Are we living in the year AD 940?

Born Curious

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
75
In this thread I will try to connect the dots and present to you a conclusion of an interesting investigation based on "stolen years" theory. Overall search for clues and evidences confirmed me that fabrication of historical years and events was not linear with the clean whole numbers (E.g. 1000, 700 or 300 years), but actually happened as a combination of different crucial historical events that were used against a real true history narrative in some of most diffcult times.

Ab Urbe Condita (AUC) 2019
Ab urbe condita literally means "from the founding of the City", abbreviated as AUC, is a convention that was used in antiquity and by classical historians to refer to a given year in Ancient Rome. The traditional year of the foundation for the Rome would be written AUC 1 or 753 BC. (this will be a starting point for counting our stolen years)
In next period of cca. 1000 years official historical data seems very blurry, and most of it is based on writings and narrative (which can be manipulated if there is an deliberate intention). According to standard narrative, 1st Kingdom of Rome until AUC 244 was controlled mostly by Etruscan kings and a mythical one called Romus. After kingdom we got a Roman republic with really questionable narrative which is already analysed on this thread; "The History of Rome has no Surviving Sources" , and finally a Roman empire which was founded in AUC 726 (or "27" BC). Early years of Roman empire are a historical, statistical and narrative joke. Period known as Pax Romana in which Rome enjoyed time of relative peace and stability (for 207 years), and in the same era achieved its greatest territorial extent while its population reached a maximum of up to 70 million people – a third of the world’s population. None of significant wars or enemies, just a pure and clean expansion on the expense of other civilisations or tribes without any problems.

Now, please pay attention. Anno Domini (AD) term for counting years after the birth of Christ, was invented in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus but was not widely used until after 800. Until implementation of AD, AUC was still in use as the main counting system, for at least first 1000 years.
18281

Antoninianus of Pacatianus, usurper of Roman emperor Philip in 248. It reads ROMAE AETER[NAE] AN[NO] MIL[LESIMO] ET PRIMO, "To eternal Rome, in it's one thousand and first year".

Constantine the Great and Christianity
Constantine he Great (born AUC 1025 or "AD 272 ") was the first Roman emperor to convert on Christianity. His period of reign changed everything that we know about our history and ultimately served as a perfect tool for later historians to use it and manipulate calendar year counting. Here is the list of changes and interesting achievements under Constantine:
  • Restructured the government, separating civil and military authorities
  • To combat inflation he introduced the solidus, a new gold coin that became the standard for Byzantine and European currencies
  • Called the First Council of Nicaea in AUC 1078 or "AD 325", which produced the statement of Christian belief known as the Nicene Creed
  • The construction of basilicas (from the Greek basileus, emperor), the houses of the Emperor dedicated to Christ all over the Europe
  • He has historically been referred to as the "First Christian Emperor", and he did heavily promote the Christian Church
  • Built a new imperial residence at Byzantium and renamed the city Constantinople (now Istanbul) after himself (the laudatory epithet of "New Rome" came later, and was never an official title).
  • Replaced Diocletian's tetrarchy with the principle of dynastic succession by leaving the empire to his sons
  • First emperor to stop the persecution of Christians and to legalize Christianity, along with all other religions/cults in the Roman Empire
His first years of life and reign were classical Roman and pagan described in nature but there was a moment where he changed his way of ruling that ultimately affected on a history of the world;

Battle of Milvian Bridge - Eusebius of Caesarea and other Christian sources record that Constantine experienced a dramatic event in 312 at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, after which Constantine claimed the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Ἐν Τούτῳ Νίκα" (in this sign, conquer), often rendered in a Latin version, "in hoc signo vinces" (in this sign, you will conquer). Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and thereafter they were victorious.
18285
Following the battle, the new emperor ignored the altars to the gods prepared on the Capitoline and did not carry out the customary sacrifices to celebrate a general's victorious entry into Rome, instead heading directly to the imperial palace. Was this a Jesus 1st coming?

