<kiltmac@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:deae03e0-9be4-4bd5-86c6-2aba17b27dc3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sci.archaeology added because, hell, not doing so only helps Lars
> escape discussion>
>
> On Jan 27, 3:36 am, "Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "JTEM" <jte...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:0e795be2-9f42-487e-ae45-2bf0e4b1d199@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> "Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> I see where this is going.
>>
>> > Pretty good... considering that it arrived about two years
>> > ago...
>>
>> > You DO NOT quote, you lie. You flat out lied.
>>
>> Ha! You can't like when you post the raw data. Just like this RC14
>> chart
>> from City IV of Rehov.... Showing how 925 BCE doesn't work but 871 BCE
>> is
>> bang on target. The corrected timeline adjusts the Assyrian Period by
>> eclipse. The 709 BCE eclipse changes ****shak's invasion from 925 BCE
to
>> 871
>> BCE, precisely where the most advanced RC14 technique is pointing!
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/REHOVPROB.JPG
(comparison 871 vs 925
>> BCE)
>
> Here's some of the rest of the story. Odd you didn't reference this,
> Lars, as I posted this to sci.archaeology three days ago:
> -----------
> If this isn't beating the ground where, once upon a time, a horse was,
> I just got the book, _The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology,
> Text and Science_ 2005, edited by Levy, Thomas E. and Thomas Higham,
> Equinox Publi****ng Ltd., London and Oakville, CT, ISBN 184553056X
> (hardcover); ISBN 1845530578 (paperback).
>
> I could have saved myself the trouble, and my local library the ILL
> charges. It is on-line, as I think someone else noted.
>
> Here's the link to the relevant chapter, 15, 'The Groningen
> Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov: OxCal Bayesian computations for the
> Iron IBIIA Boundary and Iron IIA destruction events'.
>
>
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Groningen%20Radiocarbon%20Series%20from%20Tel%20Rehov.pdf
>
> Or:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3d7k44
>
> The chapter gives a great deal of data about the radiocarbon dating
> from Tel Rehov, including some relatively raw data. But here is the
> short discussion of the chart, or rather the CHART!, Figure 15.B, from
> that chapter, that Lars has been trying to tell us does not need
> context:
>
> "The Destruction Event that Terminated the City of Stratum IV
> The radiocarbon dates available for Stratum IV relate only to the
> destruction at the end of City IV's lifespan. The availability of
> samples for radiocarbon dating in archaeology are, unfortunately,
> more likely to come from fires or destruction events than from
> ordinary daily life. The sampled Bayesian destruction date of City IV
> (Fig. 15.8) has the highest probability in the 1 sigma range of
> 903-892 (13.4%),885-845 BCE(54.8%), extended in the 2 sigma range to
> 918-823 BCE.Though it seems very unlikely that the ****shak campaign
> would have been responsible for the destruction of City IV, there are
> various other candidates later in time. As there are no younger Iron
> Age stratigraphic data from Tel Rehov, the available 14C data are
> insufficient to favour a certain decade within the above 2 sigma range
> of 920-815 BCE. The sampled Bayesian time-span for City IV is 28-55
> years in the
> 1 sigma and 2 sigma ranges, respectively (Fig. 15.8)."
> ----------
>
> Still insist you don't need any context to understand your CHART,
> Lars?
>
> If so, you are wrong.
Thanks so much. The CHART is SIMPLE. It gives you the results of
multi-testing and compares that to dates against "Relative Probability".
The
chart is simple. All you do is look at what years have the highest
probability.
No matter what, certain dates, 874-867 BCE are shown being with the very
highest "relative probability." That's a narrower range than 918-823 BCE.
That simply means the highest probability to the "true date" is observed
to
consistently
point to the center of the range. 871 BCE is the center of the range of
823-918 BCE.
So continue your DENIAL of the evidence if you want. The CHART shows the
peaks
over the years. Archaeologists or others can decide how significant that
is
or not.
