Sorry to interrupt...this will only take a moment.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
Because you have viewed at least a few articles now...
Can you give a small donation to keep us online?
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
The cost of keeping it running are considerable.
If you can spare a few dollars it would help us enormously.
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
×
×
Experimental Feature

Select 'Atmospheric Audio' from the Audio menu to add subtle background audio to certain portions of the article.

The Phantom Time Hypothesis

Article #41 • Written by Alan Bellows

When Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz introduces his paper on the "phantom time hypothesis," he kindly asks his readers to be patient, benevolent, and open to radically new ideas, because his claims are highly unconventional. This is because his paper is suggesting three difficult-to-believe propositions: 1) Hundreds of years ago, our calendar was polluted with 297 years which never occurred; 2) this is not the year 2005, but rather 1708; and 3) The purveyors of this hypothesis are not crackpots.

The Phantom Time Hypothesis suggests that the early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D.) never happened, but were added to the calendar long ago either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents, or by deliberate falsification by calendar conspirators. This would mean that all artifacts ascribed to those three centuries belong to other periods, and that all events thought to have occurred during that same period occurred at other times, or are outright fabrications. For instance, a man named Heribert Illig (pictured), one of the leading proponents of the theory, believes that Charlemagne was a fictional character. But what evidence is this outlandish theory based upon?

It seems that historians are plagued by a plethora of falsified documents from the Middle Ages, and such was the subject of an archaeological conference in München, Germany in 1986. In his lecture there, Horst Fuhrmann, president of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, described how some documents forged by the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages were created hundreds of years before their "great moments" arrived, after which they were embraced by medieval society. This implied that whomever produced the forgeries must have very skillfully anticipated the future... or there was some discrepancy in calculating dates.

This was reportedly the first bit of evidence that roused Illig's curiosity... he wondered why the church would have forged documents hundreds of years before they would become useful. So he and his group examined other fakes from preceding centuries, and they "divined chronological distortions." This led them to investigate the origin of the Gregorian calendar, which raised even more inconsistency.

In 1582, the Gregorian calendar we still use today was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII to replace the outdated Julian calendar which had been implemented in 45 BC. The Gregorian calendar was designed to correct for a ten-day discrepancy caused by the fact that the Julian year was 10.8 minutes too long. But by Heribert Illig's math, the 1,627 years which had passed since the Julian calendar started should have accrued a thirteen-day discrepancy... a ten-day error would have only taken 1,257 years.

So Illig and his group went hunting for other gaps in history, and found a few... for example, a gap of building in Constantinople (558 AD - 908 AD) and a gap in the doctrine of faith, especially the gap in the evolution of theory and meaning of purgatory (600 AD until ca. 1100). From all of this data, they have become convinced that at some time, the calendar year was increased by 297 years without the corresponding passage of time.

Sometimes a hypothesis which challenges convention can be alluring, particularly when it seems to fit most of the facts... but as Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It seems to me that all of the evidence provided by Illig and his group is circumstantial, and their conclusions misguided. The hypothesis does raise some interesting questions and point out some inconsistencies in history, but to jump to such an outlandish conclusion indicates an unscientific approach to the problem.

Not only that, but their suggestions for the possible motives behind the calendar-changing conspiracy border on ridiculous. For instance, the first hypothesis they put forward is that Otto III modified the calendar in order to reign in the year 1000 AD, because this suited his understanding of Christian milleniarism.

I consider myself a rather open-minded chap, and I researched this hypothesis with unbiased curiosity when I first learned of it. Granted, most of the materials regarding this theory are written in German and have not been translated into English, so there may be more specific arguments for the hypothesis than those available to me. But from what I can tell, this theory has no basis in fact.

Article written by Alan Bellows, published on 04 November 2005. Alan is the founder/designer/head writer/managing editor of Damn Interesting.

For more science, history, and psychology, follow us:
SHARE

More Information
Related Articles


132 Comments
JustAnotherName
Posted 05 November 2005 at 05:35 am

Although I believe it is important to know of other theories and movements propounded through the centuries and feel that analyzing them can provide some valid information, I have already come to the conclusion this group is no more than intelligent blithering idiots. I know their type. I have a brother much like the so-and-so pictured above.


Alan Bellows
Posted 05 November 2005 at 10:24 am

JustAnotherName said: "I have already come to the conclusion this group is no more than intelligent blithering idiots. I know their type."

Forgive me, but to judge anyone (or their ideas) based on their perceived "type" seems to be the polar opposite of open-mindedness. Don't you think it's better to stick with the facts, and judge the theory indepedently of the man? He is asking important questions, even if he's mistaken about the answer.


Godrock
Posted 05 November 2005 at 10:40 am

Important questions considered, one must arrive at the "what if". What if what they are hypothesyzing is at least well founded, if not particularly accurate.

...and what if I could blow cheeze balls out me bum?


Schroedinger
Posted 05 November 2005 at 03:24 pm

I would ask if carbon dating applies to art works, then the Medieval Period did, indeed, exist..this dating serves as an excellent reference point.....I would add that Allan Bellows is quite correct: Illig does raise some important points-nevermind the man......... if he is correct, he certainly deserves our respect.


Schroedinger
Posted 05 November 2005 at 03:25 pm

What am I saying!! Carbon dating....Does exist!! at least according to the knowledge base of our 21st century........


Alan Bellows
Posted 05 November 2005 at 04:24 pm

Schroedinger said: "I would ask if carbon dating applies to art works, then the Medieval Period did, indeed, exist."

Illig, and those who subscribe to his theory, point out that carbon dating only indicates the approximate age of the item, not its calendar year. So if carbon dating indicates that an item is about 2000 years old, Illig would say that the item came from about 295BC rather than 5 AD.

Crazy? Depends on who you ask. I don't buy it based on the evidence Illig uses, but I don't completely discount the possibility that a few extra years have been slipped into the calendar at some point. I hold it in doubt, but I try to keep my mind open to possibilities.


Schroedinger
Posted 06 November 2005 at 11:20 am

Allan: carbon dating can come to an approximation within a couple of hudred years.....so, if the Medieval period lasted about 3-400 years, one could suppose the method would be accurate.....like you, I have an open mind and value this trait tremendously-there are plainly ludicrous suppositions( such as the sun revolving around the earth); Illig's merit more than that adjective, I think......


marlond
Posted 07 November 2005 at 08:58 am

What a chilly reception! Don't get your fingers near all those minds snapping shut. A good test of this hypothesis is to carefully compare several civilization's calendars for the period of the first millennium and once an agreement has been made, THEN compare that body of dates to OUR western calendar.

If all 'primitive' (i.e. non-christian calendar-using) civilizations have no events to correspond to that period, well then it would be time to take another look at our beliefs about what happened during our 'dark ages'.


Sterling
Posted 07 November 2005 at 02:51 pm

I don’t completely discount the possibility that a few extra years have been slipped into the calendar at some point.

I don't think anyone would seriously contest the possibility that we may be missing or adding a few years here or there. It's why so many dates in history are marked "circa" or "about", and of course the Gregorian Calendar was not adopted uniformly by all nations, I believe Russia was the last large Christian-tradition nation to adopt it - after the Bolshevik Revolution. So there's a ten or eleven day fuzzy period for dates between 1582 and 1919; historians often must doublecheck dated documents during that period to figure which dating standard was being used, if the document does not so indicate.

In most cases we're talking about an error of a few days, at most a few years. It should go without saying that such dating errors are usually the result of error. Malice or conspiracy are fairly rare.

The idea that there was a conspiracy to add three centuries to the historical record is absurd. Its primary error is in mistaking quantity for quality - yes, there is a relative dearth of historical documentation for the period in question. But there is not a total dearth, and the dearth is not universal but mainly focused on Europe. We have a documented chronology, not just of Western materials but also of documents of Chinese and Muslim extraction. And then there are astronomical records, which would seem to be incontrovertible.


nicolay77
Posted 07 November 2005 at 06:56 pm

I believe that the lost years could perfectly be true.

However in this world this is totally irrelevant. Remember all the fuzz about the year 2000 ??? This is far more complex to address. This is about databases. They are far more important that history records right now, at least economically. No one will change them to another date even if all this is proved true. Millions and million dollars wasted innecesarily. They will even pay studies to prove this theory false if they consider it necessary to protect their investment.

And there are other calendars. Chinese calendar comes to mind. We can try to correlate events with boths calendars to see other discrepancies.


JustAnotherName
Posted 08 November 2005 at 05:59 am

Alan Bellows said: "Forgive me, but to judge anyone (or their ideas) based on their perceived “type” seems to be the polar opposite of open-mindedness. Don’t you think it’s better to stick with the facts, and judge the theory indepedently of the man? He is asking important questions, even if he’s mistaken about the answer."

No.


MoogleYuna
Posted 08 November 2005 at 06:29 am

It's interesting that this man has such a theory, because certain parts of Terry Pratchett's book 'The Thief of Time' have hypotheses such as 'History Monks' borrowing long periods of time during the middle ages (when nothing very much was happening) and using them at a time when things got busy......


marlond
Posted 08 November 2005 at 06:53 am

On second thought, what Sterling said.


haydesigner
Posted 08 November 2005 at 07:03 pm

Well, if it is 1708, then carbon dating does not exist yet, so it can not prove anything. Geez, do I have to explain everything?


JustAnotherName
Posted 09 November 2005 at 06:03 am

marlond said: "On second thought, what Sterling said."

Okie dokie. I gave you an out. Here we go. Remember, KEEP AN OPEN MIND.

I KNOW this man is wrong due to Bible Prophecy. As a Jehovah's Witness, I am thoroughly learned in the Bible as well as Bible Prophecy. Bible prophecy is given in many, many forms in the Bible. The most outstanding are those built on the very well known to Ancient Jews as the counting of "Times"; Time, Times, Half a Time, Days of years and so on. That is why the Nation of Israel as well as the Samaritans who were despised by the Jews (Look up John 1:40,41; John 4:7-42 {verse 25,26 and 42 being most pertinent} and Pagan Nations around them KNEW when the Messiah was going to appear, they had the calculated number of years based on 30 day LUNAR months. And while this is just fine for prophecy, it does not do well for true calculating of time. LUNAR months were also sufficient for harvesting and celebrations meaningful to Ancient Jews.

For instance, a very important Jewish Holiday just passed where they believe Adam was created (please forgive me if I am incorrect with the year, I did not memorize it as it has nothing to do with REAL TIME) 5,177 years ago as they base this on Lunar months and years consisting of, I believe, 360 days. Actually, it is 6,030 years ago. We know this, relying on the Gregorian Calendar (silly of us) and utilizing TWO pivotal dates where Bible events and history agree ocurred; 539 BCE is the year when Persian Kung Cyrus overthrew Babylon. In 537 BCE a Jewish remnant arrived at their homeland. THAT marked the end of the prophsied 70 desolation which began 607 BCE. Hold on, I am not done.

In 455 BCE the order to rebuild Jerusalem was issued. A Bible account that is also documented in history.

So, by utilizing these dates (539 BCE and 455 BCE as pivotol as Bible and History agree) and the tremendous task that not only has been thoroughly researched by the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses but by many, many Bible Scholars, you can count back to the "date" Adam was created. 4026 BCE. The Bible has painstakingly recorded years by either stating the passing of years OR who was reigning as King or Prefect here and there for so many years. Moving forward and utilizing Bible prophecy of Times, Time and the above already stated; in the case of the Messiah 483 years after 455 BCE brings you to 29 CE. (Remember, NO ZERO YEAR) Jesus was Baptized at age 30 which marked the Messiah's arrival.

Then, comes the prophecy that brings us to our day. The year 1914. 2520 years after 607 BCE.

Now, many can argue that we are blithering idiots, a cult, Bible Thumpers and the like. However, I can assure you due to the amount of years that have passed based on Bible Prophecy, there are NO MISSING YEARS OR CENTURIES. The only, and I mean ONLY missing anything Bible Scholars counting and counting ever come up with is "a missing day." Joshua 10:12, 13b ("b" meaning drop down to the latter part of this scripture) states: It was then Joshua proceeded to speak to Jehovah on the day of Jehovah's abandoning the Amorites to the sons of Israel, and he went on to say before the eyes of Israel: "Sun, be motionless over Gibeon, And moon, over the low plain of Ai'ja-lon. ...And the sun kept standing still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for about a whole day.