Council of Nicaea (AUC 1078, AD 325) was the 1st ever ecumenical gathering of bishops (organised by Constantine), so I don't believe that papacy existed before this gathering. Pope Sylvester is not mentioned on that council, while historians claim that he was represented by two legates. Those bishops could be a Roman Druids and worshipers of an old Paganism who also witnessed this miracle of 312, from which later emerged organised church and papacy.

NOW, what if year AUC 1078 was a turning point when Jesus actually existed, and on the council they decided to count years from a start using j/i or X before years counting, but in some period of 16th and 17th century, historians successfully reversed it from j500 to 1500 (topic presented here 1,000 Years of History Fabricated and here Fomenko's phantom time )? What if we are right now in year AUC 2019? Here is the explanation for my theory....

Year AUC 1078 is later easily misinterpreted as AD 1078, while AD counting was later invented in year 525 which is 200 years after Constantine and probably 13th century!

Interesting facts which are confirming this theory;
  • Constantin was honored as the founder of Catholic Church until the end of the Romanesque period (12th century)
  • Many Romanesque churches, in Poitou Charentes, Alpes de Haute Provence etc., bear above their porches, through which crowds circulated, imposing equestrian statues called Constantines
  • Temple de Lanleff , a Roman temple in ruins built around 11th century in modern French region Brittany
18290

Mosaic above depicts 11th century reflection of Constantine, called Constantine IX Monomachos.

Monomachos (Greek: Μονομάχος), or in Latin Monomachus, in Russian Monomakh, is just a Greek epithet, meaning "he who fights alone" and "gladiator", given to many emperors. Historians claim that this young girl on the right is his wife Zoe, while in the middle is Jesus. This could be coincidence if Jesus was not constantly mentioned in period of 11th to 12th century. Actually world’s oldest antique stained glass windows are dated to 11th century. This ivory plaque fragment shows another Constantine "VII Porphyrogenitus" (which means born in purple) being crowned by jesus Christ (supposedly from 10th century). Here Christ Pantocrator on the Holy Crown of Hungary (11th century). Constantin was probably mirrored multiple times by the later historians so they could hide this gap of 700+ years.

18291

Here we can see Roger II of Sicily (early 12th century) being crowned or baptised by Jesus Christ
This is no coincidence. Our history most likely switched from ancient Roman times directly into early renaissance. Those depictions of Jesus in 11th and 12th century were there with a reason. Famous Shroud of Turin - three radiocarbon dating tests dated a corner piece of the shroud from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390. There is no relevant/approachable evidence or depiction of Jesus earlier than 4th century, which would be actually 11th century. All of this evidences are accompanied with an interesting article about a true Christmas Star, Supernova 1054
18292

Above, image of Christ dating to the 4th century, shows him between St. Peter and St. Paul. It was painted in the Catacomb of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana in Rome, located near a villa that used to belong to Emperor Constantine
Following this theory, prophet Muhammad (founder of Islam) was born in AD 571 or AUC 1324, which suprisingly coincides with his earliest 14th century depiction here. One additional clue that Roman empire and Europe started to count from scratch after Nicaean convention is an Italian term for the Italian culture during the 13th century called Duecento. Crusades of middle ages would then probably get a different meaning (Period: 1095 – 1492) in a connection with Jesus


If this theory eventually confirms as truth, we would be now living and counting years from the founding of Roman kingdom AUC 2019, while living in AD 940 (after the council of Nicaea and Christ era). 700 - 800 years of middle ages would be a hoax, artificially added in critical periods during the plagues by historians, bishops and their emperors. Credits for a help in my research goes also to Eden saga website
 
Last edited:

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
120
Reactions
529
I've been toying with the thought a bit after reading that and I must say that you've got a compelling theory here. The only thing that I'm having a problem with is "ancient Rome" we've all come to know of and who they might've represented. But this is really well put together, it's very compelling.

In order to make this work for myself and find out about the possible true origins of AUC 0 I have to elaborate my thoughts where I've been wandering at times.

