A long time ago I learned that ancient history 'experts' were often inconsistent in their stories.

After spending some time trying to figure out the truth of ancient history (B.C., Before Christ), the true chronology, etc. I read the book "History or Science" by Fomenko and several articles about exact archeology dating. I finally realized that It is human nature to want to make a discovery older than it really is. Archaeologists want to attract attention by making discoveries older than they really are, everyone likes to find the 'oldest known.' All of the oldest ancient history needs to be moved forward about at least one or two thousand years closer to our time. Some events, such as classical Greek history, needs to be moved around at least 300 years closer to our time, if we assume the date of Christ's birth is reasonably accurate. In addition, the main problem is from the brainwashing of the religious advocates who want to date everything according to their own pet theories and fantasies. The famous Sir Isaac Newton considered himself a Christian and is one of the greatest thinkers of all times. He was the genius who gave us our laws of gravity. He tried to make sense of the 'facts' of history and wrote a study of ancient history called 'The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended'. In the Introduction of the book he said "...they have made the Antiquities of Greece THREE or FOUR hundred years older than the truth." He begins Chapter 1 by saying "All Nations, before they began to keep exact accounts of Time, have been prone to raise their Antiquities; and this humour has been promoted, by the Contentions between Nations about their Originals." Newton was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, same elite position now held by Stephen Hawking. Newton was proficient in Latin and Greek and he and Whiston studied the old manuscripts. M. I. Orlenko in 1927 had this to say about the writings of Newton: "They are the fruit of forty years of labour, diligent research and a tremendous erudition. Basically, Sir Isaac Newton had studied all the major literary works on ancient history and all the primary sources beginning with ancient and oriental mythology" (Sir Isaac Newton. A Biographical Aperçu, pages 104-105). Newton learned that the traditional historians (of such as Egyptian and Assyrian history) had greatly elongated history and summarizes what he learned in the last paragraph of the last page: "And whilst all these nations have magnified their Antiquities so exceedingly, we need not wonder that the Greeks and Latines have made their first Kings a little older than the truth." For a time I made the same mistake that nearly every other researcher of ancient history makes, including William Whiston and Isaac Newton. I assumed that the date of the birth of Christ was correct or nearly so, within around 4 or 5 or maybe 12 years or so of the traditional zero point 1 BC - 1 AD date (there is no year zero). If we do not use that date, then we have absolutely nothing, no starting point, to go by - or do we? The Chinese, though, have their own history, a continuous history from modern times back, unlike the Western world, and it appears that the dates of when they learned writing, when they started using brass or iron, the reigns of their kings and their connections with other kings of other nations, etc., makes the Chinese history around 1,500 years later than equivalent Western history. Some Chinese find it somewhat embarrassing that the Chinese history is not as old as Western history. The problem, though, is not Chinese history. The problem is the LIARS of Western history. I have found that if you use the evidence as it presents itself, you can often begin developing a big picture that solves lots of seeming contradictions in the traditional Western history and chronology. The greatest historian of the ancient Greeks was Thucydides (471-400 BC). He was only second to Herodotus. But Herodotus saw the hand of God in all human events. Thucydides was more 'scientific' and left the gods out of his history. The Peloponnesian war broke out in 431 BC (using traditional dates) and Thucydides wrote that he began writing of the war "at the moment that it broke out." My Britannica Great Books of the Western World tells "All was at last ready, and they were on the point of sailing away, when an eclipse of the moon, which was then at the full, took place" (Thucydides Seventh Book, Chapter XXIII, #50). Thucydides actually wrote of three eclipses, two solar and one lunar, that occured during the war. From his writings we learn the first and second eclipse were solar, the third was the

lunar one. The time between the first and second was 7 years. The time between the second and the third is 11 years. The first eclipse is a full eclipse, in the summer, after midday, local time. He mentions the stars can be seen, which cannot happen in a partial eclipse. The second eclipse is at the beginning of summer, the third eclipse is around the end of summer. Can we establish a real, solid, proven date in ancient history as a starting point, around which to develop other dates? The answer is Yes, we can, but very few will believe or accept the reality that this proven date presents. Mathematicians and astronomers can determine from this information (and given the location) exactly when this would have occurred. Look at your calendar and newspapers, the calendar makers, astronomers, mathematicians routinely tell you when and where eclipses will occur and where and when they did occur in the past. There are computer programs that can do this for you if you do not have the math skills. Some astrologers can do this. In the 16th Century A.D., the chronologer Dionysius Petavius determined a date that fit the first eclipse - 3 August 431 B.C. The start of the Peloponnesus war was then dated 431 B.C. The famous astronomer/mathematician Johannes Kepler confirmed the date. Petavius then figured out the date for the second ecllipse, 21 March 424 B.C. Kepler also confirmed that date. Then Petavius choose 27 August 431 B.C. for the third eclipse. When more modern astronomers tried to verify these dates, heated debates broke out in the 18th to the 20th centuries. The problem is the first date would not have been a total eclipse and Thucydides in the original Greek clearly stated you could see the stars - it was a total eclipse. It would not have been total anywhere on earth. Prominent historical 'experts' who tried to solve this 'Thucydides triad problem' over the years included Petavius, Zech, Heis, Struyck, Kepler, Riccioli, Hofman, Ginzel, Johnson, Lynn, Stockwell, and Seyffarth. They did not want to get too far away from the 'well-known' date of the birth of Christ and were not able to solve the problem. Finally a Russian mathematician named N. A. Morozov determined that an exact solution does exist. The eclipse actually occurred 2 August 1133 A.D. Then A. T. Fomenko pointed out that there were actually two possible solutions - the other was 22 August 1039 A.D. For reasons I won't get into here it was decided that the 1133 A.D. date was the correct one. This means that Thucydides and Herodotus were 1,000 years AFTER the traditional date of Christ's birth. This means the date of Christ's birth is at least about ONE THOUSAND YEARS too old, too far back. When you pursue the ramifications of this mathematically proven fact, you will begin to see how massive are the lies that have been perpetrated upon you, upon all Western humanity.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful