Collecting Historical clues for calendar manipulation

[no_chill]

Really Great Thread, I also like the notion to collect evidence. However, as discussions like this can go on forever and loose track fast I'd propose to settle/ find out a Date or THE Date (Year) the years might have been added. For example "It must have happened somewhere in 635".

This would serve as a starting point. Because from this time onward you can start looking at events, books, sculptures etc to deduce the actual time we might live in. And to direct efforts into studying/ researching everything that might have happened after said time. It might as well have happened in chunks. Although 1000 years has a nice ring to it and feels comfy, I doubt people back then had the same feeling about the number 1000. Also it only looks pleasing because its an arabic number. And Latin used Letters for dates. Maybe thats a good start. Find out when they actually used Arabic numbers.

The way it looks they paired up Latin for some time with arabic numbers j 635 for example.

According to Wackypedia it happened in europe somewhere between 937 to 1200 century.

Also this issue:

Did they went back and changed the dates to fit with the new calender or simply made a note that this is "old calendar". Since the first seems like an headache to do. Maybe they put that 'j' ( as shown in previous posts in this thread) in front of Numbers to denoate just that. That this year number was in the old and now obsolete format.

But this is just speculations and something that seems plausible to me. Since humans tend to be lazy in nature and cut corners everywhere.

 

[PuzzleBear]

The way it looks they paired up Latin for some time with arabic numbers j 635 for example.

THEY love confusing us !

It’s probable that the i/j before years refers to the "old" Iulian/Julian year numbering. I saw this quite often in churchbooks in the early i600s and also no i/j at all .. simply 625 or so.

I calculated the start of the Julian Calendar to be around 1190. Based on a difference of 3 days, not 10 !!! in 1578 when the "new gregorian” calendar started.

The Easter Pascal Calendar of Ravenna might be a good starting point. Unless this one is a forgery too !!!??? I do not exclude this possibility any longer.

The Pascal Calendar is a roman calendar. Interestingly they used for the number 6, the latin letters "VI", but also "ç". For 7 çI, for 8 çII and 9 çIII. This shall have been merowingian numbers from the 8th century.

Officially it is said the tables display the Easter dates from 532 – 632.
Furthermore the creators of the Easter Table used 8th century numbers yet in the 6th century

Source 95 years, not 100, wiki !!!​

I say the table displays the Easter dates for the years 1487-1581 and it was done to not forget the correction of 3 (not 10!!) days. They had figured out the almost exact length of a solar year to be 365,25, it would not take the star gazers 1200 years to notice they were out of sync by 10 days ! Make-believe !

Thus around 1190 the calendar was synchron with the solar cycle before the re-adjustment in 1578 and that should then have been the time, when the leap day system each 4 years was first introduced. Commonly known as Julian Calendar. But did they start a new counting as well? Maybe.

The following text is copied from my post here:

The Easter Tables or Paschal Calendario, cast in stone in the Museum Cathedral of Ravenna in Italy display the calculated Easter Sunday dates NOT for 532 til 625 but for the years 1487 – 1581, a period of 95 years. It was really important because it would set the calendar again synchron with the solar cycle.

The Pasquale Calendario starts with Easter Sunday being calculated as the first Sunday after new moon, which was Luna 14 or Luna Paschal after a Full moon on Equinox.

The dates are indicated with the roman Kalens/Nonae /Ides system. All displayed dates are Julian Sundays, except for the last 3 years. Those are yet Gregorian Sundays and Julian Wednesdays.
8. April 1579 being the first corrected Sunday after Full Moon that follows a new moon on equinox.

They advanced by 3 days in 1578, probably in October, but who knows ? and changed the Easter Sunday from after new moon to after full moon. The difference were 3 days, not 10 and it was fixed in 1578 not 1582. The Gregorian forgeries happened later.

The 3 days are the difference accumulated in 3 x 128 years, since the start of the Julian Calendar, which had a leap year every 4 years. And that was 3 x too often in 400 years. When they noticed, they decided to fix it as soon as the 3 days were completed in 1578. Cast in stone, to not forget, because the ones that calculated this around 1480 were no longer alive in 1578.

In 1579 til 1581 the roman calendar day numbering was still in use.

The fixed 7 days week with day names was introduced probably in 1582, as well as the day names related to the planetary gods. This might in fact have been the time when Antoninous Pius released the Zodiac coins. There is sth I don’t buy … they could allegedly struck coins in their forged chronology yet 3 centuries BC but for almost 2 millennia noone had the idea to put color pigments on the dies & see what it would leave on textil or paper or papyrus ? I don’t buy that, both techniques were brought or were invented at the same time !

