My Brothers

I have been intensely meditating, about the opera "Don Giovanni".  It is the story of a man who is constantly galavanting all about the place, inducing young women hither and thither, and taking them to his bed chamber.  This young Don Juan is always telling the most brazen lies, he is not averse to murder any old men who seek the truth about the chastity of his daughter.  He is cruel to his servant, and he is often shouting at him and impelling him to do the most ridiculous things.  I have found in this work the greatest of metaphors for the deceptions of science.  For these so-called men of science are in deceit a real kind of Giovanni, like the singer they are always running their lackeys around and pompously boasting, and they have committed a great many murders of anyone who thought to uncover their deception and debauch.  IF the people of Earth are the young ladies who have been abused and subjected to trickeries:  the renaissance man of science is the true Don Giovanni of the day.

My brothers what do you think of these matters.

Brother James, you do have an impressive ability to think and see beyond the threshold of that which is presented before you.  In this case, your analysis of Don Giovanni is quite remarkable.  There exists similarities between the "nobleman" Giovanni and the modern "scientist" when considering the analogous nature of deception involved.  How you connected those dots is special and thank you for sharing.   

Did Mozart write Don Giovani?

Exploding the myth of Mozart:

http://www.rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm


http://hiramabiff0.tripod.com/id27.html

Phi golden number relation to Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven:

http://whosemusicisit.blogspot.com/2009/07/fibonacci-sequence-in-music-is-music.html

Evidence suggests that classical music composed by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach embraces phi.


In a 1996 article in the American Scientist, for example, Mike Kay reported that Mozart's sonatas were divided into two parts exactly at the Golden Mean point in almost all cases. Inasmuch as Mozart's sister had said that Amadeus was always playing with numbers and fascinated by mathematics, it appears that this was either a conscious choice or an intuitive one. Meanwhile, Derek Haylock noted that in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (possibly his most famous one), the famous opening motto appears in the first and last bars, but also at the Golden Mean point (0.618) of the way through the symphony, as well as 0.382 of the way (i.e., the Golden Mean squared). Again, was it by design or accident? Keep in mind that Bartok, Debussy, Schubert, Bach and Satie may have also deliberately used the Golden Mean in their music.

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#mozart


Ludwig van Beethoven, there are strong grounds for believing that he was a mason.
"Many of his friends and fellow musicians were masons and there are several references to Masonry in his voluminous correspondence. The Adagio of his Seventh quartet bears the superscription: 'A weeping willow or an acacia over the grave of my brother'. Both Beethoven's blood brothers were alive when this work was written and so these words probably had a masonic connection. Schindler, one of his biographers, mentions a handshake when visiting the composer: '... a grip of our hands said the rest'. A song, 'What is the Mason's aim', was written for the 'Loge des Freres Courageaux l'Orient de Bonn' and was published in 1806."
"His presence at concerts given with full masonic rites is documented, and presumably, in order to have been allowed to attend he must have at least been initiated into the Brotherhood."

http://www.slate.com/id/2206021/

The new chronology offers the correct setting for understanding the Rennaissance.

From Don Giovani to Don Dee is a long way...

You might study English history a little better...


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459891  (biography of Polydore Vergil)

Let me now call attention to some salient points in the evidence which tends to prove that, whatever may have been the previous fate of books in ages more remote, very few could have been extant in any part of Europe 400 years ago.

Let me render from the Latin a passage from a writer who says that he was studying and writing in London during the reign of King Henry the Eighth. Of the early Tudor period (1485-1603) he expressly says:

"In those times Perfect Letters, both Latin and Greek, shut out from Italy by nefarious wars, exterminated, expelled, poured over the Alps, through all Germany, Gaul, England, and Scotland. The Germans first introduced them into their towns, and, having been the most illiterate of all in former times, are now the most learned...

Having studied the Perfect Letters some years in Italy, he returned home, and was the first Englishman to teach them in England to his countrymen. Before him Cornelio Vitellio, an Italian, of Corneto, in Tuscany, of a noble stock, was the first of all to teach good letters to the boys at Oxon.

E. Johnson:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459892

I might leave this striking passage to speak for itself, were it not that its teaching and that of kindred passages have been so much neglected. I am bound to infer from them: (1) That there was practically no literature in England before the Tudor period (1485-1603) -- no teaching, reading, or writing class; (2) that letters did gradually come to us from Italy during that period, but that no exact date, not even of the foundation of St. Paul's school, is ascertainable that we must consequently content ourselves with the vague date, "about 400 years ago," of the epoch when literary culture was beginning in England.