Now, to address the issue of the Dark Ages and centuries not even passing and so on, all I can say is if you count the years in the prophecy, you WILL come to 1914 which had serious global ramifications. WWI.

There was some tinkering with the calendar. It is VERY WELL documented, in history and the churches, that Jesus was born October 1st or 2nd (we usually just say October 1st but we do realize there is a "missing day") not December 25th. Many of you may already know this; it is becoming common knowledge. There were some changes with the calendar for certain; but more for celebrations and so on. Really, how could EASTER always be on a SUNDAY when it is meant to celebrate Jesus' ressurection. Well, I assume it just makes it easier for the Churches and everyone else to do it on a Sunday instead of keeping up with the calendar.

This is an OVERVIEW only. It can only explain to you why "I" and all Jehovah's Witnesses would find this man and the group who are doing very hard and no doubt well meaning research to be garbage not worth condsidering. We have already PROVEN to ourselves there are no missing years let alone centuries.

Now, KEEP AN OPEN MIND and the next JW that is at your door, or one you work with, or there is a family member that is a JW or you know a friends' cousins' inlaw is one, ask him or her about the date of 1914. You will make their day and possibly several one hour a week visits for a few weeks, as I am sure, as it did all JW's and those who just wanted to know, it takes a bit of Biblical and Historical research to understand the counting of prophetic years and the significance of 1914.

Sorry if I have overstayed my Welcome on this particular subject. I will NOT be posting or reading on this subject again. See you on another article.


Alan Bellows
Posted 09 November 2005 at 09:40 am

Citing scriptures to disprove a scientific theory? Oy.

I think, perhaps, you need to take your own advice regarding an open mind.


rp2
Posted 09 November 2005 at 10:28 am

Sorry everyone, its all my fault. I went back in time and pulled a prank.

21st century.. hah, you people are funny


marlond
Posted 09 November 2005 at 01:37 pm

Actually, JustAnotherName has a point. More specifically his mention of the Jewish calendar which has been calculated, maintained and celebrated independently from the christian calendar and the vatican. Any discrepancy would surely be revealed by comparing the two. Oy indeed!


ecthelion
Posted 12 November 2005 at 05:46 pm

While JustAnotherName might have a point, he also says "We have already PROVEN to ourselves there are no missing years let alone centuries." The silly Jehovah's Witnesses have apparently become the most intelligent people on earth, I suppose. Nothing has been proven as of yet. It is quite possible that centuries were added to the history books and fictional characters conjured up, and it is just as likely that none of that really happened.

In the major Japanese mythological texts, the Nihongi and Shojiki (not sure about the name of the second one), it has been definitively demonstrated (by cr0ss-referencing with Korean and Chinese historical texts and records) that historians in Japan fabricated mythological characters, passing them off as history. Often, historical characters were split into separate personalities in the text to make up for missing years in timelines (there are definable gaps during alleged timelines in those texts). Not only that, they claim that a Japanese civilization colonized a small section of land in southern Korea in the 4th century AD.

First of all, not only did the Japanese at the time not have the technology and means to invade and hold a territory (horses and bronze/iron swords were introduced into Japan from Korea around that time - given the fact that these were in Korea and China far longer than they had been in Japan, it would be impossible for the Japanese to gain that kind of proficiency in that single century to defeat established powers), their sailing technology was far inferior to anything the Chinese or Koreans had at the time (mind you, this is the 300's and 400's we're talking about here, not the Middle Ages - samurai and ninja would not exist for at least another 700 years, and the Japanese had quite a primitive civilization composed of locally-governed towns compared to their neighbors to its east). The point of this little digression is that after the Korean kingdom allied to the Japanese state (Yamato-Wa) at the time (there is significant evidence that the Japanese state was founded by a Korean regent from this very Korean kingdom of Paekche), for political regions, scribes and scholars were tasked to re-write (or write for the first time) the history of Japan while "smearing" their now-enemies to the east in Korea (the Shilla kingdom) which had defeated the Korean kingdom from which the Japanese royal court (and many of the Japanese aristocracy) descended.

I think you can see where I'm going with this. If not, I'll continue: what I am trying to get at is that history (including dates, times, events, and even people and places) is subject to the dominant power at the time it was written. It is not inconceivable that kingdoms and the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages saw it politically and socially feasible to task the monks (who were really the only class of people for whom literacy was widespread) to the recording of history as the Church or a particular kingdom or royal family saw fit. Given the fact that records in the past were rare and largely inaccessible to the public (and often the higher-up as well) except perhaps as second- or third-hand stories, it is more than possible that these tales may have been woven into history to strengthen a particular faction's support base, and in order to make the stories fit chronologically, it might have been prudent to manipulate the recording of time here and there. Then again, it is also possible (as most people would like to believe) that none of this really went on at all to the extent suggested in the Middle Ages - all I have to say is this: if manipulation of recorded time in history happened in East Asia (i.e. Japan, but the Japanese are probably not the only ones guilty of this), why not in Europe? In the Japanese chronicles, mere days and a year here and there are not actually accurately dealt with; the manipulations were of decades-long generations and cycles of 30 or more years.

I'm not nearly done with what I can say about this off the top of my head, but I think I've made it clear that it is rather foolish to take sides on what is yet amorphous subject matter.


ecthelion
Posted 12 November 2005 at 05:47 pm

Gaa. I keep saying Korea and China are Japan's neighbors to the east. I mean "west."


ecthelion
Posted 12 November 2005 at 05:49 pm

Whoa, I'm noticing a great number of sentences (actually one so far) that makes no sense. I'll quote the entire paragraph as it should be:

"First of all, not only did the Japanese at the time not have the technology and means to invade and hold a territory (horses and bronze/iron swords were introduced into Japan from Korea around that time - given the fact that these were in Korea and China far longer than they had been in Japan, it would be impossible for the Japanese to gain that kind of proficiency in that single century to defeat established powers), their sailing technology was far inferior to anything the Chinese or Koreans had at the time (mind you, this is the 300’s and 400’s we’re talking about here, not the Middle Ages - samurai and ninja would not exist for at least another 700 years, and the Japanese had quite a primitive civilization composed of locally-governed towns compared to their neighbors to its east). The point of this little digression is that after the Korean kingdom allied to the Japanese state (Yamato-Wa) at the time (there is significant evidence that the Japanese state was founded by a Korean regent from this very Korean kingdom of Paekche) fell, for political regions, scribes and scholars were tasked to re-write (or write for the first time) the history of Japan while “smearing” their now-enemies to the east in Korea (the Shilla kingdom) which had defeated the Korean kingdom from which the Japanese royal court (and many of the Japanese aristocracy) descended."

There, that should do it for now.


ngant17
Posted 01 January 2006 at 12:21 pm

The Julian Day Number (JDN) eliminates the need to deal with time in terms of years.

To say there is a discrepancy of ~300 years is to say that over 10ok days of the JDN do not exist.

If today, 1 Jan 2006, is JDN 2453737, how can you convince all the astronomers that today is really JDN 2353737 instead?

If I were to measure time more accurately, I would think that a simple serial number like the JDN would be more useful than using Gregorian-based year counts.

If 100K of JDNs do not exist, can it be proven by astronomical observation?


IknowIknowNothing
Posted 30 January 2006 at 12:03 pm

So, in reading the, shall we say, vivacious posts this article has inspired, my curiosity is peaked. I know JustAnotherName is done with this subject, but maybe someone else will know....

How do Witnesses explain human beings' existence on earth for many, many, many times (depending on the findings) the equivalence of time that their research purports that humans have been around (if we are to assume that no humans could have existed prior to Adam's birth...because he was the first human being, correct?)?
Do JW's (ooh, I'm using the lingo!) consider the original owners of the fossilized skeletons to have been non-human, and the ancient cave artists to be of another species? And if so, who created them? This is a very interesting topic. Feed my curiosity, Seymore!


Fiskhus Jim
Posted 09 February 2006 at 03:48 pm

There are a couple of salient points of import that lead me to keep an open mind (at least) on the validity of this hypothesis:

1) the fact that the majority of historians are adamant that the hypothesis is wrong. Specialists can certainly be correct when assessing the work of others in their field. However, I am reminded, particularly, of the "fight" between the "new" theory of heliobacterial ulcers and those who supported the "acid" theory of ulcers ( and who were awarded Nobels for their erroneous work).

and 2) the parallel discovery of missing time in Islamic archaeonomies cited in Niemitz's paper.


Fiskhus Jim
Posted 17 February 2006 at 03:11 pm

Just wanted to add another example of an exploded status quo - John Bahcall's 40-year struggle to have the physics establishment accept the truth of his measurement of solar neutrinos.

It always takes at least one generation, and sometimes 2, for the status quo to accept its own fallibility. That's why Moses kept the Habiru out in the desert for 40 years - it took that long for them to accept "I AM" as God in preference to their Egyptian idols.


godsgrandson
Posted 16 March 2006 at 02:34 am

It has to be siad, I used to quite enjoy JustAnotherName's point of view - bizarre though it frequently has been. However, he really has lot all credibility on this one. I'm not inclined to believe that this loss of years is true, but I'm more than willing to be wrong. Let's face it, anything before 1979 (my birthyear) I can't guarantee happened in the way they tell me. But I do tend to believe it.


Dean Booth
Posted 15 April 2006 at 10:31 am

Dendrochronology, dating by comparing tree rings, has established chronologies going bact 9,000 years, and has been used to calibrate carbon dating. There's not much chance they've miscounted the tree rings. How do you like those apples, Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz? :)


justdig
Posted 15 April 2006 at 05:22 pm

Um, Dean, please do tell how dating an object would refute the idea that we've been put forward a few years too many.

Let's take Artifact A, which we somehow have dated, with incredible accuracy, to be exactly 1000 years old. Currently we'd believe that to be from the eyar 1006AD, because 2006-1000 = 1006. However, that result is only based on the assumption that our year is indeed actually 2006. To then use that to try to disprove his hypothesis is obviously reciprocal.

The only way that knowing the exact age of something would help would be if we also knew its exact calendar date, and that that date could not have been editted. So, if we opened an air-tight tomb and found a tree-trunk with a date scratched in the wall nearby, perhaps we'd have some solid proof. Without something of that kind (obviously it was a bit of an exaggeration, and I don't deny the possibility that such evidence does exist, or indeed is well known... but as of yet nothing's been presented here) you can be as sure as you like about your dating method, it doesn't make any difference at all.

And JAN, I don't see what keeping an "open mind" has to do with accepting your evidence. It is vitally flawed in that it makes 2 large assumptions- firstly, you're assuming that the prophecy, when made, didn't take into account our incorrect calendars. That may sound a little dodgy to you, so there's also the second assumption- that nothing world-shatteringly important will happen in the year 2211 (or the actual 1914 if this hypothesis is correct)

Not that I'm saying I agree with this hypothesis, actually I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to bother looking into it further, and so will remain undecided.


JJ
Posted 18 May 2006 at 05:38 pm

As a reply to JustAnotherName, this is just the way I view it, the proof is taken from a religious book. Well not proof, but I don't know of another word for it. If you understand me, there is no way to prove that the text is true.


hal
Posted 23 May 2006 at 07:29 pm

In 1582, the Gregorian calendar we still use today was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII to replace the outdated Julian calendar which had been implemented in 45 BC. The Gregorian calendar was designed to correct for a ten-day discrepancy caused by the fact that the Julian year was 10.8 minutes too long. But by Heribert Illig's math, the 1,627 years which had passed since the Julian calendar started should have accrued a thirteen-day discrepancy… a ten-day error would have only taken 1,257 years.

Uh....

Only 1257 years did pass.

They weren't trying to correct for driftage since the Julian Calendar started being used; they were trying to correct for driftage since the rules for determining the date of Easter were created.

That was at the Council of Nicea.

Which was in 325 AD.

Which was 1257 years before 1582.

Which was the year in which the Gregorian Calendar was started.

Yes, in the 1600+ years between the start of the Julian and the start of the Gregorian, there was a drift of 13 days or so. But this was not the drift that they were concerned with when they spoke of the 10 day drift.

This guy is mixing apples and oranges. I am, frankly, finding it difficult to believe that he doesn't realize that he's doing so.

It's almost inconceivable that, during the course of his research, he would not have run into the fact that they were correcting for driftage since Nicea, not driftage since Caesar.

