Collecting Historical clues for calendar manipulation

[UncleVito]

A Bible from 1775 shows a 13 month calendar, which starts with March. This correctly aligns the latin base words for September, October, November, and December. See ...


View: https://youtu.be/vGgjdeEODn0?si=t_DRCzEu5hGa1DNQ

 

[Starfire]

A Bible from 1775 shows a 13 month calendar, which starts with March. This correctly aligns the latin base words for September, October, November, and December. See ...


View: https://youtu.be/vGgjdeEODn0?si=t_DRCzEu5hGa1DNQ

The book shown in the video is likely to be a Torah. The words for the days of the weeks and months are in Hebrew. And Saturday is the last day of the week / Sabbat in Judaism. Judaism doesn't use the western calendar, where the year is 2025. For Jews the year is 5785 and New Years is at the Autumnal Equinox currently. But for some reason they start counting the calendar months in March. They also have a thirteenth month called Adar that is celebrated 7 out of every 19 years, to set the calendar straight.

If the book in the video IS a Christian Bible from 1885, that would be really interesting and raise a few questions. Was the Church as a whole using the Hebrew calendar? Or just Protestants?I think it would have to be a Protestant Christian Bible and not a Catholic Bible, since it's not written in Latin. Many Sephardic Jews and Conversos who fled Spain and Portugal ended up in Northern Europe. Evidence is showing that they were a primary influence in the Protestant Reformation. Did they include Hebrew timekeeping in the Bibles now available in each countries' own language?

-----------

I do think that we originally had 13 lunar months in a year, with 360 days in a year. Then a major celestial cataclysm, such as the Younger Dryas, knocked us loopy enough to change the length of the year.

 

[ViniB]

The more i look into it, it's clear that the americas were given as spoils of conquest after the destruction of the old world.

In this particular case, a bolivian coin depcting Bolivar as a Caesar like figure. For comparison another one in better condition

 

[Frostychud]

I am copying the following excerpt from a longer, quickly-buried post in another thread, because I think it's a real smoking gun that deserves to be examined.

I came across the title page of a book that shows, indisputably, that we cannot trust the dates written in these books. I like to go to Google Books, set the date range from 1500-1600, and search for random words like "Moses". Then, when I find a book that looks juicy, I like to scroll through it, just seeing if my eyes land on anything interesting. To my great regret, I do not read Latin. It's amazing how many books were printed in the early 1500's. Who read all these books?

Anyway, I landed on a book entitled "Iosue", written by Nicolai Serarii of the Societatis Iesu Theologi (the Jesuits), listed as having been published in 1509.

Nicolai Serarii Societatis Iesu Theologi Iosue, ab vtero ad ipsum usque tumulum, è Moysis Exodo, Leuitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio; & è proprio ipsius libro toto ac Paralipomenis, libris quinque explanatus: ... tomus prior [-posterior] ..

Here is the title page:

So, we've seen this before: this must have been the original form of the M, one forwards C and one backwards C with an I in the middle. You can even see how this three-letter combination might have evolved into the straight M we know -- look at some of the round M's that occasionally appear. D is also nothing but an I next to a backwards C.

("Moguntia" is the Latin name for the city of Mainz.)

We have a first problem. This title page would suggest that for some reason publishers in Mainz went back to using early forms of the numeral M after over a thousand years for no good reason.

But we have an even bigger problem. The Jesuit order was founded in 1534. The book also refers to...Joseph Scaliger, who was born in 1540 and died in 1609. So there is absolutely no way this book was published in 1509. But how then to interpret the date written on the title page? Were 1509 and 1609 once the same?

Again, think about it. We have a huge contradiction here, one that cannot be resolved. Either:

- the printer was such an idiot that he got the date wrong by 100 years, then went ahead and released the book anyway (highly improbable).

OR

- the date we see actually refers to the year 1609 and not 1509, which calls into question our entire dating system (highly improbable).

OR

- there was some tampering at some point (also highly improbable).

This object exists and was circulated. I can usually imagine how mainstream historians explain away the myriad inconsistencies and anomalies we focus on here, but in this case I see absolutely no way out other than a perplexed shrug.

I did ctrl+F searches in the text for any possible references to years. For example, I searched for the numbers 15 and 14 (presuming I would find dates behind them like 1503 or whatever that might orient me). But I found nothing but page and index numbers. Maybe someone else wants to check more thoroughly, but I think there are no dates at all in this long book, which is very strange.

Remember, all it takes is one outlier like this to prove that something is completely off. There is no way to explain this publication date within any received framework we have.

