rigorousintuition.ca

A lot of Fomenko's "work" is available at Google Books. I must say that I concluded rather rapidly that the man is a high-fired psychoceramic, to use one of John W. Campbell's favorite terms. His overall theme seems to be that Joseph Scaliger somehow "invented" history, with no understanding of the basis of historical chronology.

wheres the dendrochronologists when you need them?

actually managed to get 2/3rds of the way through Velikovsky's ages in chaos mmmn, 2 decades ago now, or so it seems (!!!)
- hope i dont have to plough thru that again - Jeeez, hard work....tho i think a global re-evaluation of Velikovsky could do us all good......

never did find, or evan see a copy of, 'mankind in amnesia'.......

think i've got the archive bookmarked on a previous hard drive somewhere - so much to do, so little time......

we really should form a floating freelance research institute and sell ourselves to the highest bidder whoops off topic

zangtang » Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:01 pm wrote:wheres the dendrochronologists when you need them?

actually managed to get 2/3rds of the way through Velikovsky's ages in chaos mmmn, 2 decades ago now, or so it seems (!!!)
- hope i dont have to plough thru that again - Jeeez, hard work....tho i think a global re-evaluation of Velikovsky could do us all good......

never did find, or evan see a copy of, 'mankind in amnesia'.......

think i've got the archive bookmarked on a previous hard drive somewhere - so much to do, so little time......

we really should form a floating freelance research institute and sell ourselves to the highest bidder whoops off topic

Yes, dendrochronology does in fact destroy most of these alternate timeline theories, except, of course, my own, which is based on dendrochronology and other catastrophic events.

I do have a copy of Mankind in Amnesia, for what it's worth.

And Velikovsky's long awaited second volume of Worlds in Collision is available online at Jan Sammer's website. You can keep up with a lot that is happening in the world of catastrophe theory at the Atlantipedia website of Tony O’Connell.

I should point out that Velikovsky's error was not understanding that the signs of the solar zodiac began to be associated at some point in the development of ancient astrology with the seven "planets" (the sun, the moon, and the five visible planets). What may have happened is that a particular event occurred when the sun was in a particular sign of the zodiac at the vernal equinox and was therefore associated with the planet associated with that constellation. It is also possible that the comet was in that constellation when the event occurred. In either case, the actual planet had nothing to do with the catastrophe beyond a purely symbolic connection.

many thanks for those - if i disappear for a month i'm truffling around the varchive!

your comment on 'Velikovsky's error' is ........is damning, and sounds pretty terminal - is there some concensus (amongst aficionados et al) on this,
or ist your personal take on what for me are frustratingly shifting sands?

sounds like an error fundamental enough to invalidate an entire body of work? -pretty catastrophic itself!

I have only just (no moren a month ago) got self 'earth in upheaval' - alas it is playing 2nd fiddle to Wilcock's 'source field investigations', about which much excitement (for me)

so, permission to slap self on back for intuiting that dendrochronology should be the tool (or 1st amongst equals) for herding these various anomalous timeline cats into a cohesive whole (HA!) ?
assuming, as i do, (and being unlearned in that branch (on fire man, on fire!) that you have reference points that serve as resolute & undeniable anchors on which to hang everything else ??

finally, you humbly make mere mention of your own alternate timeline?

.......pray, do tell more......one is somewhat agog!

zangtang » Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:07 am wrote:many thanks for those - if i disappear for a month i'm truffling around the varchive!

your comment on 'Velikovsky's error' is ........is damning, and sounds pretty terminal - is there some concensus (amongst aficionados et al) on this,
or ist your personal take on what for me are frustratingly shifting sands?

sounds like an error fundamental enough to invalidate an entire body of work? -pretty catastrophic itself!

I have only just (no moren a month ago) got self 'earth in upheaval' - alas it is playing 2nd fiddle to Wilcock's 'source field investigations', about which much excitement (for me)

so, permission to slap self on back for intuiting that dendrochronology should be the tool (or 1st amongst equals) for herding these various anomalous timeline cats into a cohesive whole (HA!) ?
assuming, as i do, (and being unlearned in that branch (on fire man, on fire!) that you have reference points that serve as resolute & undeniable anchors on which to hang everything else ??

finally, you humbly make mere mention of your own alternate timeline?

.......pray, do tell more......one is somewhat agog!

Thanks (for taking me seriously!). I do have a few followers and correspondents, but they are few, at least the ones who talk to me. I get a lot of hits from China, suggesting that my identification of Shao Kang with Sargon has struck a cord, but it's hard to tell. I don't hear from them.

