Lost Decade, phantom time hypothesis is mind blowing

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Watch carefully. When the website settles down start to read. Watch the media. Look at the pictures. Now you tell me, what do you know about history?

(Tip: Make sure you're using an up-to-date browser, like FF or Chrome).


The Phantom Time Hypothesis, developed by Heribert Illig, proposes that error and falsification have radically distorted the historical record. In his analysis, we have dilated the course of true events, so that they appear to cover far greater lengths of time than in fact passed. The so-called dark ages, for example, only appear that way because those centuries were in fact mere decades.




Start your journey, here.


Phanton Time Conspiracy Theory for more info.

edit on 11-10-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Astronomical observance of the positions of stars now and at points matched and listed in the past with dates contradict this theory, as does radialogical dating of remains.

I'm going with science on this one.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Close readings of videos such as Eple help us trace the outlines of events that occured between February 1978 and December 15, 19831, the time span at hand (i.e. it is currently 2017 -- not 2012 -- if for the sake of illustration this period is taken to be the only "lost" span of years).


I can see a problem with this straight away. First I'm pretty sure it's not 2012 at the moment and second, that means I'm actually 39 now
No way I'm having that



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Human history is a stake here, not Earth history of which science rules the day.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 


Playing with time. Albeit a minor instance.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I really thought this thread would go a little farther... that source link is pretty interesting and mind opening especially when you play each media bit along with it.... oh well.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I like to consider myself open minded, based on the few posts I've made her that would be obvious to anyone, but this? This I really felt like I came out of it with nothing. Even if we ignore how easily disputable the entire theory is, it would have felt like a bad read anyway.

Way too much rambling going on, none of which really addresses any of the issues people should be having with what they were being told.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MCJustJ
 


Fair enough. I enjoyed it, but that's just me.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
So according to the site/article there is a missing 5(ish) years between 1978 & 1983? I think I would have noticed that I went from age 5 straight to age 10.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 


My takeaway from this story was it not only highlighted an interesting conspiracy theory, but also demonstrated one as well; a two fold mental exercise... of course five years in the late twentieth century did not disappear, but what if someone from the far future takes this story as the one source as proof of the times, and draws their conclusion from it then spreads the word? Almost like the Bible or other ancient texts that exist with no other reference from that period available, and then this written word is taken as "truth" by future generations.

We know it's a lie, but will people five hundred years from now know it's a lie, especially if all they can find from 2011 is this document?

I had fun with it.


edit on 12-10-2011 by Jason88 because: engrish



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Not going to lie, this entire post made me look at this entire topic differently specifically this part

We know it's a lie, but will people five hundred years from now know it's a lie, especially if all they can find from 2011 is this _/i]

Very VERY interesting to think about. Years down the line how will people look at this concept? I think it would be seen completely differently, for all we know at some point in time someone put forward the very same point and people went "Holy ****!" because no one was an authority on the subject.


I still stick by my original post in this topic, but was not looking at it this way when I made it. As I said before I thought this was an interesting read but near worthless without sources. I retract that statement as of right.......NOW!

I mean really, if you think about everything the TC was saying, and then put yourself into the mind/body of a person 100 years from now, think about how you would react to that statment, would you consider it hogwash, or woudl you look at it like "Maybe...." I know for certain I would.

I already took what TC with a grain of salt, but still looked at it like "hrmm..." If I hadn't been alive for the last 20+ years, I think my mind would have been blown. S&F for you.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


Thanks for this. TBH, I only have only explored your first link so far.

Over the years I've gained a vast distrust in our "official" human timeline. The "official" world series of events is the version sold in encyclopedias sold to western nations. The internet has opened up so many resources to new information. So much of our past could have easily been hidden. From childhood, we're only taught ALL history from a certain view. A decided view. But who's view?
edit on 12-10-2011 by Ghost of America because: Sorry for quoting "official" twice. It's annoying, I know...
edit on 12-10-2011 by Ghost of America because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost of America
reply to post by Jason88
 


Thanks for this. TBH, I only have only explored your first link so far.

Over the years I've gained a vast distrust in our "official" human timeline. The "official" world series of events is the version sold in encyclopedias sold to western nations. The internet has opened up so many resources to new information. So much of our past could have easily been hidden. From childhood, we're only taught ALL history from a certain view. A decided view. But who's view?
edit on 12-10-2011 by Ghost of America because: Sorry for quoting "official" twice. It's annoying, I know...
edit on 12-10-2011 by Ghost of America because: (no reason given)


It's said the winner of battle writes the history. Who really knows what's true in our past, especially the oral stories and witness accounts that science cannot prove or disprove.





top topics
 
2

log in

join