This reminds me of all those books in which Columbus discovered the New World in 1592, not 1492. All I did was go to Google Books and search for "Columbus 1592". I found several, very easily (I also found a 1488). One might be a typo, but not five.

 

[Jd755]

Quickly buried?
What are you on about

Here is the original post for the smoking gun image.
The different history of the Roman Empire
Cross linking helps the reader and the algorithyms that wander these pages thus boosting enagement and readership.
An older discussion on the reversed c
SH Archive - Napoleonic Oddities

 

[Frostychud]

In my previous post I asked, rhetorically, how mainstream historians explained howling anomalies like a book published in 1509 that refers to 16th century history. I couldn't believe they would have the chutzpah to claim that it must just be a typo.

Check it out:

Library Guides: Rare Bibles: Geneva Bible Phony (1495/1594)

So this really is how they explain away these anomalous title pages. As if any professional book printer would be so careless as to confuse 1495 and 1594 on the single most visible/important page of the book. (See my previous post for another example.) This website claims that the Bible was recalled after publication due to this error. Imagine how much money this must have caused them to lose. Notice as well that these "errors" ought also to give us publication dates like "1954" or "5941" if they are indeed random. But that doesn't happen. We just get confusion between 14-, 15-, and 16-.

In both cases the only way to "save" the book is by adding a century to the publication date.

I think that 1495 was 1595, 1509 was 1609, and 1492 was 1592. As if 4, 5, and 6 were somehow all interchangeable at one point. I can't figure it out but I don't buy the "typo" explanation.

 

[Jd755]

A.discussion relevant.to the content of this.thread at.the other place.

Our timeline could be much shorter than we think...

 

[feralimal]

I love this discussion of fakery.

In my previous post I asked, rhetorically, how mainstream historians explained howling anomalies like a book published in 1509 that refers to 16th century history. I couldn't believe they would have the chutzpah to claim that it must just be a typo.

That is quite ridiculous. One thing - you mention Joseph Scaliger - he had a famous father Julius. It isn't that they were referring to Scaliger the father, is it? Maybe that would be possible. Also, I have previously heard discussion that pointed at the Scaligers themselves re-writing history. Perhaps they were the original historical administrators.

I also spotted this sort of thing recently too:
The Daily Fake

I had never heard of the idea of 'pseudo philosophers' - you'd think that wouldn't be possible in the world of philosophical ideas. But it seems it was pretty common for medieval scholars to contribute to the works of Augustine, Aristotle. These folks were pseudo-authors, writing pseudo-versions of other's works. Somehow other, less pseudo-, medieval scholars were able to discern the real philosophical works from the pseudo versions. And thankfully, we only use those real versions. Lol.

While it might seem odd in the world of contemporary journal publication, smuggling ideas under someone else’s name is rather more common in the history of philosophy than you might think. Medieval philosophy in particular abounds with texts that blur the boundaries between anonymity, pseudonymity and straightforward authorship. Consider the various ‘pseudos-’ – from pseudo-Augustine, pseudo-Aristotle, pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite – that proliferated in the late antique and medieval periods. Many of the medieval scholars used this kind of device to invoke the authority of an older figure for their ideas; humble monks who wrote (if writing under any name at all) under the names of the mighty dead to gain intellectual clout and authority.

from From the pseudo to the forger: the value of faked philosophy | Aeon Essays

I reckon this sort of thing - reading works, then adding or augmenting a 'brand' such as 'Aristotle' or 'Augustine' might have been considered perfectly acceptable. Maybe back then, 'history' didn't have a sense of monolithic permanence we were taught to assume it has. Even though re-writing history and inserting new bits is typical now too - for some reason most imagine it to be static.

The date error is especially poor though!

 

[Jd755]

Anyway, I landed on a book entitled "Iosue", written by Nicolai Serarii of the Societatis Iesu Theologi (the Jesuits), listed as having been published in 1509.

Here is a better image of the book. The zoom is excellent.
'nicolai serarii societatis iesv theologi iosve : ab vtero ad ipsum vsq[ue] tvmvlvm, è moysis exodo, leuitico, numeris, deuteronomio, & è proprio ipsius libro toto, ac paralipomenis, libris quinq[ue] explanatus. tomus prior, gesta eius usq[ue] ad bella complectitur' - Viewer | MDZ

 

[Frostychud]

That is quite ridiculous. One thing - you mention Joseph Scaliger - he had a famous father Julius. It isn't that they were referring to Scaliger the father, is it? Maybe that would be possible. Also, I have previously heard discussion that pointed at the Scaligers themselves re-writing history. Perhaps they were the original historical administrators.