And they added 1 extra day as leap day, the 29th February, as before the 6. Day before Kalens March was doubled. VI K March is 24 February.

When was the J.ulian C.alendar exactly “birthed”?

The year-calculation system always starts with a dominical letter G. Leap years have 2 letters. Btw, 1579 was a G year, not 1582.

Possible starts of the ancient J.C.alendar, considering that the accumulated difference in 1578 was 3 days, for which it takes 3 x 128 = 384 years.
1578-384 = 1194, when that calendar must have been synchron with the solar cycle.

….

Dionysius Exiguus calculation of the “incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ” was allegedly 525 years prior to the year he made his calculations for his Paschal Tables starting in 532 til 625. The (accidental) discovery of the birth of JC started a new AD numbering system. OFFICIAL HIStory. Or rather OFFICIAL FORGERY.

I do not know if the Easter table of Ravenna is supposed to be the one of Dionysius?

So, if we take 1190 + 525 = 1715

1715 is imo very likely the time when the “Gregorian” calendar forgeries were created (and more HIStorical events invented). Adding 7 imaginary days to the real 3 to get the official promoted difference of 10 days, postpone the correction event by 4 years to 1582, as the other changes being done …. or maybe even that happened later than 1582 ? Who knows ?

Source pic​

G Years in 1100: 6/34/62/90 17/45/73 22/50/78
G Years in 1200: 01/29/57/85 7/35/63/91 18/46/74
If the calendar started with a leap year if would have been a G/F year
For 1100: 12/40/68/96 and for 1200: 24/52/80

The closest to the result of 1194 is the G/F year 1196, then the G years 1190 and 1201

I don’t think it started with a Leap Year, so I pick 1190 … maybe due to the importance of the numbers 9 and 11

It was very likely in 1190 when the 12 months instead of 10 or 11 were implemented with the roman Kalens, Nonae, Ides day numbering. Creating a luni-solar calendar synchron with the solar cycle.

 

[PuzzleBear]

Meanwhile I suspect the chronological forgeries were done in the mid 1800s. Starting around 1850 and ongoing to this day.

The architects left their NAME and year of construction in the still wet plaster. That was done at the moment of construction. When the mixture hardens, you have to hew it with a tool, which looks different.

If the architects were told that they would construct forged antiquities, they would not have been allowed to leave neither NAME nor year of construction. In fact, someone tried later to erase the NAME of Vidua.

Source Article The Builders of Ancient Egypt Part 6​

Therefor I think that the idea with Antiquity came later than during construction. Maybe when THEY noticed that the building techniques in the early 1800s were not yet that “durable” because too much rubbish was used and iron rod prodcution just started

I suspect THEY have forged everything merely in the 1800s, also the 1500 & 1600s books, coins, paintings, Antiquity, the dog Father of chronology Scaliger, … literally everything from the time before THEY were able to start the “scripted reality Show”, i.e. once THEY had control and power to rule and fool.

Here is a foto of the Pantenon in Athen, one from Felix Bonfils and one recent (google images). It’s obvious that construction was done inbetween ! Bonfils died 1885.

Another one, where you can spot many differences, Felix Bonfils and recent, Theater Herode Atticus. That’s not the same structure anymore, imo.

Felix Bonfils, had the job to document “Antiquity”. Hidden Hand. Maybe it’s even a fictious character ?

Btw, according to Fulcanelli (Dwellings of the Philosophers) the photographic process was known at least a century before officially photography was invented !

"Tiphaigne de la Roche, who is almost totally unknown, was nevertheless one of the most learned Adepts of the 18th century. In another treatise entitled Giphantie (an anagram of Tiphaigne), he perfectly describes the photographic process, and shows that he knew the chemical manipulations concerning the developing and fixing of the image one century before its discovery by Daguerre and Niepce de Saint-Victor. " P27

 

[ViniB]

I gotta admit, most of what you wrote reasonate with me! Will make a decent reply tomorrow once i find a piece of my collection that is the embodyment of mock up his story

Well it took me a lot more time to find what i was looking for but here it is, a postcard from the 1908 brazilian expo! I never saw something with this much symbolism.....

 

[Quiahuitl]

A Korben Dallas post says The oldest known source document for the bible was said to be dated 400 but only 'discovered' in 1500.

At least that's how I read this post.

