May 24, 2019, 01:14:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New Membership Currently Closed.
 
   Boards Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Essential Synchronisms  (Read 10018 times)
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 315


« on: February 19, 2010, 03:57:55 AM »

Power has been in the hands of a very few people over the past several millennia (and longer).  The opportunity and ability (if not also the motive) to alter history and apparent chronology was certainly present at almost all times during that period.  That makes historical revisionism an almost hopeless endeavor.  However, I now feel that it is possible to establish the proper framework using the 1159 BC cataclysm to separate dynasty history (starting with the first pharaohs of Egypt) from so-called "pre-history".

Although I certainly admire the thought that has gone into the "Fomenko Group" project, I still don't accept the overall reconstruction they propose.  That is not to say that there aren't various insights that are valid and useful.
Logged
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2010, 07:59:13 PM »

Charles, as other Fomenko supporters have stated, when Fomenko et.al attempts to write and right history, they sometimes go over the hill!  And, any attempt to really do so is doomed to failure with the current amount of material now left to study, etc.!  Most all "original" documentation is lost, only refered to in later documentation which has also been either lost of destroyed, etc., or it might well have been systamatically destroyed?  To me, and obviously others, a lot of what is left, is as "historical" as are the "Canterbury Tales", or "Richard II", or any number of plays and fictional literature that has survived!  I might well add the supposed works of a "blind" poet who was supposedly to have been able to memorize about 900 pages of written words, and whose discourse about these stories might have lasted for a few days or more?, named Homer!  Yet, we are supposed to believe that the Trojan war happened and a few hundred years later Homer recited the stories, and Homer died, and the poems were again lost for a few hundred years until they were finally placed upon paper or parchment or papyrus, etc.  We are expected to believe that during the life of Homer, numerous followers of his also began to memorize the poems, and through the ages that passed from his death until some "writer" actually wrote down the words, as a secretary might take dictation!  Modern historians might tend to call this history "science" but I (Like Fomenko) call it "Fiction!"

My multi-post already in your memory system concerns not only Velikovsky's opinion (one that I agree with) that shortens history by a matter of 800 or so years, which as Velikovsky already stated "would shake the very foundations of history!", if accepted (which of course it was not) but actually bring the "original" time of the events even closer to our present!  That is, I propose (and quite possibly the FG has already so proposed?) to bring the "real" historical event another 1400 to 1800 years further up the time-line nearer to the present day!  The total movement would erase over 2000 years from our currently accepted scheme!

Fomenko, I have exceeded you!  Laugh!

Regards,

Ron
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Mork
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2010, 09:02:42 PM »

I think I'll start calling you Ronbo Grin

You don't explicitly state it but, you bring up a valid point. Historians are idiots in that they believe everything from the period they're studying as accurate. Jump a few years ahead and look at the books and stories written about the US west during the 19th and early 20th centruries. So much of it was "colorized" for dramatic effect and far from the truth. Gee whiz, I grew up thinking American indians said "How." Yeah, right! The problem as I see it is that a good portion of writings were possibly (probably?) written for dramatic effect and not as a truthful account.

Getting more current as an example is the TV show Dragnet. The reality is that most of it rarely resembled the actual facts. It would be more accurate to state that the story was inspired by actual events.

Consider this:

My wife and I were watching the movie "Trading Places" (Dan Akaroyd and Eddie Murphy) and I told her is was based on a true story. She snapped back with the "awwww right, smartass - what?" I proceeded to tell her that it was a story about a man who works for an investment house -  the rest was added for dramatic effect.

Though the examples are extreme, one can wonder as how some of the history, stories, philosphy was written at the time in terms of factual or for dramatic/political preference.

It is up to the rest of us to weed through the story telling to the facts. The problem is that it is often difficult to tell the two apart - but, I guess it's what makes all of this interesting.
Logged
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2010, 09:39:13 PM »

Charles, thank you for your comments. Just so I'm up to speed, this event in 1159 is the flood? or?
I support the theory that the Great Pyramid might be older than the inscriptians and names placed in it. However, regardless of that, the timeline suggested is the same which the latter Jews and Mystery schools used. The reference being of astrology, or the procession. So my question is, were those Taraus icons of the pre Arian age created durning those times that they would fall in, or were they devoloped at later dates? There is some indication that the age of Aries was developed midway into the Rams aeon. The original Zodiac being only 6 signs? Does answering those questions even shed any light on our datings of reference?
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 315


« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2010, 09:52:39 PM »

The ancient royal family was "all about the drama".  I like to say "they were trapped in a bad play".  They just kept performing it generation after generation after generation.  But how long did they actually do it?  

