Sandokhan's date of the great flood

Have heard Rab talking lot about it. What about rope? Inside joke? Are there any other inside-jokes? And was he called "Leeve" before?

He claims that if you have a rope between 2 people, which is not moving, then the 2 people can pull with a different force on each end of the rope, such that if one person pulls with a force of A on the rope, that force will magically appear on the other end, without the person on the other end pulling on the other end, producing double the forces.
He does this to try and claim that the gravitational interaction between the moon and Earth produce twice the required force, once from the force of Earth pulling on the moon, and once from the reactionary force to the moon pulling on Earth, ignoring the fact that those 2 forces are the same force rather than 2 separate forces.

Here is a link to a thread on it:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84506.msg2228160#msg2228160

Quote from: Stash on June 04, 2020, 03:53:20 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 04, 2020, 03:43:16 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 04, 2020, 03:33:48 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 04, 2020, 06:07:20 AM

I believe ancient people didn't know the radius of Earth to make sacred cubit 1 000 000 of Earth's radius

I guess you mean (1/10 000 000) of the Earth's radius.

So do I but what is the explanation for the sacred cubit being so close to 2/π metres?

It is a mystery. Conspiratard in me beloved some Freemasons/Illuminati just used Pyramids to make heliocentrism. You know Illuminati love Pyramids

The pyramids predate the Freemason/Illuminati by around 5000 years. Many groups throughout history have adopted and referred to ancient symbols. A cross comes to mind as one example.
I think the Freemason/Illuminati have more important agenda items than trying to promote Heliocentrism.

Conspiratard in me says otherwise. Like, maybe Illuminati used Pyramids to make heliocentrism, IDK...

I mean, Polar radius is 10 000 000 sacred cubits and sun is 1 000 000 000 Pyramids away or something

Don't know much about the Illuminati, but my Grandfather was a high-ranking Mason. It's a fraternal order that was great for networking. Same reason he joined a country club. That's about all there was to it.

As far as the sacred cubits and pyramid inch, this is interesting:

"The greatest blow to the theory was dealt by the Egyptogist Flinders Petrie (1853–1942), whose father was a believer. When Petrie went to Egypt in 1880 to perform new measurements, he found that the pyramid was several feet smaller than previously believed, including the missing capstone. This so undermined the theory that Petrie rejected it, writing "there is no authentic example, that will bear examination, of the use or existence of any such measure as a ‘Pyramid inch,’ or of a cubit of 25.025 British inches."[6]

The pyramid inch now appears to have no significant scientific support. No direct evidence for it has ever been found."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_inch

But still. Before that It was 10 000 000 polar radius and 100 000 000 distance  (Pyramid) to sun

But still. Before that It was 10 000 000 polar radius and 100 000 000 distance  (Pyramid) to sun

Again, with all the numbers available, you will find things like that. It isn't difficult.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 04, 2020, 05:15:08 PM

But still. Before that It was 10 000 000 polar radius and 100 000 000 distance  (Pyramid) to sun

Again, with all the numbers available, you will find things like that. It isn't difficult.

Come on!

Exsacly 10 000 000. With "000 000 0".

You won't find something odd even if it is dancing in front of you

Quote from: JackBlack on June 04, 2020, 05:19:43 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 04, 2020, 05:15:08 PM

But still. Before that It was 10 000 000 polar radius and 100 000 000 distance  (Pyramid) to sun

Again, with all the numbers available, you will find things like that. It isn't difficult.

Come on!

Exsacly 10 000 000. With "000 000 0".

You won't find something odd even if it is dancing in front of you

A very appropriate excerpt from Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum". It's long, but worth it. In the book, the discussion concerns Piazzi Smyth's classic pyramid book, 'Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid', published in 1880:

"I imagine that your author [Smith] holds that the height of the pyramid of Cheops is equal to the square root of the sum of the areas of all its sides. The measurements must be made in feet, the foot being closer to the Egyptian and Hebrew cubit, and not in meters, for the meter is an abstract length invented in modern times. The Egyptian cubit comes to 1.728 feet. If we do not know the precise height, we can use the pyramidion, which was the small pyramid set atop the Great Pyramid, to form its tip. It was of gold or some other metal that shone in the sun. Take the height of the pyramidion, multiply it by the height of the whole pyramid, multiply the total by ten to the fifth, and we obtain the circumference of the earth. What's more, if you multiply the perimeter of the base by twenty-four to the third divided by two, you get the earth's radius. Further, the area of the base of the pyramid multiplied by ninety-six times ten to the eighth gives us one hundred ninety-six million eight hundred and ten thousand square miles, which is the surface area of the earth. Am I right?"

