New radical chronology of history

[sandokhan]

​

". . . discovery in Utah of the unfossilized skull of an extinct camel, with a bit of dried flesh still clinging to the bone. The relatively fresh condition of the specimen argues that its one-time possessor died only a few centuries or millennia ago; present ideas hold that this particular sort of camel did become extinct a half-million years ago. If this camel really died so long ago, the bone should have been largely or wholly replaced by stone, and there should have been no flesh on it all."

Science Newsletter, Vol. 14, (1928), p. 81

"Some fossils look rather fresh. Part of a camel skull found near Fillmore, Utah, is a prime example.

Back in 1928, while exploring near Meadow Hot Springs, a pair of high school students found an unusual skull at the back of a lava tube. The braincase and piece of jaw didn’t seem to be from a cow, horse, or other familiar animal, and so it eventually came to the attention of University of Utah professor A.L. Mathews. Mathews, in turn, sent the news along to famed paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer at the University of Chicago. And what Romer saw in that skull dramatically affected what experts thought of as the timeline of Ice Age life.

Romer quickly identified the skull as that of a camel. But what species? The fact that the skull still looked relatively fresh suggested that the animal had died in the relatively recent past.

There was a possibility that the camel might have been one of the dromedaries that were introduced to the western United States as pack animals during the mid- and late-19th century. But the anatomy was all wrong. The skull, Romer concluded, must have come from an extinct North American species that paleontologists knew as Camelops and had previously been found in places like the La Brea asphalt seeps in Los Angeles, California."

At long last, mainstream science has to acknowledge that the cataclysmic event which put an end to the last Ice Age must have occurred at most only a few centuries ago.

Professor Alfred S. Romer of the University of Chicago who examined the skull claimed the anatomical differences between American and African or Asian camels made it clear that this skull belonged "to the genus Camelops."

Science Newsletter, Vol. 14, (1928), p. 81

"In New Mexico, in a cave, there was discovered in the late 1930s . . . evidence of lingering [survival] of certain Pleistocene animals. This cave, located in the Guadalupe Mountains near the Texas line, is a narrow cleft-like crack in the limestone . . . . The entrance is low and narrow, making it necessary for the investigator to crawl on hands and knees for several feet. Inside, however, the cave opens into a large chamber with a floor several feet below the level of the entrance passageway. The large, sunken room is almost filled with camel bones. These camels are not the present-day circus variety, but rather the small, long-necked American camels of the Pleistocene period. The bones lie in profusion, perfectly preserved as though they had piled there only a few years ago. The cave is redolent with the odor of dry dust and of the bats that hang in clusters from the ceiling. But even the extreme aridity could hardly account for the wonderful preservation of the camel remains. There is little or no accumulation on top of them. In the Abilene region of Texas, accumulations of silts on top of ancient deposits gave an indication of their comparative age. In Camel Cave, only a thin veneer of dust and bat guano covers the camel graveyard. They do not seem to be extremely ancient. From this evidence, as well as from similar signs in Gypsum Cave in Nevada [to be discussed just below], it would seem that the American camel lingered on after death had overtaken the majority of its Pleistocene contemporaries."

Hibben, The Lost Americans, p. 161

 

[sandokhan]

The errors inherent in radiocarbon/isotopic dating:

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/new-radical-chronology-of-history.3767/#post-35538

The best work which examines the glaring errors and omissions in radiocarbon dating as applied to the age of extinction of the mammoths and of the camelops (American Camel):

http://www.immanuelvelikovsky.com/mammoth.pdf (pg 203-273)

 

[tobyahnah]

The traditional Jewish chronology has:

Creation 0 (3760 BCE)
Adam dies 930 AM (2830 BCE)
Flood 1656 (2104 BCE)
Abraham born 1948 (1812 BCE)
Exodus from Egypt 2448 (1312 BCE)
Construction of First Temple 2828 (932 BCE)
Destruction of First Temple 3338 (422 BCE)
Hasmoneans 3620 (140 BCE)
Destruction of 2nd Temple 3828 (68 CE)
Shabetai Zevi 5426 (1666 CE)
State of Israel 5708 (1948 CE)
Today 5780 (2020 CE)
Messianic Age, Third Temple & Universe to end by 6000 AM (2200 CE)

Can this chronology be incorporated/reconciled/reinterpreted in the 'Tartarian' chronologies?

Any updates? I'm following and considering your work. It is as relevant as any. Thanks.

 

[Degeneration]

Luther's Bill of Rights

Advanced Flat Earth Theory

When did Shakespeare live?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1966887#msg1966887
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1968555#msg1968555

The biblical chronology is fiction.

