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 ... 15, 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: Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:45 am    Post subject: Ptolemy's Almagest Reply with quote

Ptolemy's Almagest

Half of Chronology 3 (which I do not own) is devoted to re-dating Ptolemy's Almagest. Fomenko et al apparently fleshed out their case in 1993 with a mere 300-page book devoted to ONLY this one topic, called Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations: Dating Ptolemy's Almagest. http://books.google.com/books?q=fomenko+Analysis+of+Star+Configurations+&btnG=Search+Books (VERY Limited Preview)

So the Ptolemy I'm talking about is scholar CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy
who mainstream historians say lived from 90-168 A.D. in Alexandria(Roman-controlled Egypt).
[...not to be confused with the Ptolemic Kings (well, at least not now) who according to mainstream history are Greek royals who ruled Egypt (?) for about 300 years (?) from 323 B.C. (?) to 30 B.C. (?)after which the Romans (?) took over Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty ]

WHY IS THE ALMAGEST IMPORTANT ?
Well, its 13-books long, 1000+ pages, with data on 1000+ stars
So, Fomenko's statistical analysis had to take into account the data from a hell of a lot of stars.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy
The Almagest is the only surviving comprehensive ancient treatise on astronomy. Babylonian astronomers had developed arithmetical techniques for calculating astronomical phenomena; Greek astronomers such as Hipparchus had produced geometric models for calculating celestial motions; Ptolemy, however, claimed to have derived his geometrical models from selected astronomical observations by his predecessors spanning more than 800 years, though astronomers have for centuries suspected that his models' parameters were adopted independently of observations. Ptolemy presented his astronomical models in convenient tables, which could be used to compute the future or past position of the planets.[9] The Almagest also contains a star catalogue, which is an appropriated version of a catalogue created by Hipparchus. Its list of forty-eight constellations is ancestral to the modern system of constellations, but unlike the modern system they did not cover the whole sky (only the sky Hipparchus could see). Through the Middle Ages it was spoken of as the authoritative text on astronomy, with its author becoming an almost mythical figure, called Ptolemy, King of Alexandria.[10] The Almagest was preserved, like most of Classical Greek science, in Arabic manuscripts (hence its familiar name). Because of its reputation, it was widely sought and was translated twice into Latin in the 12th century, once in Sicily and again in Spain.[11] Ptolemy's model, like those of his predecessors, was geocentric and was almost universally accepted until an equally systematic presentation of a heliocentric geometrical model by Nicolaus Copernicus.


WHY WAS THE ALMAGEST CONTROVERSIAL ?
Allegations of fraud by a number of scholars over the centuries.
Fomenko, for example, mentions the criticisms of physicist Robert R. Newton who wrote the 1977 book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy . Fomenko actually disagrees with R. Newton as to the reasons for the discrepancies in the data, saying they are because of a much later time period (sometime between 700 and 1300A.D., not 150 A.D.)
Quote:
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/newtpol.htm
Accusations against Claudius Ptolemy not new
The claim that Claudius Ptolemy ”deliberately fabricated” many of his observations is not new. Astronomers have questioned Ptolemy’s observations for centuries. As early as 1008 AD ibn Yunis concluded that they contained serious errors, and by about 1800 astronomers had recognized that almost all of Ptolemy’s observations were in error. In 1817, Delambre asked: ”Did Ptolemy do any observing? Are not the observations that he claims to have made merely computations from his tables, and examples to help in explaining his theories?” – J.B.J. Delambre, Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne, Paris 1817, Vol. II, p. XXV; as quoted by Robert R. Newton in The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins [MAPO], Vol. I, (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), p. 43.

Two years later (in 1819) Delambre also concluded that Ptolemy fabricated some of his solar observations and demonstrated how the fabrication was made. (Newton, MAPO I, p. 44) More recently, other astronomers have re-examined Ptolemy’s observations and arrived at similar results. One of them is Professor Robert R. Newton. In his book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), Newton claims that Ptolemy fudged, not only a large body of the observations he says he had made himself, but also a number of the observations Ptolemy attributes to other astronomers, including some he quotes from Babylonian sources. These include the three oldest observations recorded in Ptolemy’s Almagest dating from the first and second years of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (called Mardokempados in Almagest), corresponding to 721 and 720 BC.


WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE LIFE OF THE GREAT SCHOLAR PTOLEMY ?
Not much.
Quote:
Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations: Dating Ptolemy's Almagest, p.1
"history treated somewhat strangely the person and the works of Ptolemy. Historians of his time never mention his life and activities... . No facts of his life, neither the dates of his birth and death are known."


B. Lukacs, a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, has reviewed Fomenko's analysis and wrote an essay about it here
http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/PTOLFOM.htm
"PTOLEMY'S ALMAGEST AND FOMENKO'S OPINION ABOUT IT AND ESPECIALLY: SOME WORDS ABOUT PRECESSION"
So ignoring Lukacs comment on possible copier error to explain the switch of star magnitudes, he brings up an important point THAT WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE A NORTH STAR, because before about 1000 A.D. (because of the precession) there would not have been a Lodestar pointing towards the North pole, meaning that navigation in general would have been more difficult, and the INVENTION OF THE COMPASS less likely to have happened without the ability to regularly verify the NORTH direction. Before 1000 A.D. (perhaps) navigation was possible using more stars, but would have been impossible using just 1 star in the sky.
Quote:
Excerpt from B. Lukacs essayhttp://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/PTOLFOM.htm

4. FOMENKO'S NOTE ON PRECESSION

Now let us see [5]. Fomenko tries to find out the time of the life of Ptolemy from the data in the Almagest themselves, since falsifications are well known in History. One possibility would be to detect peculiar motions; but results seem equivocal. But then he observes an anomaly in the ordering of stars.