Let's see, first, Earth in Upheaval is probably Velikovsky's best work. It is not dependent on his revised chronology and presents a lot of good evidence that the deep past wasn't quite as deep as the academic types think it was, though certainly nothing within the fundamentalist range.

Also, Livio Stecchini is worth reading. He's at Sammer's other site, Metrum.org. Stecchini's only other easily accessible work is a long appendix to Peter Tompkins' Secrets of the Great Pyramid. Stecchini was an expert in ancient geodetic science, though he began in the field of numismatics--using coins to date ancient civilizations. He finds evidence of Egyptian cartographic knowledge of the world that extended to southern Russia.

Signs of the zodiac as, basically magically associated with, signs of the zodiac is just me, though the fact itself is widely known. As an explanation of where V went wrong, the wider catastrophist community remains blissfully unaware of how ridiculous planets changing their orbits really is. This is not to say that his theory of cyclical catastrophes is wrong. It's just that the offending agent really was a comet, not a succession of planets.

Unlike guys like Velikovsky and Rohl, I didn't feel free to move large chunks of ancient history around like pieces on a chessboard. My take on the problem is at my web site. The timeline is in the yellow table. Note the prominence of tree ring minima and ice core acidity peaks. My take is that Hebrew and Egyptian timelines are, in fact, out of line, but, unlike V, it is the biblical timeline that has been artificially extended to cover a 1200 year gap between Menes (Noah) and Hammurabi (Ham). There are also, though must less common, extensions of the Egyptian timeline as received from Manetho. But, generally speaking, the accepted history is pretty good, though not perfect. The most revolutionary aspect of my own reconstruction is that the Egyptian 16th Dynasty was actually the period of the Judges, who were, in reality, a secondary Egyptian dynasty under the control of Thebes, thus explaining the lack of a Hebrew king. The religious explanation that "God" was king isn't all that far from the truth, since "God" on earth in that part of the world was the king of Egypt. And I strongly suspect that the reason Manetho's king list for that period is missing is that the Church fathers recognized those kings as the Judges and suppressed their names because they didn't fit the distorted biblical timeline.

Permission to pat yourself on the back. . Dendrochronology cannot be ignored. Where it contradicts theory, theory must be changed. The only caveat, to borrow terms from Abraham Malamat, is that the tree ring minimum may represent a single "punctual" aspect of what was in reality a "durative event" spread out over many years, if not decades.

Holy shit! That's quite a site and body of work/research you have there and that I was unaware of. Don't even know where to begin other than the above link I just read.

Edit: Ah, I get where you get your handle from after seeing your Baltimore category. My friend who I write with helped to compile:

http://monumentcity.net/baltimore-monuments/

I've never met the dude that runs the site now as my friend who took part in it now lives in Canada and of course I am in the PNW. Perhaps all y'all know each other?

just lost my 4th post in 3 days or so using the quick reply.harrumph!
recap:

thanks for that, your site bookmarked - work of a lifetime, core weighty stuff....cheers, mate! - theres another 6 months all shot to hell !!
- still, wouldnt want to die ignorant now, would we?

I do hope king Arthur doesnt turn out to be stolen lock stock form the Croatians or Latvians? - how could our cultural manhood survive !

82_28 » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:36 am wrote:Holy shit! That's quite a site and body of work/research you have there and that I was unaware of. Don't even know where to begin other than the above link I just read.

Edit: Ah, I get where you get your handle from after seeing your Baltimore category. My friend who I write with helped to compile:

http://monumentcity.net/baltimore-monuments/

I've never met the dude that runs the site now as my friend who took part in it now lives in Canada and of course I am in the PNW. Perhaps all y'all know each other?

If I didn't dislike driving downtown so much, visiting all of those monuments might be something interesting to do in retirement. I should point out that there are some amazing sculptures in Hebrew Cemetery on North Avenue. A lot of department store magnates and families buried there. Huge bronze angels and the like. I suppose I should put some photos online.

Yeah, Lord Balto was my Usenet nick, and when I got a website, originally just to have my own email system I could customize, I used it. Funny how things evolve.

You may want to begin with the Introduction, then go to whatever interests you. The chapters are more like semi-independent essays. If you see a reference you don't recognize, there's a site search on my home page.

zangtang » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:53 am wrote:just lost my 4th post in 3 days or so using the quick reply.harrumph!
recap:

thanks for that, your site bookmarked - work of a lifetime, core weighty stuff....cheers, mate! - theres another 6 months all shot to hell !!
- still, wouldnt want to die ignorant now, would we?

I do hope king Arthur doesnt turn out to be stolen lock stock form the Croatians or Latvians? - how could our cultural manhood survive !

