Page 1 of 1

Math as Art

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:23 am
by mongo ... hrough-art

Interesting article how he uses math to show how historical events are incorrect.

Re: Math as Art

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:42 am
by mongo
just a followup- His book New Chronology has some interesting points to make-

Historians and translators often "assign" different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple "phantom copies" of these events. These "phantom copies" are often misdated by centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into conventional chronology.
This chronology was largely manufactured by Joseph Justus Scaliger in Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606), and represents a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. The Jesuit Dionysius Petavius completed this chronology in De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2).
Archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology.
No single document in existence can be reliably dated earlier than the 11th century. Most "ancient" artifacts may find other than consensual explanation.
Histories of Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy - mostly on the basis of documents of their own making.
The Old Testament represents a rendition of events of the 14th to 16th centuries AD in Europe and Byzantium, containing "prophecies" about "future" events related in the New Testament, a rendition of events of AD 1152 to 1185.
The history of religions runs as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and JC), Bacchic Christianity (11th-12th century, before and after JC), JC Christianity (12th-16th century) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.
The most probable prototype of historical Jesus was a Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), known for his failed reforms, his traits and deeds reflected in "biographies" of many real and imaginary persons.[16]
The Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy, traditionally dated to around AD 150 and considered the cornerstone of classical history, was compiled in 16th and 17th centuries from astronomical data of the 9th to 16th centuries.
37 complete Egyptian horoscopes found in Denderah, Esna, and other temples have unique valid astronomical solutions with dates ranging from AD 1000 and up to as late as AD 1700.
The Book of Revelation, as we know it, contains a horoscope, dated to 25 September - 10 October 1486, compiled by cabbalist Johannes Reuchlin.
The horoscopes found in Sumerian/Babylonian tablets do not contain sufficient astronomical data; consequently, they have solutions every 30–50 years on the time axis and are therefore useless for purposes of dating.
The Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating, as they contain too many eclipses that did not take place astronomically. Chinese tables of comets, even if true, cannot be used for dating.
All major inventions like powder and guns, paper and print occurred in Europe in the period between the 10th and the 16th centuries.
Ancient Roman and Greek statues, showing perfect command of the human anatomy, are fakes crafted in the Renaissance, when artists attained such command for the first time.
There was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of yoke and slavery, because the so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Turkic spoken as freely as Russian. So, Russia and Turkey once formed parts of the same empire. This ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). The Mongol "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions of the empire that attempted tax evasion. Tamerlane was probably a Russian warlord.
Official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia to legitimize the usurping Romanov dynasty (1613-1917).
Moscow was founded as late as the mid-14th century. The battle of Kulikovo took place in Moscow.
The tsar Ivan the Terrible represents a collation of no fewer than four rulers, representing two rival dynasties: the legitimate Godunov rulers and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.
English history of AD 640–1040 and Byzantine history of AD 378–830 are reflections of the same late-medieval original.

Re: Math as Art

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:37 pm
by LoneBear
I agree; anytime you dig deep enough, you just find a fabric of lies and misinformation, all designed to manipulate the muggles.

Interesting that the timeline appears to start around the conclusion of the L-M / S-M war, in the mid-1500s.

Re: Math as Art

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:35 pm
by Djchrismac
Great find mongo, I thought the following was very interesting:

Western scientists pretended (and this is not our supposition, as we had a possibility to assure ourselves in it on different occasions), that they "didn't read" the works of N.А.Morozov. On the same way, as now some of them pretend, that they "don't read" our works. And just "by chance" put into circulation the term New Chronology while in Russia it already loudly sounded for a long time. Instead of translation of the books of N.А.Morozov and their study on the West other books on the equal topic were written and published. But compared to N.А.Morozov, these were not scientific, but pseudoscientific books, which were easy to criticize. But as their conclusions slightly reminded conclusions of Morozov, western reader got abruption to the name of Morozov: "Oh, this is one more representative of catastrophism, insisting that the Earth axis has moved one day and for some reason (not clear, when and why) and something happened in history because of this. Let's not spend our time for reading this trifle". This is natural human reaction. Everything is aimed at this.