He tells that the first item in the stellar catalog is our Polaris, a Ursae Minoris. Now, the only unique property of a UMi is that it is the northernmost substantial star.

Indeed, Polaris is not the brightest; a fairly bright m=2.1 star, but nothing compared with, say, Sirius. Also, its colour is uninteresting white (F8). While in previous times it was variable, the amplitude was very small in the last centuries and there is no evidence that antiquity observed this at all. Other pecularities were not seen without telescopes. So indeed, if a UMi was unique before telescopes to anybody, it was so because it was the northernmost bright star.

However this was not true in Classical Antiquity, as anybody can prove it by simple geometrical construction! You should go into ecliptical coordinate system, take a point at 23°27' from the equatorial pole, and make it to revolve on a circle in 25700 years. Then you can transform the positions to equatorial, and it turns out that because of precession before cca. 800 AD b UMi (m=2.2, K4) was more northern than a UMi. The brightness difference is negligible and peculiar motions cause second order effects only.

Therefore it is sure that Fomenko is right in his statement that the Almagest, as we know it, is not older than 800 AD.
In contrast to Fomenko, I do not consider this as a proof that mysterious Claudius Ptolemy lived after 800. There is a possibility that he worked in 150 but after 800 a copyist simply exchanged the sequence of a and b UMi. It could be easy to do this, and the observational evidence that indeed a UMi was the northernmost bright star might have given the motivation. However then look: Orthodox History (of, at least, Science) can be saved if we assume that about 100 AD somebody got an improbable name. Then this fellow collected all Astronomy in a period when natural sciences were already boring for scientists. He also showed outstanding mathematical excellence, while he falsified/stole lots of observations. Then his book vanished from Europe (see App. B), and later somebody unidentified up to now changed his Catalog both in Constantinople and in Arabia!.

Each point is possible, but the full sequence needs some credulity, and the last the biggest one. I think some explanations would be needed.

5. PRECESSION, STRABO AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Strabo, the greatest predecessor of Ptolemy's Geography, did not know anything about the precession, although he lived one century after Hipparchus, who in Greece discovered the effect. (And Strabo does cite Hipparchus!) Namely, in Book 1, Chapter 1 he makes an argumentation with Kratés. Kratés was a grammaticus of Pergamum in 2nd c. BC and noted the line XVIII 489 of Iliad (and V 275 of Odyssey) where it is told that the (Great) Bear never washes herself in Oceanus. Kratés knew that in Greece the Bear was not circumpolar, so he assumed that there was some copy error in Iliad, so emended it. Strabo tells that the emendation is not necessary, because Homer means the polar circle when mentions the Bear.

But in fact we now know that Kratés was in error. In his time in Greece the Big Bear was not circumpolar; but in Homer's time it had been. Now, had Strabo knew about precession, he could defend Homer's honour (which he indeed defend in Book 1) by referring the changed celestial positions. But in the book Strabo does not mention the precession at all.

Strabo might have learnt about precession from Hipparchus, but he did not. Interestingly, some modern historians also ignore the effect. The general idea is that some captains discovered the navigation by Polaris when they became tricky enough. On the contrary, our centuries were quite lucky about the existence of a Polaris. About 1000 AD it was simply impossible to navigate by means a single star. In Classical Antiquity the extension of the line through g and b UMi more or less showed onto North Pole; but there was no star of any significance near to the Pole as far back as 2000 BC. And obviously the lodestone would have been difficult to invent without a lodestar.

_________________
" '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
James D



Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 931

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Ptolemy's Almagest Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:


5. PRECESSION, STRABO AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Strabo, the greatest predecessor of Ptolemy's Geography, did not know anything about the precession, although he lived one century after Hipparchus, who in Greece discovered the effect. (And Strabo does cite Hipparchus!) Namely, in Book 1, Chapter 1 he makes an argumentation with Kratés. Kratés was a grammaticus of Pergamum in 2nd c. BC and noted the line XVIII 489 of Iliad (and V 275 of Odyssey) where it is told that the (Great) Bear never washes herself in Oceanus. Kratés knew that in Greece the Bear was not circumpolar, so he assumed that there was some copy error in Iliad, so emended it. Strabo tells that the emendation is not necessary, because Homer means the polar circle when mentions the Bear.

But in fact we now know that Kratés was in error. In his time in Greece the Big Bear was not circumpolar; but in Homer's time it had been. Now, had Strabo knew about precession, he could defend Homer's honour (which he indeed defend in Book 1) by referring the changed celestial positions. But in the book Strabo does not mention the precession at all.



Any distant relation there Crac? Laughing

Looks like yer man Ptolemy probably dates from close to the XVth century when his works popped up.