Some of these ideas I've already thrown around on this forum:
-What if the ancient Rome is actually just what we think of as the ancient "Greek" world that at a time spanned from Europe to Crimean Bosporus, with the Etruscans and other kingdoms and tribes having those similar type of buildings for the era.
-What if the so called expansion of that "ancient Roman" civilization was reversed, not originating from Italy, but towards Italy and southern Europe.
-An invasion of a people of dark skin is suggested by the red haired Maori oral tradition that says such an event happened ~100 generations ago. If we calculate the approximate of a 20 year cycle per generation it would mean that event happened roughly ~2000 years ago, which would fit perfectly with the AUC 0 beginnings.
-The oral tradition also says that they had to escape from Iran/India with boats and I'm toying around with the thought that the mixture of southern India being represented as darker skin and northern India opposed as a more mixed one is actually a result of this war and it has later been added with the Turkic / Mongol / Tartarian invasions in later age.
-This oral tradition could also give some basis to "the black Greek" myth.
-It could also support the tales that "Byzanthines" was mostly a civilized black empire where I'm thinking the black madonna paintings and all those ideas come from prior to them being whitened out in Europe to become a more accepted religion.
-Taking all of the above in to consideration couldn't that claimed invasion also suggest that the conquests of "Alexander the Great" from Greece up to India could've actually been one and the same invasion not from "Greece", but towards Greece and towards India by these people the Maori talked about? One and the same expansion of "Rome" in reverse. I'm open to however that the told conquest of Alexander the Great happened at a much later age in order to free the lands as Alexander is seen as a more medieval character in some sources.
-Ultimately perhaps it was "Egypt" all the way causing this? If I'm not wrong Europe had long been thinking very negatively of the Egyptians and it was just in the 19th century boom via Egyptology that we started to see a change? Some maps do suggest it might've been the Ethiopians as we see some maps depicting "eastern Ethiopians" as far as the areas of Iran and Pakistan, so thinking they might've being able to overcome the original "Egyptians" on the way.

This possible scenario could warrant an investigation thread to dig for more information as so far I only have some myths and legends with the only real meat around the bone the records of these oral traditions. And I know these thoughts are going to some very abstract area for something so long ago trying to make sense of all of this as a whole package, but I've been able to put it up to a point where it all makes sense for me and this AUC scenario as a reset type of an invasion for some parts of the world for what existed earlier could work very well. It's just what happened in the centuries afterwards from AUC 0 up until AUC 800 that I'm missing most of the picture. This could all be wrong, but until I find some concrete ideas to disprove this theory I'll keep looking at this as a likely framework at one point in our history and the possible origins for the AUC 0.
 
Last edited:
OP
Born Curious

Born Curious

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
75
I've been toying with the thought a bit after reading that and I must say that you've got a compelling theory here. The only thing that I'm having a problem with is "ancient Rome" we've all come to know of and who they might've represented. But this is really well put together, it's very compelling.

In order to make this work for myself and find out about the possible true origins of AUC 0 I have to elaborate my thoughts where I've been wandering at times.

Some of these ideas I've already thrown around on this forum:
-What if the ancient Rome is actually just what we think of as the ancient "Greek" world that at a time spanned from Europe to Crimean Bosporus, with the Etruscans and other kingdoms and tribes having those similar type of buildings for the era.
-What if the so called expansion of that "ancient Roman" civilization was reversed, not originating from Italy, but towards Italy and southern Europe.
-An invasion of a people of dark skin is suggested by the red haired Maori oral tradition that says such an event happened ~100 generations ago. If we calculate the approximate of a 20 year cycle per generation it would mean that event happened roughly ~2000 years ago, which would fit perfectly with the AUC 0 beginnings.
-The oral tradition also says that they had to escape from Iran/India with boats and I'm toying around with the thought that the mixture of southern India being represented as darker skin and northern India opposed as a more mixed one is actually a result of this war and it has later been added with the Turkic / Mongol / Tartarian invasions in later age.
-This oral tradition could also give some basis to "the black Greek" myth.
-It could also support the tales that "Byzanthines" was mostly a civilized black empire where I'm thinking the black madonna paintings and all those ideas come from prior to them being whitened out in Europe to become a more accepted religion.
-Taking all of the above in to consideration couldn't that claimed invasion also suggest that the conquests of "Alexander the Great" from Greece up to India could've actually been one and the same invasion not from "Greece", but towards Greece and towards India by these people the Maori talked about? One and the same expansion of "Rome" in reverse. I'm open to however that the told conquest of Alexander the Great happened at a much later age in order to free the lands as Alexander is seen as a more medieval character in some sources.
-Ultimately perhaps it was "Egypt" all the way causing this? If I'm not wrong Europe had long been thinking very negatively of the Egyptians and it was just in the 19th century boom via Egyptology that we started to see a change? Some maps do suggest it might've been the Ethiopians as we see some maps depicting "eastern Ethiopians" as far as the areas of Iran and Pakistan, so thinking they might've being able to overcome the original "Egyptians" on the way.