This guy is intentionally bullshitting.


rezophonic
Posted 06 June 2006 at 08:03 am

Firstly, if you ask me, JAN gives a bad name to Witnesses (mind you, I am not a JW myself). It's not very Christian (of any sort) to abandon humility and restraint in an argument and so strongly assert that what one believes is right. Secondly, it's obviously the Catholics' fault anyway. Furthermore, carbon dating shows the age of something, and the theory here goes far enough to suggest that the artifacts we're carbon dating are from other times while still being the same age (mind you again, I'm not supporting the theory, either). Lastly, I think the real issue here reflects what ecthelion ranted about the Japanese (although he didn't explicitly say): the date is just a number of no real, universal significance, so we should be concerned about the events that happened. So long as we can figure out what happened (granted there's something to be said in knowing when and especially what order), there's really no reason to be attacking the modern assumption of what year this currently is, except for sh**s and giggles, like when I decided (in my more rebellious years) that the calendar had no real significance, so I replaced October by extending September for 61 days. In short, is this guy trying to argue that we should be checking our history, or just that the year is really 1708?


jlsilo
Posted 15 June 2006 at 10:21 pm

I see a lot of people identifying the time period as merely Middle Ages. It clearly says Early Middle Ages, not the entire era that includes the other two time periods. There is a stark contrast between Early, High, and Late Middle Ages.


TanoPrime
Posted 22 June 2006 at 09:49 am

To "JustAnotherName" :

1. Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... ha... I used to play with JW like you when little... it always amazed me how unbelievably naive they could be... What amazes me most is that some were normal, even intelligent people - not the sort you would have expected to be cattle.

I tend to blame the parents - i really think JW's and other fanatical cultists should be supervised by the appropriate institutions while raising their kids, at least while the children reach adolescence, and are not that easily influenced - although the danger of becoming the plague that their parents are is still present...
Damn this world is going straight down...

2. The bible doesn't take into context the Middle Ages. This article is about some years that we're introduced during the Early Middle Ages.

Not taking into consideration that the bible is mostly BS, laced with some morals (if you only look to the surface - don't look deeper, it's ugly), anecdotes, and other irrelevant man-invented stuff, even if it were true, it only takes into account the start of the world, some stuff afterwards, the life of Jesus, some little stuff afterwards, and the Apocalypse.

It says nothing about the Middle Ages - so you couldn't base your opinion on the bible even if it were a true text. Whitch, even thinking about the possibility almost made me fall out of my chair from laughing...


Filoviridae
Posted 23 June 2006 at 08:28 am

Schroedinger said: "I would ask if carbon dating applies to art works, then the Medieval Period did, indeed, exist..this dating serves as an excellent reference point…..I would add that Allan Bellows is quite correct: Illig does raise some important points-nevermind the man……… if he is correct, he certainly deserves our respect."

Now that would be an interesting article. There have been more than a few arguments against the accuracy of carbon dating.


Filoviridae
Posted 23 June 2006 at 08:32 am

TanoPrime said: "To "JustAnotherName" :

1. Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… ha… I used to play with JW like you when little… it always amazed me how unbelievably naive they could be… What amazes me most is that some were normal, even intelligent people - not the sort you would have expected to be cattle.

I tend to blame the parents - i really think JW's and other fanatical cultists should be supervised by the appropriate institutions while raising their kids, at least while the children reach adolescence, and are not that easily influenced - although the danger of becoming the plague that their parents are is still present…

Damn this world is going straight down…

2. The bible doesn't take into context the Middle Ages. This article is about some years that we're introduced during the Early Middle Ages.

Not taking into consideration that the bible is mostly BS, laced with some morals (if you only look to the surface - don't look deeper, it's ugly), anecdotes, and other irrelevant man-invented stuff, even if it were true, it only takes into account the start of the world, some stuff afterwards, the life of Jesus, some little stuff afterwards, and the Apocalypse.

It says nothing about the Middle Ages - so you couldn't base your opinion on the bible even if it were a true text. Whitch, even thinking about the possibility almost made me fall out of my chair from laughing…"

Quite full of yourself. Feel free to back up your claims with your own research. I'm pretty sure that JW's don't exactly fall into the 'cattle' category. If you'd actually spent some time with any you'd find that they're generally well educated people who have taken the time to do the research on their own. Much more so than token Sunday service and completely blind faith like others.

Next time why don't you both try to keep it on topic. Keep religious discussion where they should be and keep your misguided hatemongering to yourself.


elifint
Posted 06 August 2006 at 08:39 pm

Wow. This sure did raise a lot of silly argument.

Look at multiple calendars from different cultures. Assess quality of record keeping in each case (discrepancies of a few years are to be expected). Correlate events that cross cultural lines (eclipses (which you can also calculate directly), wars, large-scale natural disasters, etc.).

That's all you have to do. All this talk of bible prophecy etc. is perfectly irrelevant.


tcement
Posted 07 September 2006 at 10:43 am

Clearly this is nothing but another part of the universal cover-up (UCU). Like Kurt Vonnegut and Kilgore Trout. Fake exposes of semi-fictions concocted to confuse.

I am told that I was born in 1943. I DO NOT remember any such occurrence. Ergo, 1943 is a lie. I DO remember things that happened in 1947. Ergo, 1947 is true. At least the parts I remember.

The UCUists would have me believe that people, places and events that I do not know, I have not been and I have not experienced actually exist! What “proof” do they offer? Books, “history”, PBS. Very convenient. Very convincing. Very untrue!

It takes but a dab of imagination to concoct a personal fiction that can either agree with or contradict “reality”. I can remember things that I know happened. I can as easily remember things that I know did not happen. I can “recast” and rewrite things that I experienced, changing dramatis personae and events as I choose.

The UCUists even try to instill the ultimate illusion: I exist. If so, I would ask them if they existed, where do I go when I am asleep? I have dreamed dreams that did not happen in places that do not exist among people I’ve never seen. Not unlike “reality”, really.

As I write this--for my own amusement, since you, dear reader, are a figment of my imaginary imagination (turtles all the way down, you see)—I realize Tichborne was an optimist. Vanitas vanitatum!


Tink
Posted 30 September 2006 at 10:08 pm

elifint said: "Wow. This sure did raise a lot of silly argument.


Look at multiple calendars from different cultures. Assess quality of record keeping in each case (discrepancies of a few years are to be expected). Correlate events that cross cultural lines (eclipses (which you can also calculate directly), wars, large-scale natural disasters, etc.).

That's all you have to do. All this talk of bible prophecy etc. is perfectly irrelevant."

This makes sense!
Did not archeologists and several scientist' come up with evidence of the great flood in many cultures all over the world?
I do think it has been recorded in many histories aside from the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.
We can pretty much know that this event occured before the questionable AGES; and so how hard to figgure dates based on the archeological data left from said event?
Damn, I'm confused, if this makes sense to you great, if not, then just nevermind...(crawling back under my nice layer of dust now...)


realpaladin
Posted 04 October 2006 at 03:36 am

If this were all true, about the missing years, how come descriptions of stars at night from thousands of years back match with what we know now about the movement of our celestial friends?


another viewpoint
Posted 04 October 2006 at 05:09 am

...does anybody REALLY know what day it is?


davidmcw
Posted 04 October 2006 at 05:47 am

Wednesday?


bigdaddybrutus
Posted 04 October 2006 at 06:54 am

All these posts and not one single mention of alien abduction.

Don't you guys watch TV!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
The whole darn planet was abducted during those years and those pesky aliens are just trying to cover it up.
Sheeesh.
Really, more TV less.....analysis folks...thats what makes a person happy and healthy.


HarleyHetz
Posted 04 October 2006 at 07:09 am

We can all rant and rave about what happened thousands of years ago...but does it really matter? Where you here? Did you witness it? You aren't going to be here a mere hundred years from now and it won't matter then either, just as it doesn't REALLY matter now...Monday morning you are still going to have to get up and go to work, wether it's 2006 or 1709 or whatever year they want it to be!!


Alpha Binary
Posted 04 October 2006 at 08:56 am

The article was pretty good, but IMO the author kinda ruined it with his conclusive ending. He could have let the readers decide by themselves (:

Damn interesting by the way. Gave me chills after the first paragraph.


Xoebe
Posted 04 October 2006 at 09:28 am

It's not very Christian (of any sort) to abandon humility and restraint in an argument and so strongly assert that what one believes is right

ROFLMAO! If only that were true. /sigh

Back on topic:
I am thoroughly skeptical of the assertion that the church faked the passage of several hundred years for several reasons. Most of which have already been discussed, nothing to add here, I think you guys pretty much got it.


SparkyTWP
Posted 04 October 2006 at 09:32 am

I don't think there was one "great flood", however, there is plenty of evidence for several smaller, catastrophic, but localized floods around the world at different times. The best one I know about are the Missoula Floods in Washington (There is a NOVA documentary about it that's decent). Anyway, there are plenty of other examples at various times throughout the world. Any of these could be a basis for a flood legend (Assuming it just wasn't completely made up). A giant world-wide flood is pretty much impossible if you think a little critically about it.


Shandooga
Posted 04 October 2006 at 09:40 am

Well I certainly don't know how to do the math on this one but, at the end of the day, if the math says 1,627 years then 1,627 years it is. It would be a critical error to accept *any* official story because it has been labled "official." You've probably made that error once or twice -- whoever you happen to be.


Coherent
Posted 04 October 2006 at 10:49 am

They're crackpots.

I concluded it long ago when I first heard of their hypothesis. They're really reaching for conclusions without any conclusive supporting data. Interesting idea, but highly unlikely that it's true.


HCIdivision17
Posted 04 October 2006 at 11:05 am

There are certainly some very straightforward ways to check the hypothesis stated here. And, while the hypothesis is perhaps bizzare, it shoud be equally easy to disqualify - though we should also remember that history i built of the recorded fragments of previous generations. Enough of a lapse, and a culture could perhaps lose entire centuries (or gain tem).

My friend JustAnotherName was certainly on the right track, although I'm not as keen on using Bible prophecy as historical rigor. The intention and validity of the argument holds regardless: the Bible' historical internal record would seem to imply that there is no 297 year inconsistency.

Now we need more data points. The biggest argument above here requires the reader to accept assumptions JW's will often take forgranted. Here's my take on this:

Find a series of astronomical calendars and note when the lunar and solar eclipses happen. Many ancient civilizations have amazing systems set in place to track and predict these highly important astronomical (and astrological) events. Now compare their data to the astronomical records that used the Julian and Gregorian calendar. Despite Galleleo's leaps in astronomical science, humans have been watching the stars since time immemorial. Hopefully, the anchient Latin and English astronomical records have not been falsified or corrected.


schuylercat
Posted 04 October 2006 at 03:09 pm

Wow. This kicked up a BIG old fuss. Cool idea, too - I personally am missing SEVERAL days of my life, lost to an onslaught of beer and chicks and surfing back when I was flunking out of college. I'd love to think the entire Earth had a 297 year global kegger out there. Unfortunately there is the "scientific explanation", and the "theological explanation", and the "other explanations", and the "debunked explanations", and the "I wonder if I really care enough to let this subject twist my tits” non-explanation.

Twist away, as usual. Alan presented an article, some baseline information, and a view that now has me wondering if I need to throw the good Mr. Illig over the BS fence or not. Reminds me of a not-quite-completely-researched-and-neatly-explained-away Immanuel Velikovsky story…

I ask myself (before I start digging deeper into this thing) is it plausible that it *could* have happened? *Could* history’s engines be firing on a few less epochal cylinders than we think? I mean, there was this whole big library in some ancient city called Alexandria that might have been in the possession of a few texts which may have been titled: “Constantinople: The Party Years” or “A Brief History Of The Gap In History.” You Never know.

Cheers, Alan.


cm
Posted 04 October 2006 at 04:14 pm

Ironically enough the Watchtower --- doctrinal authority for Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide --- promotes to this day a neo-Babylonian chronology based on their own biblical interpretations that has some 20 years inserted when compared to mainstream secular chronology. By willfully discarding the solid historical, archaeological and astronomical evidence they attempt to justify their tenets with regard to 1914 AD which to them is a cornerstone date used to "prove" the "divine approval and appointment" of their own leadership.