James Cook, using John Harrisons clock, was the first one to really exploit Ptolemy's work. (For the glory the Empire, of course)

For those wanting to understand navegation a bit better, here's a good site with animated explanation/history etc. : -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/launch_ani_navigation.shtml

Makes you wonder about all those Polynesian sailors and the inhabitants of Easter Island - who thought the nearest other piece of land was the Moon!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:53 pm    Post subject: Sodom & Gomorrah Reply with quote

Sodom & Gomorrah:
The Search for a Volcano

A hell of a lot of Bible passages hint that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a volcanic eruption. But, the only volcanoes around are in Italy, not Palestine. And the most famous eruption was in Italy of Mt. Vesuvius, which destroyed Pompeii, according to mainstream history in 79 A.D.

So Fomenko thinks that maybe "Sodom & Gomorrah" were really the Italian cities of Stabia and Herculanum.

Discussion of this is in Chronology 1, pages 49-51, here
http://books.google.com/books?q=fomenko++sodom+lord+rained+zion&btnG=Search+Books

Quote:
Excerpts from Chronology 1, pages 49-51

The destruction of the Biblical cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah has long been considered a result of
a volcanic eruption. The Bible says that "the Lord
rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone
and fire from the Lord out of heaven... and, lo, the
smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a fur-
nace" (Genesis 19:24, 19:28).


On Alhrecht Durer's engraving "Lot Heeing with
his Daughters from Sodom" we can see a volcanic
eruption destroying the Biblical cities of the plain in
a fountain of fire and stones (fig. 1.43).

Let us turn to the Lamentations of Jeremiah that
contain a description of the destruction of Jerusalem.
It is assumed to be an account of the destruction of
the city by a hostile army; however, the text contains
many fragments such as "How hath the Lord covered
the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger... and
remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!
The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations... he
burned _ .. like a flaming fire, which devoureth round
about" (The Lamentations of Jeremiah, 2;1-3).


Then we encounter the following in the chapters
3 and 4 of the Lamentations:

"I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod
of his [God's - A. HI wrath; he hath led me, and
brought me into darkness, but not into light... he
hath broken my bones... he hath inclosed my ways
with hewn stone
, he hath made my paths crooked...
he hath also broken my teeth with gravel stones, he
hath covered me with ashes. . . thou hast covered with
anger, and persecuted us: thou hast slain, thou hast not
pitied. Thou hast covered thyself with a cloud... the
stones of the sanctuary are pored out... the punish-
ment... is greater than the punishment of the sin of
Sodom... their [ the survivors' - A. F] visage is blacker
than a coal... The lord hath accomplished his fury;
he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled
a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations
thereof." (The Lamentations of Jeremiah, 3:1-2,3:4,
3;9, 3: 16, 3:43-44, 4: I, 4:6, 4:8, 4: 11 )

Theologians insist all of this is meta phorical; how-
ever, a literal reading of the text divulges an account
of the destruction of a large city by a volcanic erup-
tion. The Bible refers to volcanic activity quite often;
here's a list of all such references, compiled by V. P.
Fomenko and T. G. Fomenko:


Genesis 19: 18, 24, Exodus 13:21, 22, Exodus 14: 18,
Exodus 20: 15, Exodus 24: 15, 16, 17, Numbers 14: 14,
Numbers 21 :28, Numbers 26: 10, Deuteronomy 4: II,
36, Deuteronomy 5: 19, 20, 21, Deuteronomy 9: 15,21,
Deuteronomy 10:4, Deuteronomy 32:22, The Second
Book of Samuel 22: 8-10,13, The First Book of the
Kings 18:38,39, The First Book of the Kings 19:11,
12, The Second Book of the Kings 1:10-12,14, Nehe-
miah 9:12,19, The Book of Psalms (Psalm 11, verse
6, Psalm 106, verse 17), (Psalm 106, verse 18), Ezekiel
38:22, Jeremiah 48:45, The Lamentations of Jeremiah
2:3, The Lamentations of Jeremiah 4:11, Isaiah 4:5,
Isaiah 5:25, Isaiah 9:17,18, Isaiah 10:17, Isaiah 30:30,
Joel 2:3,5,10.


Seeing these descriptions as referring to Jerusalem
in Palestine and the traditional Mount Sinai is very
odd indeed, since Mt. Sinai located on the modern Si-
nai Peninsula had never been a volcano. Where did
the events really take place, then?

It suffices to study the geographic map of the Me-
diterranean region ([440], pages 380-381,461) to see
that there are no volcanoes on the Sinai Peninsula, and
there aren't any in either Syria or Palestine. There are
wnes of Tertiary and Quaternary volcanic activity, but
one encounters those in the vicinity of Paris as well.
There has been no volcanic activity recorded in doc-
umented history (the post-A.D. period).

The only relevant geographic zone that possesses
powerful volcanoes active to this day is the area in-
cluding Italy and Sicily, since there are no volcanoes
in Egypt or anywhere in the north of Africa ([440]).
We are looking for:

1) A powerful volcano that was active in the historical epoch;
2) A destroyed capital near the volcano (see the Lamentations of Jeremiah);
3) Two more destroyed cities near the volcano, Sodom and Gomorrah.


There is just one volcano in the entire Mediterra-
nean area that fits these criteria - Vesuvius. It is one
of the most powerful volcanoes active in the histor-
ical period. The famous Pompeii - a capital? - and
two destroyed cities: Stabia (Sodom, perhaps?) and
Herculanum (Gomorrah?).
The names do possess a
slight similarity.

