Were 460 years added to the official chronology?

[Persej]

If there were as many local 4D bubbles, that could explain the numbers, but still the question remains why churches of all possible infrastructural edifices?
If they had the knowledge and knew how to apply it constructively and efficiently, why not erecting "energy directors" like Stonehenge, but instead build Christian churches that for the most part served the greedy elites, indoctrinating people into lies, which probably brought the cataclysms upon everyone's heads in the first place.

Asking for possible ideas how to square all that into logically coherent picture.

But the suggestion is that churches perhaps were "energy directors" like Stonehenge.

 

[Jtucker]

But the suggestion is that churches perhaps were "energy directors" like Stonehenge.

What Persej is postulating is like a 4D bomb. I've read that post a number of times and it opens up so many questions as to what is a location? Crypto-geographic beings that inhabit a place? The veil is thinner in certain places? Or in certain places in certain times, like the Bell Witch and the New Madrid quake?

Windows exist naturally, and portals can be artificially created using windows or tech? How much harder is to access 4D than a parallel dimension that's our frequency but alternate? there has to be some link between directed energy (the weird purse or such), location

 

[Avala]

Why wouldn't they be built if residing in 4D? If 4D is material world, you would still have need for infrastructure.

Were they aware that they are in 4D?

 

[Persej]

What Persej is postulating is like a 4D bomb. I've read that post a number of times and it opens up so many questions as to what is a location? Crypto-geographic beings that inhabit a place? The veil is thinner in certain places? Or in certain places in certain times, like the Bell Witch and the New Madrid quake?

Yes, this was a temporary thing. This planet is naturally a 3D world, so whatever location accidentally turns into a 4D zone, it won't last forever.

Windows exist naturally, and portals can be artificially created using windows or tech? How much harder is to access 4D than a parallel dimension that's our frequency but alternate?

Good question. Parallel dimensions are probably much easier to access since they are on 3D like we are.

Were they aware that they are in 4D?

I don't know how well they understood the theory behind it, but they obviously knew the practical side of living in such an environment.

 

[Jtucker]

Well, in that case I'm probably mistaken, because the C's answer regarding last Roman Emperor was Justinian.


Following another clue from the C's:

some "doublets" or better said "multiplets" of particular historical accounts were potentially spotted and presented in "Procopius' Secret History" thread.

Going back to the C's session with Caesar in 2014 (Year 0), that basically initiated this line of inquiry:

simple math gave that the event that destructed Roman Empire (536 AD in official chronology) happened 157 years after Caesar's birth, which would provisionally put it in the mid 50s AD. That would also mean that there was roughly only a century of real Roman history after Caesar was assassinated, which would not give enough time in the official version even for Nero to rise to the throne.

With all that in mind, it's probably wise to approach finding the resolution of that mess conservatively with the assumption that everything we have been told about Roman history after Caesar's were lies until proven otherwise, especially those historical accounts that came to us in written form. On the other hand, some things surely need to be accounted for, like still existing monuments from that period and inscriptions on them, and existing original busts, portraits, coins and other material artifacts, which might need some creative reinterpretation of their real meanings and what they actually tell us about life in those times.

Regarding the written accounts of the 1st century AD, if we're going to follow C's hints and suggestions, what we have from Tacitus and Suetonius need to be deconstructed to filter out anything of any true value.
It also might be interesting to entertain the possibility that those two could have been the same person in reality, as there are some curious parallels between them. For example, names of both have a similar meaning, (Publius Cornelius) Tacitus standing for 'silent, quiet, without words' and (Gaius Suetonius) Tranquillus means 'quiet, calm, serene'. They were both very good friends with Pliny the Younger, and they both cover Roman history up to and including the reign of Domitian about whom both write after the fact, mainly during the time of emperor Trajan in rather negative light. Then they both report their age with a similar or identical phrase.
Tacitus (link):

Suetonius (link):


Turning to their works, regardless of the connection between them, we can find about Suetonius' Twelve Caesars (link):

where we see that dating was provided by Lydus during the reign of emperor Justinian (possible Flavian influence), while the oldest manuscript came from Tours which immediately reminds to historical accounts of Gregory of Tours (Carolingian influence).

In the section Influence we see the Carolingian link in our face:

while when checking Historia Augusta (link):

we additionally see that Suetonius' Twelve Caesars basically present either a template or an account for all Roman emperors til the time of Diocletian, except for Nerva and Trajan, two emperors immediately following Domitian, during who's time Suetonius allegedly had written his work. It is maybe indicative to note that basically all emperors from the time of Constantine's predecessor bore regnal title as "Imperator Caesar Flavius <insert the name> Augustus" which might point to Flavian meddling with the records.

And about works of Tacitus (link):

meaning that we only really have the account about the Year of Four Emperors (69 AD) and shortly after into the Flavian dynasty.

Other Tacitus' historical works were under suspicion already at the time of Voltaire (link):

The same man also found Agricola (link):


Even if we accept the Annals as real history, basically we only have partial accounts about emperors Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, where first two share the name, Tiberius Claudius Nero, while the last one dropped the 'Tiberius' from his. If you check their statues and busts, rather big likeness between the first two is evident, while face on the statues of older Nero is not far behind.