But NOTE, when the *****sment says: "Though it seems very unlikely that
the
****shak campaign
> would have been responsible for the destruction of City IV, there are
> various other candidates later in time." The ONLY reason for this
> statement is because
the current dating for ****shak's campaign is 925 BCE and the RC14 dating
is
substantially lower
than that, with the focal dating occurring in 871 BCE. Mentioning that
there are other candidates
"later" also indicates that the specific dating to 871 BCE does not
satisfy
a particular historical
candidate using the erroneous Assyrian timeline which is 54 years too
early.
The only two candidates
for this destructive level are the Israelites, perhaps Jehu's campaign, or
as preferred by Finkelstein,
the campain of Hazael. But this is is a JOKE because we know that
Xenophon
added 58 years
to the timeline that affected the redating of the Assyrian Period, moving
it
54 years earlier than
it should be. When you remove those extra 54 years, look what happens to
****shak? He moves
down in time from 925 BCE to 871 BCE. It's just that simple.
Since you obviously don't understand what is going on, you're in no
position
to criticize me because
I do.
As I said, some people in the academic world are total knuckleheads and
you
can't show them anything
or get them to think on their own. They only know what others tell them
to
think. If you ask them
an opinion they will say, "Wait, let me take a poll and I'll let you know
what I think." They know little
independently, only collectively; whatever, the concensus is.
So definitely, as more scholars of Greek history and Assyriologists begin
to
appreciate the VAT4956
and SK400 which hides references to the original chronology, they will
eventually be forced to deal with
the 709 BCE-based Assyrian Period and the reduced Persian Period. When
they
do, then ****shak will
match perfectly where the RC14 dating points.
Even so I've INFECTED YOU by simply telling you not only the Assyrian
Period
is misdated, but shown
you how to correct the timeline. It's one thing to claim there is a
discrepancy and quite another to show
you how to fix it.
IN OTHER WORDS: If I'm right (which I am) then you're playing the town
idiot
right now. You remain
the town idiot until you prove me wrong. Prove that Xenophon did not
revise
Thucydides, prove that
Plato and Aristotle didn't help him! Prove that Aristotle and Plato were
not lovers. In fact, I found
something brand new for YOU!
You see, when Xenophon moved the PPW back in time to match another
eclipse,
Suddenly the 8-year
gay relation****p between Socrates and Aristotle was impossible. Socrates
now died 15 years before
Aristotle was born. Therefore, the character of "Phaedo" who serves as
the
historical marker for the
relation****p between Socrates and Plato comes under scrutiny. Phaedo
would
be a fake individual.
When we compare Phaedo and Aristitle we find these similarities:
1) Both were orphaned around 10.
2) Both were fostered by someone who taught them poetry and philsophy.
3) Both were turned over to Plato at around age 17-18.
4) Phaedo was chosen by Socrates because he was beautiful. Aristotle has
classically good looks.
5) Both are said to have opened a school at some point.
None of "Phaedo's" works survive. I just found this quote TODAY while
researching this further. This
links Aristotle to Phaedo one step closer:
"A story is told of Plato giving a reading of his Phaedo, a pur****ted
record
of Socrates' last day. The dialogue is moving and solemn. As Plato was
reading, however, his audience gradually melted away. In the end,
Aristotle
alone was left. Probably fictitious, the anecdote was invented to express
a
truth:
Aristotle was, in fact, spellbound by the Socratic doctrine of immortality
as expounded by Plato. It not only interested him intellectually but also
absorbed him emotionally.
From: http://www.space****p-earth.org/Biograph/Aristotle.htm
OR this could be a cryptic reference to "insiders" who know that Phaedo
was
the invention of Plato, Xenophon and Aristotle as a substitute person for
Aristotle himself! So when this comes under investigation, that Socrates
and Aristotle/Phaedo were lovers, then everything connecting them and the
similaries start to stand out, mostly the fact that Aristotle references
Socrates in his writings over 80 times! He even quotes him. So there is
no problem moving Socrates down in time and having him overlap with the
life
of Aristotle. Add to that "The Delian Problem" where it seems presumed
that Plato was an adult when the Peloponnesian War began. With numerous
other contradictions like Archytas knowing people who died before he was
born. ALL of this points to the same presumption of an expanded Greek
Period.