This possible scenario could warrant an investigation thread to dig for more information as so far I only have some myths and legends with the only real meat around the bone the records of these oral traditions. And I know these thoughts are going to some very abstract area for something so long ago trying to make sense of all of this as a whole package, but I've been able to put it up to a point where it all makes sense for me and this AUC scenario as a reset type of an invasion for some parts of the world for what existed earlier could work very well. It's just what happened in the centuries afterwards from AUC 0 up until AUC 800 that I'm missing most of the picture. This could all be wrong, but until I find some concrete ideas to disprove this theory I'll keep looking at this as a likely framework at one point in our history and the possible origins for the AUC 0.
I like your way of thinking because I was planning to elaborate some of the topics and conclusions you mentioned in my future threads
Let me drop some clues here just to stir up the further discussion :)

Most of european literature and evidences were destroyed at the time of inquisitions, so that it could be rewritten after 16th century. But some of Iranian or Persian literature managed to get through. In a long epic poem written by the Persian poet Ferdowsi, Alexander the Great is called Eskandar while Philip of Macedon actually Filfus of Rum. There are many more clues and connection towards the conclusion that Hellenic and part of Ancient Greece was actually a fabricated history of Roman empire.
18426
18427


18428

Here we can see Roman, Spartan and Macedonian helmet. Try to guess which is which. Well, someone who was fabricating realised how to distinct Roman one from other two, so they removed that eye-protection.. which wouldn't make much sense in reality of battle. This sharp top of the helmet probably had some concrete use in those battles, but forgerers decided to depict this part of helmet as a decoration in Roman army, and only for a Roman general, while standard soldiers lost the top.

18429

By the Shahnameh poems, Roman and Persian empire were rivals of that era and they merged together for the 1st time under Alexander the Great, because he was actually a half-brother of Darius, grandson of Phillip while son of Darab and Phillips daughter

I would describe Rum or Rome under Alexander as Babylon of that era where Semites, Hamites and Japhets (all white races) merged under one roof on the crossings of the old world, from Mediterranean to India, with lands of modern Israel, Iraq and Syria as their center. It was a multicultural and expansionistic empire with moors depicted as Hamites (which could intermix over the longer period with black races from rest of Africa)
 
Last edited:

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,463
Will look into details later, but AD 940 would fit very well with the 1000 year periods of the ages, which could be one of the primary reasons of changing the calendars. If we lived in 940 the next 60 years will mark the end of this age, which possible cataclysms coming at the end of it. (In many religions a prominent spiritual figure appears at the beginning of each cycle).

People switched from Anno Mundi to Anno Domini because according to their models Christ the Saviour marked the beginning of a dark age, and they wanted to count the years until free again, or something like that.

