You are on page 1of 2

A long time ago I learned that ancient history 'experts' were often inconsistent in their stories.

After spending some time trying to figure out the truth of ancient history (B.C., Before Christ),
the true chronology, etc. I read the book "History or Science" by Fomenko and several
articles about exact archeology dating. I finally realized that It is human nature to want to
make a discovery older than it really is. Archaeologists want to attract attention by making
discoveries older than they really are, everyone likes to find the 'oldest known.' All of the
oldest ancient history needs to be moved forward about at least one or two thousand years -
closer to our time. Some events, such as classical Greek history, needs to be moved around
at least 300 years closer to our time, if we assume the date of Christ's birth is reasonably
accurate. In addition, the main problem is from the brainwashing of the religious advocates
who want to date everything according to their own pet theories and fantasies.

The famous Sir Isaac Newton considered himself a Christian and is one of the greatest
thinkers of all times. He was the genius who gave us our laws of gravity. He tried to make
sense of the 'facts' of history and wrote a study of ancient history called 'The Chronology of
Ancient Kingdoms Amended'. In the Introduction of the book he said "...they have made the
Antiquities of Greece THREE or FOUR hundred years older than the truth." He begins
Chapter 1 by saying "All Nations, before they began to keep exact accounts of Time, have
been prone to raise their Antiquities; and this humour has been promoted, by the Contentions
between Nations about their Originals." Newton was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics,
same elite position now held by Stephen Hawking. Newton was proficient in Latin and Greek
and he and Whiston studied the old manuscripts. M. I. Orlenko in 1927 had this to say about
the writings of Newton: "They are the fruit of forty years of labour, diligent research and a
tremendous erudition. Basically, Sir Isaac Newton had studied all the major literary works on
ancient history and all the primary sources beginning with ancient and oriental mythology" (Sir
Isaac Newton. A Biographical Aperçu, pages 104-105). Newton learned that the traditional
historians (of such as Egyptian and Assyrian history) had greatly elongated history and
summarizes what he learned in the last paragraph of the last page: "And whilst all these
nations have magnified their Antiquities so exceedingly, we need not wonder that the Greeks
and Latines have made their first Kings a little older than the truth."

For a time I made the same mistake that nearly every other researcher of ancient history
makes, including William Whiston and Isaac Newton. I assumed that the date of the birth of
Christ was correct or nearly so, within around 4 or 5 or maybe 12 years or so of the traditional
zero point 1 BC - 1 AD date (there is no year zero). If we do not use that date, then we have
absolutely nothing, no starting point, to go by - or do we?

The Chinese, though, have their own history, a continuous history from modern times back,
unlike the Western world, and it appears that the dates of when they learned writing, when
they started using brass or iron, the reigns of their kings and their connections with other
kings of other nations, etc., makes the Chinese history around 1,500 years later than
equivalent Western history. Some Chinese find it somewhat embarrassing that the Chinese
history is not as old as Western history.

The problem, though, is not Chinese history. The problem is the LIARS of Western history.

I have found that if you use the evidence as it presents itself, you can often begin developing
a big picture that solves lots of seeming contradictions in the traditional Western history and
chronology.

The greatest historian of the ancient Greeks was Thucydides (471-400 BC). He was only
second to Herodotus. But Herodotus saw the hand of God in all human events. Thucydides
was more 'scientific' and left the gods out of his history.

The Peloponnesian war broke out in 431 BC (using traditional dates) and Thucydides wrote
that he began writing of the war "at the moment that it broke out." My Britannica Great Books
of the Western World tells "All was at last ready, and they were on the point of sailing away,
when an eclipse of the moon, which was then at the full, took place" (Thucydides Seventh
Book, Chapter XXIII, #50).

Thucydides actually wrote of three eclipses, two solar and one lunar, that occured during the
war. From his writings we learn the first and second eclipse were solar, the third was the
lunar one. The time between the first and second was 7 years. The time between the second
and the third is 11 years. The first eclipse is a full eclipse, in the summer, after midday, local
time. He mentions the stars can be seen, which cannot happen in a partial eclipse. The
second eclipse is at the beginning of summer, the third eclipse is around the end of summer.

Can we establish a real, solid, proven date in ancient history as a starting point, around which
to develop other dates? The answer is Yes, we can, but very few will believe or accept the
reality that this proven date presents.

Mathematicians and astronomers can determine from this information (and given the location)
exactly when this would have occurred. Look at your calendar and newspapers, the calendar
makers, astronomers, mathematicians routinely tell you when and where eclipses will occur
and where and when they did occur in the past. There are computer programs that can do
this for you if you do not have the math skills. Some astrologers can do this.

In the 16th Century A.D., the chronologer Dionysius Petavius determined a date that fit the
first eclipse - 3 August 431 B.C. The start of the Peloponnesus war was then dated 431 B.C.
The famous astronomer/mathematician Johannes Kepler confirmed the date.

Petavius then figured out the date for the second ecllipse, 21 March 424 B.C. Kepler also
confirmed that date.

Then Petavius choose 27 August 431 B.C. for the third eclipse.

When more modern astronomers tried to verify these dates, heated debates broke out in the
18th to the 20th centuries. The problem is the first date would not have been a total eclipse -
and Thucydides in the original Greek clearly stated you could see the stars - it was a total
eclipse. It would not have been total anywhere on earth. Prominent historical 'experts' who
tried to solve this 'Thucydides triad problem' over the years included Petavius, Zech, Heis,
Struyck, Kepler, Riccioli, Hofman, Ginzel, Johnson, Lynn, Stockwell, and Seyffarth. They did
not want to get too far away from the 'well-known' date of the birth of Christ and were not able
to solve the problem.

Finally a Russian mathematician named N. A. Morozov determined that an exact solution


does exist. The eclipse actually occurred 2 August 1133 A.D.

Then A. T. Fomenko pointed out that there were actually two possible solutions - the other
was 22 August 1039 A.D. For reasons I won't get into here it was decided that the 1133 A.D.
date was the correct one.

This means that Thucydides and Herodotus were 1,000 years AFTER the traditional date of
Christ's birth. This means the date of Christ's birth is at least about ONE THOUSAND YEARS
too old, too far back. When you pursue the ramifications of this mathematically proven fact,
you will begin to see how massive are the lies that have been perpetrated upon you, upon all
Western humanity.

You might also like