Enoch was the son of Adam. Noah was the son of Enoch.

Adam and Eve lived some 380 years ago.

Here is the correct location of the Garden of Eden:


Jubilees 8

In the classic work Die Erdkarte der Urbibel (1931), A. Herrmann asserts that the geographical chapters 8 and 9 of the Book of Jubilees are an older redaction of the Priestly document, indeed older than the sources of Genesis, dating from the period of King Solomon (official chronology). The Book of Jubilees is not a revision of the Genesis, on the contrary, the opposite applies.


And the Book of Jubilees states quite clearly that the geographical center of the Earth is the very same location as for the Garden of Eden.

Book of Jubilees, chapter 8:

"And for Ham came out as the second portion, beyond the Gejon (Nile), toward the south, to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil and goes west until it reaches the sea of Mauk the one of which everything descends that is destroyed. And it proceeds to the north to the shore of Gadil and goes to the west of the water of the sea until it approaches the river Gejon, and the river Gejon goes until it approaches to the right of the Garden of Eden, and this land is the land which came forth for Ham as the portion he shall retain for himself and the children of his generations forever."

"And there came out of the lot for Shem the middle of the earth, which he and his children should have as an inheritance for the generations unto eternity, from the middle of the Mountain Rafu from the exit of the water of the river Tina, and his portion goes toward the west through the midst of this river, and they go until they approach to the abyss of the waters out of which comes this river, and this river empties and pours its waters into the sea Miot, and this river goes into the great sea: all that is toward the north of this is Japhet's, and all that is to the direction of the south is Shem's."

"And his (Ham/Khem's) portion reaches unto the great sea, and reaches straight until it approaches the west of the tongue which looks toward the south; for the sea is called the tongue of the Egyptian Sea (Red Sea). And it turns from there toward the south, toward the mouth of the great sea in the shore of the waters and proceeds toward Arabia and Ophra, and it proceeds until it reaches to the water of the River Gejon (Nile), along the shore of this same river. And it proceeds toward the north until it approaches the Garden of Eden, and toward the south thereof to the south, and from the east of the whole land of Eden, and toward the whole east , and it turns to the east, and proceeds until it approaches toward the east of the hills whose name is Rafa, and it descends toward the border of the outlet of the water of the river Tina."

Notice that the Garden of Eden is described as being located to the WEST of the Nile river and NORTH of Egypt, and the land of Ham as being located to the right of the Garden, thus contradicting clearly the version served by the corresponding chapters in the Genesis.

If we can find out the exact location of the Riphath/Rafu mountains, the river Tina, the sea of Miot, and especially the sea of Atil, we immediately have at our disposal the exact place of the Garden of Eden (which IS NOT located anywhere near the Middle East).

Mountain Riphath/Rafu is easily seen to be the mountain range in the northern portion of Anatolia (ancient Paphlagonia/Mysia/Bithynia), namely the Temnus and the Olympus ranges/mountains (Riphath was given the portion of Anatolia, NORTH of river Tina and EAST of the land given to the first son of Noah).

Location of the sea of Atil:

His head [Ro-AT-SH] was at Roxolania/Rus, south of Belarus. Its name changed to the Ukraine (Gk kranion = cranium, not Slavic ukraina to/at the border). His throat [GaRGeret] is Georgia. His left shoulder [KaSaF] is the Caspian sea. His right shoulder [-AT-aTZiL] was Euxinus, now the Black Sea. His right arm/hand is being washed [NaTiLat] at Anatolia.

Therefore, the sea of Atil IS actually the Black Sea, or Pontus Euxinus. And the sea of Miot is the Sea of Marmara, which goes into the Great Sea (Mediterranean Sea).

River Tina is related to lake Arthynia (which discharges its waters into the Macestus River, which separates Asia from Bithynia), located next to the Sea of Marmara.

Wayback Machine

THE GARDEN OF EDEN IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE SEA OF MARMARA (sea of Propontis) (SEA OF MIOT), IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF ANATOLIA: a region with which cannot be accessed by land or sea (we have the same situation at the North/South Poles, which have never been actually discovered or located precisely, see The Hollow Earth by R. Bernard, Raymond Benard - The Hollow Earth ), etherically veiled from view completely. Mount Olympus is also located there (with a height of at least 25 km, the first Dome is located below the peak of this mountain), the very center of the surface of the flat earth.


