FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
History: Fiction or Science?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:33 pm    Post subject: Re: The Origins of Psyop Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:

Who could possibly pull off such an enduring scam?
....
cultural 'explosion' of the 15th century Florentine Renaissance which was fueled by the 'rediscovery' of classical antiquity.
....
new social institutions introduced during this period, namely, banking, academia, and 'Roman Style' civil government.
....
was done by members of the extremely influential and powerful Medici Family from Florence.
....
classics professor... a Ms. Bettany Hughes


What about the influence of the Habsburgs/Hapsburgs ?

Are you ruling them out because no one today can agree on how to spell their last name ?

Quote:
Excerpt from Chronology 2, page 45
The Theocratic Kingdom of Judah duplicates the
German coronations in the Holy Roman Empire of
the alleged X-XIII century A.D., qv in Chapter 6 of
CHRONI. Ergo, both kingdoms of Israel and Judah
are, to a substantial extent, phantom reflections of the
Habsburg Empire of XIV-XVI century A.D
.) qv in
CHRON1, Chapter 6.

.........
About the Medici's psyop & Florence I noticed that:
Quote:
Excerpt from Chronology 2, pp. 116-117

This is what historians tell us: "In mediaeval Eu-
rope Homer's texts were only known from the quo-
tations and references given by Aristotle and a num-
ber of Latin authors; the poetic glory of Homer had
been completely outshone by Virgil. It wasn't until the
late XIV - early XV century that... the Italian hu-
manists had made a closer acquaintance of Homer.
In the XV century many of them occupied them-
selves with translating Homer into Latin... in 1448
the first printed Greek copy of Homer was published
in Florence.
Many partial Italian translations of Ho-
mer's texts were made in the XVI century. However,
the first complete translation of the Iliad came out as
late as 1723 and is credited to the poet Antonio Maria
Salvini" ([180], pages 711-712).

.........

Yes. The Medici's are definitely important. Other families (Hapsburgs) possibly as well, unless they were fictitious or something.

Two Questions:

1. HOW DID THE MEDICI'S GAIN INFLUENCE & WEALTH IN THE FIRST PLACE ? Imperialism (the Crusades)? Did they create THE WORLD'S first fractional-reserve bank, or something ? or were they the pope's first pimps...like the stereotypical (italian ?)mob

I remember reading an interview by novelist Neil Stephenson, who researched historical banking and money systems for his books...when asked how "money" was different from the past, he said something like "well, it's always sort of worked this way, even the ancient systems."

Now...if their were no "ancient" systems because "ancient" never existed, I guess that means Capitalism & Banking originated in the Medieval Ages (as well as Imperialism, maybe ?)

2. SO WHEN THE HOLY HELL WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CREATED? Middle Ages by the Medici's, possibly ? Or like a hundred years after Andronicus was crucified in Constantinople. Did they make the "Jesus" story up and sell the story to the army so they'd go steal(middle eastern) land for the Empire during the Crusades or something ?

And while we're at it, WHO WAS JESUS, ANYWAY ?(Let's assume whatever Fomenko wrote (in Russian only for now,no English) in his book King of the Slavs is only about some famous eastern missionary.) Fomenko's great and all, but my eyes occasionally glaze over trying to understand the Biblical parallisms. After reading/skimming Chron2, I still don't have a clue who Christ is or who started the Catholic Church.
JESUS CHRIST = BASIL THE GREAT = POPE GREGORY HILDEBRAND = ANDRONICUS ?

What type of fucking savior's name is "ANDRONICUS " ?
People praying to "Andronicus" sounds about as likely as seeing The Miracles of OPTIMUS FUCKING PRIME:
"You can reach SALVATION only by accepting PRIME."

...............
I think there is still some debate/confusion on who founded Constantinople (aka "the new Rome on the Bosporus") as well as Rome,Italy.

I think Fomenko is saying that ABRAHAM founded Constantinople.
Quote:
Excerpt from Chronology 2, p.321

COMMENTARY. These curious statements of me-
diaeval European chronicles couldn't fail to draw the
attention of modern commentators. F. Gregorovius
wrote that "according to the most recent research, the
ancient legend of Saturn is supposed to explain the
name of Rome and the story of its foundation, since
Remus (or Romus) . . . happens to be the Semitic name
of Saturn ,"The Greatest", and corresponds to the
Syrian Ab-Rom, Abu-Rom and Baal-Ram" ([196],vol-
ume 3, page 461, comment 26. Below we shall demon-
strate that Ab- Rom, or Abraham (which translates as
Rome- Father, by the way) can really be identified as
Remus, the founder of New Rome.


Fomenko is also saying that Moses is a double of Noah (pp317-318), which I can see because of the water references and conversing with God.(Hey, is anyone who converses directly with God a fictious person who never really existed...just a thought.)