 

[Artemisian]

Middle English text with additional 1198 years:

I came across the University of Michigan’s Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse collection free online resource (Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse) while researching the 1607 tsunami that hit south-west England.

I was struck by the chronological listing, starting from Year One, in “A chronicle of London, from 1089 to 1483”. It is described as “written in the fifteenth century, and for the first time printed from mss. in the British museum: to which are added numerous contemporary illustrations, consisting of royal letters, poems, and other articles descriptive of public events, or of the manners and customs of the metropolis”.

For example, it records “Anno sexto: In this yere were seyn at oones too fulle mones in the firmament” [in this year were seen at once two full moons...]. In the chronological listing, Anno sexto corresponds to Year Six. The next entry is Anno vij, familiar as Year Seven in Roman numerals - lower case J’s seem to be used for the last “digit”, presumably to signify the end of the number.

And yet, interjected between these dates, it says: “And in this yere of oure lord a ml'cciiij began the ordre of Frere P’chours…” [and in this year of our lord 1204 began the order of …]. Year Six is also recorded as 1204 - a difference of 1198 years. It is as if two different chronologies are being rather crudely spliced together.

Oddly, Anno primo (Year One) is given as the “yere kyng John loste all Normandye”, while Wikipedia has it that this also happened in 1204.

In Anno ix, it records: “in this yere was born Herry the kynges sone”. Henry III, King John’s son, is reputed to have been born in 1207, again a difference of 1198 years.

(hmmm - just been struck by the similarity of “kynges” with “Genghis”….)

The numbering subsequently gets more unfamiliar, with additional superscripts, so that we have Ao. po , Ao s’c'do , Ao. t’cio, Anno iiijto ,Anno vto , Anno vito , etc. It is a shame that the originals can’t be viewed online, but I haven’t enquired so perhaps the library might be persuaded to take a few photographs of the source texts.

(Aside: There are also lots of weird and wonderful Fortean-type mentions in the Chronicle - one memorable one was of a sickness in the north-east that had the effect of reducing the number of teeth people were born with afterwards from 32 to 28. Radiation?)

 

[Oracle]

I suspect the chronological forgeries were done in the mid 1800s. Starting around 1850 and ongoing to this day

I am confused. Did you mean the 19th century year 1850, or the 18th century year 1750?

If the latter, I agree. Various sources over research time have inclined me toward 1750 as being one of many reset years.

 

[cheep]

I am confused. Did you mean the 19th century year 1850, or the 18th century year 1750?

If the latter, I agree. Various sources over research time have inclined me toward 1750 as being one of many reset years.

Check out this guys site. The below is taken from a comment he posted on the bottom of the main page.

Its All Fake

It doesn’t work like that. There was no renaissance or Egypt. Timelines are forced on children in public schools because it is a lie. Memorization and regurgitation. I use the year 1800/1801 bc if you trace everything backwards they all converge at this point. We should be on year 223 with a timeline mindset but you cant do that if you want to insert a fake history so 1800/01 was chosen bc they just like aces and eights so its a number drop. I used to think theres always a chance I am incorrect but the more I go it all only reaffirms my position. To someone new to the concept I can see why they would dismiss it at first but I no longer question or doubt myself, this is really what happened and when. What I look for now when researching a paper is evidence that would prove me wrong, everything I can think of that could shoot me down is what I go after. It would only take a single instance to throw my theory out but so far nobody can provide one single thing that can be taken at face value or that supports the timeline. The dark ages and renaissance is a cover for the Reset. its how they explain how we went from nothing but sharp metal sticks to kill each other with to space ships in just 200 years. The industrial revolution is another cover. Ive been holding off on Egypt but I guess I’ll start that one next.Giza is a big one but alot of the details are just chatter. The real story is ALL world heritage sites are faked. I’m wrapping up one now that overlaps this thread. Basically the same formula is used over and over even when the venue goes from local to world. A group comes in before the people arrive and stages the scene and reburys it so later it can be ‘discovered’ and apper authentic. In the Jamestown settlement the stage was set up and buried for 50 years before the rediscovery came, Chaco canyon is what Im working on now, it was built in the 1870’s, some parts were rediscovered in the 1880’s and other parts wasnt until 1909. So we;re talking decades of planning here, some people have a hard time thinking that is plausible but I think its the only way really, the long game.

 

[Loyfwe]

Hi folks, this my first ever post!