Now, let us make the connection between the BOOK OF ENOCH, BOOK OF JUBILEES and the BOOK OF NOAH:

Book of Enoch:
And they took me to the living waters, and to the fire (Volcano) of the west, which receives every setting of the sun. And I came to a river of fire (river of lava) in which the fire flows like water and discharges itself into the great sea towards the west .

Book of Jubilees:
...to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil.

Book of Noah:
And they will shut up those Angels, who showed iniquity, in that burning valley, (Eden Valley) which my great-grandfather Enoch had shown to me previously, in the west, near the mountains of gold and silver and iron and soft metal and tin.


Book of Enoch

From there I passed on above the summits of those mountains to some distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the garden of righteousness. In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.

The original term used by Enoch was THE SEA OF ATIL, and NOT the Erythraean Sea (added later by translators who had no idea of the true location of the sea of Atil, the Black Sea).

The true name of the first son of Noah, PELASG/PELASGOS, was changed to Shem.

All legends of the Arcadians, Greeks, Thracians point out that the first son of Noah was called Pelasg; and Pelasg never set foot in Mesopotamia.


Moses and Aaron lived some 270 years ago.

The last huge cosmic conflagration occurred some 260 years ago.

The revelation of John was copied from Egyptian sources: it includes a blueprint for the events which will take place, up to a certain moment in time, in the future, as they were planned in advance some 260 years ago.

Hey man, I understand your point in sharing this stuff, but maybe make your own thread, and don't just keep spamming other people's threads w such a variety of info. this is a common cointelpro tactic, and aside from that, it covers up other people's posts, and its rude and annoying m.

 

[Nick Weech]

Schroeter effect: Hermes and Aphrodite

The Evening Star and the Morning Star are two different planets.

Official astronomy science:

In 1793, J. H. Schroeter reported, for the first time, observing the southern limb of the planet Venus remaining concave up to about eight days before or after its conjunction with the Sun, according to his best estimate.

In general, the time difference between the time of theoretical dichotomy and the time of observed dichotomy is about four to six days.

The various theoretical interpretations of this long-standing anomaly, whether they be atmospheric, kinematic or optical, have not been able to explain the basic Schroeter effect: they cannot explain in any way the extended Schroeter effect.


Nonetheless, the phase anomaly of Venus is much wider than the Schroeter's effect, and can produce differences of ± 0.10 for all phases from near 0.1 Phase to 0.9 Phase; and not just at 0.5 Phase alone.


Eastern elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:

2005JBAA..115...79H Page 80

Western elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:

2005JBAA..115...79H Page 81


Notable differences observed:

2005JBAA..115...79H Page 82



Schroeter effect in the context of geocentrism:

Schröter's Effect



http://www.issibern.ch/teams/venusso2/multimedia/pdf/Krasnopolsky_06.pdf (unsolved problems for the atmosphere of Venus)

1969JBAA...79..286J Page 286 (the phase anomalies of Mercury)


The Morning Star and the Evening Star in the mythology of the American Indian tribes, are two different planets.

Marinus Anthony van der Sluijs, Sosondowah

(Note: the Evening Star is not Mars, see: MYTHS OF THE IROQUOIS )


Xolotl and Mercury:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=MofGZF5Nt-QC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=xolotl+mercury+evening+star&source=bl&ots=gVq9QAhxkf&sig=OC-K66Cs5-zBxaajgRQIB_PQO3o&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAGoVChMI3-_rr5PyyAIVyW0UCh1o9wPO#v=onepage&q=xolotl mercury evening star&f=false

(Heaven and Earth in Ancient Mexico, S. Milbrath, pg. 73, 83-87, plates 8-10)


XOLOTL = TYPHON = HESPEROS

https://web.archive.org/web/20120209082717/http://www.gnostics.com/archives.pantheon.html
The Dragon-the logoic reflection


XOLOTL = EVENING STAR

Xolotl, the Twin

https://web.archive.org/web/20150209225448/http://www.mythologydictionary.com/xolotl-mythology.html

PHAETHON = EVENING STAR = ADYMNUS

https://books.google.ro/books?id=qXMvBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=phaethon+evening+star&source=bl&ots=jirRAD0yWq&sig=XQTWE5L5faBwb7zS6B7f3_I9lRY&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwB2oVChMIseCFm8ayyAIVJABzCh34FgEe#v=onepage&q=phaethon evening star&f=false

http://www.24grammata.com/wp-conten...rt-Graves-The-Greek-Myths-24grammata.com_.pdf

PHAETHON = TYPHON

Phaeton And Atlantis - blavatsky.net

PALLAS = TYPHON

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Svbasic.htm#_Toc368234329


Aten is Mercury (that is, Typhon, the Evening Star):

The Birth of Mercury and the Demise of Mars (gks 9) - The God King Scenario


Both Greeks and Egyptians thought the morning star different from another star seen close to the Sun after sunset. The Greeks named the evening star that lingered in the sunset glow across the Ionian Sea Hermes, the winged messenger of the gods, while the Thebans recognized it as Horus, the vanquisher of Set and follower of Amun-Ra.