Belbo liked to convey amazement with an expression he had learned in the cinematheque, from the original-language version of Yankee Doodle Dandy, starring James Cagney: "I'm flabbergasted!" This is what he said now. Aglie also knew colloquial English, apparently, because he couldn't hide the satisfaction at this tribute to his vanity. "My friends," he said, "when a gentleman, whose name is unknown to me, pens a compilation on the mystery of the pyramids, he can only say what by now even children know. I would have been surprised if he had said anything new."

"So the writer is simply repeating established truths?"

"Truths?" Aglie laughed, and again opened for us the box of his deformed and delicious cigars. "Quid est veritas, as a friend of mine said many years ago. Most of it is nonsense. To begin with, if you divide the base of the pyramid by exactly twice the height, and do not round off, you don't get pi, you get 3.1417254. A small difference, but essential. Further, a disciple of Piazzi Smyth, Flinders Petrie, who also measured Stonehenge, reports that one day he caught the master chipping at a granite wall of the royal antechamber, to make his sums work out ... Gossip, perhaps, but Piazzi Smyth was not a man to inspire trust; you had only to see the way he tied his cravat. Still, amid all the nonsense there are some unimpeachable truths. Gentlemen, would you follow me to the window?"

He threw open the shutters dramatically and pointed. At the corner of the narrow street and the broad avenue, stood a little wooden kiosk, where, presumably, lottery tickets were sold.

"Gentlemen," he said, "I invite you to go and measure that kiosk. You will see that the length of the counter is one hundred and forty-nine centimeters -- in other words, one hundred-billionth of the distance between the earth and the sun. The height at the rear, one hundred and seventy-six centimeters, divided by the width of the window, fifty-six centimeters, is 3.14. The height at the front is nineteen decimeters, equal, in other words, to the number of years of the Greek lunar cycle. The sum of the heights of the two front corners and the two rear corners is one hundred and ninety times two plus one hundred seventy-six times two, which equals seven hundred and thirty-two, the date of the victory at Poitiers. The thickness of the counter is 3.10 centimeters, and the width of the cornice of the window is 8.8 centimeters. Replacing the numbers before the decimals by the corresponding letters of the alphabet, we obtain C for ten and H for eight, or C10H8, which is the formula for naphthalene."

"Fantastic," I said. "You did all these measurements?"

"No," Aglie said. "They were done on another kiosk, by a certain Jean-Pierre Adam. But I would assume that all lottery kiosks have more or less the same dimensions. With numbers you can do anything you like. Suppose I have the sacred number 9 and I want to get the number 1314, date of the execution of Jacques de Molay -- a date dear to anyone who, like me, professes devotion to the Templar tradition of knighthood. What do I do? Multiply nine by one hundred and forty six, the fateful day of the destruction of Carthage. How did I arrive at this? I divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by two, by three, et cetera, until I found a satisfying date. I could also have divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by 6.28, the double of 3.14, and I would have got two hundred and nine. That is the year in which Attalus I, king of Pergamon, joined the anti-Macedonian League. You see?"

I would like to see how you account for these dates.
1066 - Battle of Hastings
1492 - Cruise of Columbus
1620 - Landing of the Pilgrims
.....To name just a few.....

I mean, Polar radius is 10 000 000 sacred cubits and sun is 1 000 000 000 Pyramids away or something

When my knee hurts bad my bedroom door
is 12 steps away from my bed.
When it hurts less it's just 8 steps away.

Exsacly 10 000 000.

No, it isn't exact.
How about you provide the exact numbers?
Especially when one of the numbers varies.

Or do you want me to do it for you?
The great pyramid of Giza had a height of 146.7 m.

Perihelion is 147.095 Gm.
Aphelion is 152.1 Gm.
So ignoring the factor of 10, the great pyramid is off perihelion by roughly 0.3%
It is off aphelion by roughly 3.6%.

So not exact.
Instead, just a rough match.

Again, this is only 1 pyramid. They had quite a few.
Again, with so many, you would expect one to get close.

