30 replies to this topic

[GuardianNinja]

http://videos.howstu...ntury-video.htm

Strange subject I admit hearing about it for the first time, but I suppose anything is possible.

[Nevermind]

You couldn't possible provide us with maybe....a basic outline of the theory?


At least?

[GuardianNinja]

There are some odd things in a central part of history, mainly things being a head of their time, at the wrong time. That time is around 600ad and some have theorized that a few hundred years of history was made up and injected into history at some point.

[Nevermind]

See, now I have gained interest +1. Now I might watch your video.



They are suspicious by artistic deviation?


Archimedes. Leonardo Da Vinci. Both had concepts and designs ahead of their time that were "not seen amongst their contemporaries". Though they were probably just a part of the cover-up...

Edited by Lazurukeel, 06 July 2010 - 08:00 PM.

[GuardianNinja]

If you don't want to enlighten yourself with new knowledge, why post in this thread. Is it really that hard to take a piece I pitch out for others to notice, and investigate? I don't understand what is so difficult with humbling yourself to watch a video, to figure out what a topic is about. Instead you want me splice different parts out of a interesting topic and summarize it, when it is easier to have someone well spoken, say it to you in a matter of minutes. But hell, I'm not you.

[Twinrova]

If you don't want to enlighten yourself with new knowledge, why post in this thread. Is it really that hard to take a piece I pitch out for others to notice, and investigate? I don't understand what is so difficult with humbling yourself to watch a video, to figure out what a topic is about. Instead you want me splice different parts out of a interesting topic and summarize it, when it is easier to have someone well spoken, say it to you in a matter of minutes. But hell, I'm not you.

If you don't want to talk about whatever it is you're posting, then why post it? Is it really that hard to type out a small summary of your video and entice others to watch it? I don't understand what is so difficult with humbling yourself to summarize a video, to explain what the topic is about. Instead you want us to blindly go forth and potentially waste valuable time with a topic we might not find interesting, when it is easier to have the OP give a rundown in a matter of a sentence or two. But hell, I'm not you.


>.>

[Nevermind]

I was trying to improve your thread marketability skills. You give people a short indication as to what your link is about so that they can make a semi-informed decision as to whether or not this is something they could be assed to watch. It's not about giving us the whole story, the video does that. It's not about humbling ourselves to "watch a video" or "gain some knowledge". It's about giving us something. Just....something. Something more than "Hey watch this video. It has stuff in it."


After you provided (seemingly begrudgingly) I for one gained an interest in the idea. See, it works.


That being said, I don't I think I gained knowledge from that video, I may have lost some. But that's okay, it's my own fault because you told me what it was about and I still watched it, so I can no longer blame you for tricking me into watching a stupid video, because you gave me something.

[GuardianNinja]

How exactly does one 'loose knowledge'?

and sorry I assumed the sub title "theorists propose, we are living hundreds of years in the past" sounded pretty damn interesting.

But thanks for the thread marketability skills, its just that kinda thing errks me.

[Nevermind]

The subtitle was of slight interest but very generic. It could have meant historically, metaphorically, culturally, socially, literally, philosophically, proverbially, physically, artistically, paradoxically, pragmatically, Sicily, traditionally, religiously. There are many ly's.

[SOAP]

Okay I didn't watch the video (only because my internet's being dumb and not letting me watch flash videos) but from what I gathered from the site's summary, it seems to be a theory that 300 years of history is basically made up and that if we can't account for those years it should really be the 18th century, not the 21st. Basically a huge epic fail on whoever first made the calendar we currently use, if true. I think I've seen a video about this before, a simmilar theory about the Dark Ages being a myth as well several Egyptian Dynasties never having existed. Also Jesus being crucified on Big Ben. *shrug* Maybe it's that same video.

[Egann]

Hmm. Nothing important happened between 600 and 900 AD. Let's forget that the Early Middle Ages ever happened.

I have two key questions.

1. Why and how would someone interject these years? From where I see it, no one -besides perhaps the monks who dreamt up the calendar had the ABILITY to skew it like that. Pretty much after the fall of Rome and the rise of the Roman Catholic church (circa 500) the Juilian calendar has been standard. Communication in the dark ages was poor, and it's not like a king could arbitrarily insert 300 years. EVERYONE of any note would know about it.

2. Even if this is true, what difference does it make? So what if our calendar is off 300 years? Everyone is on the standardized calendar, and it will be awful difficult to change that to be "right" when it doesn't really make a difference. Outside of archaeology and history, the extra three hundred years would be a novelty and a curiosity, not something of any real import.

[Nevermind]

Their first argument was artistic style. It's shock-value speculation: speak in a foreboding, monotone voice, give examples of a few radical but rare occurrences, use language styled to make the viewer think they are missing out on something, or that something has been taken from them that affects them personally.

[GuardianNinja]

Hmm. Nothing important happened between 600 and 900 AD. Let's forget that the Early Middle Ages ever happened.

