that the same type of psychos intend to use current events to control and eventually redistribute wealth, titles, ownership and fabricated/distorted records to create a new empire. If you add to that the probable cosmic factors which will inevitably contribute to great changes there is no telling how the future generations will 'remember' their history.
This is all sooo fascinating and exciting!
That said, If we can’t get the last 2000 years of history right, tell me again about the dawn of prehistory and how we should be obsessing over that narrative? We are supposed to learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. But history is told by the “winners” who will demonize the losers and whitewash/rationalize everything that goes down. History is solemnly recited by a pack of liars with an agenda or is a tale told by idiots full of sound and fury signifying nothing which creates a reality that suits STS aims. We see history unfolding before us and clearly the narrative and the true underlying reality are very much at odds. Will future generations nod their heads in unison about the foolishness of antivaxxxers or 911 blamed on bin Laden if all they see are CNN videos? Look at the History channel. You can see the skewing of recent reality in current real time.
I do have a bias to believe Plato and Herodotus etc were more honest, accurate and in service to the truth, but…why? Humans are credulous; we believe and belief equals reality for us.
Hence, why so much is put into manipulating and controlling what we believe about our reality; about our history.
Brilliantly put! And that's the problem in a nutshell!
Nostradamus
The Force is Strong With This One
Despite my best efforts, I can't seem to untangle this Gordian knot!
From what I understand, the signal recorded for the year 536 would correspond to the eruption of Vesuvius and this would confirm the "super volcano" hypothesis (e.g. Kyle Harper). The year 79 would correspond to the year 536, that is 457 years too many. So far so good. The violence of the event caused the collapse of the western part of the Roman Empire. A cometary incident could also be involved. This remains consistent with the theory I have already developed with a collapse of Rome after the death of Nero and a principle of simultaneity of emperors.
And then we have Justinian's plague and the comets.
I have the impression that the collapse of antiquity occurred in two stages as if there had been two distinct events sufficiently spaced out in time.
And from then on, I don't understand because how can I reconcile this with the fact that the extra years in the chronology are before this event of 536? This would mean that cometary events in Justinian's time have left no trace in paleoclimatology? Is there any other evidence? Objectively, it seems impossible to me to make the Justinian plague and the Vespasian era coexist chronologically. At the time of Justinian, the Frankish, Visigothic and Lombard kingdoms replaced the Romans in Europe.
From what I understand, the signal recorded for the year 536 would correspond to the eruption of Vesuvius and this would confirm the "super volcano" hypothesis (e.g. Kyle Harper). The year 79 would correspond to the year 536, that is 457 years too many. So far so good. The violence of the event caused the collapse of the western part of the Roman Empire. A cometary incident could also be involved. This remains consistent with the theory I have already developed with a collapse of Rome after the death of Nero and a principle of simultaneity of emperors.
And then we have Justinian's plague and the comets.
I have the impression that the collapse of antiquity occurred in two stages as if there had been two distinct events sufficiently spaced out in time.
And from then on, I don't understand because how can I reconcile this with the fact that the extra years in the chronology are before this event of 536? This would mean that cometary events in Justinian's time have left no trace in paleoclimatology? Is there any other evidence? Objectively, it seems impossible to me to make the Justinian plague and the Vespasian era coexist chronologically. At the time of Justinian, the Frankish, Visigothic and Lombard kingdoms replaced the Romans in Europe.
Justinian's time ca. 536 AD is coeval with cometary bombardments that left traces in ice-cores. More details are available in Chapter 17: "The Plague of Justinian". Maybe I'm misunderstood your question though?
Last edited:
Nostradamus
The Force is Strong With This One
Ok if I understood correctly the eruption of Vesuvius and the comets at the time of Justinian would be concomitant.
I just have a hard time understanding, for many reasons, how the emperor Justinian lived more or less 60 years after the birth of Julius Caesar... The Roman Empire left a mass of artifacts, monuments and coins, not to mention everything else, and even if it is clear that 500 years is incoherent, to condense it all into 50 years is quite a challenge for my brain!