What exactly has happened? At the West even a "scientific" stream, connected with the name of Russian emigrant Immanuil Velikovskiy, appeared. Due to this NOTHING HAS BEEN TOLD about Morozov.

I.VELIKOVSKIY (1895-1979) – an outstanding doctor-psychoanalyst. Was born in Russia, lived and worked in Russia, England, Palestine, Germany and USA. Considerably resting upon earlier works of N.А.Morozov, BUT NOT MENTIONING THEM ANYWHERE, he wrote a number of books about ancient history, where, following N.А.Morozov listed several contradictions in the ancient history. I.Velikovskiy borrowed from Morozov an important idea of identification of several ancient dynasties, from which came out a need to cut (in time) the written history. For example, I.Velikovskiy in his book "Ramses II and his time" states, that the dynasty of Hittite doubles the dynasty of Chaldeans.

I.Velikovskiy made an attempt "to explain" discovered by Morozov contradictions (we will repeat, without any links on him) using "a theory of catastrophism". At the West I.Velikovskiy is considered to be a founder of critical school in chronology. But in fact he tried to defend the chronology of Scaliger from too big transformations. Replacing radical ideas of N.А.Morozov with their "weak substitute". The fact that in Western Europe the works of I.Velikovskiy on history were known much better, than considerably earlier and much more substantial works of N.А.Morozov served a significant brake for the development of new chronology in Western Europe in the XX century.

Why for the struggle with ideas of N.А.Morozov exactly the catastrophism was taken on board? Except the listed above reasons there seemed to be the following consideration. Many ideas of Morozov were based on astronomical calculations, in particular on the datings of ancient eclipses, described in chronicles. When dating these eclipses not looking on the Scaligerian chronology, he got not ancient, proposed by historians, but much later medieval dates. How to struggle with this? – historians asked themselves. There are no scientific arguments. They decided to turn to demagogy and fraud. They did like this. First, based on Morozov (but not mentioning a word about him), they retold some found by them contradictions in the "ancient" history and also found by them identifications of some "ancient" phantom dynasties. But with this, what is interesting, they borrowed only his most "smooth" statements that lead first just to insignificant shifts in the chronology. Silence was accurately kept about bigger Morozov's changes in the Scaligerian history. (Besides, our results showed that even N.А.Morozov didn't fully realize the scale of the required reconstruction of chronology. Our concept differs from Morozov's one with cutting of the ancient chronology at least for one thousand, and for many chronicles even for one and a half – two thousand years).

Then based on nothing "theory" was created, that IN THE MIDDLE AGES there was some CATASTROPHE in a solar system. Allegedly it considerably moved the Earth axis, after what the axis started to move according to different laws, than it has been before. According to which ones - "the catastrophists" don't clarify. And this is not important for them. The main result, which they "receive" and which they immediately start to use (in order to diminish the impression from astronomical results of Morozov) –is that it is impossible to calculate based on modern astronomical theory moon and sun eclipses, which were for epochs earlier than "the year of catastrophe". With that they every time intelligently place "the year of catastrophe" where they need. For example, in the last time, probably, already after our works, it was placed in the XIV-XV centuries in order to exclude a critical discussion not only about the Ancient times, but even about the Middle Ages. It is clear, that the placement of the Earth axe really influences, and rather considerably, on the fact of visibility of the eclipses in one or another region. If desired, it is possible to announce, that "the terrible catastrophe" changed even the movement pattern of the Moon in the space, what of course fully changes the "timetable of eclipses". After this it is very convenient to announce, that calculations of Morozov (and later ours), couldn't be continued deep into the centuries. So the Scaligerian chronology gets a "reliable defense" from astronomical method of Morozov.