2019 + 60 = 2079, roughly falling in line with the predictions of a next ice age or some other effect from low sun spot number/sun cycles. (predicted for 2050 ±25)
 
Last edited:

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
201
Reactions
815
I'll admit I haven't read your full post yet but I couldn't help but notice that you align with Fomenkos assertion. Christ was born in 1156ad, which means we're in the year 867ad. He talks at length about a 100 year confusion as well, which would make it 967ad by that metric (I could go into more detail if needed)
 
OP
Born Curious

Born Curious

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
75
I'll admit I haven't read your full post yet but I couldn't help but notice that you align with Fomenkos assertion. Christ was born in 1156ad, which means we're in the year 867ad. He talks at length about a 100 year confusion as well, which would make it 967ad by that metric (I could go into more detail if needed)
Yeah, his calculations are very close. Maybe this will help you SN 1054 and this

Here from year 1235 "One of the largest early world maps, the Ebstorf world map measures about 3 and a half meters squared. The map itself contains religious connotations and symbolism, with the format being an expanded version of the T and O map, with Jerusalem at the center and the east at the top. It was made by Gervase of Ebstorf"
 
Last edited:

wild heretic

Well-known member
Messages
45
Reactions
172
Yeah, his calculations are very close. Maybe this will help you SN 1054 and this

Here from year 1235 "One of the largest early world maps, the Ebstorf world map measures about 3 and a half meters squared. The map itself contains religious connotations and symbolism, with the format being an expanded version of the T and O map, with Jerusalem at the center and the east at the top. It was made by Gervase of Ebstorf"

Apart from the obvious huge geography changes and the usual griffin, dragon, devilman and dogman on the mappi mundis, what really strikes me is that every person drawn on the these old medieval maps is of the "white" race.

Did the cartographers not know any better? Or have the other races been introduced at later stages? The Hopi Indians say they emerged out of a cave and show us the exact cave. They also have the god and dust creation stories.

In a Dyson Sphere, God is outside of the earth physically below our feet. Perhaps the entity (AI?) known as the "creator" has been introducing races in his playground for an experiment or for other purposes unknown.

Or if the earth is a prison, then perhaps new types of bodies were needed to house the new criminals coming into the system. Perhaps the coming extinction of the white race (like the blue one before them apparently) means we are up for parole?

It is oh so bizarre.


On a side note, I didn't know the Ebstorfer map was 3.5 meters squared. That's massive... just like the Hereford map... mmmmmm.
 

0harris0

Active member
Messages
120
Reactions
270
Apart from the obvious huge geography changes and the usual griffin, dragon, devilman and dogman on the mappi mundis, what really strikes me is that every person drawn on the these old medieval maps is of the "white" race.
maybe the map was made just for the white "elite" and they didn't want any representations of "lesser" humans
The Hopi Indians say they emerged out of a cave and show us the exact cave. They also have the god and dust creation stories.
That sounds a lot like a post-cataclysmic description, sheltering in a cave after everything known before has been destroyed!
 

N.D. Magoo

Active member
Messages
13
Reactions
72
Nice work! After reading several works by Joseph Atwill, Fomenko, and others, I played with chronological numbers in a similar fashion. We come up with some similar points, but I landed on some different dates. I think there are some interesting hypothetical correlations in here, though. This is highly convoluted, but please bear with me.

Starting with the premise that the Council of Nicaea invented Christianity, consider the implications of this on the calendar that is built on Christ. The set the original date for Easter using astronomical rules called Paschal, supposedly in year 325, referencing an event in year 33. According to Fomenko's astronomical analysis though, the first possible date for Easter under the Paschal rules is actually 785 AD. Parallelism between the story of Christ and prevailing messianic archetypes in existing religion such as Mithras, Sol Invictus, and the savior characters of other cultures is clear. There is also undeniable astronomical symbolism. This is all probably encoded right in the name "Mithras" itself: "Ra's Myth", or the "Story of the Sun". The Christ character also has strong similarities to Julius Caesar.

The date of Christ's birth (our first year) by existing chronology would have been 753 AUC. As correctly stated above, this means "Ab Urbe Condita" or "since the foundation of the city of Rome" (in 753 BC, the starting point of this calendar). A phantom time hypothesis proposed by historian Sandrine Viollet states that these calendars may have originally referred to the same period, and should be somehow aligned. With all of the above in mind, I played with the numbers and found some uncanny correlations.