Similarly, ancient astronomers did not recognize Venus as one planet. When east of the Sun and seen in the western sky after sunset, the planet was called Hesperus. When west of the Sun and rising before it, the planet was called Phosphorous. About the 12th century B.C., Homer mentions Venus but considers it as two objects.

ch1


https://web.archive.org/web/20160908083028/http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/cardona.txt
The author does mention:

Thus, for instance, being the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury not only revolves within the Earth's orbit but within that of the planet Venus itself. Mercury thus exhibits some of the aspects presented by Venus. Although less bright than Venus, it, too, appears as an evening and morning star, a fact that was well known and recorded by the ancients, as, for instance, by Ptolemy, but also by the Assyro-Babylonians who alluded to Nebo, their name for Mercury, as the morning star which announces the new age.



Mythology of Xolotl, Quetzalcoatl's twin brother:

The Complexity of the Aztec Pantheon

https://web.archive.org/web/20080514004732/http://eastbayastro.org/2001/0201/r0201-2.htm
(more information in S. Milbrath's works, Heaven and Earth in Ancient Mexico and Star Gods of the Maya)


Mercury and Hesperos:

Mercury

EOSPHORUS & HESPERUS (Eosphoros & Hesperos) - Greek Gods of the Morning & Evening Stars


The Enuma Elish does mention that two of Marduk's (Jupiter) satellites caused the first major planetary cataclysm.

The sun's chariots are in fact represented by the Morning Star and the Evening Star: Mercury and Venus (in the Mexican Codex Borgia, the Evening Star is represented with the solar disc on its back).


Official astronomical orbit of Venus:

The Synodical Year of Venus

THE PLANET Venus, at the present time, revolves around the sun in 288 days, which is the
siderial year of the planet. However, seen from the earth, which revolves around the sun on a
larger orbit and at a lower speed, Venus returns to the same position with respect to the earth
after 584 days, which is its synodical year. It rises before the sun, earlier every day for seventy one
days, until it reaches the western elongation or its westernmost point away from the rising
sun. Each morning thereafter the Morning Star rises lower and lower and for 221 days
approaches the superior conjunction. About a month before the end of this period, it is eclipsed
by the rays of the sun, and for over sixty days it is not seen because of the sun's rays: it is behind
the sun or in superior conjunction. Then it appears for a moment after the setting sun, being now
the Evening Star and east of the western sun. For 221 nights it retreats from the middle point of
the superior conjunction, and beginning with the evening on which it first appears as an Evening
Star, each night it appears farther from the setting sun until it reaches the eastern elongation.
Then for seventy-one nights it approaches the sun. Finally it enters the inferior conjunction,
when it is between the earth and the sun. It is usually invisible for one or two days, and thereafter
appears west of the rising sun and is again the Morning Star. (from Worlds in Collision)


Thus, after the Deluge, Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli and Xolotl orbited the Sun in the shape of some sort of a cycloid curve: one took on the role of Mercury, while the other became the Evening Star; then, "Mercury" became the Morning Star, while the Evening Star modified its orbit and became Mercury.


And Venus and Mercury have a diameter which is markedly different than what we have been led to believe in the official heliocentrical theory:


Venus solar transit:

View attachment 15704​

View attachment 9670

Mercury solar transit:

View attachment 15705​

From the Bundahishn:

But in the end "the sun has attached Muspar to its own radiance by mutual agreement, so that he may be less able to do harm."


The significance of the foregoing information, relating to the flat earth planetary system is as follows:

Once the Sun will reach the end of the alloted precessional orbit, its "chariots", the planets Mercury and Venus will be set free; it is this phenomenon which does cause the end of a world age.

The velikovsky.com links are broken, attached to "GoDaddy" whatever that is ...

Where is God? Who made God? Why did God make us?

The search starts right here in our own backyard. All those questions are the end of the search and so far we haven't gotten off the ground.



Proof please.



Proof of either the Earth or Mars rotating (and don't use the RLG).

-------------------------

Seriously, why bother posting all this without ANY proof whatsoever?

What are you trying to accomplish?