All these little loose ends add up. Xenphon claims to have known Socrates
in his youth and that he was in attendance at the Symposium. He would
have
been 8 years old. Plato's brothers were the same age as Socrates who
claims
he knew Plato when he was a youth. Right now those brothers are 40+ years
older than Plato and would have been in their fifties still at home when
Plato was about 10 years of age!! Plato with brothers old enough to be
his
grandfather? When the timeline is corrected though, Socrates is born in
435 BCE and is just 7 years older than Plato. Thus when Plato was about
10, Socrates and Plato's brothers would have been abound 17 and 18, which
fits the scenario of them being still at home and aware of a precocious
10-year-old.
Or there is the case of Hippocrates, the father of medicine, and his
writings. He was right in the middle of the 58-year expansion, so his
writings relate to events that now are 100 years apart. So they presume
he
didn't write everything attributed to him. But what happens to his life
when you remove those 58 years? Suddenly his 100-year career is now only
40
or 50 years long, which is within normal.
FACE REALITY. Why would Xenophon revise Greek history? If it interfered
with Persian history revisions, why wouldn't he. But look how quickly he
gets indicted for this. He was very "Medized", very into Persian history.
He even wrote "Cyropaedia" the history of Cyrus. Why is a Greek historian
focussing on Persian history so much? Plus it is clear he redacted
Thucydides, scholars have already established that. He is credited with
helping to "publish" Thucydides.
Then there is the issue of Socrates' dialogues. Why do Plato and Xenophon
publish his dialogues, written in the first person as if Socrates wrote
them. We think at first, how nice of both of these to preserve these
dialogues. But were they preserving or EDITING? Socrates had to be
edited, likely because his writings reflected knowing people from a later
time, such as Aristotle. Those do***ents had to be destroyed. They
didn't
want to destroy his dialogues though, so both of them published them to
make
sure they were not lost. Thus Plato must have gotten paid off by the
Persians via Xenophon to make these revisions as well.
MONEY RULES! We know how this works. All the Persians did was hire a
Greek historian to change and revise Greek history. They had the money to
buy up old copies of whatever they wanted to change and then destroy them.
It wasn't that difficult.
But at the end of the day, even the revisionists enjoy leaving little
clues
to the original chronology in their work. So a specific eclipse event
beginning the Peloponnesian War is specifically described so that it is a
mis-match for 431 BCE and matches a later eclipse that allows us to redate
the PPW to 403 BCE. When that happens, everything falls into place.
Socrates dies in 366 BCE when both "Phaedo" and "Aristotle" are 17-18
years
of age. Plato is 25 when the war begins instead of not born for 3 years
when he is consulted about the Delian Problem.
When you remove the 58 fake years from the Greek Period, and label Plato,
Aristotle and Xenphon as traitors to the Persians, being bought off for
money, then the timeline self-corrects. The impact on the ****shak debate
also gets corrected though. ****shak's invasion gets moved down
historically
to where it belongs, to 871 BCE, where the RC14 dating is pointing. By
the
way, even if you don't want to believe the chart, the *****sment still
excludes ****shak as being a candidate for destroying level City IV at
Rehov,
that's because 925 BCE is clearly out of the range of the RC14 dating,
even
if 871 BCE is not specified. 925 BCE occurs before the 918-823BCE 2-sigma
range, and is thus considered unlikely.
BUT, BY ALL MEANS, IGNORE ALL THIS NOW and wait until some professor who
realizes what is going on gives you permission to accept that the Greek
Period was revised at the instigation of the Persians. Better a late
bloomer than never, I suppose.
Lars Wilson
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
|