N. A. Morozov was of the opinion that the origin
for the name Sinai given to Vesuvius is the latin word
sinus (or sino in Old Latin) - "mountain with bow-
els;' and Horeb has its origins in the Latin word hor-
ribilis, "horrible:' In [544] we can see the results of an
interesting research that Morozov conducted con-
cerning the Biblical text as read without vocalizations,
and considering the localization of Mount Sinail
Horeb/Zion in Italy.

_________________
" '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 Oct 08, 2007 7:00 pm    Post subject: Could "years" = "months" in the Old Test Reply with quote

Something that never crossed my mind before:
Could "years" = "months" in the Old Testament and/or Chinese calendar ?


These two comments posted by MAXHO on 4/28/2004 in this thread
http://www.revisedhistory.org/forum/showthread.aspx?m=19821
are intriguing...at least giving a simple explanation of people supposedly hundreds of years old in the Old Testament.

900 "YEARS" = 900 months = 900/12 = about 75-years-old

Quote:
http://www.revisedhistory.org/forum/showthread.aspx?m=19821

Topic : CHRONOLOGY and CHINESE CALENDAR

MAXHO:The Chinese lunar calendar answers the question when the development started in China. The calendar consists of 12 periods/signs, however, the time units are interpreted wrong by the adherents of conventional history. The Western calendar has the same 12 signs, but they are believed to represent MONTHS, while the Chinese system counts YEARS. There should be no such difference between the two! Hence, year 4702 according to the Chinese calendar should be interpreted as month 4702, i.e. 4702/12 = 391 years from the establishment of this system. Therefore, we arrive at year 1600, which was the time when the Chinese "civilization" began its independent (from the Empire) development!!!
....
MAXHO: I would like to add that the same concept can be applied to the information in the Old (Jewish) Testament. It explains why the "first" people had lifespans of 900, 500, and 300 "years". Divided by 12, in order to convert those units from lunar to annual, we get the usual ages of 75, 42, and 25 years respectively. These anomalies can be explained by the following: We have some common word stems that exist in many languages: (PIE):-VEX---(Eng): WEEK, (Ger.) WOCHE, (Sla) VEK (century!). (Eng) YEAR --- (Ger) JAHR --- (Sca) JAAR -- (Sla): YAR (spring, sun). These stems were used to denote a certain period of time, but the precise meaning is unknown because the words have received different connotations in different languages. Therefore, some unreasonable ages must have been calculated in units other than years, e.g. months...

_________________
" '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
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From later in that thread:
Quote:
posted On 5/1/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, Very valuable addition... Thank you... One word about Marco Polo. This commonly used version of his name is Latinized. However, in the earlier editions of "his" books, the name is spelled "Marco polo...", which leads us to believe that 'polo" is not his last name, but his nationality: "Marek the Pole"

Another reason his name most certainly could not have been Marco Polo is because, from my own research, the swimming pool hadn't even been invented yet.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:57 pm    Post subject: Eugen Gabowitsch article (38-pages) Reply with quote

Eugen Gabowitsch essay
"A chronological revolution made by historical analytics"

(38 pages = 34 pages + 4 pages bibliography)
http://www.ihaal.com/articles/A%20chronological%20revolution%20made%20by%20historical%20analytics.pdf

( I found the link posted recently in the Revised History forum http://www.revisedhistory.org/forum/showthread.aspx?m=156931
And, the www.ihaal.com site might have website menus and article titles in English, but the .PDFs are mostly in Russian, except for one or two in English or maybe Bulgarian. )


Gabowitsch provides a broad summary of chronological studies, including a nice bibliography of a diverse range of New Chronology books & authors, some of which were mentioned in earlier posts or in his preface to Chronology 2 .

Some of the authors he mentions in the essay:
Peter James, Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology
Wieslaw Z. Krawcewicz, Gleb V. Nosovskij and Petr P. Zabreiko
Nicolas Morosov
Anatoly T. Fomenko and his main co-author Gleb V. Nosovski
Igor Davidenco & Yaroslav Kesler, Book of civilisation, Moscow, 2001, with a preface of Garry Kasparov
Clark Whelton, essay "Creating Ancient History in Modern China"
Alexander Jabinski book Another History of Art (Russian)
Eugene Gertsman Mysteries of the History of the Ancient Music (Russian, 2004)
Immanuel Velikovsky
Heribert Illig
Roman Landau
Christian Blöss
Christoph Pfister
Christoph Däppen
Ulrich Thomas Franz
Uwe Topper
Trevor Palmer
Emmet Sweeney
Hans-Ulrich Niemitz
Wilhelm Kammeier
Gunnar Heinsohn
Isaac Newton
Jean Hardouin
Robert Baldauf

Some excerpts from the essay:

Quote:
(from page 5)
Very late genesis of the most important 'historical' conceptions is demonstrating the following table from the Book of Civilization (p. 50):
Almagest 14th century
History 14th century
Antique 1530 century
Iberian 1601
Arabic 14th century
Indian 14th century
Arithmetic 15th century
Iron Age 1879
Astrology 14th century
Koran 1615
Astronomy 13th century
Mogul 1588
August 1664
Mongol 1698
Bible 14th century
Muslim 1615
Byzantine 1794
Orthodox 15th century
Caesar 1567
Philosophy 14th century
Cathedra 14th century
Platonic 1533
Catholic 14th century
Pyramid 1549
Celtic 1590
Renaissance 1845
Chinese 1606
Roman 14th century
Crusaders 1732
Roman law 1660
Dutch 14th century
Russian 1538
Education 1531
Spanish 15th century
Etruscan 1706
Swedish 1605
Gallic 1672
Tartar 14th century
German 14th century
Trojan 14thcentury
Golden age 1555
Turkish 1545
Gothic 1591
Zodiac 14th century


Here you can see when, according to Webster's Oxford Dictionary, many important notions from history, religion and science were for the first time used in written English. One can clearly see that 'the whole antique cycle appears in the English language in the middle of the 16 century as well as the concept of antiquity. We can see some terms about science - ‘almagest’, ‘astronomy’, ‘astrology’, etc. begin in the 14th or 15th century. If we look for antiquity, ‘Etruscan’ was named in 1706 for the first time, ‘Golden Age’ in 1505, so think about what this means.