No, I thought of that too. The author uses his full name, "Joseph Scaliger". The father, Julius Caesar Scaliger, is indeed a rabbit hole unto himself. I also discovered in passing that the future Pope Pius II, Ennea Piccolomini, wrote an erotic novel that became very popular. Tamansky thinks Enneo = Aeneas. Incidentally it is because of a letter written by Enneo that we "know" the Gutenberg Bible was published in Frankfurt in 1455. Ennea's biography on Wikipedia reads like a made-up story. Pustogarov cites the technical complexity of the Gutenberg Bible as evidence that it cannot have been the first published book. Not to mention the fact that it just happens to contain only those books which were approved by the Council of Trent almost a hundred years later.

Pustogarov thinks Erasmus wrote the NT in 1516. There's a German language NT incunabulum published in the 1460's called the Mentelin Bible. Looking more deeply into it, we learn that there's no printing date in the book, but ONE copy of it is marked (exactly where the dated colophon would be) with a handwritten note that reads "bought in 1466 for 10 dollars" or whatever. That's it. The suspicious location of the note (why isn't it on the blank first page where everyone writes notes like that?) is evidence the date is fake.

Furthermore, a handwritten note at the end of this copy provides a decisive clue as to the date of printing (folio 400 verso). Inscribed beneath the coats of arms of the book's first owners, the Augsburg merchant and councilman Hektor Mülich (died 1489 or 1490) and his wife of patrician lineage, Ottilia Conzelmann (died 1467), a notice records the date and price of purchase: "This book was bought unbound for the price of 12 florins on 27 June 1466." Its printing therefore must have been completed sometime before that date.

https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667069

While looking for information about early German Bibles, I found this website showing that all pre-Luther Bibles printed in German put Jesus' resurrection on a Saturday! These are pre-Reformation, therefore Catholic Bibles. So somehow every monk in Germany forgot that Jesus rose on Easter Sunday, although the Catholic Church was 1500 years old at that point. Well, just one more piece of evidence that the Catholic Church was not what we're told, and that the religion of Germany at this time was Judaism.

https://bible-menorah.jimdofree.com/english/resurrection-on-sabbath/german-bible-prints-1/

Bonus, here's an image from the 1477 Sorg Bible showing a horned Moses receiving the tablets of the Law from Jesus in a burning bush.

Title page showing 1477 publication date:

The official explanation of the horns Moses used to be depicted with is that the Greek word for "halo" was mistranslated into Latin as "horned". This image disproves that: Jesus has a halo and Moses has horns. I now think the explanation is that Judaism was a bull worship religion and Moses was a kind of Minotaur. The mistranslation explanation was concocted to explain all the embarrassing representations of Moses with horns.

Also, note that this image is read sequentially from right to left, like Hebrew.

 

[Starfire]

Found another coin with an i date! Have this one on the collection for years but only recently looked at it with more attention

It's from Italy, kingdom of lombardy to be more precise, and the date, i822, crystal clear!

Quite a late i date, but since It's pre unification of Italy, that could explain it

View attachment 34214 View attachment 34215

This is indeed an interesting coin. As you said, it seems like a late date for tomfoolery with the 'i'. It may be an example of a teaching tool to teach the commoners the new dating system.

This is a coin valued at one cent. The lowest denomination of coin, most likely to be exchanged between commoners. As you see in this edited image below, the number one that denotes the coin's value is the same as the number one that marks it's date as 1822. There is also an example of the (capitalized) letter 'I' in the word 'centesimo'. This capital 'I' is clearly different than the number one that we are being shown.

Was this a covert teaching tool? To illustrate clearly to the huddled masses that 'i' was always a number and never a letter that could have stood for Iusus/Jesus? This side of the coin is very plain and uncluttered, only a decoration to separate the value and the date as two distinct entities. Nothing to detract from the message.

This makes me wonder about cursive writing, since the 'i' in the above picture resembles a lowercase cursive 'i'.Quick research tells me that some form or another of connected writing has existed since "Roman times". They can be looped, italic, ligature, or cursive. There are standardized styles such as Copperplate, Round Hand, Secretary Hand, and Palmer.

A Brief History of Handwriting: From Roman Capitals to Modern Cursive — Backlog • Archivists & Historians

Lowercase letters were supposedly brought in by Charlemagne during Carolingian writing reforms. His lowercase 'i' did not have a dot over it. Then came the Germanic Blackletter in the 1100's that had a line over the 'i'. Italic was developed in the 1400's and changed the line to a dot. A dot or line over the lowercase 'i' was in full use by the time of the printing press.