I thought we were going somewhere but we seem to be sidelined into fog and mist- sorry to say

There were no Luther, Kepler, Galilei, Copernicus, Newton, Euler; there was no Gregorian calendar reformation, the council of Trent never occurred.

"I can only repeat my previous remarks on all this. It seems to be indirectly proved, from this machination, that these artists in fiction must have had a task of great difficulty before them in attempting to force these Letters upon the world. There must have been a sufficient number of men of true learning and taste during the Age of Publication, who were aware that these Letters were not genuine, and that the Church system was of recent origin. They were probably strong enough to make their tacit resistance felt. But the monks had organisation of a kind which honest men cannot have; and organisation triumphed. By this long and bewildering declamation about heretics, who had raised every objection, and had been fully refuted, they answer the adversaries of their own time; and a great advertisement has been given to a system of books, in which all parties are induced to seek, and all to find, their own peculiar dogmas. In course of time all opposition is silenced by the deafening clamour of these Biblical men. They are suffered to have their own way; and the defeated world has at last been cowed into the belief that there must be some great "basis of fact," as they say, beneath all these tales about Paul, his elders, his disciples, his troops of friends and of foes. "

Edwin Johnson

Just as the first universities were being built, they launched and taught the currently accepted chronology of history; they even introduced organized religion at the same time, with a newly created Bible, which they wrote from start to finish.

A single example: Johannes Kepler.

Kepler published his first law of planetary motion based on the data gathered by Tycho
Brahe in 1609. The law states that planets orbit the sun in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988). Writing of Donohue’s pathbreaking work in
The New York Times, William Broad (1990) summarized Donahue’s findings
saying that although Kepler claimed to have confirmed the elliptical orbit by
independent observations and calculations of the position of Mars, in fact Kepler
derived the data from the theory instead of the other way around . . .

“But a close study of Kepler’s New Astronomy . . . shows that the plotted points
[he used] do not fall exactly on the ellipse (of course, measurements rarely fall
exactly on a theoretical curve because they usually have random error sources
incorporated into them.) Curtis Wilson (1968), however, carries error argument
further. The lack of precision inherent in the method . . . would have forced Kepler
to use the plotted points only as a guide to his theorizing . . .
“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical. Donahue reasons that Kepler must have gone back to revise his earlier
calculations that were made prior to his understanding that the orbit of Mars was
actually elliptical. Thus, anyone who cared to check Kepler’s tables would find
numbers that are consistent with the elliptical orbit [he] postulated for Mars and
would be inclined to believe that the numbers represented observational data. In
fact, they were computed from the hypothesis of an elliptical orbit and then
modified for measurement error; such data, if they were truly observations, would
be prime facie evidence of the theories’ correctness.

“So Donahue . . . realized that the theory was not obviously derivable from the
observations, . . . ‘Not only would the numbers be confused, but Kepler saw clearly
that no satisfactory theory could come from such a procedure. . . [Instead], he chose
a short cut.’ He became so convinced of what drove these physical processes that he subjectively projected his personal nonobservational-based belief onto the reporting scene to convince others in the scientific community of the validity of his theories.”

Thus, the very first law of planetary motion was built not on observation but on theory
and the mathematics was then employed to prove the theory not test it.

(from the classic work by Charles Ginenthal, Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)


1988JHA....19..217D Page 217

Kepler's fabricated figures, by W.H. Donohue

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.

The discovery was made by Dr. Donahue, a science historian, while translating Kepler's master work, ''Astronomia Nova,'' or ''The New Astronomy,'' into English. Dr. Donahue, who lives in Sante Fe, N.M., described his discovery in a recent issue of The Journal of the History of Astronomy.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

But when Dr. Donahue started working through the method to make sure he understood the basis for Kepler's chart, he found his numbers disagreeing with those of the great astronomer. After repeatedly getting the wrong answers for the numbers displayed on Kepler's chart, Dr. Donahue started trying other methods. Finally, he realized that the numbers in the chart had been generated not by independent calculations based on triangulated planetary positions, but by calculations using the area law itself.

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''



http://www00.unibg.it/dati/bacheca/63/21692.pdf

The usual Newtonian model of the Solar system assumes that, for most purposes, it is sufficiently accurate to describe the orbits of each planet as an ellipse with its focus at the Sun. If each ellipse is replaced by the equivalent epicycle , the model is just as accurate.

It therefore follows that if Ptolemy had used an origin at the Sun then a simple model that represented the orbit of each planet by a simple offset epicycle would have represented the orbits of the planets just as accurately as the Newtonian model based on ellipses.