If instead it was 100 Gm to the sun, he would be claiming the Pyramid of Menkaure at Giza is clear evidence of magic.
If it was 75 Gm, then he would either use the same great pyramid and claim they are focusing on the diameter, or the pyramid of Amenemhat III.

Again, with so many numbers to choose from, it isn't special at all.

Pyramid has two heights. Total and visible since it looses height beacise sand. And top is broken, so maybie wrongh height?

I would like to see how you account for these dates.
1066 - Battle of Hastings
1492 - Cruise of Columbus
1620 - Landing of the Pilgrims
.....To name just a few.....

Were you there?

Thought so! Hence 'tis all lies!

And even if you'd have pictures, I'd call them fakes. So, I think, this is another glorious victory for (A)FE(T)!

1066 AD

The Bayeux tapestry forgery:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/bayeuxen.htm


1492-1620 AD

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

No one in Great Britain, or in Europe, knew anything about the Pauline epistles or about the four Gospels before 1500 AD. The most formidable analysis ever by England's most distinguished historian of the 19th century.

As then, so now.

No margin for error.

1066 AD

The Bayeux tapestry forgery:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/bayeuxen.htm


1492-1620 AD

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

No one in Great Britain, or in Europe, knew anything about the Pauline epistles or about the four Gospels before 1500 AD. The most formidable analysis ever by England's most distinguished historian of the 19th century.

England's most distinguished historian of the 19th century puts the knowledge of the Gospels in Europe in the 1500's. But your timeline puts the crucifixion/resurrection in the early 1800's.

So who is right? You or England's most distinguished historian of the 19th century?

Pyramid has two heights. Total and visible since it looses height beacise sand. And top is broken, so maybie wrongh height?

Which just further emphasises my point.
You don't have an exact height to try and match. You have lots of different rough heights, which is then allowed to roughly match some magical number by throwing in a ratio.

Like I said, if the distance to the sun was different, a different pyramid would have been chosen.

When I look at my family genealogy it is traceable to first quarter of the 1600's thanks to hard work by someone who is researching it. It could not go back further due to then burning down of a church that contained paperwork from before. I am of the 11th generation since. It is some deep research. I can find my own name, my fathers name, my grandfathers name (etc) and trace it all the way back to the fellow who was born in the first quarter of the 1600's.

Quite awesome to realize that he must have been Adam... 

At least now you don't think monkeys and apes are your ancestors 😁🦍🐒

1066 AD

The Bayeux tapestry forgery:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/bayeuxen.htm

I mean, it doesn't really say anything.  However it seems to suggest it's a forgery from 1476, as this is when it is first mentioned in records - is this when you think it's from?  It doesn't support your case at all.

England's most distinguished historian of the 19th century.

Who?  Seems the guy is a largely forgotten quack.  That website looks like it's from the 19th century though.

Quote from: sandokhan on June 08, 2020, 12:11:09 AM

1066 AD

The Bayeux tapestry forgery:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/bayeuxen.htm

I mean, it doesn't really say anything.  However it seems to suggest it's a forgery from 1476, as this is when it is first mentioned in records - is this when you think it's from?  It doesn't support your case at all.

Quote

England's most distinguished historian of the 19th century.

Who?  Seems the guy is a largely forgotten quack.  That website looks like it's from the 19th century though.

It seems that this proposed alternative timeline of history has been debunked.

Let's put your word to the test.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459891

No grammar/reading classes before the Tudor period.

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

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

The alleged "Apostolic Fathers" are made to repeat some of the same Lections or little Epistles that we find placed under Paul's name, with variations. Thus Clement repeats the episode on charity (1 Corinthians 13), and several other things which remind of the same Epistle, and of some others, the details of which will be found in the handbooks, and which I have not space to adduce fully here. Nor is it necessary.

It is very probable that Clement and the First Epistle to the Corinthians may have been composed by one scribe from brief phrases and hints supplied by the direction. The evidence is dead against the ordinary theory of copying and imitation.

They Do Not Know the Epistle to the Romans
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. `

In the interests of devout belief, it would be well that none should ever read this so-called "second-century literature." But, in the interest of literary science, it should be denounced as a discreditable falsehood on the part of any scholar, who has studied that literature, to assert that the writers know anything of the tremendous events which are described in the Canonical Gospels and Acts and Epistles as having taken place in the preceding age. No student who follows the path of science can possibly, when this matter is understood, adhere any longer to the ecclesiastically "orthodox" opinion of Christianity.