I came across various different styles of dating inscribed on gravestones present in my local churchyardThe church is allegedly Saxon, allegedly first built in the 14th century. On a logical basis all the gravestones should be dated no earlier than AD 1300. The gravestones themselves are dated in the J xxx, I xxx and AD xxxx style. Two examples of the ‘J’ style below:

So we have J-777 & J-797. The J’s are unmistakeable and cannot be confused for anything but J’s and for further distinction are inscribed in a smaller font with a hyphen separating the letter from the numerals. I would also note that the gravestones don’t appear that old on a relative basis.

Interestingly, the changes in dating styles do not flow from one to another through time on what you might imagine to be a neat linear basis. Some ‘I’ dates precede some of the ‘J’ dates and vice-versa. Similarly some of the AD dates precede the ‘J’ and ‘I’ dates and vice versa. Confusion seems to have reigned for more than half a century. How could this have happened one might ask?

During this period of ‘confusion’ the ‘I’ date very clearly morphed into the number ‘one’ and the rest is history as they say!

As stated above, the ‘historical record’ gives an initial construction date of the Saxon church as being circa 14th century AD yet clearly this is at odds with graves dated in what would appear to be the first millennium, indeed taking gravestone J-777 (picture above) as an example this headstone precedes the construction date of the church by somewhere between 523 and 622 years!!

To my mind there is only one reasonable explanation. Obviously the church was built prior to the grave being in place, so earlier than year 777. Calendar and timeline changes in the 18th century served to obfuscate the slight of hand of the PTB in their mutating the letter I to the number 1. Voila.

 

[Artemisian]

Hi folks, this my first ever post!

I came across various different styles of dating inscribed on gravestones present in my local churchyardThe church is allegedly Saxon, allegedly first built in the 14th century. On a logical basis all the gravestones should be dated no earlier than AD 1300. The gravestones themselves are dated in the J xxx, I xxx and AD xxxx style. Two examples of the ‘J’ style below:

View attachment 27310​

View attachment 27311​

So we have J-777 & J-797. The J’s are unmistakeable and cannot be confused for anything but J’s and for further distinction are inscribed in a smaller font with a hyphen separating the letter from the numerals. I would also note that the gravestones don’t appear that old on a relative basis.

Interestingly, the changes in dating styles do not flow from one to another through time on what you might imagine to be a neat linear basis. Some ‘I’ dates precede some of the ‘J’ dates and vice-versa. Similarly some of the AD dates precede the ‘J’ and ‘I’ dates and vice versa. Confusion seems to have reigned for more than half a century. How could this have happened one might ask?

During this period of ‘confusion’ the ‘I’ date very clearly morphed into the number ‘one’ and the rest is history as they say!

As stated above, the ‘historical record’ gives an initial construction date of the Saxon church as being circa 14th century AD yet clearly this is at odds with graves dated in what would appear to be the first millennium, indeed taking gravestone J-777 (picture above) as an example this headstone precedes the construction date of the church by somewhere between 523 and 622 years!!

To my mind there is only one reasonable explanation. Obviously the church was built prior to the grave being in place, so earlier than year 777. Calendar and timeline changes in the 18th century served to obfuscate the slight of hand of the PTB in their mutating the letter I to the number 1. Voila.

Great post! Would you be able to give a rough idea of where the photos were taken, if you do not wish to give the exact location?

 

[Jd755]

Hi folks, this my first ever post!

I came across various different styles of dating inscribed on gravestones present in my local churchyardThe church is allegedly Saxon, allegedly first built in the 14th century. On a logical basis all the gravestones should be dated no earlier than AD 1300. The gravestones themselves are dated in the J xxx, I xxx and AD xxxx style. Two examples of the ‘J’ style below:

View attachment 27310​

View attachment 27311​

So we have J-777 & J-797. The J’s are unmistakeable and cannot be confused for anything but J’s and for further distinction are inscribed in a smaller font with a hyphen separating the letter from the numerals. I would also note that the gravestones don’t appear that old on a relative basis.

Interestingly, the changes in dating styles do not flow from one to another through time on what you might imagine to be a neat linear basis. Some ‘I’ dates precede some of the ‘J’ dates and vice-versa. Similarly some of the AD dates precede the ‘J’ and ‘I’ dates and vice versa. Confusion seems to have reigned for more than half a century. How could this have happened one might ask?

During this period of ‘confusion’ the ‘I’ date very clearly morphed into the number ‘one’ and the rest is history as they say!

As stated above, the ‘historical record’ gives an initial construction date of the Saxon church as being circa 14th century AD yet clearly this is at odds with graves dated in what would appear to be the first millennium, indeed taking gravestone J-777 (picture above) as an example this headstone precedes the construction date of the church by somewhere between 523 and 622 years!!