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-summary.html


smokefoot
Posted 04 October 2006 at 04:58 pm

Different ways to test this hypothosis:
1) Compare the same event with different calendars. One possibility: Alexander the Great invaded India in 327 BC according to our calendar, do the years add up according to the calendar used in India at the time?
2) The Greek Orthodox calendar should show this discrepency, since they would not change the calendar the same as western europe.
3) Tree rings would work if we have a piece of wood that has a date associated with it - say some wood used to build a cathedral that we know was supposed to be completed in 800AD.


Asshe
Posted 04 October 2006 at 06:10 pm

cm said: "Ironically enough the Watchtower — doctrinal authority for Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide — promotes to this day a neo-Babylonian chronology based on their own biblical interpretations that has some 20 years inserted when compared to mainstream secular chronology. By willfully discarding the solid historical, archaeological and astronomical evidence they attempt to justify their tenets with regard to 1914 AD which to them is a cornerstone date used to "prove" the "divine approval and appointment" of their own leadership.

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-summary.html"

Being one of them, cm, I can tell you that what you said wasn't quite right. Our doctrinal authority is the Bible. Always has been, always will be.

But I for one am definately facinated, if doubtful, of the above theory. I enjoy reading artciles like this one, it helps us to question what we think we "know"... it prevents us from becomeing stale and dogmatic!

I suppose that doesn't mean much coming from me though, because according to TanoPrime I'm really just an idiot who was probably brainwashed by my lovely mother.


Didoka
Posted 04 October 2006 at 06:44 pm

Are you kidding me? How can this hypothesis exist at all? How hard is it to take 30 historical records, compare and contrast, see if they match, and prove that the years existed? Is that even necessary? I understand if this retard found mistakes in history AROUND THE WORLD but he just found it in Europe. That is far from sufficient evidence. I think the scientific community is accepting too much crap. This guy was a total retard. Now I like people who come up with new creative ideas. But this guy is retarded. There is absolutely no chance that this is true! For God's sake! My country, Bulgaria, was established in first 681, the years nonexistent. They have fought with Constantinople so many times. I can't believe there are so many people supporting this hypothesis. Are you retarded?


camnel
Posted 04 October 2006 at 07:12 pm

Hal, thanks for making this thread interesting. I was astonished by the fact that anyone would actually believe it was true. Yours is the perfect explantion and anyone trying to spread this drivel is either a fool or a fraud.


cornerpocket
Posted 04 October 2006 at 08:25 pm

My personal issue with the string is all the irrelevance. The Bible stopped being written a really long time ago, back in Julian calendar days. Irrelevant. Other countries, much like European countries, weren't all that interested in centenial accuracy. Such concerns as this VeryInteresting article brings up are the mental gymnastics of a modern age, hardly of interest to the pragmatism of the Middle Ages. The particular times that may or may not have been contrived were (and still are, I think) called the DARK AGES, mainly because not much came out of them, written, painted, built, etc. Attempting to use cosmic, astronomical time will prove pointless since a few hundred years here and there are insignificant. And comparing calendars from around the world will be fruitless, since NONE of them sets a standard for completeness, accuracy, or any other measure that would apply.
My point would be: it could be true and at least could stand as unrefutable, if not irrefutable. Then what would be the consequence? A conspiracy? A huge mistake? Trees that planted themselves before they realized they were doing it? A re-examination of Nostrodamus on PBS?? An extra paragraph in history books that kids no longer have to read anyway? Maybe it boils down to an anomoly of time and the taking of its account...sometimes in history we didn't do much of a job of it as civilization goes. And we are STILL needing to work at grasping it and taking it seriously.


Ozgeo
Posted 04 October 2006 at 11:43 pm

Wow this has really excited a few people and really I kept reading to hopefully see another ludicrous account from "Justanothername" and laugh myself silly.

As a geologist I love the fact that people keep bringing up carbon-dating. But as Allan Bellows has pointed out that only tells you how long ago it was formed - not the REAL date. I would have to think that the only real solution is reference to other cultures and calendars (as has been suggested above). During the supposed middle ages the world was rife with trade and war. See if any of the potentially fanciful but significant accounts from the "Middle Ages" can be correlated with equal accounts from, say, Chinese history.


Ozgeo
Posted 04 October 2006 at 11:58 pm

And I just realised..... Middle Ages culture was strongly influenced by astronomical events such as eclipses and cometary visits. If these events (whose dates can be readily calculated from now, ie. halleys Comet visits every 76yrs) appear in the correct places within the Middle Ages then the Middle Ages must have existed. True they could falsify dates and include events to "prove" documents and accounts but it is incredibly unlikely that the astronomical events (for example) would not have featured elsewhere in their TRUE time as well. Hence if there WERE falsified documents then you would see these events mentioned twice in history.

Surely these two criteria; 1) correlation with other cultures and 2) comparison with known and dateable events must be enough to prove or disprove these theories.


Captain Blowhard
Posted 05 October 2006 at 01:04 am

As ever reading the comments was as much fun as the story itself !
As with all the stories on DI they are ( I suspect ) put up there to fire the imagination and thats what this story along with the comments has done for me ! ....However,
Even though I KNOW that there has been correlation between major astrological events like .....
Halleys Comet , and others. From astronomers across the northern hemisphere since records began. ( Do your own research if your interested in this).
How quickly it seems to have been forgottten that callenders were originally made to measure the seasons .

Without the skills to predict crop cycles or herd migration early man would not of got on so well . The best way to do that then as it is now is to use the stars , thats what calanders are based on..... Ask a neolithic structure like Maes Howe in Orkney ! where the alignment of the tomb was used as a calendar.
At sunset on midwinter's day (Winter Solstice) the sun shines down the length of the entrance passage and illuminates an area low on the rear wall of the main chamber. Maes Howe was probably constructed around 2800BC.
http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/westmainland/maeshowe/index.html

But then...
It is not to be said that historical events on a human scale have not been manipulated . Because they always have been and always will be.


Tink
Posted 05 October 2006 at 01:06 am

SparkyTWP said: "I don't think there was one "great flood", however, there is plenty of evidence for several smaller, catastrophic, but localized floods around the world at different times. The best one I know about are the Missoula Floods in Washington (There is a NOVA documentary about it that's decent). Anyway, there are plenty of other examples at various times throughout the world. Any of these could be a basis for a flood legend (Assuming it just wasn't completely made up). A giant world-wide flood is pretty much impossible if you think a little critically about it."

Thank you Dear, you are completly right. (I gotta quit checking this site out till 4:AM, and cut down on the caffine!) LOL


Ozgeo
Posted 05 October 2006 at 01:07 am

Here we go, below is a list of comet sightings listed in history that span the Middle Ages and are confirmed with back-calculations of expected dates of visits by Halleys Comet. Hence, by this reasoning the Middle ages occured because they are documented by their correct dates in historical accounts with reference to actual events. Also, there are records BEFORE and AFTER the Middle Ages which have the correct, ie., REAL TIME dates in correlation with expected visits by Halleys Comet.

January AD 66, March 141, May 218, April 295, February 374, June 451, September 530, March 607, October 684, May 760, February 837, July 912, September 989, March 1066, April 1145, September 1222, October 1301.

Surely this, especially when compared with other astronomical and natural events (I'm sure there would be records of earthquakes and more importantly volcanic eruptions that could be easily dated) would be more than sufficient to prove that the Middle Ages existed.
I dunno, just a thought....


Drakvil
Posted 05 October 2006 at 01:43 am

You all realize that all these discrepancies will now disappear as the Matrix is corrected to prevent another crop loss. I should'a taken the other color pill.


babu
Posted 05 October 2006 at 03:49 am

Drakvil said: "You all realize that all these discrepancies will now disappear as the Matrix is corrected to prevent another crop loss. I should'a taken the other color pill."

According to quantum mechanics nothing really exists in a stable state unless it is observed. And during the dark ages it was - well - dark. So nothing could be observed and hence nothing existed. QED.

Oh, and Elvis lives. He couldn't have died in 1977, could he? We're only at 1708 after all.

:D


HarleyHetz
Posted 05 October 2006 at 04:04 am

babu said: "According to quantum mechanics nothing really exists in a stable state unless it is observed. And during the dark ages it was - well - dark. So nothing could be observed and hence nothing existed. QED.


Oh, and Elvis lives. He couldn't have died in 1977, could he? We're only at 1708 after all.

:D"

I live in Memphis TN and I can assure you that he is indeed dead...if not, we would have heard from him when his lovely daughter married Michael Jackson!! ROFLMAO


sh0cktopus
Posted 05 October 2006 at 09:53 am

Since we're all going off on tangents here, this is mine. Our timekeeping system in the modern day is stupid as well. Why don't we make a day be exactly 24 hours instead of 24 point whatever. Granted, as the earth slows its rotation, we would still have discrepancies, but not for a long time. And why 24 hours, anyway? What's the significance of 24? I think we should measure time in base 10, like the metric system. And for the love of gravy, get rid of daylight savings time. What idiot came up with that? Like we're really "saving" daylight. If you really are a farmer and you need "more daylight" to do your farmer business, why don't you just wake up an hour earlier? Also, I think we should go back to the Roman calendar (I think it was Roman) and just have 12 months of 30 days each, with 5 days of debauchery at the end. 6 days on a leap year. Or hell, as long as I'm going with the rule of ten, how about 10 months of 36 days? And before anyone gets on their high horse about all the difficulties involved in changing all our computers and calendars ... it was a joke! Or a thought experiment, if you like. When they switched to Gregorian calendar, a dozen or so days got cut out. I always wondered if people celebrated birthdays back then. Some people must have felt really gypped. Anyone here born on Feb. 29th?


Drakvil
Posted 05 October 2006 at 11:58 am

sh0cktopus said: "Since we're all going off on tangents here, this is mine. Our timekeeping system in the modern day is stupid as well. Why don't we make a day be exactly 24 hours instead of 24 point whatever.

We did... and we have leap days every four years to correct for the error that introduced. Otherwise you would be seeing literature at some point mentioning getting up at 12:30 AM, which would be sunrise.

Granted, as the earth slows its rotation, we would still have discrepancies, but not for a long time. And why 24 hours, anyway? What's the significance of 24?

I think it has something to do with Jack Bauer saving us all from terrorists.

I think we should measure time in base 10, like the metric system.

Seen Battlestar Galactica lately? Should only take you a few centons to catch up!

And for the love of gravy, get rid of daylight savings time. What idiot came up with that?

Benjamin Franklin was the chap's name.


orc_jr
Posted 05 October 2006 at 02:01 pm

it seems to me that this "phantom time" hypothesis is really about whether certain historical events/figures were actual or fabricated. a date is nothing but a name. for example, i was born 31 mar 1984. were i to create another calendar which designated my birthday as 1 jan 1, and excluding leap years for simplicity's sake, today would be 7 july 23. though clearly more egotistical, my standard is no more or less accurate than any other.


gerwitz
Posted 05 October 2006 at 02:03 pm

So, someone went to the trouble of fabricating enough records that I have a false genealogy? Because I've traced my heritage back to 980 A.D. and the ages of each generation seem pretty believable.


Silverhill
Posted 05 October 2006 at 05:35 pm

sh0cktopus said: "Our timekeeping system in the modern day is stupid as well. Why don't we make a day be exactly 24 hours instead of 24 point whatever. Granted, as the earth slows its rotation, we would still have discrepancies, but not for a long time. And why 24 hours, anyway? What's the significance of 24?

The ancient Sumerians, with their sexagesimal (base 60) arithmetic, invented the double-twelve-hour timekeeping. Twelve is a nicely useful number, more easily divisible (into whole-number parts) than, say, ten, so they apparently decided to divide the day into twelve parts (and the night, to match). Similar timekeeping was used in ancient Egypt, with possibly a twist on the Sumerian system: the hours were of variable length, so that daylight and nighttime would always be twelve hours each. In a museum I've seen a clepsydra bowl that had multiple sets of perforations (one set for each month, IIRC) so as to be able to accurately indicate the hours regardless of their absolute length.

24 hours, at least in the modern definition, is the length of the solar day--the time required for the apparent motion of the Sun to return it to the same right ascension. This is a bit longer than the sidereal day--the time required for the equivalent apparent motion of the "fixed" stars. This is because of Earth's revolution about the Sun: because we have moved through a small angle w.r.t. the Sun during a day's travel, more time is required for our rotation to bring a given observer back into line with the center of the Sun. This time is 3 minutes, 56 seconds; the accumulation of this discrepancy causes the solar year to be almost 1/4 day longer than the sidereal year, resulting in the need for periodic correction in the form of leap years.