I have two key questions.

1. Why and how would someone interject these years? From where I see it, no one -besides perhaps the monks who dreamt up the calendar had the ABILITY to skew it like that. Pretty much after the fall of Rome and the rise of the Roman Catholic church (circa 500) the Juilian calendar has been standard. Communication in the dark ages was poor, and it's not like a king could arbitrarily insert 300 years. EVERYONE of any note would know about it.

2. Even if this is true, what difference does it make? So what if our calendar is off 300 years? Everyone is on the standardized calendar, and it will be awful difficult to change that to be "right" when it doesn't really make a difference. Outside of archaeology and history, the extra three hundred years would be a novelty and a curiosity, not something of any real import.

The Julian calender was implemented a while after he died. The years could have been injected when the calenders were merged. If it is off 300 years, then wouldn't a few important achievements (prophecies) be off in the year specified? I would say flip the time back if we got bamboozled. I am a perfectionist, and knowing the possibility of false time causes a bit of irratibility on my part. I'm assuming the rioters felt the same when they had 11 days stolen from them.

[vodkamaru]

If you don't want to enlighten yourself with new knowledge, why post in this thread. Is it really that hard to take a piece I pitch out for others to notice, and investigate? I don't understand what is so difficult with humbling yourself to watch a video, to figure out what a topic is about. Instead you want me splice different parts out of a interesting topic and summarize it, when it is easier to have someone well spoken, say it to you in a matter of minutes. But hell, I'm not you.

If you don't want to talk about whatever it is you're posting, then why post it? Is it really that hard to type out a small summary of your video and entice others to watch it? I don't understand what is so difficult with humbling yourself to summarize a video, to explain what the topic is about. Instead you want us to blindly go forth and potentially waste valuable time with a topic we might not find interesting, when it is easier to have the OP give a rundown in a matter of a sentence or two. But hell, I'm not you.


>.>

Tee hee... I see what you did there.

[GuardianNinja]

If you don't want to talk about whatever it is you're posting, then why post it? Is it really that hard to type out a small summary of your video and entice others to watch it? I don't understand what is so difficult with humbling yourself to summarize a video, to explain what the topic is about. Instead you want us to blindly go forth and potentially waste valuable time with a topic we might not find interesting, when it is easier to have the OP give a rundown in a matter of a sentence or two. But hell, I'm not you.


>.>

Tee hee... I see what you did there.

Careful, she will do it to you too.

>.>

But in all seriousness, I like hearing other's opinions on a topic. I already know what I think of something. I am just spreading something cool or neat I found during the day. Then all I hear is please post a summary. Its a buzzkill y'know.

So vodkamaru did you watch the video and find it interesting?

[Sir Deimos]

No. Vodkamaru's posts have substance, and he doesn't ignore the input of others. So I think Rova will leave him be. XD

[vodkamaru]

No. Vodkamaru's posts have substance, and he doesn't ignore the input of others. So I think Rova will leave him be. XD

I kind of feel like LA's bastard child. I can't tell if that entire post is loaded with sarcasm or not...

Anyway no, I didn't watch it yet, though I will later. When I see posts that are nothing but a link to an article or video with no other substance, I tend to ignore it. If its an embedded youtube video or copypasted article I'm more likely to watch/read. I'm just a lazy bastard like that.

Edited by vodkamaru, 06 July 2010 - 10:18 PM.

[GuardianNinja]

Substance.. so thats what its called....

I kind of feel like LA's bastard child. I can't tell if that entire post is loaded with sarcasm or not...

Anyway no, I didn't watch it yet, though I will later. When I see posts that are nothing but a link to an article or video with no other substance, I tend to ignore it. If its an embedded youtube video or copypasted article I'm more likely to watch/read. I'm just a lazy bastard like that.

I wouldn't worry about it, I get shot by everyone.
I wish I could embed it, but I don't know if that would work. Your choice to watch it though.

[SOAP]

Finally was able to watch it. My thoughts: Sounds like a conspiracy theory and usually I don't go for conspiracy theories but this one's peeked my interest. A part of me asks, "Why does it matter NOW?" while the other part of me thinks how awesome it would be if it were true and finally shut up the 2012'ers for good. Since logic and reason doesn't help.

[GuardianNinja]

I had that in the back of my mind too, but I have heard already that we may be a few years off and that 2007 was the actual 2012.

[vodkamaru]

Ok so I watched the video. I thought it was going to go into more detail and maybe arrive at some conclusions. Is there a longer version? Here's the wiki article on the topic.

The basis of Illig's hypothesis is the paucity of archaeological evidence that can be reliably dated to the period AD 614–911, on perceived inadequacies of radiometric and dendrochronological methods of dating this period, and on the over-reliance of medieval historians on written sources.