To my mind there is only one reasonable explanation. Obviously the church was built prior to the grave being in place, so earlier than year 777. Calendar and timeline changes in the 18th century served to obfuscate the slight of hand of the PTB in their mutating the letter I to the number 1. Voila.

How did you come to presume they are dates?
Is there any other text carved in them?
Are they located together?
Are there other headstones nearby bearing conventional dating?

 

[Loyfwe]

Great post! Would you be able to give a rough idea of where the photos were taken, if you do not wish to give the exact location?

Thanks for your comment Artemisian.
The photo’s were taken in the graveyard of St Lawrence church, Asheldham, Essex. There are further examples of ‘J’ and ‘I’ dated headstones in other local graveyards in this area.

I’m presently several months into a project that I’ve undertaken to answer three questions that have puzzled me for some time namely,
1. What is the significance of the oddly dated gravestones in local churchyards,

2. Why do the 15 churches in this area reflect a past history of catastrophic damage concluding with each and every one of the churches having been entirely rebuilt in the middle to late 19th century, this all according to information available from Historic England, Listed Buildings, etc, which is at odds with the relatively uneventful history of the area under mainstream sources, and
3. Why do the churches and older buildings in the area appear to be partially buried.

Three simple questions cannot unfortunately be answered in simple form without rebuke and thus the project has become a somewhat lengthy exercise. The answers are clear to me but my time is spent gathering information in order to ward off anticipated “but what about’s”.

The key, in my opinion, is that Geology, Topography, Archaeology, Anthropology (in fact most of the ‘ologies) are all subservient to Father Time, Chronology. If the chronology is flawed then the puzzle is unsolvable.
If I ever come out from under this pile of data then I’ll post further...

How did you come to presume they are dates?
Is there any other text carved in them?
Are they located together?
Are there other headstones nearby bearing conventional dating?

Hi to you too Jd755,
See my reply to Artemisian.

I don’t think the ‘J’ dates are in dispute a quick google image search of 18th century gravestones provides enough evidence of this style of dating. What’s interesting is that I can stand in a graveyard surrounded by concrete (no pun intended) evidence of three different types of gravestone dating systems (including conventional dating) outside a church allegedly built some 600 to 700 years ago in the 14th century.

As has been said before by others, perhaps the stone mason was offering discounts by omitting the number one or further perhaps these gravestones were transported in from afar and are not contemporary to the churchyard. Or perhaps not.
I appreciate the late arrival of the letter J to the alphabet and that at one time there was no distinction between the letters I and J but as I stated in my original post the dates are all jumbled thus offering no clear timeline in respect of the change of method.
Just trying to pin down the reset date(s). Hope that helps...

 

[Jd755]

Hi folks, this my first ever post!

I came across various different styles of dating inscribed on gravestones present in my local churchyardThe church is allegedly Saxon, allegedly first built in the 14th century. On a logical basis all the gravestones should be dated no earlier than AD 1300. The gravestones themselves are dated in the J xxx, I xxx and AD xxxx style. Two examples of the ‘J’ style below:

View attachment 27310​

View attachment 27311​

So we have J-777 & J-797. The J’s are unmistakeable and cannot be confused for anything but J’s and for further distinction are inscribed in a smaller font with a hyphen separating the letter from the numerals. I would also note that the gravestones don’t appear that old on a relative basis.

Interestingly, the changes in dating styles do not flow from one to another through time on what you might imagine to be a neat linear basis. Some ‘I’ dates precede some of the ‘J’ dates and vice-versa. Similarly some of the AD dates precede the ‘J’ and ‘I’ dates and vice versa. Confusion seems to have reigned for more than half a century. How could this have happened one might ask?

During this period of ‘confusion’ the ‘I’ date very clearly morphed into the number ‘one’ and the rest is history as they say!

As stated above, the ‘historical record’ gives an initial construction date of the Saxon church as being circa 14th century AD yet clearly this is at odds with graves dated in what would appear to be the first millennium, indeed taking gravestone J-777 (picture above) as an example this headstone precedes the construction date of the church by somewhere between 523 and 622 years!!

To my mind there is only one reasonable explanation. Obviously the church was built prior to the grave being in place, so earlier than year 777. Calendar and timeline changes in the 18th century served to obfuscate the slight of hand of the PTB ".mutating the letter I to the number 1. Voila.