When they switched to Gregorian calendar, a dozen or so days got cut out. I always wondered if people celebrated birthdays back then. Some people must have felt really gypped. Anyone here born on Feb. 29th?"

Some people did indeed feel gypped, and they "adjusted" their birthdates forward so as not to suddenly "be too old". George Washington was among these, when the British finally adopted the Gregorian reform in 1752. His birthdate in the Julian system was February 11; he moved it to the 22nd when the 11-day adjustment was made.


sh0cktopus
Posted 06 October 2006 at 08:40 am

Thank you, Drakvil and Silverhill, for posting intelligent responses to my slightly tongue-in-cheek rant.


HiEv
Posted 06 October 2006 at 11:29 pm

It should also be pointed out that carbon dating can be used to verify calendar dates. For example, if you have a piece of wood from a throne that was "presented to King Xyz in the 4th year of his reign," which we mark as being 1,500 years ago on our calendars, or some such thing, then we can check the age of the wood to see if it really is ~1,500 years old, or if it's actually ~1,200 years old. If there was a significant climate event, like a harsh winter or a volcanic eruption that affected tree growth, then rings in the wood may also help confirm the date by matching it to a series of other known samples from the area, or if they have enough samples of wood from that area then a timeline of tree rings could be used as well, which would double-check the carbon dating. (see Wikipedia: Dendrochronology) Thus you could establish whether the events happened as long ago as we believe or not.

So, you can check these things lots of ways, by comparing with other calendars, comparing astronomical records, and by various dating methods. There is also the real problem of the total lack of evidence for a cover-up. Where are the documents with changed dates? Where are the orders for everyone all over using this calendar to shift the dates forward? How could they convince other neighboring nations to also shift their calendars?

All in all it's an extraordinary claim with some rather weak and heavily contradicted evidence.


trillian
Posted 08 October 2006 at 01:01 pm

OK OK OK, this whole missing time theory really appeals to the magical surrealist in me. I wish I were more of a conspiracy nut and could buy that a neat chunk of years had been surgically removed while humanity's back was turned. But...I can't.

I can, however, believe that between cultural discrepancies (no EU back in 650A.D.), miscalculations, and probably some deliberate falsification here and there, there could be a number of 'missing' and 'added' years. Communication in the Early Middle Ages was not quite what it is today, and information rested in so very few hands that I'm inclined to say those years could not have reliably had everyone (throughout Europe, or throughout the world) on the same page. I know that without the internet, newspapers, electric clocks, and printed calendars, I personally could not be trusted to know the day of the week or the date. Add my neighbor's confusion, and we ask a third person to settle the dispute...and turns out nobody in the village knows sure what the hell day it is. So let's just pick one and go from there. As trade and travel spread, there probably became more reason for formerly remote areas to match up with their neighbors, time-wise. And, well, you add a couple months here, subtract a year or two there...oops, who dropped that six? We've been decades behind!

Or maybe not. Maybe those monks of the first thousand years A.D. managed to keep centuries of impeccable records and there is nary a discrepancy. I guess I'm just skeptical of everything, including the suppositions challenged by the claims I'm also skeptical of.

Back to the Biblical stuff, just because it stuck in my craw...people in Genesis lived, what, 900 years at a stretch? Aside from redundantly debunking scripture as a dating tool, the fact that so many people (even today) take this as verbatim truth goes to show how completely subjective time is. Maybe a base system would be better, maybe a lunar calendar is the way to go, but civilizations can categorize time in any which way they choose, and we've made up many along the way. The Romans went around adding months to honor dead leaders and planned their calendar around the election season (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January).

Anyway, it may not be true, but it is damninteresting.


slappykincaid
Posted 08 October 2006 at 02:40 pm

Am I the only one that realized that Justanothername used the Gregorian Calendar (the document in question) to defend the right of the Gregorian Calendar? Secondly, Jesus was not born in 1 AD. Thirdly, on the scope of western civilization, how the hell is WWI so "pivotal"? You can't synchronize a given document with a random date, and consider your logic vindicated when something happens on that date. I am neither a porponet nor a critic (yet) of this theory, because call me crazy, but when I form an opinion, I research. I am, however, a big critic of unfounded logic.


cornerpocket
Posted 08 October 2006 at 06:06 pm

Let's see...trees have rings and each one stands for a growing season, or a year. Soooo, if you make a chair out of a tree, you could probably tell how old the tree was and compare that to the piece of furniture and...what? Prove that Constantine wasn't figmentized and that Homer really wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey and that Noah built an ark and saved the animal/human world from drowning? Imagination is a wonderful thing but mine is challenged beyond capacity to follow the tree-ring logic. How old a tree might be says nothing about when it was planted absolutely, just how long ago it occurred, no matter whose calendar is reckoned by. Any theories out there about the knotholes???


Tink
Posted 09 October 2006 at 02:46 am

trillian said: "...Back to the Biblical stuff, just because it stuck in my craw…people in Genesis lived, what, 900 years at a stretch? Aside from redundantly debunking scripture as a dating tool, the fact that so many people (even today) take this as verbatim truth goes to show how completely subjective time is. Maybe a base system would be better, maybe a lunar calendar is the way to go, but civilizations can categorize time in any which way they choose, and we've made up many along the way. The Romans went around adding months to honor dead leaders and planned their calendar around the election season (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January).


Anyway, it may not be true, but it is damninteresting."

Hummm, Just a random thought..900(Y)/12(M)=75. Considering the idea that basic calenders were not used during that period of earth time/spiritual time; and Genesis only refers to days and years (?) then would it be reasonable to assume that folks in the biblical writing ages concured that one God day was equal to one celestial rotation equaling one month? This would equate to a reasonable old age relative to modern times. (Now, I'm by no means mathmaticaly (or Biblicly) inclined, you may even say I've "descalculus" similar to deslexia; so feel free to throw this right out with the bath water;)LOL.

But then again,to argue with myself, there was no pollution, no mention of birth defects,and due to small populations in a utopian world, I suppose there could be the possibility of folks living many ages...Then the Book tells of folks breeding with Angels (Demons?) and birth defects began apearing. I wonder if this was the missing links we search for. Concider Homosaphians inter-breeding with cro-magnon* or neaderthol* peoples.
* Personaly dont know which came first.
Hell, I feel like Stuart Handley now, deep thoughts indeed, lol.


trillian
Posted 11 October 2006 at 02:10 am

Tink said: "Hummm, Just a random thought..900(Y)/12(M)=75. Considering the idea that basic calenders were not used during that period of earth time/spiritual time; and Genesis only refers to days and years (?) then would it be reasonable to assume that folks in the biblical writing ages concured that one God day was equal to one celestial rotation equaling one month? This would equate to a reasonable old age relative to modern times. "

People weren't living for 75 years even fifty years ago, much less 5,000. And I think people are also described as making it to just two or three hundred, so it seems like even within itself, the Bible changes how it measures. But yeah, same basic idea. They counted stuff differently.

I also agree with the [way] above comment that nothing before my birth is verifiably true anyway; really, not much since then either. Hell, I believe there's a Middle East just because I've been told so and, well, it is on all the maps. But I haven't been there, so maybe it's all a hoax. Y'know, slow news day, let's invent a region that's always in conflict. Perhaps I'm opposed to a war in an imaginary country?

There should be a curfew on my laptop so I don't go making posts like this at 2 a.m.


Seawings
Posted 11 October 2006 at 06:53 pm

ecthelion said: what I am trying to get at is that history (including dates, times, events, and even people and places) is subject to the dominant power at the time it was written. It is not inconceivable that kingdoms and the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages saw it politically and socially feasible to task the monks (who were really the only class of people for whom literacy was widespread) to the recording of history as the Church or a particular kingdom or royal family saw fit.

I agree with this statement. It should be remembered E=mc2. Time is not is not absolute, time is relative ie. it is only as we perceive it to be, and there is no reason to believe that the learned monks of the Roman Catholic church didn't perceive time in relation to furthering their goals of becoming the one world religion.

By manipulating time it is possible to manipulate hedonistic pursuits of ulterior motives.


Silverhill
Posted 12 October 2006 at 01:05 am

Seawings said: "It should be remembered E=mc2. Time is not is not absolute, time is relative ie. it is only as we perceive it to be..."

Be careful, there. At ordinary speeds (far less than c) and within ordinary gravitational fields (far away from collapsed matter such as neutron stars or black holes), time is essentially absolute. Even if we are distracted by something, such that the passage of time seems to have been short, that does not change what the clock really says. External--that is, non-psychologic--time is, on Earth, truly the same for everyone.


Seawings
Posted 12 October 2006 at 11:17 pm

Silverhill said: time is essentially absolute. Even if we are distracted by something, such that the passage of time seems to have been short, that does not change what the clock really says. External–that is, non-psychologic–time is, on Earth, truly the same for everyone."

Seems = appears, ie perceived.
Clock = man made ... Time IS relative to what WE perceive. One country 'clocks' time differently to another, one religion 'clocks' time differently to another.

So! Time obviously is not the same for everyone.

Distraction is as distraction does!

Quantum physics is the criteria. Clocked time is not quantum physics, it's a mere distraction from reality.


Silverhill
Posted 13 October 2006 at 10:29 pm

Seawings said: Clock = man made … Time IS relative to what WE perceive.

Of course clocks are man-made, but that does not change the nature of actual time. The sizes of the intervals that we measure are arbitrary, but they are reliably reported by our clocks. As I said, the amount of time that one perceives makes no difference to the universe at large; if your perception disagrees with the clock's reading, your perception is wrong.

One country 'clocks' time differently to another, one religion 'clocks' time differently to another.

Different regions can set their clocks differently from the "proper" time zones--in Newfoundland and in India, for example, the time is set 1/2 hour ahead of what would be indicated for the center of the nearest time zone. Arizona does not observe Daylight Saving Time. Various religions (such as Islam and Orthodox Judaism) employ lunar, or lunisolar, calendars. These do not constitute differences in the perceived lengths of certain time intervals, however, just differences in the sizes and starting-points of the intervals.

Quantum physics is the criterion. Clocked time is not quantum physics, it's a mere distraction from reality.

Time behaves differently at the quantum level, in certain important ways (such as the general temporal symmetry of quantum interactions). It has seemed to me, though, that we were discussing time as perceived and measured on the macro scale--the human size scale--not the micro scale. Reality is still real at the macro scale, because the micro-scale characteristics either average out or become insignificant.


susieQ
Posted 23 October 2006 at 03:01 pm

So i dont know many dates off the top of my head like some people and im not disagreeing with this theory, yet if some one told me today was year 2303 I wouldn't listen to them. So i guess you can say im a little skeptical.


Chory
Posted 18 November 2006 at 01:42 pm

trillian said: "I know that without the internet, newspapers, electric clocks, and printed calendars, I personally could not be trusted to know the day of the week or the date....

I guess I'm just skeptical of everything, including the suppositions challenged by the claims I'm also skeptical of...."

Pardon me for being a smart-ass, but I can't help but point out that if you are skeptical of everything, then you cannot KNOW what you'd be like with the internet, etc. :) But other than that, I agree :P

Philosophically thinking, we can't really know one way or another. If one is an empirisist, such as tcement seems to be, since one was not there to observe anything before one's scenses began taking in information, one cannot know anything before that time. Without the impression, there can be no idea, and no knowledge. So as I was born in 1988, empirically I don't and cannot know if my brother really was born in 1984, as I was not there to testify.

But speaking as a real person, I have no reason to disbelieve it, and I will just go along with thinking my brother is 22 years old right now. No one disputes it.

And so I cannot really know if this is the year 2006 or 1709, but in day-to-day life it doesn't matter at all, so I don't really care, realistically. But it is an interesting proposition, so if I feel the urge to think, I may consider it. But I won't let it affect my life.


Grantytis
Posted 08 December 2006 at 11:23 pm

first post, just joined.

this is an awesome site.

anyway,

i wonder if these lost years mean that when it "actually" turns 2000 THEN all the crazy doomsday theories will come to fruition.

Y2K all over again


JoJo
Posted 26 December 2006 at 03:16 pm

No one can change the past. Just be glad for today, and make the most of it.