And Rome,Italy was founded by Noah, or something? But then he keeps saying that the name "Noah" could just mean "New"...which is turning into fictious people chasing fictious people...and the chasing keeps continuing throughout the Bible.....

I didn't know that the characters of Romulus and Remus feuded, but Fomenko compares this to Abraham and Lot ; but culturally, when people think of feuding brothers, don't Cain & Abel come to mind first ?

Some excerpts from Chronology 2, mentioning Abraham, Lot, Noah, Tower of Babel, and biblical Adam wearing medieval armor in an engraving, Romulus, and Remus.

Quote:

Excerpts from Chronology 2

page 321
3.15a. The Bible. God gives Patriarch Noah a list of
main laws, which dictate how the survivors
of the deluge should organize their lives
(Genesis 9:2-7).

3.15aa. The Bible. God gives Moses the Prophet a
list of laws to regulate the lifestyles of the
ones who had survived the exodus from
MS- Rome, or Egypt (Genesis and Deutero-
nomy). Bear in mind that Egypt was also
called MS-Rome or Mis-Rome (Mitz-Rim,
qv in [544] and [99], pages 77 and 78). One
has to say the following in re the name of
Egypt. ''Ancient inscriptions, as well as the
books of latter day Egyptian Christians,
Egypt is called by a name that translates as
'the black land', Kem or Kami in Egyption...
let us also point our that the name Egypt
wasn't known to those who lived on the
Nile... Wilkinson [put forth the hypothesis
that] the word Egypt may be a derivative
from Coptos or Guptos - the name of a
city... the toponymy of the name used by
the Asian foreigners for Egypt is a real
enigma... the Jews called in Metzrahem, the
Assyrians, Mutsur - and the Persians, Mud-
rajah" ([99], pages 77 and 78). See CHRON5
for more detail. These two stories are the
only ones we encounter in the Bible that tell
us about God passing his main laws onto
his prophet, or a patriarch. Even the man-
ner in which some of the laws are formu-
lated is the same.

3.16a. The Bible. Let us quote an example of a law
from the epoch of Noah: "Whoso sheddeth
man's blood, by man shall his blood by shed"
(Genesis 9:6)..

3.16aa. The Bible. An example from the epoch of
Moses: "Whosoever lays his hand on a man
and slays him, be he also slain" (Exodus
21:12).

........................

TOWER OF BABEL
p.322

5.1a. The Bible. The famous legend of the Tower of
Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). We learn of a great
and wide migration of people: "and from
thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon
the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:9).
.
5.1b. The "antiquity." We run into yet another reit-
eration of the familiar legend that tells us
about the escape of defeated nations after the
Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C.,
the Tarquins after the war of the alleged
VI century B.C. and the Goths after the
Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D.

5.1c. The mediaeval original. The great war of
the XIII century A.D., which results in na-
tions "scattering all across the world".
The
groups of refugees and the victors chasing
them leave Byzantium. The Biblical chroni-
cler may well have referred to the "Mongo-
lian" = Great Conquest as to the Tower of
Babel. See CHRONS and CHRON6.
....................

page 323 (caption of photo)
Fig. 4.39. An engraving from a 1558 edition of the Bible (Biblia Sacra). We see Adam portrayed as a mediaeval knight in armour wearing a helm. His armour-bearer is also a mediaeval knight. Taken from [544L Volume 2, page 497, ill. 145.


.........................................

page 324

7.5a. The Bible. The Pharaoh abducts Sarai. "The
princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and com-
mended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was
taken into Pharaoh's house" (Genesis 12:15).

7.5b. The "antiquity'
The famous "rape of the
Sabine women" in Rome
or the "abduction
of Helen" in the Trojan War
(the casus belli).

7.5c. The mediaeval original. The "legend of a
woman" from the history of the XIII cen-
tury war, qv in CHRON2, Chapter 2.

.....

7.7 a. The Bible. The gender aspect of the "rape" is
emphasized.

7.7b. The "antiquity': In the Trojan and the Tar-
quinian version the sexual overtones of the
abduction or insult are pointed out rather
explicitly - the temptation of Helen, the
rape of Lucretia and so on. See CHRON2,
Chapter 1.

7.7 c. The mediaeval original. We have put forth a
hypothesis that one of the reasons for the
war of the XIII century A.D. may have been
the Crusaders' revenge of Andronicus
(Christ), crucified in 1152 A.D. in Czar-
Grad. Another motivation could be the
budding schism between several Christian
confessions of the XII-XIII century that
used to be united. One of them shall later
become known as the "ancient" orgiastic
cult by Venus or Aphrodite, which was
characterized by sexual excesses and be-
came reflected in the myths about "a
woman humiliated", or the reason for a re-
ligious war. See CHRON2, Chapter 3.

