The early middle ages never happened

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


Read that essay by the man who invented this theory.

Thats all you have to do.




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I find thes idea that 300 years of history was made up, and I have proof: My family has kept records of their lives since the 7th century (my family comes from the Provence region of France- they were nobles and later counts). I can vouch for their authenticity and I highly doubt that they were forged. The dark ages happened, folks.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 

Our concept of time is linear and entirely manufactured. We as a species do not really understand time as a medium.

History has shown that various calendars used to categorize the events of time, and quantify time, do not reconcile.

Gregorian, Jewish, Julian, Mayan, Egyptian, Chinese etc, etc, calendars do not mesh. In many cases attempts to mesh them result in the removal of days to years.

What we have for the most part is archeologists and other academics most often funded by Rome attempting to determine when a period of time occurred.

The golden rule is he who has the gold gets to make the rules so its very easy for archeologists and other academics dependent upon grants to fund their research and make a living to ‘take’ a hint, as far as what their patrons would like to see as a result of that research the patron pays for.

So no, in reality we can’t trust it.

Marco Polo made it to China well before the Tang Dynasty, and the truth is that the present Chinese Reserve Bank is one of the Rothschild banking reserve banks, and the Rothschild family is the Papal Rothschild Family and derives its titles as well as its real wealth from Rome.

Rome at various points ruled all of the Middle East into Asia and Iran.

Oligarchs are oligarchs regardless of their religion or ethnicity and they rely on each other to maintain and grow their wealth and power.

For instance in the Israel/Palestinian conflict often people will say but Egypt doesn’t favor the Palestinians and Jordan doesn’t favor the Palestinians based on this action or that action, but the truth is both those nations receive billions of U.S. dollars a year to maintain peace with Israel, so are their actions then really a reflection of the people or the institutions that benefit from that largesse and generosity?

See how that works.

Further you have to consider that the Roman Empire has continued on under the Holy Roman Empire, it’s member states, Germany, England, and the United States so places that any of those nations have conquered or colonized or occupied are brought into the Roman system of law, banking and commerce, and many of them had Rome’s system of monotheism to begin with.

The New World Order actually completed it’s physical conquest of the world in the early stages of World War I, what has yet to be done, is to tell the people they live under a one world government, and who that government is, in large part because of so many distortions of history Rome has perpetrated on the people that then have to be broken down and proved false, and in so doing, creates the risk of a backlash and rebellion of the people.

Textbook history is not anyone’s friends but the Powers that Be, and the instilled illusions of national and ethnic/racial/religious independence are really all just part of a divide and conquer strategy utilized in getting people to willingly Romanize the world of their own volition.

The truth would likely blow both of our minds.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Constantine VII of Byzantium (905 – 959 AD) organized a complete
rewriting of the whole Byzantine history. The famous German Byzantinist Peter Schreiner has demonstrated how official historiography interprets this process: beginning in the year 835 AD monks rewrote piece by piece all texts which had been written in Greek maiuscula, in the new form of writing hence called minuscula. Schreiner postulates that each text was produced only once. Then the originals were destroyed (Schreiner 1991,13). This means that all existingtexts of the then leading culture nation had been changed or rewritten completely in new script in the lifetime of two generations, or even faster.

Thats how easy it is to rewrite history.

That was an excerpt from:

Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?

by

Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz

Upon readin it, its only 9 pages or so, doesnt take long, i actualy agree with him. There do infact seem to be periods of history that are simply unacounted for. However, what that means is open to a vast amount of interpretation.

en.wikipedia.org...

That is an enormous series of books, somebody might be interested that postulates our timelines are all #d up and that the Roman Empire was actualy in the period of time that we know as the Dark Ages!



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII started the so-called ‘Gregorian calendar’, which is basically a
corrected version of the old Julian calendar of Julius Caesar. The Julian calendar, after being
used for a long time, no longer corresponded with the astronomical situation. The difference,
according to calculations by Pope Gregory, amounted to 10 days. Now please calculate: how
many Julian years does it take to produce an error of 10 days? The answer is 1257 years. The
question – at which date was the Julian calendar correct – can be calculated with the following
amazing result (Illig 1991):
1582 – 1257 = 325
(The year in which the “Gregorian” calendar began minus the years necessary to produce 10 days of error in the Julian calendar equals the
beginning the Julian calendar.) Source


This is not entirely true. The first change from the Roman calendar came as a request from Pope John I. The problem was determining when to celebrate Easter. The Council of Nicaea had decided in 325AD that Easter was to fall on the Sunday following the first moon that fell on the vernal equinox. The problem came with trying to synchronize the lunar and solar calanders.