Take 785-753=32. There is no year 0 in our calendar, so add 1. You get 33, the age of Christ at death, and the expected interval between the start of the calendar and the first Easter. Traditional history would make us believe that the second Council of Nicaea was a whopping 300+ years after the first. Under this view however, its official date of 787 makes perfect sense, being the just a couple years after our adjusted date for the first Council.

The second Council ended an iconoclasm, periods in Byzantine history of widespread destruction of idols. These legendary periods of widespread destruction of culture and history are likely when chronological manipulations occurred. The first Council was officially dated to 325 AD. If they initiated the calendar from this point, the first year would be 325. Add the known shifts together: 325+33+753=1111. This would set the first year to 1111. As noted above, there is no year zero.

When I thought about both of these points together, it hit me. This makes perfect sense, because there would be no way to write a "year 0" in the ostensible script of the time, Roman numerals. There would also be no way to write "year 0000", so the first year in a 4-digit convention should be 1111. And as we've seen in other posts here, dates seen to have "always" used a 4-digit format. Artifacts from alleged 3-digit years still used a placeholder 4th digit, usually the "i" or "j".

I looked at what happened historically at this time, and was shocked to find probably the one thing in the world that would be the most likely to have survived with its original date intact, free from future adjustments or revisions to the calendar. The Russian Primary Chronicle ends in the year 1110.

The Phantom Time theory set out by numerous European researchers suggests a 300 year discrepancy between the Gregorian and Julian calendars. Fomenko considers this just one of many shifts, and a +/- 300 year adjustment comes up in many of his proposed duplicated eras (based on parallelism between them). This is all suspiciously close to the shift that would come from the Council starting a calendar with itself post-dated 325 years.

The Gregorian calendar was supposedly implemented in 1582. If we peel away our two known AD era shifts we get: 1582-325-33=1224. Possibly coincidentally and possibly not, another calendar likely to escape revision kicks in at this date, in a totally different system. In 1224 AD, the Mayan Long Count calendar progressed from the 11th Bak'Tun to the 12th. Is it possible that New World and Old World calendars somehow synchronize at this point, then diverge when the western calendar and chronology are changed? A revised chronology in this way would explain the striking similarities between Ancient Egyptian and pre-Columbian Native American cultures that seem so obvious, yet are supposed to be separated in time by thousands of years. The numerous parallels in their religions, astronomical techniques, pyramid building and mummification technologies and practices, and the presence of New World drugs and plants in the bodies of Egyptian mummies, would all be logically explained by direct influence when artificial time gaps are removed.

Now since the calendar and the Bible are so intertwined, what perspective might all this give us on Biblical things? Sticking with numbers, I looked at the 666, the so-called Number of the Beast. History reports an apocalyptic panic in year 1666, based on this. If we look at it as a year through the lens of our revised chronology, 1111+666=1777. Subtract 1 for the lack of a year 0, and you get: 1776! The power poles of the modern world essentially took hold in this year, as it marked the foundation of both the United States and the Bavarian Illuminati. This all comes about in the year following the defeat of the mysterious Pugachev in Russia, believed by some to have been the last king of Great Tartary.

Viollete suggests that the Plague of Justinian could refer to the same event as Black Plague. I looked into them both, and was surprised to learn both are said to have been caused by bacteria traced to Mongolia. The character the Grim Reaper actually comes from Plague era reports and conspiracy theories about cloaked and masked figures spraying Plague "vapors" with broomstick type devices. These stories either dismissed as fiction or claimed to be evidence of paranormal activity, but what if they were literal? Could it have been a biological attack on the West by an Eastern enemy (Mongolians, the "Horde", Tartary, etc.)?