There is some theory about that floating around but, as far as I can see, Arthur was quite real and quite Breton if not British. After all, the Saxons went to the trouble of excising 28 years from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to cover their humiliation at his hands. Of course, there's a fairly think mystical overlay to the history, which could have come from anywhere. The twelve signs of the zodiac, one of which is a virgin, arrayed around a round table and headed by an incarnation of the Sun God is fairly universal. Avalon even turns out to be a town (Avallon) in France.

Lord Balto » Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:42 pm wrote:

zangtang » Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:01 pm wrote:wheres the dendrochronologists when you need them?

actually managed to get 2/3rds of the way through Velikovsky's ages in chaos mmmn, 2 decades ago now, or so it seems (!!!)
- hope i dont have to plough thru that again - Jeeez, hard work....tho i think a global re-evaluation of Velikovsky could do us all good......

never did find, or evan see a copy of, 'mankind in amnesia'.......

think i've got the archive bookmarked on a previous hard drive somewhere - so much to do, so little time......

we really should form a floating freelance research institute and sell ourselves to the highest bidder whoops off topic

Yes, dendrochronology does in fact destroy most of these alternate timeline theories, except, of course, my own, which is based on dendrochronology and other catastrophic events.

I do have a copy of Mankind in Amnesia, for what it's worth.

And Velikovsky's long awaited second volume of Worlds in Collision is available online at Jan Sammer's website. You can keep up with a lot that is happening in the world of catastrophe theory at the Atlantipedia website of Tony O’Connell.

I should point out that Velikovsky's error was not understanding that the signs of the solar zodiac began to be associated at some point in the development of ancient astrology with the seven "planets" (the sun, the moon, and the five visible planets). What may have happened is that a particular event occurred when the sun was in a particular sign of the zodiac at the vernal equinox and was therefore associated with the planet associated with that constellation. It is also possible that the comet was in that constellation when the event occurred. In either case, the actual planet had nothing to do with the catastrophe beyond a purely symbolic connection.

Just for the record, these are the "planetary" world ages as listed by Velikovsky and De Grazia, the latter a well respected social scientist, and the much more complete mythological sequence from which they were extracted. The chart is from Origins of the Tarot Deck:



I probably should have included the signs of the solar zodiac in my original chart, making it clearer where Velikovsky's error occurred. For alignment purposes, the Emperor of the tarot deck is Leo, more specifically Regulus, the Little King. Orion is missing from the sequence, though it appears rather prominently in the lunar zodiacs of India and China. The first 12 tarot trumps are the closest of all of these lists to representing the actual twelve signs of the zodiac and the twelve months of the solar year. This alignment would have been valid at the end of the Age of Taurus, about 4200 years ago, when Maia in the Pleiades marked the vernal equinox.

His - story not His -truth or His -facts.

lucky » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:33 am wrote:His - story not His -truth or His -facts.

I sometimes suspect that some people actually think that history means "his story." It does not. From Merriam Webster:

"Latin historia from Greek, inquiry, history, from histor, istor, knowing, learned, akin to Greek eidenai to know ...."

Lord Balto » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:17 pm wrote:

zangtang » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:53 am wrote:just lost my 4th post in 3 days or so using the quick reply.harrumph!
recap:

thanks for that, your site bookmarked - work of a lifetime, core weighty stuff....cheers, mate! - theres another 6 months all shot to hell !!
- still, wouldnt want to die ignorant now, would we?

I do hope king Arthur doesnt turn out to be stolen lock stock form the Croatians or Latvians? - how could our cultural manhood survive !

There is some theory about that floating around but, as far as I can see, Arthur was quite real and quite Breton if not British. After all, the Saxons went to the trouble of excising 28 years from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to cover their humiliation at his hands. Of course, there's a fairly think mystical overlay to the history, which could have come from anywhere. The twelve signs of the zodiac, one of which is a virgin, arrayed around a round table and headed by an incarnation of the Sun God is fairly universal. Avalon even turns out to be a town (Avallon) in France.

The most common version of 11-guys-and-a-virgin-around-a-table is Leonardo's Last Supper in which one can find all manner of hidden data.



Leonardo, of course, had to be mindful of the very real possibility of being burned at the stake if he made his understanding of the mythos too obvious.

Lord Balto » Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:48 am wrote:

lucky » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:33 am wrote:His - story not His -truth or His -facts.

I sometimes suspect that some people actually think that history means "his story." It does not. From Merriam Webster:

"Latin historia from Greek, inquiry, history, from histor, istor, knowing, learned, akin to Greek eidenai to know ...."

