- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is anyone familiar with Phantom Time Hypothesis?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:16 am to OysterPoBoy
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:16 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication
Well, this is busted right here. We have DNA ancestry studies which show this guy existed.
Even without that, this shite sounds like something L Ron Hubbard would have come up with.
2
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:38 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
Well, this is busted right here. We have DNA ancestry studies which show this guy existed.
It seems like that would be something easy to fake and one of the first things you would do when all this DNA stuff came out to help solidify your doings. You have to remember that we're dealing with the catholic church and they are definitely still around and still have their hand on things.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:41 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
seems like that would be something easy to fake and one of the first things you would do when all this DNA stuff came out to help solidify your doings. You have to remember that we're dealing with the catholic church and they are definitely still around and still have their hand on things.
Now you’re talking about a faked-moon-landing level conspiracy.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:43 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
quote:
The presence of Romanesque architecture in tenth-century Western Europe, suggesting the Roman era was not as long ago as conventionally thought.
What does this even mean?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:47 am to OysterPoBoy
That's great and all if you only consider European civilization. What about the Tang Dynasty in China? Did Otto II make them up too?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:48 am to OysterPoBoy
Read the "criticisms" section on wikipedia, and it is easily explained.
quote:
he Gregorian reform was never purported to bring the calendar in line with the Julian calendar as it had existed at the time of its institution in 45 BC, but as it had existed in 325, the time of the Council of Nicaea, which had established a method for determining the date of Easter Sunday by fixing the vernal equinox on March 21 in the Julian calendar. By 1582, the astronomical equinox was occurring on March 10 in the Julian calendar, but Easter was still being calculated from a nominal equinox on March 21. In 45 BC the astronomical vernal equinox took place around March 23. Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:49 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
What about the Tang Dynasty in China?
I would imagine they use a different calendar so there was no need to mess with them.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:51 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
quote:
including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication
Well, this is busted right here. We have DNA ancestry studies which show this guy existed.
Explain to me how this works and can "prove" a specific historical figure from 1200+ years ago specifically existed as the historical figure as we understand him.
For the record, I'm in no way lending credence to the hooey of the OP, I'm just not sure as to how whatever it is you are postulating "proves" anything.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:56 am to OysterPoBoy
Covered it in the Q thread a few weeks ago. That thread really does have a little bit of everything nuts.
One of the arguments for it is that we literally have next to zero physical copies of records penned prior to the 15th century. That is about as old as our oldest copies of historical records go in the west. The Jesuit Order had a monopoly on the educational institutions of Europe at the time, so while it is a tremendous stretch, there was the opportunity to fabricate history.
What filled in that time is believed to be, essentially, repeats of things that actually did happen. Rather than make entirely new stories, they just repeated old ones and changed the names. For example, the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain and the Viking invasion could have been the same event, just recorded twice with different names. Odoacer being crowned emperor of Rome after taking the city in the 5th century and Charlemagne being crowned Emperor several hundred years later could also have been the same event, simply retold.
I don’t subscribe to this AT ALL, I’m just trying to explain it in layman’s terms.
One of the arguments for it is that we literally have next to zero physical copies of records penned prior to the 15th century. That is about as old as our oldest copies of historical records go in the west. The Jesuit Order had a monopoly on the educational institutions of Europe at the time, so while it is a tremendous stretch, there was the opportunity to fabricate history.
What filled in that time is believed to be, essentially, repeats of things that actually did happen. Rather than make entirely new stories, they just repeated old ones and changed the names. For example, the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain and the Viking invasion could have been the same event, just recorded twice with different names. Odoacer being crowned emperor of Rome after taking the city in the 5th century and Charlemagne being crowned Emperor several hundred years later could also have been the same event, simply retold.
I don’t subscribe to this AT ALL, I’m just trying to explain it in layman’s terms.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 10:06 am
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:05 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I'm in no way lending credence to the hooey of the OP
I'd agree that this is unsettled science but "hooey" is a bit too critical. I had no idea the Q thread discussed this. Now I'm gonna have to delve into that. I've always avoided that thread because I'm afraid if I go in I may not come out.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:06 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Explain to me how this works and can "prove" a specific historical figure from 1200+ years ago specifically existed as the historical figure as we understand him.
For the record, I'm in no way lending credence to the hooey of the OP, I'm just not sure as to how whatever it is you are postulating "proves" anything.
OP claimed that he specifically didn’t exist. Yet today we can see a significant portion of the population that share DNA traits that indicate a shared ancestor... meaning someone did exist at that particular point in time. And there’s a litany of historical documents that name the someone as Charlemagne. We could call him John fricking Doe, but DNA shows that JFD existed, and the OP’s crazy theory claims that JFD didn’t exist.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:06 am to OysterPoBoy
Is this going to screw up Christmas?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:10 am to OysterPoBoy
Christianity in general is q pretty corrupt business and I wouldn't put it past the catholic church but I'm not buying this one
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:11 am to OysterPoBoy
This is idiocy and any scholar who promotes it should have their credentials revoked. If this were true, the Islamic empires essentially burst onto the scene and all of the conflict with the Byzantines can’t be explained.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:12 am to OysterPoBoy
There were major jumps in dates whenever they changed calendars. But not 400 years worth.
There should be some testable data in Europe for this, such as Moorish architecture and artifacts in Andalusian Spain, amongst others, since this missing period takes place at a time when the Islamic conquest of Europe was ongoing.
There should be some testable data in Europe for this, such as Moorish architecture and artifacts in Andalusian Spain, amongst others, since this missing period takes place at a time when the Islamic conquest of Europe was ongoing.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:13 am to SlapahoeTribe
The idea is that when you read history, it often repeats. However, the reason it seems to repeat almost exactly 2 or 3 times between the fall of the Roman Empire and approximately AD 1000, according to this theory, is that it actually only happened that way once, but the story was repeated with changed names in order to fill in time for those “extra” centuries that didn’t exist.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:13 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
does this mean that its actually 1721 and not 2018?
Mind blowing right?
Not really. Time is a construct.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:14 am to tketaco
quote:It also predated the Phantom Thread hypothesis.
It predated the Phantom Menace hypothesis.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:14 am to Tyga Woods
quote:
Is this going to screw up Christmas?
A good question. It really shouldn't.
What should screw up Christmas is the fact that the catholic church made up Jesus' birthday being December 25 to compete with the Ancient Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a festival to honor Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:17 am to STLDawg
quote:
If this were true, the Islamic empires essentially burst onto the scene and all of the conflict with the Byzantines can’t be explained.
It would he arguing that they simply happened earlier or that maybe one or two of those conflicts that had similar beginnings and endings were made up to stretch time. There was clearly conflict, just maybe not at the exact time we think there was conflict.
There also seems to be a significant gap in new building construction in old Constantinople during this time period which sorta supports the hypothesis that those intervening centuries didn’t happen.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News