Joseph Atwill notes the strong parallelism between the stories of Christ and Emperor Titus, separated by 70 years (into the future, the opposite direction of most of Fomenko's shifts). With this in mind, let's look back at our revised dates for Paschal (first possible astronomical Easter, as calculated by Fomenko at 785 AD). The eclipse tables used for the Paschal calculations at the First Council must have included AUC shift, as this would have already happened. It would not include Nicaea + Christ shifts, as these would have been created by this Council itself! Using this adjusted chronology, is there anything on the eclipse tables that supports it and correlates with the Star of Bethlehem? Yes, there is. Take 1111-33-70=1008 AD (by the scale on the tables). What do we find here? The Lupus Supernova was recorded in 1006 AD, and would have been visible for 2-3 years. This supernova was the BRIGHTEST IN HISTORY.
 
Last edited:

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
201
Reactions
815
Nice work! After reading several works by Joseph Atwill, Fomenko, and others, I played with chronological numbers in a similar fashion. We come up with some similar points, but I landed on some different dates. I think there are some interesting hypothetical correlations in here, though. This is highly convoluted, but please bear with me.

Starting with the premise that the Council of Nicaea invented Christianity, consider the implications of this on the calendar that is built on Christ. The set the original date for Easter using astronomical rules called Paschal, supposedly in year 325, referencing an event in year 33. According to Fomenko's astronomical analysis though, the first possible date for Easter under the Paschal rules is actually 785 AD. Parallelism between the story of Christ and prevailing messianic archetypes in existing religion such as Mithras, Sol Invictus, and the savior characters of other cultures is clear. There is also undeniable astronomical symbolism. This is all probably encoded right in the name "Mithras" itself: "Ra's Myth", or the "Story of the Sun". The Christ character also has strong similarities to Julius Caesar.

The date of Christ's birth (our first year) by existing chronology would have been 753 AUC. As correctly stated above, this means "Ab Urbe Condita" or "since the foundation of the city of Rome" (in 753 BC, the starting point of this calendar). A phantom time hypothesis proposed by historian Sandrine Viollet states that these calendars may have originally referred to the same period, and should be somehow aligned. With all of the above in mind, I played with the numbers and found some uncanny correlations.

Take 785-753=32. There is no year 0 in our calendar, so add 1. You get 33, the age of Christ at death, and the expected interval between the start of the calendar and the first Easter. Traditional history would make us believe that the second Council of Nicaea was a whopping 300+ years after the first. Under this view however, its official date of 787 makes perfect sense, being the just a couple years after our adjusted date for the first Council.

The second Council ended an iconoclasm, periods in Byzantine history of widespread destruction of idols. These legendary periods of widespread destruction of culture and history are likely when chronological manipulations occurred. The first Council was officially dated to 325 AD. If they initiated the calendar from this point, the first year would be 325. Add the known shifts together: 325+33+753=1111. This would set the first year to 1111. As noted above, there is no year zero.

When I thought about both of these points together, it hit me. This makes perfect sense, because there would be no way to write a "year 0" in the ostensible script of the time, Roman numerals. There would also be no way to write "year 0000", so the first year in a 4-digit convention should be 1111. And as we've seen in other posts here, dates seen to have "always" used a 4-digit format. Artifacts from alleged 3-digit years still used a placeholder 4th digit, usually the "i" or "j".

I looked at what happened historically at this time, and was shocked to find probably the one thing in the world that would be the most likely to have survived with its original date intact, free from future adjustments or revisions to the calendar. The Russian Primary Chronicle ends in the year 1110.

The Phantom Time theory set out by numerous European researchers suggests a 300 year discrepancy between the Gregorian and Julian calendars. Fomenko considers this just one of many shifts, and a +/- 300 year adjustment comes up in many of his proposed duplicated eras (based on parallelism between them). This is all suspiciously close to the shift that would come from the Council starting a calendar with itself post-dated 325 years.