I shall now have to assume, with my readers' goodwill, that letters of any kind, and consequently Biblical letters in particular, were only beginning to be cultivated here during the Tudor period -- very slightly even then; that the evidence for this statement is quite massive; and that for a contrary opinion no scintilla of evidence exists, or ever has existed. It is false dates, it is the superficial study of the books which were coming to light during the Tudor period itself, which have caused the great prevailing deception in this important matter.


In the same section, E. Johnson addresses the Bede/Gilda/King Beauclerc falsified documents...


Not to confuse my readers with too many details, I would beg them to keep in mind the date 1533 as one of the best landmarks in chronology I am able at present to point out. In that year Polydore is stated to have addressed Henry the Eighth., pointing out that next to nothing was known of English history, and disparaging the few monkish writings on the subject which had come into his hands. The same year Leland is alleged to have set out on his literary tour through the monasteries, which occupied him till 1539. If these dates be trustworthy, the results of his investigations show that the whole scheme of Church history must have been laid down and brought, as it were, to a short first edition during about the period 1500-1533.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459893

I must return to the question of the Pauline Epistles. It is impossible to determine what form they had assumed in Colet's time, or what his exact teaching may have been. In fact, I hold it impossible to suppose that the full Pauline Epistles, as we have them, could have been taught in England at the time to which Polydore refers. There can have been extant, in my opinion, only the little book of Sentences, called "The Apostle," which is so frequently alluded to in Church books, out of which the larger Pauline Epistles were gradually evolved.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459900

I must now deal with the references to Paul in the Eusebian literature -- that is, the Church History and the list of "Illustrious Men." And here a series of literary falsehoods must be sharply contradicted. It is in the Latin List of Illustrious Men, or Catholic writers, that the name of Eusebius occurs. This list was published during the Age of Publication, commonly called the "sixteenth century;" and there is absolutely no vestige of proof that this key book to Church literature (for such it evidently is) was composed, or could have been composed, long before that age. It is certain that in its present form it was not in the hands of Polydore. It is alleged that Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea, and was connected with literary men in that city 1,200 years before Polydore's time. That is sheer invention and falsehood. The real authors of the Eusebian books were the literary monks of the West, and the city to which they were related was, above all, Paris.

H.E. 3:24:

One of these passages is to the effect that Paul, the most able of all in literary discipline, and the most sufficient in opinions, "committed no more than the briefest epistles to writing, though he had a multitude of matters -- yea, unutterable things to say, as he had attained to the visions of the third heaven, had been snatched up to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to listen to the unutterable words thence." (H. E. 3:24)

I must entreat my readers not to fall in with the false notion that this passage is an echo of a passage in the Epistles as we have them. That is the reverse of the fact. I must repeat, every chapter of this Church History proves that it is written as an introduction to romantic books not yet fully written, or more than in their inception, and which had not yet been designated by the name of the New Testament, though a similar term is employed.

Now, everyone knows that a similar passage to the above is found inserted in our second Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 12 -- a passage shockingly written in point of grammar, and every principle of good taste, even as the passage in the Church History. But it will be found, on comparison, that the one passage is not copied from the other, though both are evidently from the same mind. It is impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the two passages, substantially one in meaning, though variant in form, are from the same workshop of monastic fiction.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459904

Epistle to the Romans -- "According to my Gospel." The Church historian ascribes this phrase to Paul in order to allege that when he used it he alluded to Luke's Gospel. Accordingly we find the phrase thrice inserted in the New Testament: Romans 2:16, 16:25, and 2 Timothy 2:8.

"The sufferings of the present season are not worthy to be compared with the glory to. be revealed unto us." This passage occurs in the Church History in connection with a tale of persecution under Verus. It is not quoted from Paul, nor alleged to be. But we find something very like it in our Romans 8:18.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459907

But my present business is to impress upon the reader that this first Church historian most certainly knew nothing but a few lines of the Pauline Epistles, or of any of the "testamentary" books. He calls Paul to witness that, "after the resurrection, the Saviour was seen by Kephas first, then by the Twelve, and, after them, by more than five hundred brethren at the same time; of whom some had fallen asleep, but the greater part were still living at the time he composed these things. Then he was seen by James, who was one of those called brothers of the Savour." He adds that, besides these, Paul, as if in imitation of the Twelve Apostles, he being also an apostle, continues: "Afterwards he was seen by all the Apostles."