Thanks for your comment Artemisian.
The photo’s were taken in the graveyard of St Lawrence church, Asheldham, Essex. There are further examples of ‘J’ and ‘I’ dated headstones in other local graveyards in this area.
I’m presently several months into a project that I’ve undertaken to answer three questions that have puzzled me for some time namely, 1. What is the significance of the oddly dated gravestones in local churchyards, 2. Why do the 15 churches in this area reflect a past history of catastrophic damage concluding with each and every one of the churches having been entirely rebuilt in the middle to late 19th century, this all according to information available from Historic England, Listed Buildings, etc, which is at odds with the relatively uneventful history of the area under mainstream sources, and 3. Why do the churches and older buildings in the area appear to be partially buried.
Three simple questions cannot unfortunately be answered in simple form without rebuke and thus the project has become a somewhat lengthy exercise. The answers are clear to me but my time is spent gathering information in order to ward off anticipated “but what about’s”.
The key, in my opinion, is that Geology, Topography, Archaeology, Anthropology (in fact most of the ‘ologies) are all subservient to Father Time, Chronology. If the chronology is flawed then the puzzle is unsolvable.
If I ever come out from under this pile of data then I’ll post further...


Hi to you too Jd755,
See my reply to Artemisian.
I don’t think the ‘J’ dates are in dispute a quick google image search of 18th century gravestones provides enough evidence of this style of dating. What’s interesting is that I can stand in a graveyard surrounded by concrete (no pun intended) evidence of three different types of gravestone dating systems (including conventional dating) outside a church allegedly built some 600 to 700 years ago in the 14th century.
As has been said before by others, perhaps the stone mason was offering discounts by omitting the number one or further perhaps these gravestones were transported in from afar and are not contemporary to the churchyard. Or perhaps not.
I appreciate the late arrival of the letter J to the alphabet and that at one time there was no distinction between the letters I and J but as I stated in my original post the dates are all jumbled thus offering no clear timeline in respect of the change of method.
Just trying to pin down the reset date(s). Hope that helps...

Not really.
Good luck with your digging.

 

[Loyfwe]

Not really.
Good luck with your digging

Cheers.

 

[Frostychud]

Not really.
Good luck with your digging.

This is the way you welcome a new poster to the site? For all you know, the information he provided here might be the missing link that another researcher has been waiting for, or simply lead someone reading this thread to make a new connection.

 

[Artemisian]

The photo’s were taken in the graveyard of St Lawrence church, Asheldham, Essex. There are further examples of ‘J’ and ‘I’ dated headstones in other local graveyards in this area.
I’m presently several months into a project that I’ve undertaken to answer three questions that have puzzled me for some time namely, 1. What is the significance of the oddly dated gravestones in local churchyards, 2. Why do the 15 churches in this area reflect a past history of catastrophic damage concluding with each and every one of the churches having been entirely rebuilt in the middle to late 19th century, this all according to information available from Historic England, Listed Buildings, etc, which is at odds with the relatively uneventful history of the area under mainstream sources, and 3. Why do the churches and older buildings in the area appear to be partially buried.

I appreciate the late arrival of the letter J to the alphabet and that at one time there was no distinction between the letters I and J but as I stated in my original post the dates are all jumbled thus offering no clear timeline in respect of the change of method.
Just trying to pin down the reset date(s). Hope that helps...

I'm in southern central England with very similar questions, but not just confined to churches. There are numerous recorded catastrophes which are grossly downplayed - I am looking into the 1607 tsunami which hit south-west England. I believe that the sea-water then found its way through the large limestone and chalk aquifers, to overflow inland, creating a huge flooding event in the Thames valley area, and also likely further north. I should be posting fairly soon, but I need to work on the maps a bit more.

I have come across references to several 'storm surges' on the east coast of England, which affected the Lowland Countries (Netherlands, in particular).

I am done tying myself in knots trying to untwist the chronologies (!), and am focussing on first principles on what the evidence present in the other -ologies might indicate. For example, "Iron Age hillforts" around here still have existing ditches while more recent "Roman" structures are always buried: simply doesn't make sense, especially when the theory of cultural accretion is applied (I think that's what They call the steady fall of dust that supposedly accumulates over the centuries).

But what if the "Iron Age hillforts" are where the mud flood survivors had to take refuge, after their beautiful "Roman villas" were destroyed...? I have even wondered if folk dug the 'defence' ditches to live in, albeit temporarily, as the wind can be pretty brutal on the higher ground, or maybe at Wansdyke. There's some interesting LIDAR that looks to support an overflowing of water from chalk hills, and the hills on the old "John Speed" maps look a bit more dominating than now. It seems a limitless research project, but I will post up something by the Spring.