Your larger point about folk etymology stands, and I suspect lucky was being glib anyway, but for the record, story and history derive from the same root and (reportedly) weren't even distinguished until 500 years ago:

The Online Etymology Dictionary wrote:story (n.1)
"connected account or narration of some happening," c.1200, originally "narrative of important events or celebrated persons of the past," from Old French estorie, estoire "story, chronicle, history," from Late Latin storia, shortened from Latin historia "history, account, tale, story" (see history). Meaning "recital of true events" first recorded late 14c.; sense of "narrative of fictitious events meant to entertain" is from c.1500. Not differentiated from history till 1500s.

history (n.)
late 14c., "relation of incidents" (true or false), from Old French estoire, estorie "chronicle, history, story" (12c., Modern French histoire), from Latin historia "narrative of past events, account, tale, story," from Greek historia "a learning or knowing by inquiry; an account of one's inquiries, history, record, narrative," from historein "inquire," from histor "wise man, judge," from PIE *wid-tor-, from root *weid- "to know," literally "to see" (see vision).

Related to Greek idein "to see," and to eidenai "to know." In Middle English, not differentiated from story; sense of "record of past events" probably first attested late 15c.

(cf. contemporary French "histoire", which to my knowledge still retains both meanings)

Joao » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:18 pm wrote:

Lord Balto » Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:48 am wrote:

lucky » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:33 am wrote:His - story not His -truth or His -facts.

I sometimes suspect that some people actually think that history means "his story." It does not. From Merriam Webster:

"Latin historia from Greek, inquiry, history, from histor, istor, knowing, learned, akin to Greek eidenai to know ...."

Your larger point about folk etymology stands, and I suspect lucky was being glib anyway, but for the record, story and history derive from the same root and (reportedly) weren't even distinguished until 500 years ago:

The Online Etymology Dictionary wrote:story (n.1)
"connected account or narration of some happening," c.1200, originally "narrative of important events or celebrated persons of the past," from Old French estorie, estoire "story, chronicle, history," from Late Latin storia, shortened from Latin historia "history, account, tale, story" (see history). Meaning "recital of true events" first recorded late 14c.; sense of "narrative of fictitious events meant to entertain" is from c.1500. Not differentiated from history till 1500s.

history (n.)
late 14c., "relation of incidents" (true or false), from Old French estoire, estorie "chronicle, history, story" (12c., Modern French histoire), from Latin historia "narrative of past events, account, tale, story," from Greek historia "a learning or knowing by inquiry; an account of one's inquiries, history, record, narrative," from historein "inquire," from histor "wise man, judge," from PIE *wid-tor-, from root *weid- "to know," literally "to see" (see vision).

Related to Greek idein "to see," and to eidenai "to know." In Middle English, not differentiated from story; sense of "record of past events" probably first attested late 15c.

(cf. contemporary French "histoire", which to my knowledge still retains both meanings)

In both cases, Merriam Webster (this is the dictionary used by most American editors): knowing, learned; and your internet pastiche: "inquire," from histor "wise man, judge"; the original meaning has to do with wisdom and knowledge and not with any kind of story in the modern sense of the word. My real point, however, was that the notion that history has to do with an account of what men have done, as opposed to what women have done, is bogus, specifically the notion that the "his" in history really has the meaning of the pronoun his. Beyond that, historians have always used their craft to describe the actions of both men and women. The account by Diodorus of the activities of the Amazons is a case in point. There was no attempt to exclude these events because the main actors were women.

If there are more men in "history" than women, it is because the events described by historians more often involve the activities of men than of women. One can complain about the origins of this fact, including the exclusion of many women from the centers of power, but one cannot ascribe this situation to the historians or some vague notion that they have conspired to leave out the contributions of women.

On a more basic level, I seriously doubt whether the Classical Greeks could easily wrap their brains around the very notion of fiction, or even of metaphor. All of these derivations involve very real events and not made-up accounts. Though we may automatically see the Odyssey as a partially or mainly fictional story, the Greeks listening to a poet recite his epic may very well have taken it quite literally. This goes for such religious performances as those recounted by the authors of the Christian Gospels, which show every evidence of being based upon differing versions of a Greek play, written by a Greek playwright, performed by Greek actors, in front of a Greek audience in a Greek amphitheater, about a semi-mythical character called IE-Zeus, IE being the name chiseled over the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, and Zeus being the Greek sun god. I say "semi-mythical" because Minos/Menes/Manu/Noah/Nohas/Manoah clearly had a father, though almost certainly not the thermonuclear reaction known to us as the sun.