For Western Europe, Illig claims the presence of Romanesque architecture in the tenth century as evidence that less than half a millennium could have passed since the fall of the Roman Empire, and concludes that the entire Carolingian period, including the person of Charlemagne, is a forgery of medieval chroniclers, more precisely a conspiracy instigated by Otto III and Gerbert d'Aurillac

Meanwhile there are claims against it:

There are several dating methods which contradict the theory. Observations in ancient astronomy agree with current observations with no 'phantom time' added; for example the end of the Greco-Persian Wars was marked by two solar eclipses within a year and a half; the only possible dates are 2 October 480 BCE and 14 February 478 BCE. Dating methods such as dendrochronology show that the current date is correct. Furthermore, written records from China's Tang Dynasty, Korea's North South States Period, India's Chalukya and Chola Empires and the Rashidun Caliphate in Asia Minor coincide with the proposed missing years.

To me it seems, if someone were to change the calendar to cover up something, years would be taken away and not added. From my understanding, Otto III may have wanted to make it appear that he reigned during the change of the millenium, but that doesn't seem to have any affect on life as we know it today. I live in the present. The calendar is just an arbitrary way for us to understand time with a common ground to stand on. We made up the convention. It isn't "real". I don't believe in prophecy which I think is the only case in which this would matter.

Edited by vodkamaru, 06 July 2010 - 11:25 PM.

[GuardianNinja]

Interesting, thats the way I see it. But have you considered the possibility that maybe things were taken out, and replaced? If there really is hundreds of years missing, I too would assume that some facts may have been pulled.

[vodkamaru]

Interesting, thats the way I see it. But have you considered the possibility that maybe things were taken out, and replaced? If there really is hundreds of years missing, I too would assume that some facts may have been pulled.

The way I'm reading this is that hundreds of years were added and not missing. Am I wrong here?

[GuardianNinja]

Your correct in your interpretation. But I am merely saying, that if something were added to history, doesn't it make sense that , that could be a smoke screen to subtract something from history? does that make sense?

[SOAP]

Found another article with more details.

This part makes the theory alluring:

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.

But ultimately:

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.

[GuardianNinja]

Thanks Soap

It may seem outlandish, but it could hold some truth. I guess we will never know.

[SOAP]

Thanks Soap

It may seem outlandish, but it could hold some truth. I guess we will never know.

Well I found people on another forum discussing this very same topic in which people mostly said what aws already said here until I came across this post:

I think that rejecting this sort of thing shows a lack of comprehension about how calendars used to work. This is not intended as an insult to anyone, it is a simple mistake to make. Before the Gregorian calendar, everybody used different calendars. Most of these calculated years like this:

-In the second year of the reign of Tiberius
-In the first year of the reign of Gaius (Caligula)
-In the 27th year of the reign of Augustus

If you don't know who came befor who, it gets very complicated. Also, almost every civilisation has made itself look older by duplicating lines of rulers. By making their civilisation 600 years old instead of 300, they appear more powerful, sager, more credible. This kind of thing is more the norm than the exception.

We have a history because historians placed events according to the Gregorian calendar. Remember that there was no science of history before the 1800's. It was invented by writers, not scientists, who had a complete disregard for the truth. As a simple example, Irving Washington is the first person in the history of the world to have written that people once believed the Earth to be flat. This is so blatantly ridiculous and becomes apparently so the moment you think about it. But people don't think, they accept, then they build new lies atop the old ones. The only sure thing about history is that we know very little about what really happened and a lot about what didn't happen. Have a bit of fun; research the renaissance knowing the fact that the term comes from the title of a book: "The renaissance of art in Italy". This book deals exclusively with art. But in the 19th century, people misinterpreted this and invented the renaissance: it never happened.

Saying that things add up historically is wrong. We know that tree rings are added yearly because we compare a 300-year old tree to an event we believe happened 300 years ago. If the calendar is wrong, then all evidence supporting it is also wrong because it is all based on this calendar.

Illig does have some credibility. In Europe you can find builidings that were supposedly built 300 years apart. They employ the same materials, the same architecture and were built exactly the same way. This is impossible.

I'm not saying Illig is right, I simply think he's on the right track. Personally, I tend to think we are closer to the year 1200.

For a bit of veritable history, I suggest the following site:

MYTHS ABOUT THE MIDDLE AGES

This post was really interesting and seems convincing.

Full discussion here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread235242/pg1

Edit: Bolded the part which I think could be a possible motive for fabricating hundreds of years of history.

Edited by SOAP, 07 July 2010 - 01:57 AM.

[GuardianNinja]

Holy crrrrraaaawwwwoow. This guy is something, 1200 hmm think of all the history.. orr perhaps all the non-history

It gets kinda deep, thinking we could be lied to, the history it's self was recorded as lie, lost information, it all drives a stake in my head. I wish I had access to the truth, I would die happy.

[Showsni]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_between_Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars

[SOAP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_between_Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars

Seriously though, I learn more here on LA for free then I do at college that costs butloads of money.

Edited by SOAP, 09 July 2010 - 10:18 PM.