Ark
Posted 27 December 2006 at 04:43 am

This is a great site. I found it by accident whilst researching this whole "phantom time" thing. You know for a minute there it kinda had me going; thank (insert appropriate deity) for intelligent, well informed and open minded people. As I read through your comments I found the list of things I was going to say getting smaller and smaller. You've pretty much covered it all.

Moses and the Habiru. Fantastic. Made my day.

I'll be back.
Opinions that are formed, my kind of site.


King Randall
Posted 31 December 2006 at 05:01 am

I effing knew it! Thank you Alan, and thank you Dr. Niemitz. Now the wife can't bitch anymore about my "excessive" drinking "problem". After the case of beer and a few hours, it's just phantom time baby! I knew I wasn't a black-out-piss-drunk kinda fella, right? Guys?


PsychoDad
Posted 25 January 2007 at 01:14 pm

Come on, this is absurd as hollow -earth 'theory' and reptiloid aliens running the world via the Freemasons and Trilateral Commission. Someone up there mentioned the Hebrew calendar being an independant check, so don't forget the Muslim calendar also, which commenced 620 AD, I believe. Either provides an independent backup, and both cultures have been in contact with European/Christian civilisation enough to provide virtually complete year by year points of reference. This is just nonsense, the only 'damn interesting' thing is that anyone could get airtime enough to advocate such a notion, and find those who would believe it. Well, I know there are people who believe that the Queen of England is behind all the drug smuggling in the world, too. With a website and good graphics, nothing is absurd any more.


test
Posted 02 February 2007 at 02:03 am

i can't wait to see what everybody writes in response to this!! i have not evaluated this myself, but just reading this realy warps your sense of reality - kind of unsettling! probably won't pan out to be valid, but....
CHECK THIS OUT!!!!

http://www.jesus1053.com/l2-wahl/l2-autoren/l3-alle/chronology.pdf

copy and paste to browser - its a 10 page Adobe PDF "pamphlet" highlighting some supposed anomalies in a "highly scientific" statistical analysis of dynatic histories, namely apparent correlations and coincidences....... you gotta look at this. i need better minds than mine to evaluate this....


adamj.
Posted 09 February 2007 at 11:32 pm

Sterling says: It should go without saying that such dating errors are usually the result of error.

Errors are the result of errors. As opposed to . . . ?


adamj.
Posted 10 February 2007 at 12:01 am

89th!

incredible read,...not only the DI article and comments (always a hoot!) but the link above that "TEST" recommends.


adamj.
Posted 10 February 2007 at 12:02 am

I meant to say, "90th!"


fozzydabear
Posted 23 February 2007 at 01:40 pm

time is a man-made scale anyway is it not?


ifeelya
Posted 06 March 2007 at 04:41 am

I'm sure it matters not one bit what I think about this guy's theory. It's not so weird, though. I went to an xtian college (they carried the major I wanted). So I had to take some oddball course requirements - surprisingly, not bad. Being xtian, they very really hooked on Church history and the history courses just kind of ended right about the time of Mohammed's birth - heh. Go figure. Questions about that were NOT welcomed.

But they were happy to talk about how the entire bible was heavily edited several hundred years after the crucifixion. And how Xmas got shuffled to December to coincide with the birth of Mithra so the Roman soldiers would like xtians better due to their convenient party mode. In order to rule Ireland, the monks had to trace your ancestry back to Adam and Eve. DI exercise, that one. Many, many religio-political games. This makes as much sense as any of the others. Why the heck not?


Southpaw
Posted 23 March 2007 at 04:51 pm

This means its been longer since the Cubs last won a World Series than we originally thought.


acommonperson
Posted 05 April 2007 at 05:49 pm

Here is my explanation why the theory of the phantom 300 years does not have a substantial prove. The main argument of those supporting the theory is by pointing to the fact that Pope Gregory XIII corrected only 10 days error instead of 13 days which in their mind means that he lived 1257 years after 45 BC and not 1627 years.

But this is true only if he really cared to correct the calendar all the way to 45 BC. I do not see why he should have cared about 45 BC. On the other hand there was a very good reason why Pope Gregory XIII would have cared to correct the calendar for only 1257 years. The reason is the Council of Nicea of 325 AD which occurred exactly 1257 before the time of Pope Gregory XIII correction. In the meeting of the Council of Nicea one of the main resolutions was setting the dates to celebrate the Christian holidays, specifically Easter. Because of the accumulating errors since then, most of the holidays were not celebrated anymore when they should have been. By correcting the calendar for only 10 days the Pope brought it to sync with the calendar of the year 325 AD. So, now the Christian holidays were celebrated once again as set forth by the Council of Nicea.


kenfo
Posted 08 April 2007 at 10:42 am

So I've been eating expired catfood for years? What does it all mean?


armymedic
Posted 08 April 2007 at 10:41 pm

bigdaddybrutus says:

All these posts and not one single mention of alien abduction.

Don't you guys watch TV!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
The whole darn planet was abducted during those years and those pesky aliens are just trying to cover it up.
Sheeesh.
Really, more TV less…..analysis folks…thats what makes a person happy and healthy.

ROFLMA.....finally some humor after all that long drawn out nonsense :)


timber72
Posted 21 April 2007 at 01:54 am

JustAnotherName said: "


Sorry if I have overstayed my Welcome on this particular subject. I will NOT be posting or reading on this subject again."

Can someone please explain to me why anyone would be arrogant enough to think what THEY have to say is important enough for everyone ELSE to read it, but what everyone ELSE has to say in reply is not....? Not POSTING is totally acceptable, but not even having the courtesy to read what others have written in reply, after boring them to tears with YOUR bloviating, and then telling them in ADVANCE that what THEY then have to say isn't worth reading...? How rude.

I think it should be an automatic deletion when the words "I will not be reading any replies" are inserted into any statement.


petr0lb0mb
Posted 26 April 2007 at 07:26 pm

timber72 said: "Can someone please explain to me why anyone would be arrogant enough to think what THEY have to say is important enough for everyone ELSE to read it, but what everyone ELSE has to say in reply is not….?

Could you imagine the reality check that they (justanothername) would be hit with if they stuck around for a logical debate.
Using these tactics, they can always say that nobody has ever been able to prove to them that they're mistaken.


Not POSTING is totally acceptable, but not even having the courtesy to read what others have written in reply, after boring them to tears with YOUR bloviating, and then telling them in ADVANCE that what THEY then have to say isn't worth reading…? How rude.

Rude and inappropriate.


I think it should be an automatic deletion when the words "I will not be reading any replies" are inserted into any statement."

After all, it's not like they would ever know it was deleted right?

Anyway, back on topic:

To me the hypothesis seems to worthy of further research. As someone else mentioned, examining documentation of Haley's Comet seems like an obvious place to start. Of course, that examination would probably be quite a task in itself if done properly.

I couldn't help but wonder, if almost three centuries were in fact skipped, would that be the reason that the carbon dating process is considered accurate within "a couple of hundred years"? Or is there a scientific basis for the lack of precision which is already understood?


ZeTron
Posted 03 May 2007 at 12:00 pm

I thoroughly enjoy this site and have spent countless hours reading many of excellent and well written articles. Half the fun is reading the articulate and insightful comments with each story. This is the firt time I've felt compelled to post a comment of my own.

There is little to be said after 99 comments. Yet, I am a little stunned that there has been no mention of this person Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko and his extremely lengthy seven *volume* series New Chronology

He is a Russian statistician and documents his work well (even though that does not necessarily mean anything). He also uses astronomy (moon, solar, super novas) to back up many of his figures and statements. Plus he covers how inaccurate carbon dating can be (I found this to be interesting. We so blindly accept carbon dating as irrefutable).

One great point he makes is the following directly from wiki
"Before the invention of printing, accounts of the same events by different eyewitnesses were sometimes retold several times before being written down, then often went through multiple rounds of translating, copyediting, etc.; names were translated, mispronounced and misspelled to the point where they bore little resemblance to originals. According to Fomenko, this led early chronologists to believe or choose to believe that those accounts described different events and even different countries and time periods. Fomenko justifies this approach by the fact that, in many cases, the original documents are simply not available: most of the history of ancient world is known to us from manuscripts that are conventionally dated centuries, if not millennia, after the events they describe

He has a dramatically different timeline perspective from Neimitz; as Fomenko believes there are roughly 1000 years added. The common point between the two these arguments is that *years* were added to our timeline.

Now don't get me wrong, I am extremely skeptical that we as a society are off by 297 years, much less 1000. However I do believe that Fomenko makes some extremely strong arguments that we should not so blindly believe the past as it currently accepted. With that said I can believe that we are off by at least a few years.

Can you positively prove that we are not?


dennis
Posted 18 July 2007 at 10:58 pm

Dean Coombs has some very interesting articles about time, calendar dates, Bible Numbers, Bible number patterns, elapsed times from ancient bible events to current events, etc.

i recommend
http://www.bible-codes.org
very much.

i'm thinking that Dean Coombs' articles and work disproves the PHANTOM TIME HYPOTHESIS.


Futamatagawa
Posted 21 July 2007 at 08:31 pm

Using common sense and a little logic, I think this can be easily resolved.

In fact, it was the mention above of Carl Sagan that got me thinking about this.

What events have been catalogued longer than any others by humans? Astrological. I believe it was in COSMOS that Sagan showed how astronomers can run the movement of the planets and stars backwards to verify dates of events. You see where this is going. I believe you can find paintings made in Europe from just about any decade. I`m thinking of the Middle Ages one we have all seen in history books of the comet which was supposed to signal the end of the world. There should also be dated writings about astrological events from Europe. Take a painting or writing that depicts an astrological event and which has a generally accepted date of creation, say 1000AD, run the planets, comets and stars backwards, and see if the date of the painting or writing and the date of the event (derived by modern day astromomers) actually coincide.

In this way, any gaps in the calendar should become immediately apparent. Not to mention that scientists should be able to use such paintings as a way to "calibrate" carbon dating.

What am I missing?


sulkykid
Posted 21 July 2007 at 08:59 pm

Futamatagawa said: " ... What am I missing?"

You are missing the fact that crackpot hypothesists tend to ignore things like logic and evidence. ( OK, they will not ignore evidence that supports their hypothesis, just the evidence that contradicts.)


timtam
Posted 09 November 2007 at 12:04 pm

gerwitz (poster #68)- that's awesome you managed to trace your lineage all the way back to 980 but the time period in question is actually prior to that so your discovery isn't applicable to this particular topic. if, however, you can get back another century or two, you might have something!

everyone else- thank you for the fascinating stuff. i have no opinion on the matter, being one of the many "i can't verify anything prior to 1982, and even then i wasn't everywhere all the time and memory is fallible anyway" sorts.

i find the phantom time idea absolutely interesting, and can't quite fathom why some of the posters who adamantly disbelieve have to be so bloody angry and insulting about it. why must someone be retarded to even consider a new perspective? sure, if this whole thing is fictitious, the believers are in error, but certainly there's no need to be such a dick about it. didoka and camnel, i am specifically referring to you folks. chill out.


CountriKitten
Posted 20 December 2007 at 06:00 pm

On the off chance that she comes back & reads this so long later, for Tink: Jack Handey did the "Deep Thoughts" such as "If they ever come up with a swashbuckling School, I think one of the courses should be Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something."
You combined the name with Stuart Smalley who did "Daily Affirmations" with the famous quote of "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit! People like me!"

I know it's pretty late, as well as off topic, but I noticed the name Tink gave was wrong & it pestered my brain till I figured out what was wrong!


EpicFailGuy
Posted 16 May 2008 at 08:52 am

Screw this I want to go back in time and see dem dinosaurs


The Trutherizer
Posted 26 May 2008 at 03:32 pm

Yet another reason to embrace the present.


tykxboy
Posted 04 June 2008 at 04:59 pm

Wow, I read all these comments and suddenly noticed 30 minutes missing from my day. Coincidence or is that Pope Gregory XIII guy really a very sneaky lil' bastard.


Becky
Posted 19 September 2008 at 08:53 pm

JustAnotherName said: "Although I believe it is important to know of other theories and movements propounded through the centuries and feel that analyzing them can provide some valid information, I have already come to the conclusion this group is no more than intelligent blithering idiots. I know their type. I have a brother much like the so-and-so pictured above."