I feel like there is an important piece missing from the center of the puzzle or my brain is not calibrated to understand !
If 460 years were added, then Julius Caesar, who was born in 100 BC according to the official timeline, would be born in 360 AD according to the revised timeline. That's 180 years before the 540 AD events.
For my brain too! And I guess we're not the two only ones. Also remember that the added 460 years is just an hypothesis.
BHelmet
The Living Force
It's kind of one of those "everything you know is wrong" moments. Time to start over and/or let go of the hope/necessity of coming up with a nice neat linear package with a pretty bow on it. Even the terminology is all wrong and confusing like "BC" "CE" etc. Maybe BP (before present) is the way to go now.
Furthermore the message is: "the narrative is incorrect." So, why assume any of the stories and histories are sacred cows to be retained with the necessary mental contortions? The evidence of major weather events, and comets is perhaps the surest measure and anchor point and then fit the other stories and histories to that.
Furthermore the message is: "the narrative is incorrect." So, why assume any of the stories and histories are sacred cows to be retained with the necessary mental contortions? The evidence of major weather events, and comets is perhaps the surest measure and anchor point and then fit the other stories and histories to that.
Last edited:
I wonder if comparing different calendars will help solve the mystery? The Chinese apparently didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1912 and prior to that used a lunar calendar. So maybe comparing the Chinese lunar calendar of those times will give some clues?
I don't totally understand the lunar calendar but the idea occurred that if 460 years were added then maybe this isn't the year of the tiger as advertised, it would be the year of the dog. However, that would only change if the Chinese were also in on the deception if it's true that 460 years were added.
Not sure if that's a helpful idea or not.
I don't totally understand the lunar calendar but the idea occurred that if 460 years were added then maybe this isn't the year of the tiger as advertised, it would be the year of the dog. However, that would only change if the Chinese were also in on the deception if it's true that 460 years were added.
Not sure if that's a helpful idea or not.
Jtucker
Jedi Master
I completely agree - it's so hard to wrap my head around the lost/added (narrative) years. But I think there's some keys Laura already discovered in the other thread on the Historical Events Database.
Bede/Alcuin/Gregory of Tours all seemed to be very connected in their knowledge of this whole "History of the Franks" - which I think is important in understanding the need for reconstruction of a late Roman Empire. I'm trying to dig through those sources as best as I can, but "Tours" repeatedly comes up (from the mid-8th century at least) over and over again. Not only as a focus point of Carolingian "Renaissance" that suddenly has all of these source texts from, but also in the massive wealth of theological ideas.
As Laura mentions in the first few posts of that thread - how did these 8th and 9th monasteries/scholars century get all these books? And from where? Those new libraries weren't anywhere near the same locations as where the ancient sources would have been located geographically (especially Northumbria).
Another very interesting point is the adherence to "Atticism" in Byzantine writing after Justinian. Doesn't this imply that the recopying of source scripts from some other source was being re-formed into a language that was the medieval conception of how ancient Greeks wrote? Like, it came from Syrian? This would likely have included a narrative structure - not just the syntax and grammar, I think?
So, in my opinion, a big part of this puzzle can be found in Syrian texts - that were most likely not forged or heavily re-imagined. The Syrian writers may have observed actual events. These were then later "Atticised" by early medieval Byzantine writers and flowed back west by the time of Charlemagne or shortly after (like the C's said a lot was lost in imperfect translations ).
One quote I remember regarding Eriugena, is that his "Greek" was exemplary (Atticisms?) and that he was the first European theologian in centuries that could accurately translate Greek texts (primarily Pseudo-Dionysius, which I think is a thinly-veiled Gnostic text of some sort).
Possibly Syrian texts that were written during or right after the Justinian Plague may be the original source of much Hagiography. Think of St. George. How does he become the patron saint of England, when all his provenance is so Syrian? His "bio" shows him from Cappadocia (near Syria, near Tarsus) an area that was both very late in losing its Zoroastrianism and the area where Caesar set up many colonies for his veterans. So maybe a lot of these monks and "patristic' fathers existed in one fashion or another in eastern Anatolia or Syria after Justinian and were moved back in time to fit into the fake late Roman history for Carolingian purposes. Possibly with a lot of "Caesarean" baggage to remove.