The Blunder Explained
The reader may inquire, How came the fabricators so to blunder in their construction of the "Apostolic" and "post-Apostolic"literature? The answer may be found in the study of the two key-books of the Eusebii, and in a number of catalogues following them, all parts of the same scheme. A host of imaginary writers was created to stretch through the long ages; and those who are alleged to cover the period of, say, the year 80 to the year 392 have all had writings attributed to them, which had been produced during a very short period, and by one set of scribes. It was evidently necessary to bestow the greatest pains upon the first or Apostolic age in this scheme, because that was the imaginary age of Origins. Hence the earlier names on the List, the names of the evangelists and apostles, have had writings ascribed to them beyond all the pretended later in importance; and these have been elaborated with a care denied to the "post-Apostolic" men. It was found necessary, and it was determined, to write not only the little Gospels and the little Epistles for the Service Book, but to provide what should appear as a new Law, or a New Covenant or Testament independently, in ampler bulk.  (On this part of the subject see my special investigation in "Antiqua Mater," 1887.) But in executing this work, which was the secondary stage in their labours, they forgot they were thus making the scheme top-heavy, as it were. The head is highly developed, but it has a most ghostly kind of body to support it!

Had they calculated upon intelligent readers, they would have felt the necessity of enlarging the "post-Apostolic" men pari passu with the "Apostolic" men. Barnabas and Hermas and Clement and the rest ought not to be left so deeply in the dark, after the brilliancy that has been made to flash upon Paul! It is beyond expression ludicrous, when you inquire of an Ignatius, or a Polycarp, "what interesting traits have you to narrate of those great Apostles and their writings, and those Epistles which you are so fond of alluding to?" to listen in reply to their maunderings and mutterings, as if they were in a dream, or moving about and groping in a world half realised. You demand a fact or two, and you are offered a theory, a creed expressed in language the most flatulent and vague that can be devised. The truth is, that the outlines of this creed and theory are at the bases of both the alleged "Apostolic" and "post-Apostolic" writing, and can be clearly detected; but the Apostolic writings, as we have them in the New Testament, are later than the "post-Apostolic" writings as we have them. Consequently, the notion that our New Testament is the earliest source for Christian origins is absurd; and equally so the notion that our Pauline Epistles are earlier than those of Clement, Ignatius, and the rest. The converse is nearer the truth.

The student will perceive that, if the wretched stuff' which is labelled "post-Apostolic" had been put together and called a "New Testament," it could hardly have escaped contempt and derision, because it is so feeble and wandering, so uncertain in thought, and so detestable in style, especially in the Greek version. But, though the Pauline Epistles and other parts of the New Testament are not written in very good Latin, and have been turned into very bad Greek, there can be no doubt that, as a whole, the New Testament, crowded as it is with story, with incident, with teeming hints of a grand movement in the world going on, has made a profound impression on the imagination of mankind.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459997

No Vulgata at the Council of Trent (1546 AD).


Let me invite attention to this text-book again. Polydore has only before him a slight version of the tale about Hieronymus or Jerome, showing that our List was not in his hands. He says that the monk was well educated in Greek and Latin at Rome; that, for the sake of a holier life, he repaired to Judea, and learned the Hebrew tongue; that his writings on Divinity were accepted and approved by the Fathers as holy.

Then follows this remarkable criticism: "I know there are some who falsely assign that deed to the pontiff Damasus, who had died a very long time before Jerome."

I am the first to call attention to this passage, which, once for all, explodes the whole Jerome fable, and proves it to be a recent invention of Polydore's own time. Moreover, it proves his ignorance of the tale which "Jerome" is made to tell of himself, that he had rendered the New Testament from the Greek; and, once more, it proves that Church chronology and history were not yet fixed, for the dates of Jerome and Damasus are not yet agreed upon. The Preface to Damasus must be later than 1533.



In the official chronology of history, DAMASUS IS A CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL FIGURE WITH JEROME!

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm


Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.


http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text4a.htm

However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.


Dr. G.V. Nosovsky:

Dr. G. Nosovsky:

We don’t have to observe the sky or perform astronomical calculations every time; compiling a table of March and April full moons for any given period of 19 years should suffice for further reference. The reason is that the phases of the moon recur every 19 years in the Julian calendar, and the recurrence cycle remains unaltered for centuries on end – that is, if the full moon fell on the 25th March any given year, it shall occur on the 25th of March in 19 years, in 38 (19 x 2) years, etc.