Note from Crac: apparently there is a typographical error with "golden age" which is either 1555 or 1505

Books on "Ancient" Art and "Ancient" Music
Quote:
(from page 10)
Not only the history of technology produce arguments against the orthodox history and its chronology. The Russian book Another History of Art by Alexander Jabinski demonstrates that the full history of art is not longer than 1000 years and all other periods of the history of art (old Greek, old Roman, old Egyptian) are projections of the art of later times to these imaginary virtual times. In his book hundreds of examples are presented which demonstrate how the real art of the last millennium was distributed through the whole old history. They all have been, in reality, produced in the last millennium. In Jabinski's book (p. 157) two pictures are presenting almost the same man. Are that really two portraits of the same person? Or of two close relatives? In the history of art this two works of the same art style are dated with 14 centuries in between: a Roman portrait of AD 60 and a Renaissance portrait from the year 1474. Analyzing hundreds of examples from the named book one can understand that a big part of Renaissance and new historic time art was set in ancient times by wrong dating traditions.

Another Russian book written by a known historian of the music Eugene Gertsman Mysteries of the History of the Ancient Music (Nota Publishing, Saint-Petersburg, 2004) demonstrates that at least 12 centuries of the history of the Ancient music must be cancelled. Important is that the author never before wrote some critical issues on chronology and was itself surprised by his results.


Niemitz rediscovering Kammeier ; Heribert Illig
Quote:
(from page 14)
Niemitz is professor for Technical History at the Leipzig University (Germany). He was the first to rediscover Kammeier (see part 3 for more details about this critical German writer) and the 'hole' in the Middle Ages and introduced the idea of phantom years in the German History which was later developed and actively boosted by Heribert Illig.


Christoph Pfister, an extremist even among New Chronologers
Quote:
(from pages 18 & 19)
Christoph Pfister was born 10.10.1945 in Bern. In Fribourg (Freiburg), Switzerland where he lives, he studied general history, Middle Age history and languages at the local University and reached 1974 his PhD in Modern History. Since the 90ies his research focuses on critical consideration of Ancient and Middle Ages History epochs.

First he was an university assistant, then a high school professor for Latin and French. Nowadays he is working for the state as historiography researcher for 18th and 19th century Swiss historiography.

After trying to co-operate with Heribert Illig he soon moved to a much more radical critical position and began to propagate ideas of Fomenko and to apply his methods of critical analysis to Swiss and general world history. He wrote a pamphlet Anti-Illig and developed a very strong criticism against the idea of Illig about the phantom time in the Middle Age and his attempt to save a big part of orthodox history including Antiquity.

For Pfister is the classical Antique and Middle Age epochs both the parts of the 17th century for which no real history is known. Al historical chronology before 1700 is an artificial product of the Catholic Church, which based by its creation on numerology, not on the real information about the life of folks of the Mediterranean region.

Pfister believes that the really documented history does start as late as the 18th century and all “elder” documents were written after 1700. The 18th century is for him also the time of the beginning of book printing and of the Anne Domini time counting. This position is quite close to those of a radical wing of the Russian critical movement which is not supported by Fomenko and his co-authors who believe that the history of the last 700 und even more years can be in some sense reconstructed.


On the Great Wall of China, Chinese history, and Marco Polo
(bonus: Spanish Armada invades China!)
Quote:
(from pages 6 to 8)
The Great Wall of China was in reality a pure European myth for many centuries and was built only after 1950. I know the reaction of readers of this my statement - I published a paper about this and there is a book by a professional historian who says the same; but of course nobody reads such papers and books - everybody is reading newspapers and looking at cinemas and they have a wrong model in mind that this Chinese Wall has existed for more than 2000 years. But in reality even for 100 years nobody in China had any imagination or information about it. All the European visitors had books and stories about the Great Wall of China but it was impossible to find in China a picture or an old Chinese drawing demonstrating the wall.

After my article was published, of course many people tried to find old pictures and photographs of the Great Chinese Wall. I am not saying that no fortification was built previously in China. I am saying that the idea of the Great Chinese Wall was produced in Europe and the construction of the long, long, long wall, which links all these fortifications, was started in the time of Mao Tse Tung and Deng Tsiao Ping. Of course, in the time of the last dynasty in China, there were very strong fortifications to the north of Peking and some other places but it was never the idea to build a long, long wall to protect China from the Mongols - it’s a crazy idea.

At the end of the 19th century in Europe there was a discussion if the Great Chinese Wall exists. Some French writers wrote books saying it did not exist. Some Russian travellers tried to find this wall and it was impossible. Even earlier, a European painter had been in China and came back with a picture of the Great Chinese Wall. He has seen one fortification of some or possibly even 10 km long and he prolonged it by a factor of 50 ij his mind. Of course something was there but it was not the Great Chinese Wall.