My chronology is actually more compressed than Velikovsky, but far less so than Fomenko.  I didn't think it was possible to have any confidence in chronology.  Previous "essential synchronisms" were based on interpreting ancient records of ecplises and other non-scientific correlations.  The emerging field of catastrophism (incorporating ice-core and tree-ring analysis) is a breakthrough.  Finally, we can see the major turning points of human existence like the spikes of a spectrogram.  The last big spike was 1159 BC, smack-dab in the middle of a Venus transit doublet.  Is that a coincidence?  "Do you run out of toilet paper and paper towels at the same time" in your house?  This is both exciting and "troubling evidence" (to quote "The Talking Heads")!  1159 BC is the anchor (essential synchronism, if you will) that allows us to revisit chronology.  I've done it in the rough and everything seems to fit comfortably (and compactly) within it.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and human society abhors a power vacuum.

I'm not that proficient in astrology and astrological symbology.  There does seem to be conflict related to the passing of one astrological age and the start of another.  This conflict related to which deity was to be viewed as greatest.  The deity (or deities) of one age did not peacefully yield to those of the next, mainly because their devotees would not allow it.  "Old institutions die hard", as they say!  Will the religions of Pisces give way gently to those of Aquarius.  Don't count on it!
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 10:19:11 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2010, 10:54:48 PM »

Chuck-star, wrote;

"My chronology is actually more compressed than Velikovsky, but far less so than Fomenko.  I didn't think it was possible to have any confidence in chronology.  Previous "essential synchronisms" were based on interpreting ancient records of ecplises and other non-scientific correlations.  The emerging field of catastrophism (incorporating ice-core and tree-ring analysis) is a breakthrough.  Finally, we can see the major turning points of human existence like the spikes of a spectrogram.  The last big spike was 1159 BC, smack-dab in the middle of a Venus transit doublet.  Is that a coincidence?  "Do you run out of toilet paper and paper towels at the same time" in your house?  This is both exciting and "troubling evidence" (to quote "The Talking Heads")!  1159 BC is the anchor (essential synchronism, if you will) that allows us to revisit chronology.  I've done it in the rough and everything seems to fit comfortably (and compactly) within it.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and human society abhors a power vacuum."

A wonderful turn of phrase (frase?  you may well remember some of my older posts concerning this?) and well received!  What we have to consider, IMHO is wheter or not we actually have any real information available for the date 1159 BCE?  Since your date is connected (as it seems to me) within pretty secure science, then it seems that it mostly exists via currently accepted dating systems!  But, in truth, upon what great "science" is this dates origin?

In or upon other historical discussion sites, I have posited the question;  "Upon what event in history, or upon what known action, did our historians of the past place enough reliance upon to connect all of the various historical empires?, etc.!"  One has to recognize that with merely some ancient historian's second or third hand accounts, it would be hard to connect the Empires of Egypt, with those of Assyria, or Babylon, or Sythia, or?  You must recognize that within the last 100 years or so, the history of Mesopotamia or the "Fertile crescent"" was subjugated to the history of Egypt!  Experts in the history of the kingdoms of the "Ferticle Crescent" area were literally foirced to condescend to the Egyptian victors in the "compliation" of the two histories!  And the "Crescent" experts either retired or were ignored by the vast majority of worldwide historical opinion!

Ergo, Egyptian historians won a major battle!  And their version of the world still rules today!

Thus your date,1159 BCE, refers to this;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekla_3_eruption

And it is connected at the "hip" with these words from the above site;  "The Hekla 3 eruption (H-3) circa 1000 BC is considered the most severe eruption of Hekla during the Holocene.[1] It threw about 7.3 km3 of volcanic rock into the atmosphere,[2] placing its Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) at 5. This would have cooled temperatures in the northern parts of the globe for a few years afterwards.

An eighteen-year span of climate worsening is recorded in Irish bog oaks, and H-3 was blamed for it.[3][4]

The eruption is detectable through Greenland ice-cores, the bristlecone pine sequence, and the Irish oak sequence of extremely narrow growth rings. Baker's team dated it to 1021 + 130/-100 BC. [5]

Baker preferred a "high chronology" (earlier) interpretation of these results. In Sutherland, northwest Scotland, a spurt of four years of doubled annual luminescent growth banding of calcite in a stalagmite datable to 1135 130 BC.[6] A rival, "low-chronology" interpretation of the eruption comes from Dugmore, 2879 BP = 929 BC 34.[7]

In 1999 Dugmore suggested a non-volcanic explanation for the Scottish results.[8] In 2000 skepticism concerning conclusions about connecting Hekla 3 and Hekla 4 eruptions with paleoenvironmental events and archaeologically attested abandonment of settlement sites in northern Scotland was expressed by John P. Grattan and David D. Gilbertson.[9]