It is worth saying, that after publication of our work on dating of star catalogue "Almagest", "the catastrophists" (in particular, Christopher Marks – a patriarch of catastrophism and a former employee of I.Velikovskiy), being absolutely sure in the reality of his "method", in triumph announced us that all our astronomical calculations lost sense in the light of their remarkable "theory of catastrophism". As in the XIV-XV centuries a "catastrophe has happened" and the Earth axis has moved, the Solar system changed and it is impossible to calculate anything with astronomical method for epochs earlier than the XIV century.

It was very unpleasant for them to realize, that natural movements of the stars, on which our analysis is based, were not subject to catastrophes in the Solar system. No matter of what scale they were. Even if the Earth exchanged places with Jove, this would not influence natural movement of far stars (moving on motionless background of more far stars). The same result would be from Jove.

Worry of "catastrophists" is understandable. Received by us dating of star catalogue of "Almagest" – in the interval from 600 to 1300 years A.D. – undermines one of the most important foundations of the Scaligerian chronology and in point of fact destroys it. Moreover our scientific articles on this subject appeared not only in Russian, but also in English language print. Starting from 1988 they were published in several scientific magazines. And in 1993 our book on this subject in English was published in the USA in a scientific publishing house CRC-Press. And nevertheless Western historians fiercely pretend that they didn't read our works and New Chronology for them is not more than thoughts of David Rohl about three hundred years inconsistencies in the "ancient" history of Egypt allegedly of the second millennium B.C. It is clear that discussions about such small mistakes are not dangerous for the Scaligerian chronology. That's why they take place and even are encouraged, as they just distract attention from really serious problems in chronology.


The idea is simple and intelligent: to vaccinate readers against the ideas of the New Chronology. In medicine it is done like this: first a small dose of poison is injected in order an organism became slightly seek and developed immunity against future probably bigger doses. So it is in history: they "injected" a small dose of the ideas of Morozov and our New Chronology in a distorted light (and under different last names) in order to breed in the society an immunity against the idea about necessity in review of the ancient history.


One of the directions of struggle against New Chronology is attempts to fill the books market with low-grade literature on this topic. Such are, for example, some books of a popular author of modern detectives А.А.Bushkov. Pretending to be an "independent researcher", he rewrote fragments from our books and at the same time convinced readers that in general we were not right. Here, as we think, there is not only desire "to skip over" interesting for many people topic, but also an absolutely conscious struggle against New Chronology, desire to change its run.

Another important and rather serious direction of struggle against New Chronology which becomes bigger and bigger in the last time is intentional distortion of the main ideas of New Chronology and their presentation actually in a caricature, but externally solid academic form.
As always, the mainstream pysop gatekeepers love twisting everything, muddying the waters and following "the rules"....:

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000)

Beware, the "straw man" is everywhere, especially on social media and always using the tactics mentioned in the rules.
Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.
You'll love the complete Mercator Atlas PDF that Fomenko has linked on the site in the 'Rare ancient pictures and texts, mentioned in New Chronology'. It is massive and every continent and country looks so cosey and close together:

An interesting side note, I had a quick gander at the 16th century in the disinformationalists "enyclopedia" and the following stuck out:

"It is regarded by historians as the century in which the rise of the West occurred." - The bureaucrats took over control of the planet under the name of the gods, even though the Annuna were gone, resulting in the secret societies we now have today under the New World Order. (LoneBear)

"Copernicus proposed the heliocentric universe, which was met with strong resistance, and Tycho Brahe refuted the theory of celestial spheres through observational measurement of the 1572 appearance of a Milky Way supernova. These events directly challenged the long-held notion of an immutable universe supported by Ptolemy and Aristotle, and led to major revolutions in astronomy and science." - see above!

Looking into the supernova of 1572:

"The appearance of the Milky Way supernova of 1572 belongs among the more important specific observation events in the history of astronomy. The appearance of the "new star" helped to revise ancient models of the heavens and to speed on a revolution in astronomy that began with the realized need to produce better astrometric star catalogues (and thus the need for more precise astronomical observing instruments). It also challenged the Aristotelian dogma of the unchangeability of the realm of stars." - see above!