It was not reported by Marco Polo, but he didn’t mention the Great Wall as he was never in China, and we don’t know if his writing is a fiction or not - it is possibly a fiction written by another person who travelled in Eastern Russia. There is a book in German, Marco Polo war nie in China, Fomenko has written about the geographical limits of the Polo’s trip and some other Russian critics have independently proved that he never was in China.

Now of course, the situation with the Great Wall of China is quite different - over the last 50 and more years the Chinese Communists constructed this wall and now they proclaim that it is even older than the oldest of early estimates. Clark Whelton reported in our magazine about this new development in the modern Chinese history creating.

How long is the Great Wall of China really? Nobody in the world can answer even that simple question. All possible numbers between 1500 and 50000 km have been mentioned in different sources. China's State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) and State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping (SBSM) will now conduct a massive geographical survey to determine the exact length. All of 2007 will be spent with scientists taking meter sticks and walking the length of the Wall and keeping a record.In 2008 the exact length will be announced. After some 2500 years of Wall’s construction! Steve Mitchell gave after my talk in London the following statement: the Chinese language as we know it from the ancient bronze inscriptions has been destroyed by the early 17th [and 18th?] century Jesuit German scholars. In the new language the new Chinese history was written. But not only German, also Portugal, Italian, Belgian etc. Jesuit scholars created the Chinese history.

Steve Mitchell also said: “the truth is that there is no bridge that says what particular glyph means on the early bronzes. And so we have the question about the Chinese writing system.”
I can only report in this connection that Morosov said the idea was that the Chinese writing was a product of European thinking. When the European people came to China, in each village people spoke a different language, it was impossible to develop one writing system for the languages in which phonetically there were four tones, in another seven, eleven or thirteen - they spoke quite different languages, so the only possibility was to use pictures.

This idea was probably developed and completely realised by Jesuits, but I think it is also possible it was made at the a little bit earlier time when the Buddhist religion moved from India to China, and then to Japan, Korea, Vietnam etc. At any case I am sure that such complex writing system was impossible to develop and implement without using an other language with a phonetic alphabet.

Another example: as the time of the German invention of book printing traditionally the 15th century is named, 1440 is the earliest estimation. This invention works perfectly in Europe as we have a phonetic way of writing, so all our languages use phonetic alphabet. Now the official point of view is that 300 years before, in the 11th century, someone in China invented metal forms for printing one book - so they produced millions of symbols, metallic forms for letters, printed a book and then forgot it - just to have a place in history. In reality I think somebody translated in, say, the 17th century into Chinese some possibly Dutch book about the technology of printing in Germany. Later this Chinese book was rewritten, corrected and published another time. Today it is a part of Chinese history.

As another example, were logarithms invented in China 500 years before they were invented in the Netherlands? Somebody checked the two publications and it was possible to see that each printing mistake made in Napier (Nepers)’s tables of natural logarithms (they have been first time published 1620) had been repeated in the Chinese book which was –as the historians said - 500 years older! Is this an usual way of doing history?

The Spanish Armada of 300 big ships is today an important part of the Chinese history of the early 15th century. You can read in each Chinese history book that in 1405 they sent a big Armada of 300 very big ships, some of them even 150 m long, something that it is impossible to construct from wood, and they sent this Armada to India, to Arabic countries and so on, without any clear aim, and they repeated these expeditions six or seven times. It is a tale which was of course made after reading a book about the Spanish Armada in some late time.

_________________
" '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
copra



Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 41

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How does all this new chronology fit when we come to hijra calendar and Sephardic jews calendar, and all the events and people of whom there are plenty of records in that sphere? Like when did Aben Arabi live according to the chronology, for instance, his successors and contemporaries?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

copra wrote:
How does all this new chronology fit when we come to hijra calendar and Sephardic jews calendar, and all the events and people of whom there are plenty of records in that sphere?

1. Well, what I've been finding out since I started reading Fomenko & others is that "the plenty of records" that I took for granted to exist today...don't actually exist most of the time.

2. And many of the historic records that do exist now originally had a date based on some ruler's reign length, for example, the Magna Carta, which I mention here http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27211#27211 which ends "on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign"

Jan Beaufort has a good description of reign length dating here
Quote:
http://www.korthweb.de/PhZT/FAQ_E.html#4
The, possibly, oldest and most widely used method to engrave important events into collective memory has been the attribution to the leader's years of reign. “In the 5th year of Pharaoh Amenophis”, “in the 10th year of great king Xerxes”, “in the 18th year of Jerobeam" (2 Chr. 13, 1), the texts will tell us. In Luke 3,1-2 we read: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.”