The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.


Ecclesiastical tradition, in accordance with the New Testament, tells that Christ was resurrected on March 25 on Sunday, on the next day after Passover, which, therefore, fell in that time on March 24 (Saturday). These are exactly the conditions used by Dionisius in his calculation of the date of the First Easter.

Dionysius supposedly conducted all these arguments and calculations working with the Easter Book. Having discovered that in the contemporary year 563 (the year 279 of the Diocletian era) the First Easter conditions held, he made a 532-year shift back (the duration of the great indiction, the shift after which the Easter Book entirely recurs) and got the date for the First Easter. But he did not know that Passover (the 14th moon) could not be shifted by 532 years (because of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle) and made a mistake: "Dionysius failed, though he did not know that. Indeed, if he really supposed that the First Easter fell on March 25, 31 A.D., then he made a rough mistake as he extrapolated the inaccurate Metonian cycle to 28 previous cycles (that is, for 532 years: 28 x 19 = 532). In fact, Nisan 15, the Passover festival, in the year 31 fell not on Saturday, March 24, but on Tuesday, March 27!". [335, pg. 243: I.A. Klimishin, Calendar and Chronology, in Russian, Nauka, Moscow, 1985]


That is a modern reconstruction of what Dionysius the Little did in the 6th century. It would be all right, but it presupposes that near Dionysius' date of 563 A.D. the 14th moon (Passover) really fell on March 24. It could be that Dionysius was not aware of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle and made the mistake shifting Passover from 563 to the same day of March in 31 A.D.

But he could not have been unaware of the date of Passover in the the almost contemporary year 563! To that end it was sufficient to apply the Metonian cycle to the coming 30-40 years; the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle does not show up for such intervals.


But in 563 Passover (the 14th moon) fell not on March 24, but on Sunday, March 25, that is, it coincided with Easter as determined by the Easter Book.


As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on.


Therefore, it appears absolutely incredible that the calculations of the First Easter and of the Birth of Christ had been carried out in the 6th century on the basis of the calendar situation of the year 563. It was shown in Sec. 1 that the Easter Book, used by Dionysius, had not been compiled before the 8th century and had been canonized only at the end of the 9th century. Therefore, the calculations carried out by (or ascribed to) Dionysius the Little had not been carried out before the lOth century.

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


Exiguus, the central  pillar of the official historical chronology, could not have made such a colossal mistake UNLESS his works/biography were forged/falsified at least five centuries later in time.

In the official chronology, Bede, Syncellus, Scaliger, Blastares, and Petavius base their calculations on Exiguus' methods and data.



D" PARAMETER: MOON'S ELONGATION PARADOX

The Moon's Acceleration

"Understanding the moon's orbit around Earth is a difficult mathematical problem. Isaac Newton was the first to consider it, and it took more than two centuries until the American mathematician George William Hill found a suitable framework in which to address this question.

The concern is with the acceleration, D'', of the moon's elongation, which is the angle between the moon and the sun as viewed from Earth. This acceleration D'' is computable from observations, and its past behavior can be determined from records of eclipses. Its values vary between -18 and +2 seconds of arc per century squared. Also, D'' is slightly above zero and almost constant from about 700 BC to AD 500, but it drops significantly for the next five centuries, to settle at around -18 after AD 1000. Unfortunately this variation cannot be explained from gravitation, which requires the graph to be a horizontal line.

Among the other experts in celestial mechanics who attacked this problem was Robert Newton from Johns Hopkins University. In 1979, he published the first volume of a book that considered the issue by looking at historical solar eclipses. Five years later, he came up with a second volume, which approached the problem from the point of view of lunar observations. His conclusion was that the behavior of D'' could be explained only by factoring in some unknown forces.

Newton's results can be interpreted similarly: if we exclude the possibility of mysterious forces, his graph puts traditional ancient and medieval chronology in doubt."





https://web.archive.org/web/20120323153614/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm

It is important for some computational astronomical problems to know the behaviour of D'' -- the second derivative of the Moon's elongation - as a function of the time, on a rather long segment of the time line. This problem, particularly, was talked about during the discussion organized in 1972 by the London Royal Society and British Academy of Sciences. The scheme of the calculation of D''  is as follows: we are to fix the totality of ancient observations of eclipses, then calculate. on the basis of the modern theory, when these observations were made, and then compare the results of the calculations with the observed parameters to evaluate the Moon's acceleration.