He (Kepler) gave the numerical values to the parameters of the ellipses that matched Brahe’s observations , and that settled the question ellipses were in, epicycles were out. He never stated and may not have noticed that every ellipse is an epicycle, so if he had calculated the epicycle parameters that corresponded to his ellipses the epicycles would have fitted the data just as well.

View attachment 9564
View attachment 9565
View attachment 9566
View attachment 9567
View attachment 9568

View attachment 15694​

DONAHUE'S CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON TYCHO BRAHE'S DATA.

KEPLER'S FAKE ENTRIES RELY ON THE ELLIPSE.


How in the world could Kepler know in advance which geometrical path to use?

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

View attachment 9569

KEPLER MODIFIED THE ENTRIES IN THE FINAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 53: HE SIMPLY ADJUSTED THEM TO FIT THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS WITH NO OBSERVATIONAL INPUT WHATSOEVER.

View attachment 9570

For the longitudes, Kepler claimed to have used the vicarious hypothesis: yet, the calculations show he used the area law for the ellipse.

1988JHA....19..217D Page 229

1988JHA....19..217D Page 233



Since Newton's gravitational formula can be derived directly from Kepler's first law, this means that the law of gravitation cannot be applied to the motion of other planets, not even to the Earth itself, but only between two objects on the surface of the Earth.

View attachment 9571View attachment 9572

Fomenko and Nosovsky proved that the works attributed to Copernicus were written some 100 years later (their version of chronology) by the same group of people who wrote Kepler's works:

History Fiction Or Science Vol. 3 : Anatoly Fomenko & Gleb Nosovskiy & Mike Yagoupov : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (pg. 302-319)

Your first sentence is a real attention grabber! Is it also from Johnson?

"There were no Luther, Kepler, Galilei, Copernicus, Newton, Euler; there was no Gregorian calendar reformation, the council of Trent never occurred."

If Kepler manufactured the evidence to fit ellipses relacing Ptolemy's theory of epicycles- Why? When? Who decided that? The Jesuits?

Donahue's evidence seems clearly laid out- why were ellipses now preferable to epicycles- which give the same observational results?
To reinforce the new heliocentric view "by" Copernicus which Galileo and Newton then reinforced further? If they existed of course!

If so many texts were manufactured at the beginning of mass printing, which texts were not falsified? Can anyone show this to be true?
If Johnson was only partly right, was it the Benedictines primarily and under whose overall direction?
I know Wilhelm Kammeier went into this very question but his work is all in German. (there are machine translations I've seen)

A vigorous debunking of this whole area from Fr Hardouin onwards (Johnson, Baldauf etc) is worth looking at here: The Surprisingly Long History of the Conspiracy Theory that Ancient Rome Didn't Exist - Tales of Times Forgotten

An interesting thread which occasionally veers off course. I'm not criticising I hope you understand.

There are many side-issues and who knows which is relevant until it's explored- sometimes they develop fulsomely ...

 

[sandokhan]

The velikovsky.com links are broken, attached to "GoDaddy" whatever that is ...

Then, use the webarchive to retrieve the links.

I thought we were going somewhere but we seem to be sidelined into fog and mist- sorry to say

See my messages in the Flat Earth thread.

Your first sentence is a real attention grabber! Is it also from Johnson?

No, it's mine.

"There were no Luther, Kepler, Galilei, Copernicus, Newton, Euler; there was no Gregorian calendar reformation, the council of Trent never occurred."

If Kepler manufactured the evidence to fit ellipses relacing Ptolemy's theory of epicycles- Why? When? Who decided that?

No, Kepler never existed. Kepler, Galileo, Newton are all made-up characters in order to sell to the public the concept of heliocentricity. Newton could have looked up and see the clouds: since droplets of water are heavier than air, it would have put an end to his gravitational theories; moreover, these clouds are free to move/travel in anywhich direction they please, not so had the Earth been rotating around its own axis.

 

[Daniel]

My problem with that "debunking" article is it follows the same pattern as every person who claims to have "debunked" a "conspiracy theory".
They begin with their "knowledge", point out how this "conspiracy theory" is different to their "knowledge", and then "deduce" that the "conspiracy theory must be wrong".

My one question about the Radical New Chronology is where Hardouin fits in. Is he also a figure created later? Personally, I believe that the DATES from c. "1600 AD" are all correct. But people can and do force false ideas as "facts". As long as Newton had the Powers That Be behind him, whatever ideas he had could be made to be "true". The same way we know the chronological distance from "1969" to now is real, but we also know that Armstrong and co. never left Earth.