.....
page 325-6

8.4a. The Bible. At the beginning of this epoch we
see two characters, Abraham and Lot, who
choose the land for settlement and proceed to
settle thereupon (Genesis 13:1-9).

8.4b. The phantom Middle Ages. This epoch begins
with Romulus and Remus (also two charac-
ters) choosing a place for their nation's
dwelling and founding two cities (or a single
city; see [482]).

8.5a. The Bible. However, a struggle soon begins be-
tween Abram and Lot: ''And the land was not
able to bear them, that they might dwell to-
gether: for their substance was great, so that
they could not dwell together. And there was a
strife between the herdsmen of Lot's cattle»
(Genesis 13:6-7). Lot and Abram are relations,
the former being a nephew of the latter.

8.5b. The phantom Middle Ages. Romulus and
Remus have a quarrel ([482], Volume 1).
This happens in the alleged VIII century B.C.
The quarrel is soon blown completely out of
proportion. Romulus and Remus are broth-
ers, or each other)s kin, which is also true of
Abram and Lot, as the Bible tells us. History
of another duplicate (the Third Roman Em-
pire) begins with a similar scenario as well.
Here we see a conflict between Constantine
and Licinius of the alleged early IV century
A.D. See CHRoNl, Chapter 1.

8.6a. The Bible. The Bible contains no information
about Abram killing Lot - however, we learn
that a war against Lot is instigated) in the
course of which he is attacked by 4 kings and
taken captive (Genesis 14:12).

8.6b. The phantom Middle Ages. Romulus murders
Remus in the alleged VIII century B.C. In an-
other duplicate (the alleged beginning of the
IV century A.D.), Constantine I launches a
campaign against Licinius and puts the latter
to rout as a result (see CHRoNl, Chapter 1).
Just as in the the Biblical legend, Constantine I
and Licinius had originally been friends.


.....
About Ms. Bettany Hughes: Hmmm. The photo Continuity posted gave me an idea...Since Harrison Ford is having trouble using his walker, why not make the next Indiana Jones...Jennifer Connolly ? She would make a GREAT classics professor....But those ideas of Bettany's might corrupt young minds, so we better rate the film NC-17, just to be "safe."

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates


Last edited by Cracrocrates on Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:18 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:10 pm    Post subject: J.R.R. Tolkien Reply with quote

So, was the greatest thing J.R.R. Tolkien did was:
showing that an ENTIRE MYTHICAL AGE OF HISTORY could be created by just ONE MAN over a lifetime ?


And whoever it was...Catholic Church or Medici's or Andronicus's cousins, had an entire team of "scholars", and a hell of a lot more money.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:19 am    Post subject: Protect the Poontang Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher back on 2007 August 12 wrote:
In Chron 2, Fomenko provides some interesting evidence that before the Catholic Church, 'Christianity' was an entirely different type of religion... a sex cult!


Uh uh. Where's the "sex cult" part in Chron 2? Did I skip an important part? All I'm seeing is parallelisms about Adam & Eve and Paris & Helen myths...but that's not enough to convince me as that being the foundation.

Jerry, you wrote it was a sex cult BEFORE the CATHOLIC CHURCH? Because, I'm thinking, maybe during the "Renaissance", the sex part stuff was maybe started THEN (by the Medici's ?)...but got to be too bubon-tastic, so their was a shift away from the sex cult during the Inquisition. (Because the convents were like brothels, according to one of the excerpts I posted earlier)

The focus of Christianity, whether mythical or not, is still the crucifixion of Christ...and if Christ died in Constantinople...but Christianity was REALLY a sex cult from the very beginning,...I just don't see christian soldiers risking their lives during the Crusades to PROTECT THE POONTANG by avenging Andronicus ?

"He died for our poontang !"

"He stood for peace and brotherhood for all of mankind, and for the poontang, so LET'S KILL THOSE BASTARDS ! "


It doesn't add up. But I guess "let's kill those bastards" works in most eras. And money helps. The few. The proud. The Marines.

So maybe the Crusades had nothing to do with "avenging Andronicus" and was just "corporate expansion" attempt by the Medici's/Catholic Church and cohorts (mercenaries?)...but now-a-days is sold by the Catholic Church as some big fucking...Crusade for Christ.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:07 am    Post subject: Why was Martin Luther not set on fire? Reply with quote

Why was Martin Luther not set on fire?

So, I was reading up on the Inquisition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition .
Mainstream history has a record of FOUR major Inquisitions, over allegedly different time periods and places :
Medieval Inquisition, Spanish Inquisition, Portuguese Inquisition, Roman Inquisition.
Well, from my random research earlier on heretics on the Forbidden Books list, the Catholic Church apparently like to set people on fire whenever they goddamned felt like it. So I looked up (Lex) Luther at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther .

That Luther was a real modest guy:
Quote:
He would later remark, "If anyone could have gained heaven as a monk, then I would indeed have been among them."

And then he married a 26-year-old nun the following year after writing:
Quote:
Luther had written to Spalatin on November 30, 1524, "I shall never take a wife, as I feel at present. Not that I am insensible to my flesh or sex (for I am neither wood nor stone); but my mind is averse to wedlock because I daily expect the death of a heretic."

Ahhh...it's like Peter Parker/Spider-Man...but the Mary Jane lust was just too strong, so they married. (...I wonder what happened to the other 11 nuns he freed from the constraints of the Catholic Church?)

I searched the BFN Forum, and found DrewTerry & Ormond talking about this in Dec. 2006 at http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11073#11073

DrewTerry on 2006 Dec 8 wrote:
Quote:
in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention into the church door at Wittenberg.

• Martin Luther first man to print the Bible in German.

• Foxe’s Book of Martyrs records that in that same year, 1517, seven people were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin.


Get that? Seven (7) KIDS parents burned at the stake for teaching their kids to say the Lords prayer in English instead of Latin - but nobody could understand Latin (the point, I know) but who the fuck wants to say a prayer you can't goddamn underfuckingstand???


Ormond on 2006 Dec 9 wrote:
Bingo. Few people ever notice that, whether Catholic or Lutheran. Both got the same history presentation of the posting on the door thing.

Printing even a passage of the Bible in a contemporary readable language was heresy. Horrid, public death for it was routine, mandatory. Luther published the whole scripture for distribution to the German speaking world. Nothing happened to him. Not only that, dared rant against the Pope by daring to post his dissident points.

More importantly, the family crest of the Luther family was this Rose and Cross.

System upgrade. The Reformation split Christianity into two opposing factions. Opposition, which sustained the Vatican for five more centuries. And creation of a new culture paradigm: the Protestant 'work ethic'. Result: a religion for the clock, the industrial "Revoltion", Colonialism, and perhaps institutionalized slavery.

Following the real logic, the Seven families burned for the heresy of teaching theh Lord's Prayer in their own language (a Captial Offence for centuries), that year may have been sacrifices to the WORKING. Luther, an ordained exoteric Roman Catholic priest (esoteric Rosencrantz, Rosicrutian) performed...under hidden capstone Vatican Aegis.


Luther was excommunicated, but hell, those 7 kids got death.
LUTHER EVEN PUBLICLY SET FIRE TO THE PAPAL BULL.
Luther had his own knight in shining armor to save him though.
Quote:

Excommunication

On June 15, 1520, the Pope warned Luther with the papal bull (edict) Exsurge Domine that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 sentences drawn from his writings, including the 95 Theses, within 60 days.

That fall, Johann Eck proclaimed the bull in Meissen and other towns. Karl von Miltitz, a papal nuncio, attempted to broker a solution, but Luther, who had sent the Pope a copy of On the Freedom of a Christian in October, publicly set fire to the bull and decretals at Wittenberg on December 10, 1520,[47] an act he defended in Why the Pope and his Recent Book are Burned and Assertions Concerning All Articles.

As a consequence, Luther was excommunicated by Leo X on January 3, 1521, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.....Luther appeared, as ordered, on April 17, 1521, before the Diet of Worms (Reichstag zu Worms). This was a general assembly (a diet) of the estates of the Holy Roman Empire that took place in Worms, a town on the Rhine. It was conducted from January 28 to May 25, 1521, with Emperor Charles V presiding. Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, obtained an agreement that Luther would be promised safe passage to and from the meeting....The apprehension of Luther was the last thing Frederick III, Elector of Saxony wanted, so he had him discreetly intercepted on his way home by masked horsemen and escorted to the security of the Wartburg Castle at Eisenach, where Luther grew a beard and lived incognito for nearly eleven months, pretending to be a knight called Junker Jörg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther


DrewTerry also posted 2 pages from the 1841 English Hexapla Parallel New Testament, which shows 6 different English translations...and how different even just 1 page was:


_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:33 pm    Post subject: Estimated Time to Reach 6 Billion Humans Reply with quote

Estimated Time to Reach 6 Billion Humans
(using assumption of 2% annual growth rate)

Quote:
Morpheus: I can't tell you exactly what year it is because we honestly don't know.


So what year in human history is it, really ?
My intrigue with historic world population numbers continues.
But I'm going to present a scenario that's a full 180-degree turn from the one I presented in March questioning the 20th century numbers.

This time, I'm going to assume that the publicized 20th century numbers are correct, but the past numbers were shite. Fomenko reasons that historical chronology needs to be shortened...so the "world population estimates" going back to 1 A.D. must be made up as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Jerry Fletcher on 2007 March 10 wrote:
Well, it does appear that all the significant action has happened in the last 2000 years.