People who were literate would be familiar with the lowercase 'i' with a dot from their reading. They would know it was a letter and they would know whatever it stood for when placed in front of the numbers of a year. They would also know about the change to the calendar that was occurring. The rulers would have released an edict and the priests and merchants would have been talking about it. There would have been awareness that the change to timekeeping was happening. Agents of the rulers and Church probably went around to private residences and modified the books and letters that people had in their homes.

The commoners would have been mostly illiterate. They might have known their names and a few common words on signs or buildings that were usually written in capital letters.. I don't think they would have been as familiar with lowercase letters that were used in books and letters.They would have known the words and numbers on money, though! They saw and used coins in the markets to buy food and goods.

What a clever way to change what a symbol means.

 

[Jd755]

Having an actual piece of the puzzle in hands is pretty cool, got it recently on an antiques fair

The "date" clearly is i780, from the austro hungarian empire, made of silver

View attachment 34108

The character for I in ARCHID is same character for 1 used in the 1728 to my eye, photo is well out of focus.
The one in the date has a split look to the bottom of it with the major portion of the split curving right and the minor straightish left.
The I in the word has the same major curve to the right but there seems to be a separation between that and the straightish bit to the left. Could be a highlight of course.

So off I goes looking and startpage found some crystal clear close ups of said coin. Which ...well see for yourself.
1 Thaler - Maria Theresia Austro-Hungarian Gulden 1780 Silver (.833)

And lo they are different. 1 is written as it is today with a split bottom and capital I is written as it is today but with the same split bottom. THe letters R T Y A H D X also feature split bottoms.

 

[Jd755]

This is indeed an interesting coin. As you said, it seems like a late date for tomfoolery with the 'i'. It may be an example of a teaching tool to teach the commoners the new dating system.


View attachment 35790

This is a coin valued at one cent. The lowest denomination of coin, most likely to be exchanged between commoners. As you see in this edited image below, the number one that denotes the coin's value is the same as the number one that marks it's date as 1822. There is also an example of the (capitalized) letter 'I' in the word 'centesimo'. This capital 'I' is clearly different than the number one that we are being shown.

Was this a covert teaching tool? To illustrate clearly to the huddled masses that 'i' was always a number and never a letter that could have stood for Iusus/Jesus? This side of the coin is very plain and uncluttered, only a decoration to separate the value and the date as two distinct entities. Nothing to detract from the message.


View attachment 35791

This makes me wonder about cursive writing, since the 'i' in the above picture resembles a lowercase cursive 'i'.Quick research tells me that some form or another of connected writing has existed since "Roman times". They can be looped, italic, ligature, or cursive. There are standardized styles such as Copperplate, Round Hand, Secretary Hand, and Palmer.

A Brief History of Handwriting: From Roman Capitals to Modern Cursive — Backlog • Archivists & Historians

Lowercase letters were supposedly brought in by Charlemagne during Carolingian writing reforms. His lowercase 'i' did not have a dot over it. Then came the Germanic Blackletter in the 1100's that had a line over the 'i'. Italic was developed in the 1400's and changed the line to a dot. A dot or line over the lowercase 'i' was in full use by the time of the printing press.

People who were literate would be familiar with the lowercase 'i' with a dot from their reading. They would know it was a letter and they would know whatever it stood for when placed in front of the numbers of a year. They would also know about the change to the calendar that was occurring. The rulers would have released an edict and the priests and merchants would have been talking about it. There would have been awareness that the change to timekeeping was happening. Agents of the rulers and Church probably went around to private residences and modified the books and letters that people had in their homes.

The commoners would have been mostly illiterate. They might have known their names and a few common words on signs or buildings that were usually written in capital letters.. I don't think they would have been as familiar with lowercase letters that were used in books and letters.They would have known the words and numbers on money, though! They saw and used coins in the markets to buy food and goods.

What a clever way to change what a symbol means.

The style ran from 1822 up until 1852 when the style of 1 as we recognise it today replaced it.
Items from the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia – Numista

These two predate the ones above issued in Italy and one has 1 and I and the other has the split bottom versions.

Search results | coinscatalog.NET

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Manipulation of the yearly calendar as a means of control .

Our modern calendar, with it's 24hr days each of 60mins , is out of kilter with the natural world.

One real day/night cycle is 23hr 56 mins 4s long not 24 hrs. The sun returns to its highest position each day at noon - not 1200hrs as read on the 24hr clock - but when it is due South when viewed at any location (Northern climes). The good old fashioned sun dial records this . The true day/night cycle is always shorter than the 24hr day we are tied into.

Midday is always high noon in reality and the hours of day and night vary in length according to the seasons.

