At 4:36 PM -0600 3/27/02, David Starner wrote:
Why isn't there exterior evidence? IIRC, there was some traffic between
the Roman empire and parts east; given the detail of Chinese history,
can't some Chinese emperor be matched to a Roman emperor and years be
counted off from there? It really
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
I'm not sure there was close enough contact to make that sort of
correlation. There was trade between India and China and the Roman
Empire, but probably a lot of it was of the form Chinese merchant
trades with Indian merchant trades with Persian merchant trades
I did ask a historian friend who specializes in the Middle East about
this recently. He told me that the Islamic world really didn't take
much notice of Europe until after the period in question so it's not
really possible to match up the Islamic calendar to events in Europe
during or
In this thread, the name Illig has been mentioned a few times. Here is
some information about his book(s) on the subject:
Heribert Illig : Wer hat an der Uhr gedreht ? (Wie 300 Jahre Mittelalter
erfunden wurden) ISBN 3-612-26561-X, ECON Verlag
This book is in German language, I have not seen
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Hmm. I see. So 54 popes in the official Catholic chronology,
from St Gregory I (the Great) through John IX (or something
along those lines) just didn't exist, and were all invented
by chroniclers who had a great occasion for dynasties and
kings. Along with everything
At 3:32 PM +0100 3/28/02, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
But it is not strictly necessary that any pope did not exist: 300 years
could be the sum of many little errors in the biographies of many popes.
Imagining that historians extended some popes' lifes by a two or three years
(maybe unintentionally,
My first and last post on this (off-) topic.
Alain LaBonté [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This document says: If 16 centuries had passed since Caesar's
introduction of his calendar, the Julian calendar in Gregory's
time would have been out of sync with the astronomical situation
by 13 days, not 10.
It
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
At 1:28 PM + 3/28/02, Alistair Vining wrote:
I'm bearing in mind Sarasvati's imprecation to keep this innocent,
non-denominational, and non-violent, but:
Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours, 732: Three Accounts
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
My first and last post on this (off-) topic.
The same by me :-)
Alain LaBonté [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This document says: If 16 centuries had passed since Caesar's
introduction of his calendar, the Julian calendar in Gregory's
time would have been
Elliotte Rusty Harold recently said:
What's really needed to conclusively disprove this hypothesis is a
verifiable event well in the middle of the problematic years that can
be dated both backwards and forwards in time; i.e. that can be
established as N years before the present and X
A potential problem with lunar eclipses is that the cycle repeats every 18
and a bit years, and this has been known for a long time. So a really
ingenious faker could have cut out an appropriate number of years. Seems a
bit of a leap though to realise that eclipses could be used to verify
OK, so I lied about not posting any more on this topic. Gotta weed out
the hoaxes, though.
Timothy Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the number of days out of sync since Julius Caesar's time,
I don't have the full details but the calendar had problems after
Julius changed it. His
A 11:39 2002-03-27 +, Michael Everson a écrit :
On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at
05:55 , Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Nope.
In some historical sense all natural languages are equally old
(except those originating in
creoles).
[Michael]
Um, we actually can date some
languages, like French, for
At 8:47 AM -0500 3/27/02, Alain LaBontÈÝ wrote:
[Alain] French (with a totally different spelling [and many more
differences] compared to now: you have to pronounce letters like when
you read Latin to *begin* to understand even if you're
French-speaking) and modern German (well a form of it,
Elliotte Of course, this assumes that the year 842 and Charlemagne
Elliotte actually existed, which turns out to be not nearly as
Elliotte self-evident a proposition as it seems at first glance. See, for
Elliotte example,
Elliotte
A 11:05 2002-03-27 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit :
At 8:47 AM -0500 3/27/02, Alain LaBontÈÝ wrote:
[Alain] French (with a totally different spelling [and many more
differences] compared to now: you have to pronounce letters like when you
read Latin to *begin* to understand even if
A 11:39 2002-03-27 +, Michael Everson a écrit :
On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at 05:55 , Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Nope. In some historical sense all natural languages are equally old
(except those originating in creoles).
[Michael]
Um, we actually can date some languages, like
At 10:18 AM -0700 3/27/02, Mark Leisher wrote:
Niemitz appears to have a revisionist agenda of some sort. He also questions
C14 dating. I haven't read that particular thesis yet because my technical
German is a bit rusty,
The link is in English. Don't let your German stop you from judging
Elliotte This not at all what Niemetz is doing. He does not question the
Elliotte basic science of C-14 dating. He's questioning the accuracy of
Elliotte certain C-14 samples to within a few hundred years margin of
Elliotte error. Specifically, he suggests that original incorrect
Patrick Andries scripsit:
This date is only the oldest record of a document written in something like
French (since it was decided to transcribe what was actually said).
Well, not exactly. The chronicler is reporting what it would be appropriate
for the participants to have said. No claim
Elliotte Harold continued:
but I suspect he trots out at least some of the classic
bogus claims that C14 dating is a sham.
No, he doesn't. He has all-new claims :-), which IMHO have not yet
been proven to be bogus.
See the sci.skeptics FAQ for C14 claim details:
Ok. My last post on the topic.
Look for C14 and Illig at http://groups.google.com. This one comes up in
the first set of hits:
http://www.dbs.informatik.uni-muenchen.de/~krojer/obrief.html
Herr Krojer takes Illig, and by extension, Niemitz to task quite effectively,
in my opinion. The
John Cowan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Patrick Andries scripsit:
This date is only the oldest record of a document written in something likeFrench (since it was decided to transcribe what was actually said).
Well, not exactly. The chronicler is reporting what it would be
Blunderingly I wrote:
Gregorian and Julian calendars are exactly aligned in the years 100-199,
Should have been 200-299.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
But for Niemetz to get anywhere with his posited black hole of
600-900 A.D., he has to evoke grand conspiracy theories. Namely,
the documentary history of both the Roman Catholic Church and
the Byzantine Orthodox Church have to
Mark Leisher scripsit:
Herr Krojer takes Illig, and by extension, Niemitz to task quite effectively,
in my opinion.
I fed this through babelfish, and the principal argument seems to be
that we can correlate very nicely the predicted dates, places, and times
of lunar eclipses in ancient
It is remarkable how closely scientific and historical heresy corresponds
to the model of religious heresy: identification of a singular idea, oddity
or contentious issue, the elevation of that thing to a central and
overriding importance, leading eventually to the reconfiguring of
everything
David Starner scripsit:
Why isn't there exterior evidence? IIRC, there was some traffic between
the Roman empire and parts east; given the detail of Chinese history,
can't some Chinese emperor be matched to a Roman emperor and years be
counted off from there? It really seems like the people
John Mark Leisher scripsit:
Herr Krojer takes Illig, and by extension, Niemitz to task quite
effectively, in my opinion.
John I fed this through babelfish, and the principal argument seems to be
John that we can correlate very nicely the predicted dates, places, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">John Cowan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Patrick Andries scripsit:
This date is only the oldest record of a document written in something likeFrench (since it was decided to transcribe what was actually said).
Well, not exactly. The chronicler is
30 matches
Mail list logo