This graphic makes the point pretty well -

I can certainly understand how this looks a little suspicious, or at the very least, difficult to comprehend.



Here are my assumptions/evidence/reasoning:
1. ASSUMPTION: Human Population Grows EXPONENTIALLY, at a modest rate, say 2%.
As far as recorded, verifiable human history, I think exponential growth is the rule, not the exception.

2. Farming families used to be LARGE right, and even today, technologically underdeveloped nations grow at MUCH HIGHER rates than highly industrialized cultures...so in the past, people generally married and had children at earlier ages.

3. LESS BIRTH CONTROL IN THE PAST.

4. Assumption that past rates of infant mortality were not ridiculousy high. The mainstream reasoning of "linear" growth in the past was high infant mortality rates. But how come the nations with the "high infant mortality" rates today have MUCH higher population growth rates? PSYOP! Also, read this snippet about The Farm's midwifery record (The Farm in Tennessee was featured in an audio by Fintan):
Quote:
The Farm midwives stress that women's bodies do, in fact, work. Most cesareans are not necessary. Farm midwives delivered 183 babies before their first cesarean. With almost 2,000 births under their belt now, their cesarean rate is only 1.7%. This compares to a national rate of over 24%. Farm midwives are also on the cutting edge of midwifery research. One technique they learned from Mayan midwives in Guatemala, for instance, has been written up in medical journals and is now incorporated into family physician training. The technique, for delivering breech presentations or babies with shoulders stuck behind the pelvic bone simply involves rolling and twisting the mother. The baby then "pops right out."

Mainstream doctors, on the other hand, opt for a cesarean in such cases. In a study of 59 such cases, two babies died and four had permanent neurological damage, three women had their pubic bones cut and two had emergency hysterectomies, and five babies ended up with arms that will never work. The Farm midwives, by contrast, delivered 40 babies using the Mayan technique without a single complication. The Maya claim they learned the procedure from God.
http://www.thefarm.org/general/hightime.html


5. Example of a culture with limited technology's growth rate in North America: THE AMISH.
The Amish population in 100 years grew to be 30 times the initial population in 1900.
Quote:
Extinct in their European homeland, the Amish have flourished in North America in the 20th century. From a meager band of 5,000 at the beginning of the century, they exceed 150,000 adults and children today. The Lancaster settlement with less than 500 persons in 1900 has already passed the 19,000 mark. In many areas of life, the Amish cling to traditional ways -- shunning electricity, cars, and higher education.
.....The Amish do not actively evangelize or proselytize.
A high birth rate feeds Amish growth. Women typically give birth to seven children. Following the toll of death and disease, the number of children averages 6.6 per family. The rejection of birth control and the use of modern medicines have boosted Amish birth rates. Large families are typical in rural societies where children are welcomed for their labor. Family size typically shrinks as families leave the farm. It remains to be seen if the Amish birth rate will slump as they leave their plows to work in small cottage industries.
http://www.goodbooks.com/excerptpage.asp?ISBN=1561480010


6. ASSUMPTION: Deaths from War, Famine, & Disease are similar to 20th century.

7. I think I read somewhere that Organic Food Production could yield as much food as Big Agribusiness...but agribusiness hides this fact.

.................
HERE'S THE MATH.

Formula from http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html

Quote:
These equations can be used to calculate population growth rates.

The variables used are:

pp (present population) = The population at the beginning of the calculation.
fp (future population) = The population after a certain number of years (yrs).
pct (percentage) = The percentage increase in population per period, usually per year. (In population studies, this is usually taken to mean births minus deaths.)
yrs (years) = The number of years required to effect a certain growth in population.





YEARS= [ln (future population/present population) ] / [ ln (1 + percentage growth rate) ]

= [ln (6,000,000,000)] / ln (1 +.02)
= 22.5 / .0198
= ONLY 1136 YEARS FROM "ADAM"
....................................

Using 1.0 % as the growth rate, YEARS = 2261 Years From "Adam"
Using 1.5 % as the growth rate, YEARS = 1607 Years From "Adam"
Using 3.0 % as the growth rate, YEARS = 762 Years From "Adam"

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
foo



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem with that thesis on human population growth is this:

6. ASSUMPTION: Deaths from War, Famine, & Disease are similar to 20th century.

That is demonstrably incorrect. It ignores recorded catastrophes:

The "Black Death," smallpox, post-WWI "Spanish flu"...

The eruptions of supervolcanoes, causing massive famines...

Ice ages/periods of glaciation...

Crop failures caused by drought or excessive rainfall...

Bottom line: The exponential groth of human poplation has not been constant.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

foo wrote:
It ignores recorded catastrophes:
The "Black Death," smallpox, post-WWI "Spanish flu"...
....
Bottom line: The exponential groth of human poplation has not been constant.


My post was an attempt to estimate time when knowing the long-run results (6 Billion population), without micromanaging specifics that are impossibile to know. Just ballpark estimation, to get a "feel" for the numbers.

Even at estimated 1%-2% annual growth, it doesn't take 10,000 years to get to 6 billion. Given reasonable assumptions, it is theoretically possible to get to modern population numbers using steady growth rates MUCH LOWER than those of a technologically-deficient society, the Amish (30x over 100 years, is about 3.4% annual) in about 1000 to 2000 years. Human (recorded ?)history does not need to be longer than this to be consistent with Fomenko's hypothesis. EVEN IF A HYPOTHETICAL NEAR-EXTINCTION EVENT HAD OCCURRED AROUND "1000 A.D.," it is theoretically possible (with what we know about human population growth) that the species could have re-built itself to current numbers in just 1000 years.

The oil & coal ages have had their benefits, but the 20th centuries had its own share of mass deaths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_deaths_and_atrocities_of_the_twentieth_century , adding up to WAY more than 100 million + unnecessary deaths factoring in world wars, genocide, pestilence, & famine.

There was worldwide exponential growth in the 19th century even at the height of British imperialism, famine, & slavery.


Quote:
Davis dives into the data and journalism of the period with a vengeance, showing that the seemingly unprecedented droughts across northern Africa, India and China in the 1870s and 1890s are consistent with what we now know to be El Ni¤o's effects, and that it was political and market forces (which are never impersonal, Davis insists), and not a lack of potential stores and transportation, that kept grain from the more than 50 million people who starved to death.


To the best of my knowledge, going back more than a few hundred years...the population records and record-keeping are utter shite. Even in the U.S., something that is widespread today- federal income tax returns- were required and completed by an incredibly small fraction of the populace (less than 5% I think ) before the creation of federal withholding around World War-II. My post back in March explained that throughout human history, THE CENSUS was not a desirable thing for the populace, because its very creation usually had something to do with increased selective taxation.

EVEN WITH CATASTROPHIC EVENTS LIKE THOSE OF THE 19th & 20TH CENTURIES, EVEN WITH WIDESPREAD USE OF BIRTH CONTROL METHODS, THERE IS EVIDENCE OF EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. But the PTB want us to believe that exponential growth was impossible without the modern-age that THEY created. PTB want us to be GREATFUL, trying to prove to us that this is the best possible world...maybe even the ONLY world possible.

It's a god damn lie.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:16 am    Post subject: The Koran, the Ark, and the Qa'aba Reply with quote

The Koran, the Ark, and the Qa'aba

The printing history of the Koran is pretty enlightening. No variations in Koran implies modern printing history. First printing was in Europe, not Arabia. And all the existing biographies of Mohammad just happen to be recent ones.

(I don't know about the other conjecture, with Fomenko saying maybe the sacred stone in the Cube = the Ark).

Quote:
Excerpts from Chronology 2

from pp. 404-405
17.2. On the history of the Koran


It turns out that all the surviving biographies of
Mohammed belong to a rather recent age, and have
been discovered very late. Also, their discovery wasn't
made in Arabia, which is considered to be the birth-
place of Mohammed and the main arena of the events,
but rather countries that became converted to Islam
rather recently. Furthermore, the analysis of mediae-
val sources from Byzantium and Europe, especially
after shifting them forward in time to compensate the
errors of the Scaligerian chronology, demonstrates
that the name Mohammed had neither been used by
the Greeks, nor the Italians, nor the Slavs until the
XIV century
([544], Volume 6).

Apparently, the term "Mohammedans" hadn't been
used until the moment that is considered crucial by
all Mohammedans, when Sultan Mohammed I (1374-
1413) united all of Asia Minor, adding the Adrianople
region on the Balkan peninsula to his domain, and
founded the Turkish empire. Another possible phan-
tom double of his is the famous Mahmoud Ghaznavi
(998-1030), who had "once again" united the entire
South-West of Asia from Delhi in India to Baghdad
in Mesopotamia, and from Georgia, Bukhara and
Kashgar to the Indian Ocean - presumably, 300 years
before Mohammed I. All of this is most likely to be a
reflection of the XIV century "Mongolian" conquest.

It was only after this famous Mohammed that the
term "Mohammedans" became used; "the God Moh-
ammed" only became anathematized by the Orthodox
Church in the XVI-XVII century as a result of the
schism between Islam and Christianity. A phantom re-
flection of this schism is the Byzantine "excommuni-
cation" of roughly the alleged year 1180. The most
widely used mediaeval terms for the "Mohammedans-
to-be" were Agarites, Ishmaelites and Saracens ([ 544],
Volume 6).

