"JTEM" <jtem01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d2319662-cf1a-43e4-b3ff-6fa70195e034@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> As Israel Finkelstein notes,
>
> You're a dishonest skank with an agenda.
>
I disagree and you're not being specific. It's as if your job is to scare
off the Bible thumpers and usually you have something scientific or
relevant, like rebuttal on the special embalming process on Amenhotep III,
but all you can come up with his a broad statement that I'm dishonest and
that I have an agenda. Like Oprah said when someone accused her of
having
an ego, "Everybody has an ego." Everybody has an angenda. And that
includes YOU.
I'm quite excited of late. After posting the arguments regarding the RC14
dating evidence, it was clear it was quite threatening to some of the
archaeological discussion group members. Academic people don't like
surprises. Their response confirmed the strength of my argument. I
think
I crossed that imaginary line finally. You know, where you have a bit of
cir***stantial evidence here and a bit of reasonable-cause evidence there
but it is not enough. I think now with the Egyptian focus on Akhenaten
experiencing the Ten Plagues and becoming a monotheist, plus the KTU 1.78
dating, and Kenyon's Jericho dating, it makes it necessary to consider
down-dating Solomon on that basis, and the RC14 dating, which up until I
brought it up was toted as the new and more precise way to use RC14,
dating
****shak's invasion specifically to 871 BCE (highest probability date) was
enough to consider the usually preposterous idea of redating the Assyrian
timeline. But if you throw in that you specifically know that Xenophon
added 58 years of fake Greek history to the timeline and point out the
Plato
is being consulted during a war before he was born, that kind of makes
anybody pretending there was no revisionism look kind of biased.
So my next project is to add up all those little Greek historical loose
ends. People who claim they knew someone in their youth before they were
both, like Xenophon claiming he knew Socrates when he was young, or that
he
attended the Symposium, which means he would have only 8 years old, or
Artchytas referring to people who died before he was born. Or even one
reference I stumbled on by accident implying Aristotle was Phaedo, the
boy-lover of Socrates. Just a clue but when you check it out we find out
both were orphaned over to Plato at around 18, both had foster parents
between 10 and 18, and both would have been the same age when Socrates
died.
That is, when Socrates is dies in 366 when the PPW is redated per a better
eclipse reference, then that means Phaedo, his 18-year-old lover at the
time
also gets redated. Thus Phaedo was 18 in 366 BCE. Aristotle was born in
384 BCE which makes him 18 as well in 366 BCE. So the historians kept
the
main aspects of the history, including the ages, but just changed the
dates.
Amazing. The history of the ingenius means of revisionism, however,
almost
is as interesting a story as restoring the original timeline. It explains
why Plato and Aristotle and Xenophon are prominent historic figures, but
partly only because they destroyed a lot of other writings, and as
sell-outs
to the Persians at that. So money even in ancient times could buy you a
lot. Like in the "1984" theme: "He who controls the present, also
controls the past." That's because you can altar the past if you want to.
Anyway, I'm happy. Call me dishonest all you want to. It's meaningless
unless you can prove it. Which you can't. I have far too many facts now.
Looking for more discrepancies will be like a fun treasure hunt!
Especially
now that I know where to specifically look.
Cheerio!
Lars Wilson
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
|
