Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History


The Puzzler

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Enough semantics…who can show Mr V was actually wrong? 

Study some orbital mechanics and gravity. If he was right nobody would be here.

Also it's proven that Venus is not a comet that came out of Jupiter and Saturn did not "nova" nor is it big enough to even create fusion in it's core.

And the whole "electric universe" thing is just dumb.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Piney said:

Study some orbital mechanics and gravity. If he was right nobody would be here.

Also it's proven that Venus is not a comet that came out of Jupiter and Saturn did not "nova" nor is it big enough to even create fusion in it's core.

And the whole "electric universe" thing is just dumb.

Velikovsky did notice things about Venus that at the time seemed anomalous. His problem was that he tried using biblical stories to answer astronomical questions. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Piney said:

Study some orbital mechanics and gravity. If he was right nobody would be here.

Also it's proven that Venus is not a comet that came out of Jupiter and Saturn did not "nova" nor is it big enough to even create fusion in it's core.

And the whole "electric universe" thing is just dumb.

I was speaking in terms of his Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History paper in this topic, specifically chronological and  Earthly movements of people. 

 

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Piney said:

Study some orbital mechanics and gravity. If he was right nobody would be here.

Also it's proven that Venus is not a comet that came out of Jupiter and Saturn did not "nova" nor is it big enough to even create fusion in it's core.

And the whole "electric universe" thing is just dumb.

In fact, I find this whole article demeaning…a tactic used by people who want to belittle the other persons theory…electricity and magnetism most likely play huge part in our Universe…

Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmologicalideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universecan be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology.[2][3]However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.

Edited by The Puzzler
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read Ages in Chaos to know what V was suggesting, but I would have thought if he was right about anything some colloborative evidence would have come to light by now?  

But I don't believe all the stories in the Bible were even real events, let along occurring as described. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Essan said:

I haven't read Ages in Chaos to know what V was suggesting, but I would have thought if he was right about anything some colloborative evidence would have come to light by now?  

But I don't believe all the stories in the Bible were even real events, let along occurring as described. 

I think once some people get a bad wrap they can’t ever get out of that…any of his ideas are immediately shut down. Many are probably old hat, but some might still hold credence to be able to explain things now, with all the archaeology, genetics, technology,  but still can’t read Etruscan…the tide is turning back to the older writers now, nothing the new ones have written can offer any new answers…

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Essan said:

I haven't read Ages in Chaos to know what V was suggesting, but I would have thought if he was right about anything some colloborative evidence would have come to light by now?  

But I don't believe all the stories in the Bible were even real events, let along occurring as described. 

Worlds in Collision was his first book where he began to lay out his theories. Then came Ages in Chaos and the rest. In his third book, Earth in Upheaval he tried using geology in an attempt to support the reality of biblical catastrophism. It was essentially a more recent retread of ideas already put forward by Ignatius Donnelly in Ragnarok:The Age of Fire and Gravel.

For some reason the book series collectively became known as the Ages in Chaos series. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Puzzler said:

I think once some people get a bad wrap they can’t ever get out of that…any of his ideas are immediately shut down. 

It’s certainly true that in some quarters Velikovsky’s ideas were never given a fair hearing from the get go. Even some scientists at the time were of this opinion. This is what The Velikovsky Affair goes into and it’s an interesting story in and of itself. You might also enjoy a book called Velikovsky Reconsidered.

But generally speaking, in terms of what was already known then and what’s been discovered since in all the fields his books touch on, he was off base for the most part, wildly in some cases. 

I don’t agree with people who label him a crank. IMO he earnestly approached historical and scientific questions seriously and at least used scholarship to pursue what he thought were the correct answers. I wish present day alternative historians would take a cue from his methodology and work ethic.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

In fact, I find this whole article demeaning…a tactic used by people who want to belittle the other persons theory…electricity and magnetism most likely play huge part in our Universe…

Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmologicalideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universecan be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology.[2][3]However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.

No, it's proven neither electricity nor magnetism play a part in orbital mechanics nor chemical interactions in the universe. Fusion creates elements, chemical interactions and processes create compounds and gravity brings it all together. 

There's nothing demeaning about that article.

14 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

It’s certainly true that in some quarters Velikovsky’s ideas were never given a fair hearing from the get go. Even some scientists at the time were of this opinion. This is what The Velikovsky Affair goes into and it’s an interesting story in and of itself. You might also enjoy a book called Velikovsky Reconsidered.

But generally speaking, in terms of what was already known then and what’s been discovered since in all the fields his books touch on, he was off base for the most part, wildly in some cases. 

I don’t agree with people who label him a crank. IMO he approached historical and scientific questions seriously and at least used scholarship to pursue what he thought were the correct answers. I wish present day alternative historians would take a cue from his methodology and work ethic.

Also archaeology and astrophysics were limited then. We didn't have these fantastic satellites and orbiting telescopes that show how it all works.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Worlds in Collision was his first book where he began to lay out his theories. Then came Ages in Chaos and the rest. In his third book, Earth in Upheaval he tried using geology in an attempt to support the reality of biblical catastrophism. It was essentially a more recent retread of ideas already put forward by Ignatius Donnelly in Ragnarok:The Age of Fire and Gravel.