3. I posted excerpts from Fomenko on the printing history of the Koran here
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28460#28460

Interesting enough, the chronology of the Koran differs from that of the mainstream Scaligerian one anyway,
which I mentioned here
"Koran provides chronology different from Scaligerian chronology"
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27833#27833
(page 6 of this "History or Science" thread)

4. All of Fomenko's Chronology 1 and Chronology 2 are accessible using Google Books.

Concerning the Old Testament chronology:
For a general overview, read Chronology 1 , pages 37-40, "Archaeology and the Old Testament"
http://books.google.com/books?q=fomenko+chronology+archaeology+old+testament&btnG=Search+Books

More specifically, read in Chronology 2, Chapter 1 & Chapter 4

Chapter 1, pages 30-46 are probably most relevant in the chapter
3. The superimposition of the Israelite (Theomachist) Kingdom over the Third Roman Empire in the West. A shift of circa 1230 years and
4. Identifying the theocratic Kingdom of Judah as the Third Roman Empire in the East. A shift of circa 1230 years (short diagram)
http://books.google.com/books?q=fomenko+superimposition+israelite&btnG=Search+Books

Chapter 4, pages 297- 410, entire chapter is relevant
The superimposition of the Bible over the phantom and real Eurasian events of the Middle Ages after a shift of 1800 years
starts here
http://books.google.com/books?q=fomenko+superimposition+bible&btnG=Search+Books


5. Incidentally, Page 6 of this thread also has my posts on Egypt and India:
"Not-so-Ancient Egypt"
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27879#27879

"Not-so-Ancient India"
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27888#27888

_________________
" '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
copra



Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 41

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Cracrocrates, for your answer. Indeed, I think that one will have to do a lot of work to go over all documentation on Fromenko conclusions and spend a lot ot time.

I pointed out The hijra expressed and muslim documents and history and Sephardic jews chronology, because they are contemporary for a long time (in principle) and also contemporary with "Christian" events and in Spain and Portugal, for instace, matchable in detail, and I know there are huge "reservoirs" of Arabic documents, some of them known and studied, other I dont't know, but which certainly must give some information. There are acounts and memories fo persons, known philosophers or saints or thinkers and others, who lived traveled and knew other people and then they wrote and also other people wrote on them and then the sucessors of those, which doesn't seem complicated to manipulate a posteriori if it is just one or two or a few, but which is unthinkable it there are many such collections of people which you can trace for generations.

I will try to read throgh all the links you give. It is a very interesting question and worthwhile giving it some thought.

Thanks again
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
copra



Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 41

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have read again the link to the Koran, however doesn't impress me as thorough or knowledgeable. The printed Koran obviously is not going to be older than the printing machine, and the conclusions that are derived from that leave out other factors that most muslims know. There is oral transmission, which specially in illiterate societies is very efficient and as reliable as desired, since it is not one person or two who know by heart this or that story or passage, but many times many people, so that if in fact you want to keep a record straight it is quite possible, although it might not be beaurocratically expedient in our time.

Also, I don't get what they are driving at with the part about the name Mohammed or the word Mohamedans. Muslims have never called themselves Mohammedans, but the Europeans called them that, starting I don't know when. Although I know that in Spain they have never called Mohammedans except as a loan from Europe. Neither they were called Muslims, they were called, and are called "moros" although now the usage goes for the more universal "muslim". That is moro=muslim. I guess tht Mohamean part started with fall of Constantinople. But the name Muhammad certainly didn't start then. By that time, there have already been a few million Mohmmad. As to the Muhammad, he was never buried in Meca as far as I know nor has the kaaba any meaning as a burial place. The only person who buried there that I have read is Hajar. I don't know from where the idea that Muhammad and his family should be buried in the kaaba is coming.

So I I don't really get what is in all this it as far as dating goes?

As for the Kaaba, there has never been any talk at all as far as I know in the sense that the lack stone is anything but a stone. simbollogically it may have been used to convey this or that allegorical imae, but theologically it is a stone, which as attributed to Muhammad, "can neither hurt you nor do you any good". It has the value of a sentimental souvenir and I have never heard or read anything relating it to the tablets of the law or anything nor was supposed to contain anything. The general opinion is that it is a meteorite. May be the Moises Law was also a meteorite? I don't know. I am not very fond of systematically give a literalist meaing to religious scriptures. There is always the possibility that many things that are taken as litteral are in fact symbolical, although not the arch. There are too many construction details to be held as that. However a cubic (or prismatic) building is a cubic building and there are piles of them. Whether a particular meaning should be attached, I don't know. Also a similarity between the usages, styles and traditions of all semitic peoples is to be expected.

Mind you, I find quite interesting to speculate sometimes and try to relate things apparently unconnected. Sometimes we get very interesting matches or some unexpected observation or very fuitful ideas.

I suppose somewhere in his books Fomenko makes a thourough foundation of this aspect of his chronology, and one should read them and check facts against it before one can comment purposefully.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

copra wrote:
The printed Koran obviously is not going to be older than the printing machine

Of course.

Though it's interesting that even as far as the invention of the printing press goes, the details on Gutenberg's life, as Jerry Fletcher posted, seem "pretty sketchball" as well. http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11024#11024 (page 2 of this thread)

Quote:
There is oral transmission, which specially in illiterate societies is very efficient

I don't know about that...especially with 100% accuracy without copying errors (yes, even with the supposed penalty of death) or even more likely embelishment for political or personal reasons; I'm also thinking of the children's game "telephone" or the many versions of the Christian bible.

From what I've read and heard from John Taylor Gatto, widespread literacy isn't that hard; many schoolhouses in 19th century America wouldn't admit children unless they already knew how to read, since they didn't want to waste time with such a basic ability. HOWEVER, I would say illiteracy could be a huge problem in societies where the written language is different from the vernacular...which to me sounds like a major method of social and political control of the masses by a few self-selected priests or individuals wanting to maintain influence and POWER.