Christians, these thinkers argued, should abandon the custom of relying on Jewish informants and instead do their own computations to determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting Easter within this independently computed, Christian Nisan, which would always locate the festival after the equinox. Source


He asked Dionysius Exiguus, a Russian Monk, to determine the dates of Easter from 527 AD to 626 AD. The Julian calendar numbered the years from the founding of Rome. Dionysius overcame the lunar/solar year controversy when he chose year 754 AUC as year 1AD. The whole reason for the calendar change had nothing to do with missing days, but was a way to determine the day on which Easter occurred. So the year 325 AD was the point where the calendars were synchronized.


Dionysius Exiguus, a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later.

Later, when Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on 24 February 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronise the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4 became October 15, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced.
Source



[edit on 7/8/2010 by darkelf]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


Here is the problem though, in that ultimately like it or not, while your source might be Wikipedia for information, the actual source of that information is Rome!

So what you have is Rome's explanation for it, it's official explanation, based on what Rome wants people to believe. Could be true, could not be true.

However having said that, it's like taking the accused criminals word of guilt or innocense.

Now if you believe Rome is above board and honest, and acting always in the best interests of humanity and you feel it's safe to believe that, well then it becomes your opinion.

That though doesn't make it fact.

The truth is that you can find a million sources for the dogmas, but each source ultimately has to rely on Rome as it's source for the information they are propogating.

Once again though our linear concept of time, is just that a concept of time.

While the sequence of events might be close to accurate (I doubt this too by the way) the way that the gauging of time and it's passage has changed through different systems of measuring it, to fix events at a certain point in time, is problematic at the least, and not really a clear indication of when they actually happened.

History has been rewritten many times to suit religions and states, and victors and is likely not an accurate reflection of events as they transpired as a result.

For the most part they are rewritten to reshape attitudes perspectives and political identities and shared realities for the states and religion.

Believe it at your own risk!

We are almost certainly being manipulated.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by darkelf
 


Here is the problem though, in that ultimately like it or not, while your source might be Wikipedia for information, the actual source of that information is Rome!


None of my sources are wiki, but you are correct in that when discussing history of Rome, one does not check documents from Peru.


So what you have is Rome's explanation for it, it's official explanation, based on what Rome wants people to believe. Could be true, could not be true.

However having said that, it's like taking the accused criminals word of guilt or innocense.


No argument from me. We all know that history is written by the winners.


Now if you believe Rome is above board and honest, and acting always in the best interests of humanity and you feel it's safe to believe that, well then it becomes your opinion.

That though doesn't make it fact.


I’ve heard the same arguments when discussing the Bible. But since we weren’t there, we have to take their word for it.


The truth is that you can find a million sources for the dogmas, but each source ultimately has to rely on Rome as it's source for the information they are propogating.

Once again though our linear concept of time, is just that a concept of time.

While the sequence of events might be close to accurate (I doubt this too by the way) the way that the gauging of time and it's passage has changed through different systems of measuring it, to fix events at a certain point in time, is problematic at the least, and not really a clear indication of when they actually happened.


I actually agree with you on this. I think much of Egyptian timing is erroneous, but no one is willing to challenge Egyptologist.


History has been rewritten many times to suit religions and states, and victors and is likely not an accurate reflection of events as they transpired as a result.

For the most part they are rewritten to reshape attitudes perspectives and political identities and shared realities for the states and religion.

Believe it at your own risk!

We are almost certainly being manipulated.

Thanks.



The best we can do is stop believing everything simply because it is recorded history. But finding the truth is difficult. My main point was that in using the parameters set down by the author of this conspiracy, I can show his premise is erroneous. And by using you parameters, perhaps the Bible is more accurate than people are willing to believe.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


All I know for sure is the 'more I know the less I understand'.

Personally I distrust the government and it's official stories, and seldom if ever find them credible or accurate upon any level of serious and unbiased investigation.

The truth is, there is no real way for us to know the truth in regards to many events and many things.

Personally though I favor the approach of looking at the outcome of every turning point in history and examining who had the most to gain from that outcome and opportunity to effect that outcome as being the next best thing to the truth.

I don't always politically agree with Skyfloating, but he is brilliant at underlying possibilities and inviting people to examine the possibilities.

Maybe it's not 300 years missing, but 50 or 1.

Yet what he is really getting at, is can we trust 'official' history as an accurate reflection of history, and is using this example as just one aspect of whether or not we should trust official history as accurate.