 

[Nick Weech]

My problem with that "debunking" article is it follows the same pattern as every person who claims to have "debunked" a "conspiracy theory".
They begin with their "knowledge", point out how this "conspiracy theory" is different to their "knowledge", and then "deduce" that the "conspiracy theory must be wrong".

My one question about the Radical New Chronology is where Hardouin fits in. Is he also a figure created later? Personally, I believe that the DATES from c. "1600 AD" are all correct. But people can and do force false ideas as "facts". As long as Newton had the Powers That Be behind him, whatever ideas he had could be made to be "true". The same way we know the chronological distance from "1969" to now is real, but we also know that Armstrong and co. never left Earth.

That debunking article was a good example of how real questions are sidelined into accepting 'the narrative', whichever one is in play.
One needs practice

 

[sandokhan]

By the way, the first forty messages or so from this thread were moved here:

Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection

Personally, I believe that the DATES from c. "1600 AD" are all correct.

Can't be. Remember the total solar eclipse of March 20, 1662? Remember the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582? It is either/or. Either the Earth is spherical and it orbits the Sun, or it does not. If it does not, there was no Gregorian calendar reform, and none of the events attributed to the 17th and 18th century ever occurred in the first place. Remember how Euler said that he had VERIFIED the Gregorian calendar reform? Remember the maps showing both Pompeii and Herculaneum as thriving cities in 1725, 1778? The glass which had been discovered at Herculaneum employed technology which had only been developed as late as 1688 in Italy. So Hardouin is also a fictional character. The Bible was written in the period 1780-1800 AD. Perhaps Newton might have had powers behind him, but the scientists on the continent could not have been fooled: any person who has intelligence would have brought up the issue of the clouds before Newton. Are we to believe that no one would have thought of such a simple counterargument to Newton's ideas on gravitation?

 

[Nick Weech]

"A very interesting thread. Quite stupefying in its scope and implications." attributed to SonofaBor 07.12. 2020
I'm going to take a while to process this. Thank you for posting it all ... just what I've seen here

By the way, the first forty messages or so from this thread were moved here:

Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection



Can't be. Remember the total solar eclipse of March 20, 1662? Remember the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582? It is either/or. Either the Earth is spherical and it orbits the Sun, or it does not. If it does not, there was no Gregorian calendar reform, and none of the events attributed to the 17th and 18th century ever occurred in the first place. Remember how Euler said that he had VERIFIED the Gregorian calendar reform? Remember the maps showing both Pompeii and Herculaneum as thriving cities in 1725, 1778? The glass which had been discovered at Herculaneum employed technology which had only been developed as late as 1688 in Italy. So Hardouin is also a fictional character. The Bible was written in the period 1780-1800 AD. Perhaps Newton might have had powers behind him, but the scientists on the continent could not have been fooled: any person who has intelligence would have brought up the issue of the clouds before Newton. Are we to believe that no one would have thought of such a simple counterargument to Newton's ideas on gravitation?

Is it true that eclipses, even total ones, are repeated? Fomenko used that to say that some could have happened at a later time than reported?

"A simple eclipse repetition cycle can be found by requiring that certain orbital parameters be repeated. The Moon must be in the new phase with the same longitude of perigee and same longitude of the ascending node. These conditions are met by searching for an integral multiple in the Moon's three major periods-the synodic, anomalistic and draconic months. A fourth condition might require that an eclipse occur at approximately the same time of year to preserve the axial tilt of Earth and thus, the same season, as well as the distance from the Sun."
What dates for cosmic events (such as eclipses in certain places, comets etc) can we rely on as totally trustworthy?
I looked into the 1054 supernova and found it was not ant worldwide event clearly visible for nigh on two years: Especially not in Europe

"The absence of any reference in the European literature has traditionally been something of a mystery. Records of the supernova of a.d. 1006 and the appearance of Halley's comet in a.d. 1066 demonstrate that astronomical phenomena were noticed and recorded by 11th century Europeans. One of the traditional explanations for the absence of European references as expressed by Williams (1981) is that the weather was bad. However, since the supernova would have been remarkably bright and visible for well over a year, that explanation seems rather implausible. Thomas (1979) and separately Zalcman (1979) suggest that the absence is the result of some sort of censorship by the Roman Catholic Church connected with the Eastern Schism, generally dated to a.d. 1054 July 16. This view was most recently echoed by Lupato (1995), 1 and Guidobani et al. (1992), who cite other examples of such censorship during the 11th century."