My post about the Trojan Horse also mentions the absurdity of what mainstream classical scholars say about Homer's tales:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28159#28159
Fomenko wrote:"The nursery tale about a gigantic hollow equine statue is just as preposterous as the Scaligerian tale of Homer's seven hundred pages melodiously sung aloud by the "ancient" Greek shepherds for five hundred years before they could be written down, five hundred years after the fall of Troy."

Quote:
Also, I don't get what they are driving at with the part about the name Mohammed or the word Mohamedans. Muslims have never called themselves Mohammedans, but the Europeans called them that, starting I don't know when. Although I know that in Spain they have never called Mohammedans except as a loan from Europe. Neither they were called Muslims, they were called, and are called "moros" although now the usage goes for the more universal "muslim". That is moro=muslim. I guess tht Mohamean part started with fall of Constantinople. But the name Muhammad certainly didn't start then.

Interesting how the names keep changing of any particular so-called cohesive cultural group over time, huh?

Grishin & Melamed in their preface of Medieval Empire of the Israelites question whether Shakespeare's character Othello, the Moor of Venice, is actually Muslim or not.

Grishin and Melamed wrote:
http://www.revisedhistory.org/empire.html
In William Shakespeare's tragedy, "Othello," there is one riddle: what religion does Othello profess? Desdemona says directly:

By heaven, you do me wrong.

as I am a Christian!

But here the frank and honest Othello is hiding something. It is considered that he, a black-skinned Moor, is a Moslem or at least descendent of Moslems. And if one is to follow the traditional history, then there really is no other variant.


Othello, before he ends his life in suicide, recalls:

. . . And say besides, that inAleppoonce,

Where a malignant and a turban'd Turk

Beat a Venetian and traduced the state,

I took by the throat the circumcised dog,

And smote him, thus.

(Stabs himself)

That is, according to contemporary ideas, Islam already was in the world, since some kind of "circumcised dog" in a turban fought with the Venetian in Aleppo.

Meanwhile, still rather recently (in historical measurements) the military personnel of many countries have worn the turban. And circumcision, as it will be shown in our book, is a most complex phenomenon, which is characteristic at a definite stage for all of human culture.

Thus it is impossible to understand who Othello is regarding faith, and it is not clear why he calls the Turk a dog. But it is not worth accusing Shakespeare of a mistake. Not only he, but also the English in general up to the 17th century did not mention anywhere in written sources the words: "Moslem, Islam, Koran, minaret, muezzin, hijra, Caaba." The full impression is that they did not know them. But you know, the sons of an obscure Albion already had visited all the corners of the world and should have known them. No, these words clearly were unknown to William Shakespeare as well as to both Francis Bacon and other great Englishmen of that era.

They are unknown also to the Italian writer Giraldi Cinthio, upon whose novella the "Moor of Venice" (the "Hecatommithi" collection or "One Hundred Tales." 1566) Shakespeare created his masterpiece.

So, perhaps, there still was not an Islam?


The riddle of Othello grows into one of the cardinal questions connected with medieval times, when modern nations, states and religions were being born.


copra wrote:
I don't know from where the idea that Muhammad and his family should be buried in the kaaba is coming.


Yeah, I suppose no one expects Moses to have been buried alongside the Ten Commandments or the Ark of the Covenant, now do they?

But that brings up another point...how come NO ONE TODAY KNOWS WHERE THE BODIES OF THE MOST FAMOUS "PROPHETS" WERE BURIED? These guys supposedly inspired hundreds of pages of "scripture" along with tens of thousands of pages of commentary by others over centuries or "millenia" according to mainstream history, YET THE GRAVES OF MOSES, JESUS, & MOHAMMAD ARE A MODERN MYSTERY ?

Quote:
As for the Kaaba, there has never been any talk at all as far as I know in the sense that the lack stone is anything but a stone. simbollogically it may have been used to convey this or that allegorical imae, but theologically it is a stone, which as attributed to Muhammad, "can neither hurt you nor do you any good". It has the value of a sentimental souvenir and I have never heard or read anything relating it to the tablets of the law or anything nor was supposed to contain anything.

So, maybe the modern Muslim sects are overvaluing the stone, or surrounding it with more intrigue than it is historically due? I mean, every Muslim has to go to Mecca sometime or other to see that thing...Catholics aren't told that they must see Vatican City before they die, for example.

And like I implied in that printing the Koran post, Fomenko's conjecture that the sacred Muslim stone may be also the Ark of the Covenant as well sounds absolutely nutty to me.

_________________
" '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: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:
But that brings up another point...how come NO ONE TODAY KNOWS WHERE THE BODIES OF THE MOST FAMOUS "PROPHETS" WERE BURIED? These guys supposedly inspired hundreds of pages of "scripture" along with tens of thousands of pages of commentary by others over centuries or "millenia" according to mainstream history, YET THE GRAVES OF MOSES, JESUS, & MOHAMMAD ARE A MODERN MYSTERY ?


Whoops. According to the wiki, Mohammad's grave is known and is in the city of Medina in Saudi Arabia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_tomb . But the graves of Moses and Jesus are still a mystery, assuming they actually existed.

copra, you may be interested in one modern history cover-up I found astonishing: the late 19th & early 20th centuries destruction of Ottoman buildings around the Acropolis, which I mentioned in my Athens: The Tourist Trap post here http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28976#28976

_________________
" '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 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 16 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.