For some reason the book series collectively became known as the Ages in Chaos series. 

I have Worlds in Collision but a very long time since I tried to read it.... 

Edit: no I don't, it's Earth in Upheaval I have. 

Edited by Essan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Essan said:

I have Worlds in Collision but a very long time since I tried to read it.... 

Edit: no I don't, it's Earth in Upheaval I have. 

I enjoyed it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Enough semantics…who can show Mr V was actually wrong? 

Anyone with a good knowledge of these cultures.

  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Antigonos said:

There are some things for which there is no proof whatsoever outside of the bible. The existence of the Ark of the Covenant is one example.

Well, you may find it hard to believe, but The Ark of The Covenant (or Testimony) has been on view to tourists for quite some time - in the Holy of Holies no less, in Solomon's Temple.

It is a simple stone box that testifies to the occurrence of The Great Flood (aka 'God's Judgement'), and conveys God's/The Gods' covenant that if mankind takes heed of its testimony, that mankind will never again be destroyed by that great flood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Zod YinYang said:

Well, you may find it hard to believe, but The Ark of The Covenant (or Testimony) has been on view to tourists for quite some time - in the Holy of Holies no less, in Solomon's Temple.

It is a simple stone box that testifies to the occurrence of The Great Flood (aka 'God's Judgement'), and conveys God's/The Gods' covenant that if mankind takes heed of its testimony, that mankind will never again be destroyed by that great flood.

You’re supposed to throw away lead based paint chips, not eat them.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

I actually printed the Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History out in 2010, so no I didn’t pull it out of my ass yesterday…but these are from a link…Ages in Chaos.

But, it’s been something I’ve worked on and thought about for years now….it’s the only way we can reconcile it all….so it is not unexplained….or can it be explained a better way?

 

IMG_1161.jpeg

IMG_1162.jpeg

IMG_1163.jpeg

Any time someone tries to correlate the Biblical timeline with anything else, the history and archaeology of the conflicting culture has to be ignored.  Yet the histories and archaeologies of the non-Biblical cultures mesh very well.  The kings lists are a match for letters written between the conquered and the conquerors.  And the multiple kings lists repeat names, which confirms the chronology.

So let's look at one of his claims, that Ahab (a real king whose existence around 850 BC is confirmed) is a contemporary with Akhenaten (1350 BC.)

The oldest of the Amarna letters is from Amunhotep III (Akhenaten's father) to Kadasman-Enlil, king of Babylon.  But in the Book of Kings, the four Babylonian kings (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus the Great) that ruled during the time of the Exile - and in 500 BC we have evidence from all around the Mediterranean and Egypt that Egypt itself was not an independent nation but rather had been conquered by the Assyrians, then liberated briefly by a hero-king before being conquered yet again:  https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/lapd/hd_lapd.htm

Yet the Bible doesn't mention this at all.  Or the Assyrian rulers (although they would have been in charge of Egypt during Velikovsky's reworked histories) or the Persian rulers who came in late in this time period.  And yet the Jews would have surely noted the change of rulers and policies.

Then there's the problem of the lists of kings (which he tries to explain by "they used multiple names"... only these kings all list their full titles and none of them include names that match the would mean that you have to stuff Akhenaten plus around 46 more pharaohs including those with notably long reigns into the timeline between 850 and 550 BC.

And then there's the impossible "Venus comet"... 

So many things.  If you'll list one or two things you find very convincing, we can discuss them.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Zod YinYang said:

Well, you may find it hard to believe, but The Ark of The Covenant (or Testimony) has been on view to tourists for quite some time - in the Holy of Holies no less, in Solomon's Temple.

It is a simple stone box that testifies to the occurrence of The Great Flood (aka 'God's Judgement'), and conveys God's/The Gods' covenant that if mankind takes heed of its testimony, that mankind will never again be destroyed by that great flood.

Solomon's temple hasn't been found.  It's somewhere in Jerusalem, according to the Bible. 

Likewise according to the Bible the Ark of the Covenant was made of shittim wood -- not stone -- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant#Biblical_account) and was only 52 inches long, 31 inches wide and 31 inches high... and was carried on the Exodus journey by priests.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Zod YinYang said:

Well, you may find it hard to believe, but The Ark of The Covenant (or Testimony) has been on view to tourists for quite some time - in the Holy of Holies no less, in Solomon's Temple.

It is a simple stone box that testifies to the occurrence of The Great Flood (aka 'God's Judgement'), and conveys God's/The Gods' covenant that if mankind takes heed of its testimony, that mankind will never again be destroyed by that great flood.

Let me guess..Falun Gong...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Solomon's temple hasn't been found.  It's somewhere in Jerusalem, according to the Bible.

Solomon's temple = The temple of the gods  (via Solomon/Shalom/god)

Jerusalem = The place of the gods (via Shalom, etc.)

The so called 'holy land' is holy precisely because of Solomon's temple, and the ark in the holy of holies (communication to us from the gods).