Newton: "The most striking feature of Figure 1 is the rapid decline in D'' from about 700 to about 1300 ... . This decline means (Newton, 1972b) that there was a 'square wave' in the osculating value of D''... . Such changes in D'', and such values, unexplainable by present geophysical theories ... , show that D'' has had surprisingly large values and that it has undergone large and sudden changes within the past 2000 yrs".



D" parameter, new chronology of history:




Dr. Robert Newton, Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120531060430/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land. A. 276, 99-110 (1974)


Dr. Robert Newton, Astronomical Evidence Concerning Non-Gravitational Forces in the Earth-Moon System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120531054411/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm

Astrophysics and Space Science 16 (1972) 179-200


Each and every astronomical recording supposedly made in the period 700 BC - 1000 AD is proven to be false.


When was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue in 'Almagest' Compiled in Reality? Statistical Analysis:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111204106/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

Appendix 2. When Was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue Really Compiled? Variable Configurations of the Stars and the Astronomical Dating of the Almagest Star Catalogue:

pages 346 - 375



The Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest Based on the Coverings of the Stars and on Lunar Eclipses:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

pages 376 - 381


https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf (section 3: The Dating of the Lunar Eclipses and Appendix 2: The Table of the Almagest's Lunar Eclipses)


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 382 - 389)

Both works appeared in the Acta Applicandae Mathematicae (17 - 1989 and 29 - 1992).

In the official chronology of history, DAMASUS IS A CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL FIGURE WITH JEROME!

Ok, whatever all that was. It still doesn't answer the question why you are putting the 4 Gospels in the 1500's almost 300 years before you have Jesus crucified. It's a direct contradiction. Be simple and explain, no need for 3 feet of some other person's ramblings on a blog site.

Quote from: sandokhan on June 15, 2020, 10:40:18 PM

In the official chronology of history, DAMASUS IS A CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL FIGURE WITH JEROME!

Ok, whatever all that was. It still doesn't answer the question why you are putting the 4 Gospels in the 1500's almost 300 years before you have Jesus crucified. It's a direct contradiction. Be simple and explain, no need for 3 feet of some other person's ramblings on a blog site.

Sandokhan, now with propper references, have proved histrocal contradictions

Ask sandokhan about the group of people who trace their ancestors to the mayflower. Where are the people who trace their ancestors to Pompeii?

Quote from: Stash on June 15, 2020, 11:38:39 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on June 15, 2020, 10:40:18 PM

In the official chronology of history, DAMASUS IS A CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL FIGURE WITH JEROME!

Ok, whatever all that was. It still doesn't answer the question why you are putting the 4 Gospels in the 1500's almost 300 years before you have Jesus crucified. It's a direct contradiction. Be simple and explain, no need for 3 feet of some other person's ramblings on a blog site.

Sandokhan, now with propper references, have proved histrocal contradictions

Really? Would you care to prove the rubbish that sandokhan comes out with?

Sandokhan, now with propper references, have proved histrocal contradictions

Where?
Can you summarise his mountains of spam to show just what the contradiction is, and provide the reference which support this contradiction?

Also note that with any discussion of dates you need to make it clear exactly what calendar this date is based upon.

Also note that a link to some random website is not a proper reference.

Quote from: Stash on June 15, 2020, 11:38:39 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on June 15, 2020, 10:40:18 PM

In the official chronology of history, DAMASUS IS A CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL FIGURE WITH JEROME!

Ok, whatever all that was. It still doesn't answer the question why you are putting the 4 Gospels in the 1500's almost 300 years before you have Jesus crucified. It's a direct contradiction. Be simple and explain, no need for 3 feet of some other person's ramblings on a blog site.

Sandokhan, now with propper references, have proved histrocal contradictions

Do you not get that he has the Gospels written 300 years before Jesus' crucifixion? How could they write about something that happened centuries later, according to his timeline? That's just one contradiction not in favor of his timeline. There are many. What are these "proper references" you are referring to that you seem to think support his timeline?

And enough with just tossing out something random like your post. If you feel there is some validity to something, spell it out specifically with facts. Not just some vague post. Get it?