It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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
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
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by Essan
Have you checked what he says is correct? Is there other tree ring data? And what of lakes valves?
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.