Could this mean that out of all what we got from Annals, we in fact have accounts of only one emperor, Tiberius Claudius Nero? Which together with Histories only covered the time period of the reign of one man with the civil war and unrest after his alleged 'assisted' suicide?

Another interesting bit that is kinda suggestive of that direction is the respective years of reign.
Tiberius reigned for 23 years until 37 AD and his age of 77 (according to Wikipedia). Claudius reigned for 13 years til 54 AD and his age of 63. Nero reigned for 14 years until 68 AD and his age of 30. If we add to Claudius' reign Nero's one, looking at it as of a single man, we get an emperor ruling until he is 77 years old, the same age as Tiberius was when he died. Coincidence? The reign of such an emperor would last 27 years, exactly how long the combined official reign of Flavians Vespasian-Titus-Domitian lasted. Another coincidence?

From the official end of Tiberius in 37 AD until the supposed "536 AD event" in the mid 50s AD, is cca 20 years. Would that be enough for all other things that we still need to account for, like building the Aurelian Walls (link) for example if they really belong to the Roman era, where blinded Belisarius is said to have been condemned to asking passers-by to "give an obolus to Belisarius" (date obolum Belisario), before pardoning him, if he was actually a real historical figure of course? Would it be enough time for everything that is said about the supposed last Roman emperor, Justinian?

I don't know...
Although, seeing that Tiberius Claudius Nero was rather antagonistic towards his (adoptive) step-father Octavian Augustus' posthumous worship, and that Suetonius reported that Tiberius upon coming of age, which should have been during the reign of Augustus which officially started in 27 BC, staged two gladiatorial contests in honor to his father and maternal grandfather, who were stark opponents of Augustus, it seems that what we know about the time period before Tiberius via Suetonius might also be in need of some readjusting.

It took me a while to try and grasp all of the potential textual contradictions you highlighted above. The hornet's nest of Roman History grows with every reading.

It never occurred to me that the Tiberius Claudius Nero could be one person in multiple stages of life (with added years probably - look how fast our current politicians change in four years). That's totally possible. I think Suetonius is an acronym or pseudonym for fragmentary information the Carolingian's obtained or pieced together. So I am not convinced there's a real Roman source attached to that name.

Regarding Justinian as the last, "Roman Emperor", he probably is the last. But he's not in Rome. That's the issue. Constantinople was only later called by that name. Procopius calls it , "Nova Roma". The whole Barbarian thing doesn't hold up with stratigraphy or architecture. I think Heinshohn showed that there aren't hundreds of years between Augustan architecture and Justinian. They are practically the same.

So why is there a Nova Roma within decades of the real Rome and the "Emperor" is now ruling from the borders of Syria in Anatolia?

And you're right about the "doublets" and "multiplets" that even show up in Procopius. Which, I think, kind of points to this whole "parallel" series of events going on in the 1st century. What's left of the records and which one is accurate? That's the only reason I put Procopius higher in potential accuracy than Carolingian interpretations of Latin records from the late Empire. If Vulgate is a medieval re-construction of classical Latin, than how do we know they got anything right, Procopius writes in Greek that is period correct.

Even if we accept that Procopius' texts are from the source time - the monuments all cause a bunch of other issues. Compressing the time line to less than a hundred years between Caesar's death and Justinian messes up everything.

These walls in Northern Britain - the Antonine and Hadrian Walls - are really hard to date. If everything collapses so quickly after Augustus, than are there these massive infrastructure projects happening so far from Rome? Would the Picts and Gaels even mattered to them as Europe collapses?

My guess would be that all the Roman artifacts found at the walls are authentic first century AD items. But the walls aren't. They may have been attributed to whomever the Romans were that took them over, but they likely could be Bronze or Iron Age constructions. With vitrified forts and the bizarre legends of Brittania/Hibernia - who knows why or how those walls showed up.

It's almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff with these records. If I make one supposition that a point is an anchor for a theory, and that one anchor is proven to be inaccurate or fabricated, then I'm going down a rabbit hole that leads nowhere.

The only "red flag" I tend to look at is the Carolingian texts. I have a hard time believing that any original text referring to Rome that has its original copy located in Tours, is accurate.

I asked AI,

"Why are so many Roman Empire texts originally archived in Tours France?"

This was its response:

Many Roman Empire texts were preserved or copied in Tours, France, primarily because its
scriptorium (notably at the Abbey of St. Martin) was a major center for manuscript production, especially during the Carolingian Renaissance (c. 820–860). Scribes at Tours mass-produced Bibles, classical texts, and literary works, turning the region into a key, protected hub for transmitting antique knowledge.

Take the above answer for what it's worth, but I think it says a lot.

A factory of textual creation. That project must have cost a lot of money. And the people paying for it, probably wanted certain outcomes that benefited them. I don't think the purpose was to accurately reproduce the history of Rome. I would think the purpose is to advocate for the New and Holy Empire of Christendom of the Carolingian's. Hence the creation of Vulgate and the empire's history explaining exactly how it was transmitted from Paul to Charlemagne proving they were the inheritors of the Gospels and the Empire of Europe from the Romans.