A little paranoid I would say! Who was it that said "it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? JustAnotherName is the classic example of letting ones mouth "remove all doubt". There have been many learned and honorable people who have written volumes on this very subject that certainly provides enough evidence to provoke further investigation. Why fear investigation? How will truth ever be known for certain without it? I appreciate those who share what they have found and I want the truth whatever it may be. Insulting people you don't even know is about as childish as it can be. If something offends you and your chosen belief, don't read it. It is that simple. Just take your toys and lousy attitude and go home.


Becky
Posted 19 September 2008 at 09:06 pm

JustAnotherName said: "Although I believe it is important to know of other theories and movements propounded through the centuries and feel that analyzing them can provide some valid information, I have already come to the conclusion this group is no more than intelligent blithering idiots. I know their type. I have a brother much like the so-and-so pictured above."

One more tiny little thing. You are calling someone a blithering idiot and you are a JW! LOL

You are a member of one of the most demented twisted CULTS on the planet. The many reports of pedophilia within the JWs are coming out by the hundreds. Google it and read them for yourself. You people are brainwashed from the cradle and are to be pitied...except the ones using innocent children for their perversion. They should be burned alive!


matt_2304
Posted 28 December 2008 at 11:19 am

Sigh, another jab at JustAnotherName for being just another child born into a religious background...

You'll never read this, but perhaps this is just +1 social point to those who also go "Religion? Are you serious?", and perhaps another line of argument for those who do. Oh, I'll try and tie this into the topic of the article too.

JustAnotherName, if the deity you personally were taught to love and obey regardless of your intellect did create the Earth and people 6000 years ago, why is there evidence of stuff going on for millions of years? Is that just a cruel joke? You'd have to believe carbon dating is flawed, that the whole field of genetics is flawed (ie, how much genetic diversity can we expect from a single pair of animals that started breeding 6000 years ago) and also believe that someone who created this whole planet will condemn you to hell for having your life saved via a blood transfusion. I know some religious people who think God cares for everyone, but has them raped and tortured and molested and is generally perverse to teach them a lesson, which I assume is the default position to circumnavigate people natural logical response to the conundrum. That sort of argument certainly gets tossed around, and is believed all too often. End rant.

Oh, yeah, tying it to the topic.

JustAnotherName - "Now, KEEP AN OPEN MIND and the next JW that is at your door, or one you work with, or there is a family member that is a JW or you know a friends' cousins' inlaw is one, ask him or her about the date of 1914. You will make their day and possibly several one hour a week visits for a few weeks, as I am sure, as it did all JW's and those who just wanted to know, it takes a bit of Biblical and Historical research to understand the counting of prophetic years and the significance of 1914. "

The Earth was supposed to explode or something wasn't it? Maybe you should support the missing years theory so your branch of religion can lay claim to predicating the next man-made catastrophe like some cheap fairground charlatan. I assume there are considerably more reliable sources than a single 2000 or so year old text, and, if there is, to imply it has all the answers and encourage others to read it and perhaps add them to your stock (i mean flock), is clearly an intellectually blinded point of view.


michaeljlogin1988@lycos.com
Posted 15 February 2009 at 05:16 am

carbon dating, i think refers to millions of years, or at least many many thousands.
they use it for dinosaurs, so i dont know if you can use it for this

huh, i like living in the 1700's.

of course that is based on what i think of the 1700's
early guns, chivalry. thats all what we think of the 1700;'s thats really the 1500''s
aha,

well i like it

i dont like the year 205, so i;ll buy this shit.

its now, what 1785, was 2005, so 2008 is 1788, and 2009 is 1789, so its 1789

awesome. whoops, i mean, how very wonderful a day we are in, my lady. cause I dont knopw what that w0rd awesome is


michaeljlogin1988@lycos.com
Posted 15 February 2009 at 05:19 am

love it.

love this article. love it, love it, love it, love it, love it, love it,


smeik
Posted 24 October 2009 at 04:50 am

Two thoughts on this subject by someone who has read Illig & Co. in German:
1. On radiocarbon dating: It doesn't matter how exact it is. The point is, it's relative. If you determine the age of something by radiocarbon dating as, let's say, 1.250 years, you might say it's from 759. But if the numbering of years has leaped in between, e. g. in 600 everybody decided it should be 900, the correct year of your something is 459.
2. A similar problem arouses comparing datings of different cultures. It is not quite easy to find events or persons from the Middle (or older) Ages that can be dated in two or even more cultures. So there is very little in christian sources that corresponds with the arab ones about islamic expansion. A lot of deduction is made by simply declaring both timelines as complete and correct and then comparing them. But we know that there is a lot of, well, fiction within the chronicles of both cultures. Almost worse is the case when the chronicles of different cultures have influenced themselves among each other. Arab historians might have read christian or jewish sources and vice versa.


Alucin Veritas
Posted 31 December 2009 at 01:24 am

By this point there have been many refutations of the conspiracy. I have one more to add. A recent method to date Jesus' birth that came to my attention relies on astronomical occurrences. It is explained in depth at http://www.eclipse.net/~molnar/ (I don't know how to link). Since the process of finding the occurrence uses computers, I assume it starts rewinding from current astronomical charts and uses modern dates as a starting point. The computers found the occurrence at about 6 BC, a reasonable time for Jesus to have been born considering that the precise date has been lost for a long time. Since modern christian calendars are based on Jesus' birth as an origin point, the fact that there isn't a 300 year discrepancy between the original estimations and the possible Star of Bethlehem would be in direct contrast to the conspiracy. We are a little over 2000 years from his birth date, not a measly 1700.


tcart87
Posted 23 June 2010 at 12:51 am

Blah tract Halleys comet sightings dated back to 584 a.d. as well as several sightings before and after again in 841 meaning intervals of 75-79 years blah blah you get the point your wrong. im sorry, nice try though :)


puzzlesphere
Posted 22 July 2011 at 11:19 pm

I see the last comment was over a year ago, but just thought I would add my 2 cents.
There are heaps of arguements on here, all using a range different types of documentary evidence, but to me the most obvious point has never been mentioned....
People!
... People have been counting for a long time, and forget calendars and major events (that can all be adjusted to suit someone's needs), your average farmer, and his descendants, in the field has known the year he is in for for a long time, and adding a "1" sometime during the following year is easy enough. It is hard to believe that whole continents could have been convinced to add a couple hundred years instead of a 1.
lol


AdamEvenson
Posted 09 January 2012 at 10:58 am

@ Alan Bellows: "...but I don’t completely discount the possibility that a few extra years have been slipped into the calendar at some point."

Indeed, such "extra few years" have actually been slipped into the calendar "at some point." It happened when the Julian Calendar came about and was compounded when the Gregorian replaced it. One could call these calendars "secular," as opposed to those that were used in what is referred to as "biblical times."


AdamEvenson
Posted 09 January 2012 at 11:03 am

@Alan Bellows again:

Sorry, but my comment posted on its own before I had finished. I would like to go ahead and post this one just to let the author of the above article, Alan, know that I had not finished my comment, as the only thing Alan could be wondering about would be, "So how did it happen?" I was busy telling it when my comment posted without my consent. :) The remainder of my first comment will follow shortly.

Thank you, Adam.


AdamEvenson
Posted 09 January 2012 at 02:22 pm

@Alan Bellows still again:

The "few extra years" that you, Alan, discussed above, were "slipped in" as follows:

We must take biblical history into account when considering secular calendrical efforts and what time, years and days meant in prophecy. This is because a "prophetic year" of the Bible (referring to the King James type), was 360 days, which year biblical prophets called "a time." A time and times and a-half, were 3 1/2 years of 360 days each. Total days of such an amount of time would be 360 x 2 + 180 = 1260 days in ancient prophetic biblical reckoning.

When the Gregorian calendar came into being, the prophetic "time," or 360 day year, was changed to an average of 365.25 days per year. This added an average of 5.25 days to every secular year thereafter. This could easily be interpreted as a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy that, "the beast would seek to change the times...," as said reference to "times" was a 360 day "prophetic" year that was changed by Pope Gregory. The change in time to a secular year could, would and did booger any prophetic calculations that were later made with reference to "The Holy Bible," UNLESS the change of total yearly days from 360 to 365.25 were taken into account and calculated in, which has not been done until I began doing it in 1968.

Thus, without entering into any other kind of "time boogering" as the Germans have done, just changing over from the prophetic calendar to that of the secular added 10500 days to the secular calendar every 2,000 years. This amounts to 29.16 "prophetic" years of 360 days each that were added to the secular calendar, or 28.75 secular years every 2000 secular years. I don't believe I have ever read or known of any biblical scholar taking this particular time discrepancy into account even though it has, since effected, been standing directly "in yo' face." But isn't this precisely what Bible prophets reported the case would be regarding so many items, including the correct interpretations of the very words of the prophecies?

And so it is literally these amounts of time (reckoning here in 2000 secular years): 29.16 years of prophetic and 28.75 years of secular, that render the hour these very days to be "later than you think." This time alteration takes no speculation, deep investigations, or faith at all. It is a plain historical, mathematical fact, whose meaning was hidden inside the pupil of every eyeball, just waiting for the owner of the thing to open the eyelid covering that pupil and look through it. It is pretty much the exact amount of time discrepancy it required to booger humankind's ability to interpret exactly when the prophecies related in the Bible would be fulfilled.

It means that right now, today, the year is within a few days or weeks of 1983 according to both prophetic and secular counting from Zero AD because this is how many years were added by Pope Gregory's new secular calendar that supplanted the prophetic one.

When one calculates the times from many thousands of years ago, when many of the prophets wrote, the time discrepancy gets increasingly longer. In 5000 years, for example, would be 26250 days, which are nearly 72 secular years and nearly 73 prophetic ones. It's a bunch of years. It could blow a nice prophetic calculation into the incomprehensible.

The time discrepancy above was revealed to me when I Awoke in August 1968 in a cataclysmic moment that virtually wiped out my ordinary existence and replaced it with something almost non-human, which has endured to the present. I am definitely not entirely human any longer. Individual days have meant very little to me since that Awakening (which I capitalize to differentiate from the ordinary variety), as days and times became one enduring moment of Super Consciousness the instant my eyes opened in life for the first time in 28 years.

Yes, the above Awakening for me occurred in the very same 28 prophetic year period that Pope Gregory created by the time change, calculated from the day of my birth on earth, right down to the exact hour and minute. My physical body was born 28 prophetic years after the birth of my parents and my Waking State was born exactly 28 prophetic years after that. When I Awoke so powerfully I realized I had not been born in 1940 at all, but in the year I Awakened in 1968, as my physical body was little more than an uncomprehending shell when it was created, until 28 years had lapsed. Each 28 years of my life has been of earthshaking importance, both for me and the earth. A little more about this below.

When biblical scholars and other researchers calculate prophetic times from the Bible, they count ENTIRELY in terms of a secular 365.25 day year all the way back from the biblical event forward to the proposed secular year it is "calculated" to occur. But it doesn't occur, right? It is basically because of a nearly thirty year discrepancy just in the past 2000 years that anybody ought to be able to see but "magically" cannot and have not been able all these thousands of years until I Awoke in 1968 and saw the significance of the error. Scholars have not calculated prophetic biblical statements in terms of 360 day years (correcting for the added 5.25 days) even though the biblical prophets plainly stated the prophecies related to a 360 day year.

Only now, in this very blog, I reveal this information for the first time (potentially to the world at large) because I feel the time is becoming ripe. I've kept the secret to myself for a little over 42 years, mainly because the world was not ready for it. I've checked all along to see, as I am doing now. It still may not be ready and may have to be scrunched into a ball of tinfoil without ever knowing. But it is not my judgment to make. I move pretty much 100% by intuition since Awakening, instead of by concrete personal judgments that usually are plainly incompetent, not just within me but all flesh.

I have done quite a lot of calculations using the system above, which reveals (as briefly mentioned above) that my Spiritual Birth occurred exactly 28 prophetic years since my secular birth on March 15, 1940, which in turn was exactly 28 prophetic years to the center point of the secular births of my parents. Twenty-eight secular years in the other direction after I Awoke in 1968, I typed my first words into a computer, which meant that I was at least potentially connected now to the entire world and it was necessary only to wait a little longer until the world matured into the convenience of it.