Some Egyptologists in 1999 firmly dated the eruption to 1159 BC and blamed it for famines under Ramesses III during the Bronze Age collapse.[10] Dugmore dismissed this and maintains his dating to this day.[11] Other scholars have held off on this dispute, preferring the neutral and vague "3000 BP".[12]"

And thus, this date even today is only secured by certain forms of dating, of which I am insecure in their neutrality, and the agreement with the Egyptian Cartel!"  I do guarantee that without the Egyptian Cartel's agreement, this would not have made the pages of Wikipedia!  And since I also question the "in bed relationship" of 14C research and that of Tree Ring pseudo science, with the Egyptian Cartel, or the Historical Cartel in general, I tend to reject their statements!  Much like I tend to reject the statement of Albert Gore aND HIS "global warming" now strangly called "climate change" co-hearts!

After all the New Orleans Saints actually won the Super Bowl!  Thus, Hell must have frozen over!  Laugh!  

Go Saints Go!


Regards,

Ron  
 PS, Charles, it seems that if one is lengthy in their responses, the writing panel does not like it and tend to not follow the words!  This is very annoying to me, at least!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 12:24:54 AM by Ronald L. Hughes » Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2010, 08:22:31 PM »

Well, if the old icons of a age die hard, which I suggest is true, then any 2012 or Aquarian shift may take a few hundred years to come to pass, unless nature or(and) Venus kick our butts first.

 As heavy handed as the orthodox church was in instituting the "change", it wasn't untill 325CE that it was legal, and those pesky gnostics still didn't go away. Instead they became, Cabalists, Templers, Rosicrutions, and Freemasons. I suggest that those groups became the infuence that moved humanity forward. Where the infuence is currently, and how they are in sync with time now, I don't know.

Time may change me, but you can't trace time...David Bowie
Logged
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2010, 09:57:58 PM »

Dear Chuck*,

You recently wrote these words;  ""My chronology is actually more compressed than Velikovsky, but far less so than Fomenko.  I didn't think it was possible to have any confidence in chronology.  Previous "essential synchronisms" were based on interpreting ancient records of ecplises and other non-scientific correlations.  The emerging field of catastrophism (incorporating ice-core and tree-ring analysis) is a breakthrough.  Finally, we can see the major turning points of human existence like the spikes of a spectrogram.  The last big spike was 1159 BC, smack-dab in the middle of a Venus transit doublet.  Is that a coincidence?  "Do you run out of toilet paper and paper towels at the same time" in your house?  This is both exciting and "troubling evidence" (to quote "The Talking Heads")!  1159 BC is the anchor (essential synchronism, if you will) that allows us to revisit chronology.  I've done it in the rough and everything seems to fit comfortably (and compactly) within it.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and human society abhors a power vacuum."

If I were to question you about "your chronology", could you give me some time frames that your chronology is comfortable in stating?  That is, 1. the real date of the times of Christ?; 2. the real date of Rameses II and III, and IV, etc.?;  3. Your dates for Velikovsky's Nectanebo?  : 4. Your dates for Cyrus?; 5. Your dates for 'the fall of Troy?"; 6. Your date for the founding of the Hittite empire?; 7. Your dates for Saul, David and Solomon?; 8. Your dates for the 18th Dynasty of Egypt? as well as the 11th and 12th? 
Which I consider as mostly "duplicates!"

And, your reasons for such adjustments of the currently accepted chronology?

Can you list "duplicate" ruling classes or kings? 

Can you tell us how to eliminate the fakes, or rather , how you eliminate them??

When you say;  """My chronology is actually more compressed than Velikovsky!", and since he removed about 800 years from the chronology of Egypt, then how many years do your remove?

It is just that I have al;ways had some problems actually figuring out your time-frames?

Regards,

Rondo
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 315


« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2010, 10:54:05 PM »

Rondo Take-a-check,

The 2012 debate is my favorite subject now, I've just gotten distracted by the latest Hawass circus.

It was only recently that I became convinced that 1159 BC was the start date for the Old Kingdom.  I revised Chart 14b to reflect that start date.  There are only small changes needed in subsequent time periods (i.e., existing book charts) to accomodate the latest "gold standard".  This is because almost all the (additional) compression is accomplished by the equation:  Sargon the Great = Pepi = Inyotef A.

Logged
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2010, 12:46:24 AM »

Thanks, I think I've got it now!
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2010, 01:31:52 AM »

Since, we are mostly still within the period known as Easter, or other terms considering your religious following!  It must well be noted that this date (about which all of the best known religious groups of today have agreed to follow) is considered as almost 100% correct!

So, I would have to ask each of you to actually research the reasons why there exists so much agreement today, when, in the past, wars would be planned to avoid such agreement!

Regards,

Ron
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

Clear Mind Theme, by burNMind with modifications by: WebDude
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.177 seconds with 17 queries.