....
The Koran appears to be a version of certain
Biblical books - possibly, a variant of the Bible, which
was compiled in the XIII-XVI century A.D. When did
the Koran assume its present form? All the experts in
Arabic studies speak in unison of the most remark-
able and amazing fact (from the Scaligerian point of
view) that there are no variations anywhere in the
Koran - even the orthography of its numerous copies
scattered across a vast territory is uniform
([ 544] ,
Volume 6). The traditional explanation of this truly
mysterious fact is that the scribes who copied the
Koran had been extremely accurate and cautious so
as to make no mistakes when they copied the text,
since such mistakes were punishable by death. This
is possible. However, we are of the opinion that com-
plete uniformity of different copies is most likely to
indicate that the text of the Koran only became can-
onized after the invention of the printing press, in
the epoch of the XVI-XVII century A.D. the earliest

- although only handwritten copies are considered
appropriate for officiation. Such copies may have been
made for this purpose locally, printed versions serv-
ing as originals. Since the printed copies that became
distributed over many countries were identical, the
same applies to subsequent handwritten copies.

Such a high degree of uniformity in the absence
of a printing press seems very unlikely.

....
Ruminations along the lines of presuming
Arabic or Chinese scribes to have been infinitely more
diligent and accurate than their European counter-
parts are based on nothing but the mere sporting in-
terest in concocting an "even older" tale.


This is why the Scaligerian dating of the oldest
manuscripts of the Koran, which are dated to the al-
leged VIII-IX century A.D., is in need of revision. It
is likely to be substituted by a much later one. Also,
the first printing of the Koran took place in Europe
and not Arabia
([544], Volume 6).
....................................................................

from pp. 405-408
11.3 The Biblical Ark and the Muslim Qa'aba


We already mentioned that Scaligerian history con-
tains a rather mysterious disappearance - namely, the
Biblical Arc of Covenant vanishing without a trace at
some undefined point in time.
According to the Bib-
lical description, it had been a "tent" containing a box
with stone tablets with the ten commandments of
Moses inscribed upon them. The Biblical "stone
tablets" were kept in a box of some sort, which was
designed to be portable. The last reference to the Arc
is made in the context of Moses bringing it to
Jerusalem. After that, the Arc disappears from eccle-
siastical history forever.

It would be interesting to compare two pictures-
that of the Biblical Tabernacle of the Covenant made
according to the descriptions contained in the Bible
([ 1149]), and the photograph of Qa'aba, the famous
holy place of the Muslims. See [5441, Volume 6,
page 517, ilL 98, for instance. The only difference be-
tween the two hahdoms is thai there is a cloth cur-
tain around the Biblical Tabernacle of the Covenant
(a tent concealing the Arc), whereas on the photo-
graph of the sanctuary in Mecca we see a stone wall
in its place.
....
One comes up with an interesting hypothesis that
was first formulated by N. A. Moromv, namely, that
tire famous Qa'aba in Mecca is nothing else but the
vanished Biblical Tabernacle of the Covenant complete
with the Arc ([544], Volume 6). In both cases we see
the tent, or the Tabernacle, in the middle of a sanc-
tuary, surrounded by some sort of railing inside which
the worshippers congregate, with the actual halidom
contained in the Tabernacle.
....
A picture of the Black Stone
of Qa'aba can be seen in fig. 4.66. This is the "stune
from the sky" - the holiest relic of the modern
Muslims and the mediaeval Agarites. Crichton wrote
that "currently one sees fifteen meteorite :,hards here,
differing in sile and shape, but held sturdily together
by lime cement and perfectly smooth (polished by
the kisses of countless worshippers). They are coffee-
coloured, close to black; all of these shards are con-
tained in a frame 2-3 inches thick. The frame is also
black, made of some cement with tar and sand. The
shards are from a stone meteorite; they look like lava
intersticed with pieces of some yellow and whitish
substance': Quoting by [544), Volume 6, page 521.
.....
Thus> it is presumed that the Biblical Tabernacle
contained the shards of the "stone tablets" given to
Moses by the Lord himself. It is therefore possible that
the stone shards from Qa' aba are the very same pieces
of the Biblica[ stone tablets. It would be expedient to
study a mediaeval drawing of the objects inside the
Biblical tabernacle, qv in fig. 4.67. The drawing is en-
titled "The Objects of the TabernJcle"; it w.\s taken
from a mediaeval book by Cosmas Indicopleustes
( [ 398], ill. 34> sheet 123). What we see is twelve round
pieces of the tablets - c( the fifteen stone shards from
the Muslim sanctuary (see fig. 4.66 ), also of an orbed
shape, by the way.
....
When was the Qa'aba built? Scaligerian history is
of the opinion that it has been destroyed and re-
stored ten times! Its latest and most plausible re-
constructions took place already in the late Middle
Ages
([5441, Volume 6).
.....
It is only in the alleged X-Xl century A.D. that the
more or less verifiable period of Hajj observance, or
Mecca pilgrimage, begins in Scaligerian history. By the
way, a religious war flared up in the XVIII century,
which the Scaligerites hastened to use as explanation
for the complete absence of any authentic objects re-
motely resembling the graves of the Prophet and his
companions in either Mecca or Medina.It is pre-
sumed that when Saud had captured Mecca in 1803,
he ordered to kill all the votaries of the Qa'aba and
level all the gravestones of Mohammed's family with
the ground. However, could it be that this legend was
created with the specific goal of explaining the ab-
sence of any authentic sepulchres here?
([544), Vol-
ume 6).