Since that fateful moment (Internet functionality), the world is beginning to show signs that it may be ready for the whole truth pretty much any time. I would be happy to reveal all I know about the above time discrepancy reported above (and related items), for any consciousness capable of demonstrating the capacity to grasp realities of a higher order without getting bogged down in ego monsters and screaming and hollering in pain. It will only take a few words for me to find out. If my "contactee(s)" can't cut the mustard, I will know right away and no time will be wasted battling the ego monsters that assumed control of this whole planet a long time ago.

I'll monitor this note for a while to see if folks that possess the requisite degree of demonstrable enlightenment would like to continue this conversation. If so, I'll provide an email address upon request. Let me caution the reader that it takes a "heads above the herd" kind of enlightment. Any less is a waste of time and energy and I won't let it happen.


Daniel Martinelli
Posted 28 January 2014 at 01:04 am

Very interesting...

I sir would like to know more..


Daniel Martinelli
Posted 28 January 2014 at 01:53 am

Oh and for the rest, comparing with other cultures and calendars is exactly how the hypothesis works. Read the Paper!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf

All I did was google after reading this page
It really helps to actually read things 1st.
Comment 2nd.
Egomanaical / Religious arguments 3rd.....


David Jones
Posted 09 March 2014 at 09:49 pm

But if this were true, then why does my calendar say it's 2014?


Ankoku Teion
Posted 24 June 2014 at 03:29 am

Schroedinger said: "I would ask if carbon dating applies to art works, then the Medieval Period did, indeed, exist..this dating serves as an excellent reference point.....I would add that Allan Bellows is quite correct: Illig does raise some important points-nevermind the man......... if he is correct, he certainly deserves our respect."

carbon dating is far from accurate, infact, the further back you go, the wider the margin of error.

that kind of defeats my next point but there is no archaeological evidence that can be reliably dated to the period.

i greatly love this theory, it helped me win an argument, but i don't necessarily agree with it


septimine
Posted 28 August 2014 at 11:58 am

marlond said: "What a chilly reception! Don't get your fingers near all those minds snapping shut. A good test of this hypothesis is to carefully compare several civilization's calendars for the period of the first millennium and once an agreement has been made, THEN compare that body of dates to OUR western calendar.

If all 'primitive' (i.e. non-christian calendar-using) civilizations have no events to correspond to that period, well then it would be time to take another look at our beliefs about what happened during our 'dark ages'."

I don't know that directly comparing years would prove much either way. What would answer the question rather quickly is matching up the dates and names of these characters and events with characters and events from other civilizations. If, at some point in the future, people say that extra years were inserted into the calender, the best bet would be to match up the leaders. If Obama and Putin were contemporaries, than dating Putin, as well as dating the meetings that they had with the Kremlin would answer the question. If Obama never met with Kruschev, than any theory that says that they were both world leaders and contemporary is probably false.

Going to the Medieval dates -- our civilization was in contact with other civilizations. Byzantium traded and made war on the Muslims, they traded and corresponded with Western leaders. If the dates don't match up on all sides, then something is wrong. If the muslims say that Charlemagne lived 500 years ago and we say he lived 750 years ago, then we can say that one of us is wrong.


Graeme Bird
Posted 20 September 2014 at 12:12 pm

Its a good theory. Archeological evidence suggests the anglo-saxon takeover of England is a myth. This is the same time period as Charlemagne. Wiki puts it as a refutation that the anglo-saxon story would also have had to have been false and there you have it.


Elizabeth
Posted 20 November 2014 at 01:36 pm

I'm not touching the main point with a ten-foot pole. However, several folks have been asking about the cause of lack of precision in carbon dating, and I think I can shed some light on that. The primary problem is that carbon dating works by comparing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the artifact in question. Carbon-14 is radioactive, unlike carbon-12, so carbon-14 levels decrease over time while carbon-12 levels stay constant. Based on the current ratio, we can extrapolate back how much time has passed since the two were in their original ratio. The problem is that this assumes that the atmospheric ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has always had the same value that it has today. While we can gain some insight into past atmospheric composition by examining ice cores, the carbon-14 in those has been decaying as well, so they're of limited use. That, in a nutshell, is why carbon-dating can be tetchy.


Zywakem
Posted 08 December 2014 at 12:21 pm

Is it not hard to cross-check the dates and major events (those that could be seen or felt all over the world, for example comets) with other civilisations, such as the Chinese and other Eastern cultures? It would be obvious then to see whether these 297 years were fabricated or not.


Zywakem
Posted 08 December 2014 at 12:23 pm

septimine said: "marlond said: "What a chilly reception! Don't get your fingers near all those minds snapping shut. A good test of this hypothesis is to carefully compare several civilization's calendars for the period of the first millennium and once an agreement has been made, THEN compare that body of dates to OUR western calendar.

If all 'primitive' (i.e. non-christian calendar-using) civilizations have no events to correspond to that period, well then it would be time to take another look at our beliefs about what happened during our 'dark ages'."
I don't know that directly comparing years would prove much either way. What would answer the question rather quickly is matching up the dates and names of these characters and events with characters and events from other civilizations. If, at some point in the future, people say that extra years were inserted into the calender, the best bet would be to match up the leaders. If Obama and Putin were contemporaries, than dating Putin, as well as dating the meetings that they had with the Kremlin would answer the question. If Obama never met with Kruschev, than any theory that says that they were both world leaders and contemporary is probably false.
Going to the Medieval dates -- our civilization was in contact with other civilizations. Byzantium traded and made war on the Muslims, they traded and corresponded with Western leaders. If the dates don't match up on all sides, then something is wrong. If the muslims say that Charlemagne lived 500 years ago and we say he lived 750 years ago, then we can say that one of us is wrong."

Basically a better version of what I was thinking.


Random
Posted 20 December 2014 at 07:58 am

@Zywakem

The comparison you are talking about is exist in a sense.

First I think we can agree that carbon dating, due to its official +- one century accuracy and 60-80% reliability - not to mention that 6 months long tests on the same artifact by the British Museum showed an even wider spread of results - make a 300 years gap easily possible. Then it's interesting that we haven't got a single unarguable archeological finding from that area or even a letter of contemporaty writings. Yes I know about the Carolingian Renaissance, but I have to mention that both by technology and art style they are 11th century buildings. So it seems like they invented late Romanesque architecture from out of nowhere then forget it suddenly, then we can observe in a very well detailed way how they invented it again in a logical and long process in the 10-11th centuries. At least as weird as the Phantom Time theory. I have to mention, theres really not a single written word can be dated to this time. a Chronicle from the 14th century stating it is a copy of a lost one from the 8th century isn't "contemporary". And if we think about what happened in Europe these years it's more interesting. I mean there supposed to be four huge empires, Charlemagne's Empire, Visigoth Kingdom, Avar Khaganate and the Khazar Empire. Archeological evidence about them are not much at all, in many cases about zero. What is interesting, because any empires that size we know about - like Roman Empire, Macedon Empire of Alexander the Great, Persia etc. - left for us so much evidence and so much cultural impact we just can't even count them.

But about the comparison of contemporary written sources:
I won't go into Islam. The connection between Arian heresy and Islam is well explained in the book itself.
Finding contemporary - or a bit later - sources about the above mentioned empires isn't easy at all, because there is none. Funny, but outside Europe and Byzantinum, nobody ever mentioned an existence of a Caroling or even Khazar Empire. No trade, no wars, nothing. But we can say the parts of the world were too separated (what is nonsense because Greeks, Romans, Persians etc had a well detailed picture about distant peoples aswell).
But we can find a place where we can make our comparison: Hungary. There is a debate basically about the origin of Hungarians - as long as I know, every new genetical or archeologcal result just go straight against the official theory - but as I'm not an expert i leave it. Based on the mainstream version, they lived somewhere around the river Don, in Royal Scythia, what was the Khazar Empire back then, in the 7-8th century and moved from there to the Carpathian Basin - what was the Avar Khaganate - in the 9th century. So they were outsiders arriving into Europe just in the middle of the "lost" period. The problem is that in the numerous hungarian chronicles (most of them predating the later chronicles describing Charlemagne in detail), there is not a single word about the Khazar or Avar empires, neither Charlemagne or the Visigoths. Rather they gave a very detailed story with a line of rulers and their deeds what counts 104 years between Atilla and Arpad, missing the exact amount of time what Illig calculated. And they gave explanation of most of the questions raised about events in the "lost" time.
We don't have to care about China or the likes because it isn't about lost time, or centuries passing on "stand-by" but just a few national epics and heroes invented. What as I look over the history textbooks of the 20th century from different countries and dates, is more than possible.
You can find a detailed explanation about the different hungarian chronicles in the light of this theory by a hungarian researcher (so somebody who is way more qualified then me in the subject) here (very very interesting imo):
http://www.cakravartin.com/archives/the-trap-of-false-history

And I do not say Illig is right. Actually at the first time I just couldn't stop laughing on the theory. But I have to say, most critics are bending the theory and discredit things loudly what it never stated actually. So I don't know what to believe, but looking at the subject, not from a very eurocentric point of view, but including neightbouring cultures, it is make a lot of sense.


Random
Posted 21 December 2014 at 06:10 am

I did some more research about comparison of different sources and astronomical evidene.

Beside the hungarian chronicles there are a damn lot of these kind of controversial things. Non-existent jewish literature for at least two centuries, problems with dating of Viking and Saracen raids in that era (not that they didnt happen but when, where and how). The Armenian historian Chorenatzi, who seems like lived in the 5th and 8th century at the same time, I mean there weird things around him.
Even places where we believed there is a proof for sure are failing, like Charlemagne exchanged diplomats with Harun al-Raschid, the Caliph of Baghdad. Well, Arab sources do not mention anything about this relation or even the Caroling Empire. Harun al-Raschid actually only exist as a fairy-tale protagonist in the One Thousand and One Night.
Or there is the fable about the Seven Holy Sleepers, spreading across Islam, Persia andeven Byzantinum and other Christian regions. Ther are many versions of the tale but roughly its about seven christians who were sleeping in a cave through about 200-300 years while hiding from prosecutions.
These kind of facts and sories just flooding from all direction of the borderlands of Charlemagne's Europe.

But lets see the astronomical evidence. They must be clearly disprove this nonsense. But not. Most calculation, Halley's Comet etc. cannot help. I read a long paper about these things, I won't get into detail but to quote Dieter B. Hermann, professor of astronomy "Ultimate evidence against Illig's hypothesis, based solely on historical solar eclipses, can possibly not be found."

The most close we can get by these sources is this:
"Actually, discussion has concentrated on the reports of solar and lunar eclipses engraved on Babylonian cuneiform tablets. It should be noted that it was not possible to confirm the dates given on these tablets really independent from astronomical retrocalculations. This means that the risk of logical circles cannot be excluded. [ref. van Gent] However, many of these tablets provide very accurate information from centuries of systematic astronomical observations. This allows to analyse the deviation (ΔT) between observation time and retro calculation. [Stephenson (1997)] The excellent statistical match indicates that the timings given on Babylonian tablets are not affected by the medieval PhT. Unfortunately, for the millennium separating the numerous records from Babylonian and Arab as well as Chinese astronomers, only a handful of records may be considered reliable. When the secular deceleration of the earth's rotation has been calculated, the data could not approve the expected virtually constant deceleration due to tidal friction. Instead, Stephenson hat to presume an unexplained zero deceleration between the 1st and 6th century AD. When the records were reviewed, assuming a deliberately introduced medieval PhT, the expected constant deceleration was found."

Damn. Actually it backs the theory. At least, some calendar forgery is still more acceptable - following Occam's Razor - than that unexplained zero decereration era.

I'm just freaked out :)
The more and more I'm trying to disprove this nonsense theory, the more I just prove it practically.


Hun
Posted 27 March 2015 at 08:00 am

Illig has right that is minimal...; but it seems the falsification is bigger ...see Fomenko

I get to conclusion that the 'tatar invasion' [and in fact all of the nomad invasions] were the crusades [Fomenko even says taht some wars [trojan etc] were the same [but says the tatars were the russians] - but to simplify this they were the scythians.

Fomenko says about 'roman empire' the populating of europe from east'

Myself i think that the 'roman empire' realy was some
nomad empire'


END OF COMMENTS
Add Your Comment

Note: Your email address will not be published, shared, spammed, or otherwise mishandled. Anonymous comments are more likely to be held for moderation. You can optionally register or login.

You may use basic formatting HTML such as <i>, <b>, and <blockquote>.