Good luck!

 

[Jd755]

This is the way you welcome a new poster to the site? For all you know, the information he provided here might be the missing link that another researcher has been waiting for, or simply lead someone reading this thread to make a new connection.

Oh do stop being offended on behalf of other people. It adds nothing to this thread. My questions were entirely on topic and the reply given didnt answer them. My response is honest and Lofwe wasnt offended.

I have come across references to several 'storm surges' on the east coast of England, which affected the Lowland Countries (Netherlands, in particular).

Do these areas both here and in the Netherlands suffer from storm surges in modern times?
By modern times I mean from 1900 till the present day?

I recall some bloke suggesting that many valleys that today are river valleys were in earlier times actually lakes. When i remember his name and or where i come across it I'll add it in as it may help you.
I think he argues sea levels were higher and that was the reason for the lakes being there. It might well have a bearing on the damages to the old churches of which St Leonards is obviously one that was damaged.

Brain cell 346gt fired and i remebered his name Robert Langdon and here is his website;
Prehistoric Britain

 

[Artemisian]

Oh do stop being offended on behalf of other people. It adds nothing to this thread. My questions were entirely on topic and the reply given didnt answer them. My response is honest and Lofwe wasnt offended.

Do these areas both here and in the Netherlands suffer from storm surges in modern times?
By modern times I mean from 1900 till the present day?

I recall some bloke suggesting that many valleys that today are river valleys were in earlier times actually lakes. When i remember his name and or where i come across it I'll add it in as it may help you.
I think he argues sea levels were higher and that was the reason for the lakes being there. It might well have a bearing on the damages to the old churches of which St Leonards is obviously one that was damaged.

Brain cell 346gt fired and i remebered his name Robert Langdon and here is his website;
Prehistoric Britain

There was a bad storm surge in 1953, that was devastating in the Netherlands, and the east coast of England was also badly affected. There are Middle English records of earthquakes and "waterquakes", but nothing really like that since 1900s that I am aware of, apart from 1953. All major flooding has been rain-fed.

I've seen Langdon's presentation, and the graphics are excellent, and the use of the data. However, I have difficulty accepting such large, recent sea-level changes. The isostatic bounce, as Scotland rises and southern England dips following the retreat of the ice cap of the last Ice Age, would make this more likely a future scenario, rather than a past one.

I guess the lakes could have been glacier-fed. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any legends or folklore of the area around Wansdyke being islands, while there are plenty of Drowned Village legends along the west coast of Wales, which would be more in accord with isostatic change. Thanks for your interest.

 

[Jd755]

There was a bad storm surge in 1953, that was devastating in the Netherlands, and the east coast of England was also badly affected. There are Middle English records of earthquakes and "waterquakes", but nothing really like that since 1900s that I am aware of, apart from 1953. All major flooding has been rain-fed.

I've seen Langdon's presentation, and the graphics are excellent, and the use of the data. However, I have difficulty accepting such large, recent sea-level changes. The isostatic bounce, as Scotland rises and southern England dips following the retreat of the ice cap, would make this more likely a future scenario, rather than a past one.

Just the one then. So whatever may have gone on before 1900 has all but stopped in regards storm surges. Interesting.
I have or did have a PDF of weather going back hundreds of years, now you triggered the memory once more.
Its already posted here in at least two threads in the archive so will have a search in there tomorrow and on a couple of drives sat in a drawer and see if I can find it. If there were more storm events its likely they were in there.

I'm with you on Mr Langdon's sea level rise. His idea of canals or rather connected waterways seemed to be quite sound especially given the angular nature of the turns in many of them. Using them to join together standing bodies of waterr without locks not so much.
If there were no locks then the only way to maintain a level between two equal elevation standing bodies of water would be parralel to contour.
Easy to set with an A frame, string and plumbob and the human eye, so doable for sure but seems a lot of effort to go too when there is dry land to move across unless the gains made it worth the effort.
True water transport can move greater volumes of 'stuff' over greater distance with less effort than land transport can especially if the land was forested, as I suspect most of this island was for most of its existence, but the higher up the hill one goes the less soil is accumulated so less room to dig a canal/waterway in.

Not convinced by the ice age bounce theory. Was for a long time but not any more.

Edit; Found it!
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/useful-links-and-channels.5280/post-88509

Warning I got lost in it for best part of two days. Its just too damned interesting.