It also has to be pointed out that the Hajj pilgrim-
age has always had the Qa'aba, and not the grave of
the Prophet, as its final destination - the actual holy
shards of stone.
Up until the XX century, all non-
Muslims were forbidden to enter the holy territory
around Mecca on the pain of death. The first brave
Europeans got to Mecca as late as the end of the XIX
century, which is when serious studies of the Qa'aba
by the Europeans began.


_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
foo



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me get this straight, Cracrocrates. You're saying that the human species has been on the Earth for only about 2000 years, right?

How long does it take for bones to fossilize? If it's longer than 2000 years, then, given that human fossils do exist, doesn't this require a longer time period for the presence of humans on the Earth?

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:25 pm    Post subject: Age of the Species ? Reply with quote

foo wrote:
Let me get this straight, Cracrocrates. You're saying that the human species has been on the Earth for only about 2000 years, right?

How long does it take for bones to fossilize? If it's longer than 2000 years, then, given that human fossils do exist, doesn't this require a longer time period for the presence of humans on the Earth?

Martin


I would say with a higher level of certainty that evidence of every human civilization that we know of is 1000 to 2000 years old, down from the 8-10,000 years of mainstream history/anthropology.

As for the age of the species, hell if I know. That's a stumper.

As for fossils, again, I don't know. The "fossil record" seems incomplete at best...just like the historic evidence gaps in papal records or gaps in the "Dark Ages." Carbon-14 dating can be off by three thousand years, so maybe 10,000 or 20,000 year old datings may be accurate; my bias is to remain skeptical, especially with the high level of historic frauds science & history seem to have turned out the last few hundred years.

My bias generally now is to be distrustful of anything mainstream science backdates hundreds of thousands (or millions or billions as far as the Big Bang) of years into the past, while still in an anthropological/biological paradigm that evolution/darwinism creates MORE diversity & MORE species, when the evidence I've seen on almost any scale - from bacteria upwards - suggests that after many generations, reversion to the mean is more likely instead of spontaneous speciation. At a very basic level, I guess humans are getting taller, but that's hardly anything close to speciation, and some of the variation is definitely related to differences in diet/nutrition among nations & cultures over many generations.

Maybe the age/evolution of the species depends on when Kubrick's monolith arrived ? It's as good an explanation as Francis Crick's "Directed Panspermia."


_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
foo



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:

"As for the age of the species, hell if I know. That's a stumper."

The math paints you into a corner. For a moment, let's take a creationist stand -- that there was an initial breeding human couple. With even a ridiculously low rate of one percent population increase per year, then they were created only slightly more than 2000 years ago.

Had that hypothetical couple existed much more than 2000 years ago, then there would have had to have been at least one catastrophic disease or climate event to have reduced the then living population. If not, then the world's population today would be more than "only" six billion.

No, I'm not going to argue in favor of the C14 dating method. I'm aware of, and I agree with, the objections to its accuracy.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

foo wrote:

The math paints you into a corner.
...
Had that hypothetical couple existed much more than 2000 years ago, then there would have had to have been at least one catastrophic disease or climate event to have reduced the then living population. If not, then the world's population today would be more than "only" six billion.


The math paints in my a corner, you say?
Well, what if in my corner I have THE MONOLITH ! Smile

The other possibilities that still allow the math to be relevant could be:
1) retarded illiterate humans for countless millienia in steady-state until the monolith or some piece of world-changing knowledge (agriculture) or change comes by...Optimus Prime/Jesus ?

2) a U-shaped curve of human population....like all those legends of beyond-ancient civilizations that were destroyed in their own nuclear war...or maybe the Medici's/Catholic Church's imperialistic wars are even bloodier than imagined, taking out more per capita than 20th century wars....which would explain why Europe's population is so low (I'm still wary of the the bubon-tastic black death reason as being the sole contributor) compared to India & China's population today...and those imperialistic armies in the New World wiped out exactly HOW MANY CIVILIZATIONS ?

...I've been wondering if those world-famous Indian burial snake mounds in Ohio and such (Roger Kennedy wrote a book on these) were uh...mass graves...three stories high.


_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 9 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.