So my own experience on his threads and I have participated in a fair number of them to varying degrees is that he isn't trying so much to prove this theory as to get people to open up their minds to the validity of 'official history' citing this as just one example of why people might be well served to do that.

Thanks!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I know what you’re getting at, and I agree.


Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 b.c. (He knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus' birth wrong.) But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.

In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves and celebrate the end of the millennium this year and the beginning of the next millennium a year from now, perhaps each time raising a glass to the memory of Dionysius. Source


From the beginning of time, date keeping has been suspect. It seems that each civilization kept their individual calendar. Personally, I would both love and hate the job of trying to synchronize all these calendars to one accurate calendar. But the biggest obstacle to this feat, as you have pointed out, is that we don’t really know how accurate recorded history is.


Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France. Source



The potential flaws in relative dating in archaeology are obvious. Simply assuming that an artefact is older because it was found at a lower depth in the record is only subjective science. There are many instances of deep holes being dug for rubbish pits or to locate well water that protrude into the record of older strata injecting more modern material as they are filled in over time. Landslides and slips can completely change the topography of an entire archaeology site burying what was once on top by that which is much older, hence reversing the strata layers. Source


So much of history that we have taken for granted could easily be wrong. How many times have we heard of an archeological find that was quickly dismissed because it disagreed with the official perception of history? I am not a scientist and I despise being at the mercy of those who would write or re-write history to suit their own agenda. I feel manipulated too.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Thanks for finding and posting this. The more I research, the more I realize that recorded history may not be as accurate as we collectively believe. The distressing part of my research is that I must rely on recorded history which may be backed by any number of agendas.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Ah, the phantom time hypothesis. One of the classic conspiracy theories. First logical response is to immediately refuse and ridicule the concept. Once you start reading however, it actually gets less absurd than it sounds.

I must agree with Johnze, it's worth reading the Hans-Ulrich Niemitz document, which seems to have solid foundation. Also look for Heribert Illig on this topic (same theory). Or, slightly different but similar concept: Nikolai Morozov and Anatoly Fomenko on 'new chronology'.

At the same time the phantom time hypothesis has of course been disputed numerous times. There was another (mostly unnoticed) thread on here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Especially the architectural gaps I find intriguing. On the other hand, 300 missing years: doesn't really sound credible. Still, it raises interesting questions.


[edit on 9/7/10 by Movhisattva]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
If there are 300 years 'missing' from history ...... then that means carbon dating is all wrong.

Assuming the 'missing years' were between 700 and 1,000AD then it would mean that an item carbon dated as being 1,000 years old would be 1,000 years old, an item carbon dated as 1,200 years old would also be 1,000 years old, whilst one dated at 1,400 years old would actually be 1,100 years old .....

Is that really likely?

Then we have the enigma of tree-rings ...... And lakes valves. And mud cores and Ice cores and so on.


It's easy to hypothesis an alternative timeline if you stick to just the written records of one human culture. However, extrapolating that to the rest of the world doe not work if you ignore the written records of other cultures and the myriad data from disciplines other than history and archaeology.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by riddle6
While I don't think that 300 years where just created "out of thin air", so to speak, I still don't see it to be that hard to rewrite history or the time periods when some events in history occurred.


Of course it's not that hard. Look how the re-wrote history on 9-11-01 and that was only 9 years ago.

History is nothing more than His Story and for the most part, they're theories to brainwash us into thinking along a certain mindset.

I mean, there are written texts that talk about Elves, Bigfoot, Atlantis, Giants, gods from above, Loch Ness monster etc......and what do 'we' do with that? We/they toss and dismiss them all into the 'legend/myth' pile and call it a day!

So? The PTB (religions too) absolutely have control as to what we acknowledge, what we ignore, what we embrace and what we don't even know.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Carbon dating and other scientific disciplines, albeit briefly is discused by Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz in his essay Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist? i posted on page one of this thread.

Feel free to dissprove any of his theorys and report back.


[edit on 9-7-2010 by Johnze]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by One Moment
 



Of course it's not that hard. Look how the re-wrote history on 9-11-01 and that was only 9 years ago.


Contrary to popular belief ...

Regardless of the "official government account" there still exists the eyewitness account of the event. There are two historically different accounts, so nothing has actually been rewritten as the eyewitness account given by the people still exists and anyone who watched the interviews on television that day is well aware of that account, it was live.


History is nothing more than His Story and for the most part, they're theories to brainwash us into thinking along a certain mindset.


What mindset would that be?