So many of the St. Anthony type characters sound much like Muhammad - i.e. people retreating to caves to get god's word during or shortly following a cataclysm. What if multiple sects/religions had the same reaction at that time?
I came across this article the other day which lays out how and why Eusebius could have fabricated major parts of Alexandrian Christianity. Although I think the chronology is still suspect and confusing in light of what we've learned here, the basic tenets of just how ancient history could be recreated rings true,
How To Fabricate History: The Example of Eusebius on Alexandrian Christianity • Richard Carrier Blogs
As a fellow of the Westar Institute I recently attended a webcon on Eusebius, as part of their new project Seminar on the history of Christianity, and it was heartening to see their reliance on real historians and not just theologians and biblical scholars (all the lead presenters had serious...
www.richardcarrier.info
I also think that the whole idea of "Chronology" is one of the major problematic issues. We don't experience the chronology of the past like the ancients or even the medievals. It's really hard for us to lose that program, I think. Even just reading the non-deep dive from Wikipedia on the subject of Chronology leads to - of course, The Chronicon of Eusebius of Caesarea (Hmm "Caesarea" - like Tarsus - to reveal and obscure, maybe?)
The second sentence in the article states - "It seems to have been compiled in the early 4th century." Seems
And then, "The original Greek text is lost, although substantial quotations exist in later chronographers." I bet they do.Another issue, that may have been covered somewhere else on the forum, but which I think relates to this thread specifically is that of Roman chronology up to Augustus. It seems the solar year calculations from the year of Romulus founding Rome were a much later interpolation or invention. Chronologies up to Augustus were based upon, "Consulships".
From Wiki again, "From the establishment of the Republic to the time of Augustus, the consuls were the chief magistrates of the Roman state, and normally there were two of them, so that the executive power of the state was not vested in a single individual, as it had been under the kings.[1][2]"
"As other ancient societies dated historical events according to the reigns of their kings, it became customary at Rome to date events by the names of the consuls in office when the events occurred, rather than (for instance) by counting the number of years since the foundation of the city, although that method could also be used.[2] If a consul died during his year of office, another was elected to replace him. Although his imperium was the same as his predecessor's, he was termed consul suffectus, in order to distinguish him from the consul ordinarius whom he replaced; but the eponymous magistrates for each year were normally the consules ordinarii.[1][2]"
If this is accurate, it would be very easy to mix up or transplant the idea of medieval reigns of Kings with a foreign concept of Consulship under the empire and mess up the whole chronology. Possibly intentionally or conveniently, but also just out of the (to us) weird math the Romans had for calculating "reigns" vs. chronology. Possibly certain "bad" consuls actors were "scrubbed" from annals much like our possibly real Flavian Emperor Domitian was supposed to be "banished" from history for his cruelty. Imagine the re-writes and confusion if you have a weak grasp of Latin reading a three-times translated text? Better to just claim "Suetonius" had a clear understanding of how Emperors succeeded each other and get to Pepin I's reign as soon as possible.
I don't think I have a remote grasp in any of this, but there are red flags for "chronological dissonance" from the calculating concepts of time/chronology from the end of Justinian to Charlemagne. It may even have a more "Dorothy and Toto" aspect to it. If the C's are right about the "Earth's EM atmosphere" radically changing after the Justinian Plague/Comets where giants slowly died off and lost their efficacy for chasing us down in the woods of North America - maybe this even goes for how humans perceived chronology on a deeper psychological level that affected our day to day perceptions?
I completely agree - it's so hard to wrap my head around the lost/added (narrative) years. But I think there's some keys Laura already discovered in the other thread on the Historical Events Database.
Bede/Alcuin/Gregory of Tours all seemed to be very connected in their knowledge of this whole "History of the Franks" - which I think is important in understanding the need for reconstruction of a late Roman Empire. I'm trying to dig through those sources as best as I can, but "Tours" repeatedly comes up (from the mid-8th century at least) over and over again. Not only as a focus point of Carolingian "Renaissance" that suddenly has all of these source texts from, but also in the massive wealth of theological ideas.
As Laura mentions in the first few posts of that thread - how did these 8th and 9th monasteries/scholars century get all these books? And from where? Those new libraries weren't anywhere near the same locations as where the ancient sources would have been located geographically (especially Northumbria).
Another very interesting point is the adherence to "Atticism" in Byzantine writing after Justinian. Doesn't this imply that the recopying of source scripts from some other source was being re-formed into a language that was the medieval conception of how ancient Greeks wrote? Like, it came from Syrian? This would likely have included a narrative structure - not just the syntax and grammar, I think?
So, in my opinion, a big part of this puzzle can be found in Syrian texts - that were most likely not forged or heavily re-imagined. The Syrian writers may have observed actual events. These were then later "Atticised" by early medieval Byzantine writers and flowed back west by the time of Charlemagne or shortly after (like the C's said a lot was lost in imperfect translations ).
One quote I remember regarding Eriugena, is that his "Greek" was exemplary (Atticisms?) and that he was the first European theologian in centuries that could accurately translate Greek texts (primarily Pseudo-Dionysius, which I think is a thinly-veiled Gnostic text of some sort).
Possibly Syrian texts that were written during or right after the Justinian Plague may be the original source of much Hagiography. Think of St. George. How does he become the patron saint of England, when all his provenance is so Syrian? His "bio" shows him from Cappadocia (near Syria, near Tarsus) an area that was both very late in losing its Zoroastrianism and the area where Caesar set up many colonies for his veterans. So maybe a lot of these monks and "patristic' fathers existed in one fashion or another in eastern Anatolia or Syria after Justinian and were moved back in time to fit into the fake late Roman history for Carolingian purposes. Possibly with a lot of "Caesarean" baggage to remove.
So many of the St. Anthony type characters sound much like Muhammad - i.e. people retreating to caves to get god's word during or shortly following a cataclysm. What if multiple sects/religions had the same reaction at that time?
I came across this article the other day which lays out how and why Eusebius could have fabricated major parts of Alexandrian Christianity. Although I think the chronology is still suspect and confusing in light of what we've learned here, the basic tenets of just how ancient history could be recreated rings true,
How To Fabricate History: The Example of Eusebius on Alexandrian Christianity • Richard Carrier Blogs
As a fellow of the Westar Institute I recently attended a webcon on Eusebius, as part of their new project Seminar on the history of Christianity, and it was heartening to see their reliance on real historians and not just theologians and biblical scholars (all the lead presenters had serious...
I also think that the whole idea of "Chronology" is one of the major problematic issues. We don't experience the chronology of the past like the ancients or even the medievals. It's really hard for us to lose that program, I think. Even just reading the non-deep dive from Wikipedia on the subject of Chronology leads to - of course, The Chronicon of Eusebius of Caesarea (Hmm "Caesarea" - like Tarsus - to reveal and obscure, maybe?)
The second sentence in the article states - "It seems to have been compiled in the early 4th century." Seems
Another issue, that may have been covered somewhere else on the forum, but which I think relates to this thread specifically is that of Roman chronology up to Augustus. It seems the solar year calculations from the year of Romulus founding Rome were a much later interpolation or invention. Chronologies up to Augustus were based upon, "Consulships".