The Gregorian calendar was supposedly implemented in 1582. If we peel away our two known AD era shifts we get: 1582-325-33=1224. Possibly coincidentally and possibly not, another calendar likely to escape revision kicks in at this date, in a totally different system. In 1224 AD, the Mayan Long Count calendar progressed from the 11th Bak'Tun to the 12th. Is it possible that New World and Old World calendars somehow synchronize at this point, then diverge when the western calendar and chronology are changed? A revised chronology in this way would explain the striking similarities between Ancient Egyptian and pre-Columbian Native American cultures that seem so obvious, yet are supposed to be separated in time by thousands of years. The numerous parallels in their religions, astronomical techniques, pyramid building and mummification technologies and practices, and the presence of New World drugs and plants in the bodies of Egyptian mummies, would all be logically explained by direct influence when artificial time gaps are removed.

Now since the calendar and the Bible are so intertwined, what perspective might all this give us on Biblical things? Sticking with numbers, I looked at the 666, the so-called Number of the Beast. History reports an apocalyptic panic in year 1666, based on this. If we look at it as a year through the lens of our revised chronology, 1111+666=1777. Subtract 1 for the lack of a year 0, and you get: 1776! The power poles of the modern world essentially took hold in this year, as it marked the foundation of both the United States and the Bavarian Illuminati. This all comes about in the year following the defeat of the mysterious Pugachev in Russia, believed by some to have been the last king of Great Tartary.

Viollete suggests that the Plague of Justinian could refer to the same event as Black Plague. I looked into them both, and was surprised to learn both are said to have been caused by bacteria traced to Mongolia. The character the Grim Reaper actually comes from Plague era reports and conspiracy theories about cloaked and masked figures spraying Plague "vapors" with broomstick type devices. These stories either dismissed as fiction or claimed to be evidence of paranormal activity, but what if they were literal? Could it have been a biological attack on the West by an Eastern enemy (Mongolians, the "Horde", Tartary, etc.)?

Joseph Atwill notes the strong parallelism between the stories of Christ and Emperor Titus, separated by 70 years (into the future, the opposite direction of most of Fomenko's shifts). With this in mind, let's look back at our revised dates for Paschal (first possible astronomical Easter, as calculated by Fomenko at 785 AD). The eclipse tables used for the Paschal calculations at the First Council must have included AUC shift, as this would have already happened. It would not include Nicaea + Christ shifts, as these would have been created by this Council itself! Using this adjusted chronology, is there anything on the eclipse tables that supports it and correlates with the Star of Bethlehem? Yes, there is. Take 1111-33-70=1008 AD (by the scale on the tables). What do we find here? The Lupus Supernova was recorded in 1006 AD, and would have been visible for 2-3 years. This supernova was the BRIGHTEST IN HISTORY.
Wow! Extremely well thought out post, just wanted to add a few thoughts courtesy of our friend Fomenko.

Fomenko asserts that it's absurd to think that Roman Numerals were Roman. His reasoning is fascinating. Why is the V always right side up and they never thought of using a flip of it for a number, /\? Simple, you wouldn't know which is which on a log.

Wait, what?!

Yes, he makes an observation that the numerals were likely used by lumberjacks to keep track of logs and the order of construction/application of such logs for building or stacking. Consider it, look at our beloved numerals: I V X. All would be quite simple to do with an axe! And a V would always have to be a V and never a /\ because you might approach the wood from another angle and become confused. What then of M C L? Fomenko argues these were later scholastic inventions once the numerals became chic to write on paper.

What's mind blowing about this is that he thinks this proves the numerals didn't originate in Italy, where stone masonry was King. More like a place with lots of trees, Tartaria perhaps!

Second thing I want to bring up is Fomenkos thoughts on the plague. He agrees that both plagues were the same, were caused when the North Tartars and South Ottomans united as one worldwide empire. The enhanced and rapid trade allowed local plague to become global. To remedy this, entire villages had to be destroyed by the Ottomans. This today is known as the Ottoman conquest but was in reality a quarantine effort to stop the plague from spreading throughout the rest of the world.

WIld idea. I don't know if I'm doing it justice so here's the link to where Fomenko talks about it. Not sure what to make of it all.


Roman Numerals
HOW IT WAS IN REALITY

Ottoman Conquest
HOW IT WAS IN REALITY
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
KorbenDallas Clones and Biorobots 9

Similar threads


Top