"In England, Queen Elizabeth called to her the mathematician and astrologer Thomas Allen, "to have his advice about the new Star that appeared in the Cassiopeia to which he gave his Judgement very learnedly", as the antiquary John Aubrey recorded in his memoranda a century later.[5]" - Royal fiddling, surprise surprise...

So if the sky is not "immutable" then why do all of the ancient megalithic monuments (i'm currently reading about the similarities between Newgrange, the Great Pyramid and other sites, particularly with their alignment in 'The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries') still line up today with the rising or setting sun during the summer/winter solstice?

I think the overall "confusion" of Archaeoastronomy says it all....


When faced with truth, divide and conquer...
...[O]ne of the most endearing characteristics of archaeoastronomy is its capacity to set academics in different disciplines at loggerheads with each other.
—Clive Ruggles[36]
For a long time I have believed that such diversity requires the invention of some all-embracing theory. I think I was very naïve in thinking that such a thing was ever possible.
—Stanislaw Iwaniszewski[57]
There is no one way to do Archaeoastronomy. The divisions between archaeoastronomers tend not to be between the physical scientists and the social scientists. Instead it tends to depend on the location of kind of data available to the researcher. In the Old World, there is little data but the sites themselves; in the New World, the sites were supplemented by ethnographic and historic data. The effects of the isolated development of archaeoastronomy in different places can still often be seen in research today. Research methods can be classified as falling into one of two approaches, though more recent projects often use techniques from both categories.
They just love making things far more complex than they need to be.... on purpose! How "endearing"... :roll:

Anatoly Fomenko

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:30 am
by deepfsh
mongo wrote:His book New Chronology has some interesting points to make
Fomenko was featured also in Wilcock's last book The Synchronicity Key.

It is quite a serious adjustment to think of history as following a pre-designed script, written by a greater cosmic intelligence -- but the data is conclusive.

Russian scientist Dr. Anatoly Fomenko revealed that all of recorded history is repeating itself in cyclical patterns -- all the way back to Sumer. Source
David Wilcock wrote:All of recorded history, going back to the dawn of Sumerian culture in Mesopotamia, follows these same patterns -- according to the scientific research of Dr. Anatoly Fomenko.

Interestingly, Dr. Fomenko didn't even realize that the "sacred cycle numbers" were appearing in the time intervals he found -- even though they were evident.

The full story only appears when we combine Fomenko's data with the work of French astrologers such as Michel Helmer and Francois Masson. Source

Introducing the TYCHOS

Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:23 am
by DSKlausler
For your reading, and viewing pleasure.

"Tycho Brahe was (almost) right. Copernicus was (completely) wrong - all along. "

Current Thread:


Re: Math as Art

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:17 am
by Gopi
Simon is really on to something here... I have been going through his material over the past year.

I would still encourage LB to go here and then register perhaps after mentioning that he knows me.

Re: Math as Art

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:51 am
by Djchrismac
Gopi wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:17 am
Simon is really on to something here... I have been going through his material over the past year.

I would still encourage LB to go here and then register perhaps after mentioning that he knows me.
If this is correct...
March 21, 2018 — the date that our group of researchers known for diligent skepticism announced and endorsed the truth that the Sun (and its two moons Mercury and Venus) rotates at a tilted ecliptic around a non-tilted Earth and the Earth moves at 1 mph in a 25344-year Great Year orbit around empty space. In the new understanding, Mars is a binary companion of the Sun with its own two moons, and Mars orbits around the Sun and Earth and — according to Stellar Metamorphosis theory — planets and stars may be older and younger versions of the same phenomenon. then can we factor in the increase in our orbit of 5 days following the great catastrophe/deluge? There is plenty of evidence to show that it was the earth that tilted 23.5 degrees following this cataclysmic event, so how can it be the sun that is rotating at a tilted ecliptic and not the earth?

Would the Reciprocal System and model of planets in the solar system not have predicted this scenario of a binary system using natural consequences, instead of the model shown in the daniel papers and Geophysics of Planetary Evolution?