This is why the Vatican expressly recognised the guardians of Solomon's temple as an independent power - The Templars (and warrior class: knights).

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zod YinYang said:

Solomon's temple = The temple of the gods  (via Solomon/Shalom/god)

Jerusalem = The place of the gods (via Shalom, etc.)

The so called 'holy land' is holy precisely because of Solomon's temple, and the ark in the holy of holies (communication to us from the gods).

This is why the Vatican expressly recognised the guardians of Solomon's temple as an independent power - The Templars (and warrior class: knights).

 

Salim/Shalom, the god of dusk was the son of El, the original "God" of the Old Testament and Jerusalem means "place-cornerstone of Salim".

All monastic military orders were independent powers. Even the ones in the Baltic.

I'll ask again, Falun Gong? Because the manure your writing sure smells of it.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Piney said:

Salim/Shalom, the god of dusk was the son of El, the original "God" of the Old Testament and Jerusalem means "place-cornerstone of Salim".

All monastic military orders were independent powers. Even the ones in the Baltic.

I'll ask again, Falun Gong? Because the manure your writing sure smells of it.

He’s a Templar conspiracist. As well as a fringe addict in general. From his posts it’s obvious he’s never read a single primary source on their actual history, (or any ancient history), nor the Crusades in general, just a steady diet of typical garbage fringe crapola. 

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

He’s a Templar conspiracist. As well as a fringe addict in general. From his posts it’s obvious he’s never read a single primary source on their actual history, (or any ancient history), nor the Crusades in general, just a steady diet of typical garbage fringe crapola. 

He smells of Epoch Times. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

So, is anyone seeing this same pattern in Timaeus and Critias….the lost time factor…?

Not that it matters…

 

 

Puzzler,

The problem is not so much a mathematical "time factor", as it is a mis-understanding of Critias 108e.  And the misunderstanding arises because so very few manuscripts of the Critias dialogue have survived to the present time.  

For example, if a single scribe in the Dark Ages made a boo boo in recopying Critias 108e, that error could now be considered a valid statement from Plato.  

Edited by atalante
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Any time someone tries to correlate the Biblical timeline with anything else, the history and archaeology of the conflicting culture has to be ignored.  Yet the histories and archaeologies of the non-Biblical cultures mesh very well.  The kings lists are a match for letters written between the conquered and the conquerors.  And the multiple kings lists repeat names, which confirms the chronology.

So let's look at one of his claims, that Ahab (a real king whose existence around 850 BC is confirmed) is a contemporary with Akhenaten (1350 BC.)

The oldest of the Amarna letters is from Amunhotep III (Akhenaten's father) to Kadasman-Enlil, king of Babylon.  But in the Book of Kings, the four Babylonian kings (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus the Great) that ruled during the time of the Exile - and in 500 BC we have evidence from all around the Mediterranean and Egypt that Egypt itself was not an independent nation but rather had been conquered by the Assyrians, then liberated briefly by a hero-king before being conquered yet again:  https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/lapd/hd_lapd.htm

Yet the Bible doesn't mention this at all.  Or the Assyrian rulers (although they would have been in charge of Egypt during Velikovsky's reworked histories) or the Persian rulers who came in late in this time period.  And yet the Jews would have surely noted the change of rulers and policies.

Then there's the problem of the lists of kings (which he tries to explain by "they used multiple names"... only these kings all list their full titles and none of them include names that match the would mean that you have to stuff Akhenaten plus around 46 more pharaohs including those with notably long reigns into the timeline between 850 and 550 BC.

And then there's the impossible "Venus comet"... 

So many things.  If you'll list one or two things you find very convincing, we can discuss them.

https://amaicjudgesera.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/might-dr-velikovsky-have-been-right-after-all-about-mesha-of-moab/

To find worrying indications in ancient texts that Bethel was under threat from foreign incursions we need to turn to the El Amarna letters, at the time of Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim(Jerusalem) and Lab’ayu further to the north.

And we need to put these two characters into a revised historical context, with Abdi-hiba as king Jehoram of Judah:

In the time of Ahab..

Conclusion 1: Mesha of Moab was “Hiel the Bethelite” who built Jericho at about the time of king Ahab.

 

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, atalante said:

Puzzler,

The problem is not so much a mathematical "time factor", as it is a mis-understanding of Critias 108e.  And the misunderstanding arises because so very few manuscripts of the Critias dialogue have survived to the present time.  

For example, if a single scribe in the Dark Ages made a boo boo in recopying Critias 108e, that error could now be considered a valid statement from Plato.  

Agreed…but there’s more to it..

His ideas are like Plato’s story, the ages are in chaos..I hear you but I now won’t digress on this idea. It’s like Dr V read these texts over and over so much, he realised what Plato was saying…you cannot reconcile Plato’s story into real time, no matter who recopies it.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not saying everything he says is true or worth the time debating…however, I do think there is some merit in the idea of ages being in chaos…he’s smarter than any of us combined.

 

IMG_1177.jpeg

IMG_1176.jpeg

Edited by The Puzzler
Sorry, lost the link for this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.