From Wiki again, "From the establishment of the Republic to the time of Augustus, the consuls were the chief magistrates of the Roman state, and normally there were two of them, so that the executive power of the state was not vested in a single individual, as it had been under the kings.[1][2]"
"As other ancient societies dated historical events according to the reigns of their kings, it became customary at Rome to date events by the names of the consuls in office when the events occurred, rather than (for instance) by counting the number of years since the foundation of the city, although that method could also be used.[2] If a consul died during his year of office, another was elected to replace him. Although his imperium was the same as his predecessor's, he was termed consul suffectus, in order to distinguish him from the consul ordinarius whom he replaced; but the eponymous magistrates for each year were normally the consules ordinarii.[1][2]"
If this is accurate, it would be very easy to mix up or transplant the idea of medieval reigns of Kings with a foreign concept of Consulship under the empire and mess up the whole chronology. Possibly intentionally or conveniently, but also just out of the (to us) weird math the Romans had for calculating "reigns" vs. chronology. Possibly certain "bad" consuls actors were "scrubbed" from annals much like our possibly real Flavian Emperor Domitian was supposed to be "banished" from history for his cruelty. Imagine the re-writes and confusion if you have a weak grasp of Latin reading a three-times translated text? Better to just claim "Suetonius" had a clear understanding of how Emperors succeeded each other and get to Pepin I's reign as soon as possible.
I don't think I have a remote grasp in any of this, but there are red flags for "chronological dissonance" from the calculating concepts of time/chronology from the end of Justinian to Charlemagne. It may even have a more "Dorothy and Toto" aspect to it. If the C's are right about the "Earth's EM atmosphere" radically changing after the Justinian Plague/Comets where giants slowly died off and lost their efficacy for chasing us down in the woods of North America - maybe this even goes for how humans perceived chronology on a deeper psychological level that affected our day to day perceptions?
Excellent discussion of the problems we face in this subject. I have a hard time wrapping my head around it too! Everytime I think about how to about sorting out the mess, I think I hyperventilate and feel an anxiety attack coming on! It's just such a mess because so many wicked people were tossing their distortions into the mix.
Nostradamus
The Force is Strong With This One
I admit that it is reassuring to feel less alone and less stupid in this infernal imbroglio.
Indeed, most of the copies of ancient texts were found in the abbeys of Europe, and mainly in the Carolingian area. This supposes at some point a "transfer" from south to north. One could imagine that this took place at the time of the crusades. Or not. But one can assume that the Christian persecution that appeared at the end of the Middle Ages (the Cathars, the Templars, the Bogomils...) is not unrelated to a fraudulent operation of the texts and therefore of our history.
At the same time, there seems to have been a "reset" of Western history for the period that concerns us. For example, nobody really knows when and by whom the cathedrals were built. You have a north-south movement: the evangelization of Europe by Irish monks. What historians call the mystery of Irish monasticism. In fact, it's only a mystery if you don't turn off the "Christianity" program. If these communities of monks were the descendants of the Druids, then you can look at the past in a new light and better understand why these monuments are covered with "pagan" symbols. I have the impression that the Essenes themselves in Egypt came from a common ancient tradition (see the Essenes in Greece as an intermediate step ?), which would explain that both early Christianity, Latin and Greek, have primitive elements in common and that they each underwent, at different times, a purification and fraud.
And then everything is mixed during the time of the Roman papacy. Christianity takes its definitive form after the trauma of the Black Death. The iconography of purgatory appears. The crucifixion of a suffering Jesus on the cross contrasts with the "solar" Jesus of the Middle Ages, in the heart of a mystical almond. It seems obvious that the "Christian cross" was brought by Scottish and Irish monks because it is in this area that the oldest Celtic crosses have been discovered in large numbers.
Moreover, while researching Constantine, I curiously discovered the illustrious dynasty of "Constantine of Scotland". Causantín I mac Uurguist officially dates from the 9th century. His Latinized name is "Custantin" as seen on the Dupplin cross. But at the same time you have Saint Constantine of Scotland, a legendary king and martyr in Scotland who is dated to the 6th century. All of this seems to be related, according to the legends, to Saint Columban and the Irish monks. And here are Irish monks, Celtic crosses and an illustrious king named Constantine. At this point, it's just speculation but I wonder if there wasn't a transfer from north to south, from this Scottish Constantine to the Roman Constantine. I think he existed given all the coins in his name with his new imperial religion "Sol Invictus".
I hope to share my cross-research on Constantine and Charlemagne and all that soon but I lack the time to translate and I also have a lot of doubts about my working hypotheses.
But I sincerely wanted to thank you all the team and all the members because this forum is the only space where I can share information. Very sincerely because the loneliness is sometimes painful.