I also thought that only suns could be a binary system, surely a planet and star would not be configured as a binary system due to the difference in gravity between the two, is it not more likely that Mars is a moon and not a binary companion?

I'm not writing off this theory, it sounds intriguing, but perhaps it is a different composition of binary pairs in the system?

Is the only way to access all of the data to pay for a subscription?

Re: Math as Art

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:24 am
by DSKlausler
Djchrismac wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:51 am
Gopi wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:17 am
Simon is really on to something here... I have been going through his material over the past year.
If this is correct...
Would the Reciprocal System and model of planets in the solar system not have predicted this scenario of a binary system using natural consequences, instead of the model shown in the daniel papers and Geophysics of Planetary Evolution?
Note that Simon explicitly states that he makes no explanation as to the origin of the proposed system.

Also, if the overlords can make/move a moon, why not alter an entire system? Have they not done many things just to screw with our puny human minds?

Tychos model

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:30 am
by LoneBear
Knowing that galaxies are actually solar systems, would it not be appropriate to study the relationship of the Milky Way, Andromeda, the satellite "galaxies" that surround the Milky Way and the satellites of Andromeda?

Because of the scalar recursion that comprises a universe of motion, the planets within the solar system should mimic the same, orbital behaviors.

I took a look at the Tychos model and I would think that Ceres would be the antipode to the sun in such a model, only 1.3 AU further out, as it is located at the position that a supernova explosion would have left the "B component" (white dwarf) during RS solar system formation. The changing "white spots" on Ceres, noted by Hubble, could be the white dwarf equivalent of a "solar flare."

Re: Math as Art

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:23 am
by Djchrismac
This is similar to a discussion we had ages ago, it's also very possible that our sun is a binary system with the "black hole" at the centre of the Milky Way, which when you look at it as a solar system and not a galaxy, would be a sun emitting superfast photons moving beyond unity and flipping over into time/space and resulting in an absence of light.

A white sun with a "black hole sun" in a binary system seems familiar:



Imagine our solar system is the smaller one on the left, in the example below (NGC 2207 and IC 2163, two galaxies located "approximately 130 million light years away"...) then it is easy to see a similar view that we currently have of the milky way across the sky:



I think correcting the scale as RS2 research has shown and viewing Galaxies as Solar Systems is required for this theory but whether Simon Shack goes down this route or not remains to be seen...

Re: Tychos model

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:39 am
by DSKlausler
LoneBear wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:30 am
I took a look at the Tychos model and I would think that Ceres would be the antipode to the sun in such a model, only 1.3 AU further out, as it is located at the position that a supernova explosion would have left the "B component" (white dwarf) during RS solar system formation. The changing "white spots" on Ceres, noted by Hubble, could be the white dwarf equivalent of a "solar flare."
Well, underneath his model are the assumptions, would it be a huge effort to change those to swap Mars with Ceres? Just a quick test. By the way, if Ceres should be the antipode, where does Mars belong?

I am certain that Simon would more likely consider an alternative of this type better explained by Lone Bear, or perhaps Gopi - since he seems to have had some contact in the past.

Re: Math as Art

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:24 pm
by LoneBear
Gopi wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:17 am
Simon is really on to something here... I have been going through his material over the past year.

I would still encourage LB to go here and then register perhaps after mentioning that he knows me.
Went there, registered, read a few hundred posts and am not going back--far too bigoted a group for me. I do not understand why you recommended it. All Simon did was stumble on the fact that there is a scalar component to motion in the solar system, but does not interpret it correctly, assuming a geocentric model (since it is scalar, every planet/moon in the system will have the appearance of being the center, when you are observing from it). Heck, every Selenite knows that the Earth revolves around the moon!! Since he's written a book on it--he's not going to be open to any discussion, just like Pond, Satz and the "UM" people.

That's the problem with "casting in stone"... and why I keep putting off writing a book on RS2. I am still not satisfied I have the theory to the point of "alpha testing."