I mean, there are written texts that talk about Elves, Bigfoot, Atlantis, Giants, gods from above, Loch Ness monster etc......and what do 'we' do with that? We/they toss and dismiss them all into the 'legend/myth' pile and call it a day!


Yes, let's dismiss all the attempts done by those trying to find evidence for those things and the lack of any conclusive evidence being the reason why some don't readily accept those claims.


So? The PTB (religions too) absolutely have control as to what we acknowledge, what we ignore, what we embrace and what we don't even know.


In all honesty, that is complete bull. Another contrary to popular belief ...

No one controls what you do, say, think, act, learn, etc. unless you willfully allow them to do so. You are your own master in life unless you choose to be a slave under your own will.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Again, if people insist on claiming 300 years of European history are "missing", maybe they are looking in the wrong places.

In Europe, there is the Byzantine Empire, with records that span from 376 to 1453, uninterrupted. If the fact that the official name of it was "Eastern Roman Empire" leads some to dismiss it on first sight (since it has "Rome" in it), well that's your choice. If you don't want to see it, don't complain that it does not exist!

Also, in Europe, we have the setting up of Kingdoms in England (Or Alfred the Great, in the 9th century, was a fictitious manifestation of "Rome" too?). elsewhere we have records of Viking raids, around the same time. We have the Norman Invasion, culminating at the conquest of England (1066-1069). We have numerous monasteries (abbeys, if you prefer) throughout Europe with their records.

Just because Rome itself was largely out of the picture doesn't mean European history ceased to exist!

I won't expand outside of Europe, to China for example, for two reasons. One, I am not familiar with their historic records. Two, I don't think "Rome's" hand reached that far, back then



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
There is merit in thinking that early Medieval Europe's history is more obfuscated than we are prepared to face at first.
Ok, look at the problem from this perspective:


A Destruction or dissapearance of old structures of power
Roman centres of power were either obliterated or replaced by Church new accepted warlord combination.
B New not yet developed , mostly illeterate entities of power
It is not clear how Poland or even Russia emerged. These countries popped up in the area where the Huns were particularly strong.
The Huns came, conquered, were defeated, then disappeared.
Powerful cavalry, culture (as for Nomadic people) and nothing.
Yet, later Poland and Russia developed tradition of good even better cavalry and style which could be described as Hunnic -- mobile, quite light units capable of shooting from horseback. Lack of good infantry support.
decentralisation of power.. At the beginning. So, are the Slavs somewhat related to the Huns? In some way, they have to be. In fact if you look into history of Poland, it seems that nothing preceded Christian era in Poland?
Where those people and their power centres come from? It is unknown.
Left to some kind of manipulation. Yet, certain traits of Hunnic people's can be found in Eastern tradition and they love for "disorganized" life. Everybody wanted to live the way they liked, without obeying the authority, yet, there was no authority, kings were weak, governed "from tent" -- with no real power projection. Internal strife resulted in weakening the state to the point of breakdown. I might be ignorant and unclear, but what I can see is that in the early ages after Roman Empire collapsed the most obscure situation is in the East in the territories formerly known as Hunnic.And that is the "mother" of all confusion, as it goes for Medieval times in Eastern and even Western Europe.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnze

Carbon dating and other scientific disciplines, albeit briefly is discused by Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz in his essay Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist? i posted on page one of this thread.

Feel free to dissprove any of his theorys and report back.


He disingenuously attacks tree ring dating but ignores other stuff. Typical behaviour of the Von Daniken school.

Have you checked what he says is correct? Is there other tree ring data? And what of lakes valves?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Have you checked what he says is correct? Is there other tree ring data? And what of lakes valves?


You make a good point, but don't you mean 'varves' here? A varve is a layer of sediment deposited in lakes, especially glacial lakes, because of the freezing over every year, so they work very much like tree rings for purposes of dating. This is one 'proof.' if you will, that the Earth is a lot older than 6,000 years because varve deposits severla hundred feet thick representing tens of thousands of years have been found.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

I mean, there are written texts that talk about Elves, Bigfoot, Atlantis, Giants, gods from above, Loch Ness monster etc......and what do 'we' do with that? We/they toss and dismiss them all into the 'legend/myth' pile and call it a day!


Yes, let's dismiss all the attempts done by those trying to find evidence for those things and the lack of any conclusive evidence being the reason why some don't readily accept those claims.




The BIGGEST 'thing' people believe in is God and there's absolutely not one iota of proof what-so-ever now is there?

Fascinating. Proof is something that needs to possess an eraser.

The more we evolve the more we think we know yet it's really quite the opposite. We seem to have known a LOT more eons ago.





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join