The ordinary reader, abetted in the delusion by clerical apologists, supposes that this must be quoted from 1 Corinthians xv. 5. It is absolutely not so! The Epistle is not named, and the comparison of the two passages again excludes any other opinion than that 1 Corinthians has been built up around this slight fabric of personal names, and primarily in order to imbed and preserve those names.

In the last book of the History we find the saying, "Eye hath not seen nor ear heard," and so on, referred to as a martyr hymn. It is not quoted from any source whatever. We find it inserted in 1 Corinthians 2:9. There is something like the expression, "coveting earnestly the best gifts," in a passage in the historian; but again no allusion to any Epistle.

I come to the Epistle to the Philippians. The remarkable theological sentence occurs twice in tales of martyrs, "Christ, who, being in the form of God, did not think equality with God a thing of rapine (H. E. 5:2; 8:10) (again most crude Greek); but there is no allusion to Paul's authorship; on the contrary, it is assigned to other writers. We find it repeated under the name of Paul, Philippians 2:6. It is simply a blunder, due to ignorance of the facts, not to see that the passage is original in the Church History -- that is, in the mind of the monastic theologians. (H. E. 3:4 and 15)

There is no older Christian book that I can discover than the Church History. But the nature of the book has hitherto been misconceived, though it has been again and again in part discredited. It is the foundation-stone of the whole system. The New Testament has been written upon its lines. It is the proper introduction to the New Testament.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459924


But the Post-Apostolic Men Do Not Know Their Alleged Apostolic Masters, Which Is Absurd!

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459974

It is, however, part of the mistaken view of the subject, arising from the acceptance of the false chronology, to suppose that the alleged "Apostolic Fathers" quote from and build upon the Apostles. The discovery of this it was which led me first to see the enormous fictions that had been at work in the Christian literature, for it is absurd to suppose that Paul, after making a vast reputation as a literary man in the first century, was afterwards almost lost in oblivion in the second century. And the like applies to the deeds and sufferings of Christ himself, and to the whole fable of the origins. After all, these mythologists have made some great blunders in their system.

Take the richest theological Epistle ascribed to Paul: that to the Romans. Positively these so-called post-Apostolic men do not know it. They have merely some faint echoes of its contents; which is a very different thing. And it is the merest sophistry to confound them, or to talk of "Reminiscences," where there is no proof of anything of the kind. I must distinctly warn my readers against this fallacy of the handbooks and introductions to the New Testament, the only thorough cure for which is to read these "post-Apostolic" men for themselves. They will then discover that these writers, assumed to be following in the steps of their forerunners, and to be diligently perusing their writings as we have them, are doing nothing of the kind. They are dreaming, rambling, and raving; but they do not know that romantic figure of Paul that is known to us, nor yet his alleged writings as we have them. `

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459982

I might rest my case on Luther alone; but a mass of facts can be adduced in proof of the statement that the Pauline Epistles (in common with the whole of the Scriptures) are novel to the learned world in the early sixteenth century (1500-1550), and that opinion is forming about them during the whole of that age.

It seems, notwithstanding all the tales told us about the Revival Biblical scholars, Erasmus, or Luther, or Polydore, the Alcalŕ editors, the Fathers and Doctors of the Council of Trent (1546), there is nowhere to be found a Latin manuscript of the Bible of the complete Pauline Epistles that one can, with fair certainty, assume to have been in use before or during the Council of Trent.

I wish I could give the reader a precise account, or anything like it, of the number of copies of the Pauline Epistles in any crudest form during the reign of Henry the Eighth, for beyond that reign it is impossible to ascend. I would beg the reader to dismiss from his mind the tales about Wicliff and about Tyndal: there is absolutely no evidence from the writers of the time, Polydore and Leland, that any translation of the Bible had been put forth under the name of "Wicliff", "Tyndal", or any name.

Canterbury Tales: written at least after 1540:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459991

Luther and Paul:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54460011

Old Testament invented at least after 1600 a.d.:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54460029


ENGLISH NEW CHRONOLOGY:

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Investigation-eng-history.htm

And there was no Council of Trent:


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54460003

Here the absurd assumption is made (as Bellarmine explains) that this "old Vulgate," so-called, which has been in use so many ages, is to be preferred to "recent, and, so to speak, crude editions." How came they to be crude, if this "old Vulgate" was everywhere in the hands of the faithful!' The idea is nonsensical, and the whole story falls to the ground.