 

[Loyfwe]

I'm in southern central England with very similar questions, but not just confined to churches. There are numerous recorded catastrophes which are grossly downplayed - I am looking into the 1607 tsunami which hit south-west England. I believe that the sea-water then found its way through the large limestone and chalk aquifers, to overflow inland, creating a huge flooding event in the Thames valley area, and also likely further north. I should be posting fairly soon, but I need to work on the maps a bit more.

I have come across references to several 'storm surges' on the east coast of England, which affected the Lowland Countries (Netherlands, in particular).

I am done tying myself in knots trying to untwist the chronologies (!), and am focussing on first principles on what the evidence present in the other -ologies might indicate. For example, "Iron Age hillforts" around here still have existing ditches while more recent "Roman" structures are always buried: simply doesn't make sense, especially when the theory of cultural accretion is applied (I think that's what They call the steady fall of dust that supposedly accumulates over the centuries).

But what if the "Iron Age hillforts" are where the mud flood survivors had to take refuge, after their beautiful "Roman villas" were destroyed...? I have even wondered if folk dug the 'defence' ditches to live in, albeit temporarily, as the wind can be pretty brutal on the higher ground, or maybe at Wansdyke. There's some interesting LIDAR that looks to support an overflowing of water from chalk hills, and the hills on the old "John Speed" maps look a bit more dominating than now. It seems a limitless research project, but I will post up something by the Spring.

Good luck!

Thanks for that.

The reason for me concentrating on the churches are that they are the only ‘historical monuments’ in this neck of the woods with perhaps the only exception being the sea wall flood defences that may date back to “Roman” times, however, curiously, no archaeology has been undertaken on these literally miles and miles of embankments, back lakes, sluices, etc that dominate the eastern coasts. Most other structures in this area date from late 19th century onwards. So for me the history of the churches, or more so, the dates of construction, reconstruction, renovation and repair works to each individual church has been one of my focuses which happily I’ve now completed as one part of the jig-saw. I can tell you that 95% of the damage cited throughout the historical record was occasioned to the East facing elevations (where you find the Chancels).

Some may argue but my advice would be ignore claims of ‘cultural layers’ as this notion doesn’t stand the test of proper scrutiny, at least not in my opinion, and it’s a poor attempt to deflect attention from what is simply a layer of earth deposited in one short event by way of red herring cover story. My own house is over a 100 yrs old and I’m still waiting for the start of a build-up!

I think you’re right in suggesting that post catastrophe life would have been a throwback to a past age, at least until recovery set in, yet today the evidence of such life would be erroneously cast back in time beyond it’s actual place in history.

Will post further in due course...

This is the way you welcome a new poster to the site? For all you know, the information he provided here might be the missing link that another researcher has been waiting for, or simply lead someone reading this thread to make a new connection.

No worries guys. Difficult times for some, patience gives way ‘to just wanting answers’ that are frustratingly elusive. No offence taken.
This is my understanding of ‘J’ & ‘I’ dates:
I quite naturally initially took the ‘J’ to be a reference to Jesus, this was reinforced upon learning that the ‘I’ could be a reference to Iesus (Jesus in Greek). I was relatively happy at this stage.
This understanding was swayed when I investigated the Julian calendar, perhaps the ‘J’ stood for Julius and the numbering started at the point of Caesars reign, say 46 BC in modern terms. The consequence would be to move the ‘J’ date back 47 years on our modern timeline, thus J-777 would equate to AD 730 or with the millennium shift AD 1730. This seemed all well and good but what about the ‘I’ dates?
Then I learnt about the late introduction of the letter ‘J’ to the alphabet and for a period of time the letters were not exclusive to each other, meaning they could be happily transposed. (Similar to the letters ‘f’ and ‘s’).
I’m currently leaning towards the Julius Caesar timeline only because the Medieval Latin Roman Catholic Church worshiped pagan gods, which is of no surprise when you consider that the so called ‘Roman occupation’ of these fair isles falls within this same so called medieval period. Pagan worship was not completely eradicated from this country until the late 1700’s in modern terms (earlier on the continent commencing after Papal Bull late 1500’s onward). Those brits never did like to toe the line!
I’m also attracted by this slip of 47 years. A round thousand year shift (unless accidental, which I very much doubt) seems a little amateurish in a field of woven deceits.
Jesus and Julius (if they existed at all!) were contemporaries so who do you think got the vote?
Perhaps I’m wrong but it’s the best I can do....