Maybe these (backdated) records were simply garbled and SN1006=SN1054. Halley's comet (being periodic) could simply be inserted.
{Let's not bring up the Bayeux Tapestry discovered in 1729 hanging in Bayeux Cathedral}

Where does one start with anything definite (KD's big question- What year is this?)

ShieldSquare Captcha

"A very interesting thread. Quite stupefying in its scope and implications." attributed to SonofaBor 07.12. 2020
I'm going to take a while to process this. Thank you for posting it all ... just what I've seen here

Is it true that eclipses, even total ones, are repeated? Fomenko used that to say that some could have happened at a later time than reported?

"A simple eclipse repetition cycle can be found by requiring that certain orbital parameters be repeated. The Moon must be in the new phase with the same longitude of perigee and same longitude of the ascending node. These conditions are met by searching for an integral multiple in the Moon's three major periods-the synodic, anomalistic and draconic months. A fourth condition might require that an eclipse occur at approximately the same time of year to preserve the axial tilt of Earth and thus, the same season, as well as the distance from the Sun."
What dates for cosmic events (such as eclipses in certain places, comets etc) can we rely on as totally trustworthy?
I looked into the 1054 supernova and found it was not ant worldwide event clearly visible for nigh on two years: Especially not in Europe

"The absence of any reference in the European literature has traditionally been something of a mystery. Records of the supernova of a.d. 1006 and the appearance of Halley's comet in a.d. 1066 demonstrate that astronomical phenomena were noticed and recorded by 11th century Europeans. One of the traditional explanations for the absence of European references as expressed by Williams (1981) is that the weather was bad. However, since the supernova would have been remarkably bright and visible for well over a year, that explanation seems rather implausible. Thomas (1979) and separately Zalcman (1979) suggest that the absence is the result of some sort of censorship by the Roman Catholic Church connected with the Eastern Schism, generally dated to a.d. 1054 July 16. This view was most recently echoed by Lupato (1995), 1 and Guidobani et al. (1992), who cite other examples of such censorship during the 11th century."

Maybe these (backdated) records were simply garbled and SN1006=SN1054. Halley's comet (being periodic) could simply be inserted.
{Let's not bring up the Bayeux Tapestry discovered in 1729 hanging in Bayeux Cathedral}

Where does one start with anything definite (KD's big question- What year is this?)

ShieldSquare Captcha

Spring equinox eclipses are rare. It's interesting that the Royal Society which led to the Greenwich Observatory, was also founded in 1662:

The Royal Observatory at Greenwich dates its foundation to a 1675 warrant of Charles II (1630–1685), stating that “Wee have resolved to build a small observatorie …”, establishing it “to find out the…Longitude…for perfecting…Navigation”. Finding the longitude was a goal desired for centuries by mariners. The Observatory was built and John Flamsteed (1646–1719) appointed as “Astronomicall Observator” to make precise observations to achieve this object but the King’s warrants came only after a convoluted history. The eventual foundation owes much to Jonas Moore (1617–1679) and other fellows of the nascent Royal Society (founded in 1662), even to the extent of providing the instruments, and regular observations began in 1675. However, Flamsteed’s best instrument only became available in 1689. Nonetheless, during the first forty-five years of the Observatory’s history Flamsteed amassed some 50,000 observations. Fraught with disputes and disagreements, the full publication of his results was delayed until years after his death.

 

[LeePappas]

MARCH 20, 1662 AD

Each and every controversy/contradiction of science, religion, history could have been well settled on the date of March 20, 1662.

There were to be no more future discussions/debates on vacuum vs. ether, theory of evolution vs. creationism, spherical earth vs. flat surface of the earth, heliocentricity vs. geocentricity: each and every dispute should have been resolved in totality on that very date.

March 20, 1662, represents by far the most important astronomical date in the history of scientific observations, of science in general, of astrophysics, of religion.


Because on that very date, right on the day of the vernal equinox, a total solar eclipse occurred.


And yet, in the official chronology of history, with the exception of a very obscure reference, NONE of the famous astronomers of the day could have cared less about this remarkable celestial phenomenon.

The Jesuits in India/China, F. Verbiest, J. Schall von Bell, even the young N. Flamsteed fail to notice/record this most important of all the total solar eclipses.

It is only in a very brief mention by Domenico Cassini, that this solar eclipse is even recorded at all.

That eclipse wasn't visible from Europe it was visible from Australia according to NASA's eclipse footprint, so I need an explanation. Either NASA is completely wrong or you are mistaken.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSEmap/1601-1700/1662-03-20.gif