And then, after all, this "old Vulgate" proves to be mythical, and not forthcoming at all! "The want of a standard text of the Vulgate," says Westcott, "practically left the question as unsettled as before"! Another enigma of history! How could the Fathers of Trent venture, the reader may ask, to refer thus pointedly to a Latin book which did not exist at the time? In spite of every desire to find an historical landmark on which we may firmly rest, it is impossible to resist the suspicions which gather about these alleged decrees themselves. Are they too an afterthought?

A large body of bishops and doctors could never have met, and have passed and published to the world a decree referring to a book which had been "many ages in existence," yet could not be found! These decrees, which are simply stultified by the latter facts, and the discovery of the Vulgate by Sixtus V., would seem to be a fiction, I suppose, of Sixtus' time. There are curious things in connection with Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent which may favour such an opinion.

The Renaissance, during which the Colosseum at Pompeii was built:











See also:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945934#msg945934

THE DATE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF POMPEII (POMPEIA):





The fragments above are from the map "Regnum Neapolitanum", which appeared in 1570, according to the official chronology, in the famous Ortelius atlas "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum". The map shows an existing, "alive" town with the name "Pompeia" near Vesuvius.

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/search/label/Domenico%20Fontana
http://www.archemail.it/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=456


The most interesting aspects relating to the science of the Renaissance and beyond is related to the fact that both J. Scaliger and D. Petavius mention the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum during the year 79 a.d., which means that their works on chronology were written at least after 1700 a.d. Both Kepler and Newton are recorded in the official chronology as having criticized Scaliger, which means that the works attributed to Kepler and Newton were made up by several persons, some writing the works on alchemy, others preparing the private letters to Oldenburg, Halley, Fludd, Boyle (whose works were also fabricated), others writing Principia...

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098

The perfect demonstration that the Council of Niceea could not have taken place before the year 876 a.d.

Therefore the origin of the Turks, and the official history of Europe 800 - 1700 a.d. must also be brought in discussion; the story presented in, for example, the Thirteenth Tribe by A. Koestler, that the Turks originated in the Oguz tribe is not true; no battle at Manzikert (1071 a.d.) ever took place...

There were no Bayezid, Mehmed, Murad, or Suleiman, the Turks are simply the descendants of the Trojans; the official story, the migrating Oguz tribe, was invented by  the historical figure known as J. Scaliger, had he been forced to move the date of the Council of Niceea to 876 a.d., see the above link, he would have changed the official line completely...

See also the two volumes History: Fiction or Science by A. Fomenko, on books.google.com

As we have seen in the previous messages, the Council of Niceea actually never took place, it is a myth invented much later in history; read the book by E. Johnson, the Pauline Epistles...what G. Nosovsky did is to scientifically demonstrate that the first date possible for such a Council MUST have been 876 a.d., which changes the official history completely in any case.

http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/

HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? VOLUME 3, DATING PTOLEMY'S ALMAGEST

mediafire.com 2ljuudrjdnt

Pg. 209 - 214

Tycho Brahe = N. Copernicus


Pg. 248 - 259

Who actually wrote the works attributed to Hipparchus, T. Brahe and C. Ptolemy


Pg. 302 - 327

J. Kepler = N. Copernic = T. Brahe = C. Ptolemy the most extraordinary analysis

The other pages include one of the best ever discussion on the new chronology of the times of J. Kepler, C. Ptolemy, T. Brahe, N. Copernicus, who were actually one and the same person.


Dating Ptolemy's Almagest (a more technical work):

mediafire.com qnmmdljvxkm

The coverings of the stars, and the lunar eclipses described in Almagest, could have occurred ONLY during the period 800 - 1350 a.d. and not one thousand years earlier.

Personally, I believe that Wagner's Ring cycle offers the best operatic parallel to the present day battle between Zeteticism and Globularist science. The ring represents methodological supremacy, and Wotan is Newton. Siegfried is Einstein, and Brynhildr is Lady Blount. Clearly the poem was written from the perspective of a globularist, and this is what produces the negative portrayal of Zeteticism. Nevertheless, Hegelian dialectic is at work in Der Ring des Nibelungen, and the triumph of our methodology is inherent to the opera.