Babylonian, Greek , Romans, Egyptian , indeed all civilisations knew this. We still have sundials dotted about. Not good for commerce or modern "science".

Our year is 366 days in length - not 365. Astronomers should know this - they call it the sidereal day/year but the illusion of the 24hr day is required by the heliocentric model to give earth a tilt of 66.6 degrees and a 66,600mph orbit around the sun . Devilishly fiendish.

They even have a " Equation of time" to convince people - maths is truth apparently - complete with the imaginary position of the sun.

We are shown those lovely analemma photos of the sun taken at the same positions, same time - always according to the 24hr clock of illusion - creating a figure of eight race track in the sky as proof of earth's journey around the sun.

Record the position of the sun at its real noon position, due South, then you will have a straight vertical line

Astronomer Royal Flamsteed had made a wonderful sidereal clock with which to carry out his observations. Rather airbrushed out of history that chap.

Would be nice to get back to true real timing (sidereal) but can't see it happening since we may have to return to earth being at the centre of our universe, whatever that is.

Sidereal time - Wikipedia

Here is wiki, useful sometimes, page , I was alarmed to read how the controllers are out to hide this even deeper with ERA.

 

[Jd755]

The second is apparently derived from the division of the day first into 24 hours, then to 60 minutes, and lastly to 60 seconds each, which gave 86400 seconds.
That definition that is based on 1⁄86400 of a rotation of the earth.

And at that point the fraud is revealed.
To use the 1⁄86400 of a rotation of the earth as the base measure for sidereal time keeping seems to me to be no different.

If the base unit of measure aka the second is fraudulent then all the mathematical language up to and including the 12 month 365.** day long calendar requiring "leap year" corrections is fraudulent.

The only accurate device that measures daylight is indeed the sundial. And that device uses a constantly moving measure, the shadow created by the constant motion of the sun, as its marker. The sundial does not in and of itself measure the passage of time.
When a man first marked "noon" as the mid point between sun up and sun down then forenoon and afternoon are established. By using observation, curiosity, knowledge of angles and division further marks can be added to split the arc from sun up to sun set however the man doing the marking decides.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I recall that civilisations of the past varied their hourly lengths , still keeping 12hrs of day and night but of variable length depending on the season . Important to get the natural cycles correct , crop planting ,worship , spellcasting etc.

Astrologers must have been important people. Shows how much mankind has been removed from nature.

 

[Breizh]

I recall that civilisations of the past varied their hourly lengths

The Ethiopians (and possibly other African countries) have a variable time system:

The Ethiopian time is unique. Instead of the 24-hour clock used in most parts of the world, Ethiopians use a 12-hour clock that starts at sunrise (which is 1:00 on the clock) and ends at sunset (which is 12:00 on the clock). This means that the time of day is constantly changing throughout the year, with longer days in the summer and shorter days in the winter. Ethiopians also divide the day into two cycles of 12 hours each, with the first cycle starting at sunrise and the second cycle starting at sunset.

Their calendar is roughly 7 years behind the Gregorian calendar which meant that for Ethiopians, 2012 was in 2019. Says a lot. The Gregorian time psyop.

 

[Jd755]

I recall that civilisations of the past varied their hourly lengths , still keeping 12hrs of day and night but of variable length depending on the season .

How did they do this?
Using a sundial or some other device?
Can you give an example of a civilisation which did this, plesse?

 

[Breizh]

Can you give an example of a civilisation which did this, plesse?

Look at the post preceding yours!

 

[FarewellAngelina]

How did they do this?
Using a sundial or some other device?
Can you give an example of a civilisation which did this, plesse?

I recall that the Romans did divide night/day into twelve equal hrs of varying length dependant on season so each hour was assigned to a different deity . Crops would be planted in the hour of Ceres for a mundane example . Spells would be cast according to the nature of the required result - hour of Venus for love - Jupiter for success , Mars for chocolate or war , destructive spells after midnight creative spells before and so on . Its many years since I studied this but it's only just occurred to me that this was the natural order based on the real day/night cycle .

LacusCurtius • The Hours of the Day in Classical Antiquity (Smith's Dictionary, 1875)

This site describes some of what I say. I think water clocks were used during the times when the sun or stars were not visible or possibly astrolabes and mechanisms such as that Antikythera mechanism .

Think it was possibly the babylonians who originated the 360 degree system - according to mainstream academia but my belief is that it could go back far before then . People were very intelligent in those days imo.

Nowadays much comes under the hidden sciences I believe. Might have to delve deeper time permitting.

This 24hr clock thing is a control method.