FAQ - Frequently asked Questions
The questions
about our Chronologie are intermixed quite easily...
1. Is there really no positive evidence confirming our
traditional
Chronology?
No! Circular
arguments or ambiguities can always be found.
2. Is
there a hypothesis matching with all the independent observations?
Yes! Intermixed
year-counts caused some 300 yrs deviation between AD and CE.
3. Is there hard evidence that allows easy verification of this hypothesis?
Yes! - 15 eclipse reports showing perfectly identical offset against astronomical calculations.
4. Is it
possible to narrow down the date where the inconsistencies ended?
Yes! - this happened
around the year
1000 CE.
5. Are
all the dates of the antique times affected?
No! Only those
depending on the greek
and roman
tradition, including the masoretic Torah. The babylonian
records date the years correctly.
6. What was the motive, to displace traditions by three centuries?
The legend of the Seven Sleepers transplanted persecutions of the Christians into a far, unreachable past beyond prosecution.
7. What
could have caused the corruption of our chronology?
The 'objectivation' of the legend with the Easter calculus of Dionysius Exiguus.
8.
How was it possle to maintain the pretense of continuity anyway?
With the aid of
manipulative duplications of persons -
Constantine I., Charlemagne, Rabbi Hillel and others.
9. Are
there hints for such 'collateral' fabrications?
Yes! The 'Donation of Constantine',
'Gesta Hludowici', Ammian
Marcellin, etc.
10. Are there
suspicious facts identifying the responsibles for the
inconsistencies?
Yes! The emperors
Constantine VII. and
Otto III.
11. Are
there plausible motives for such an activity?
Yes! The impending
collapse of the Byzantine
Empire.
12. Are
there documents confirming such manipulations?
Yes! - e.g. a
threatening letter adressed to Pope Gregory IV.
13.
Why are the records from history nevertheless largely conclusive?
Because all the annalists
did presuppose the validity of the traditional chronology as
self-evident.
14.
Were some inconsistencies detected and published anyhow?
Yes! Starting in the
16th century
- by Azaria dei Rossi, Isaak Newton and others.
15.
Why then were the inconsistencies not resolved?
Only explanations from within the dogm of traditional chronology were considered.
The paradox between creed and knowledge was not seen.
16.
Why is the issue of critical chronology research even today still a
taboo?
- It is seen as an attack
against the basics of our knowledge.
- Doubts about traditional
knowledge undermine the authority of a teacher.
- Ad-hoc assumptions allow
to resolve any inconsistency.
- Historians trust in the
knowledge of natural scientists and vice versa.
- Scientific activities
beyond the group consensus imply the abandonment of appreciation.
- To hedge the 'trusted'
state of science appears more important than the aquisition of novel
insight.
- Premature
hypotheses (conspiracy theories) have discredited critical
chronolgy for university scientists.
17.
Is there a chance, anyhow, to gather some new insight?
Yes!
Novel data-recall facilities as well as additional and more precise
data restrict the chance to find plausible hypotheses under the
traditional premiss.
18. Is
not the truth about chronology completely irrelevant for most
humans?
No!
- Chronology does provide
natural science with the basis for the modeling of vitally important
data - e.g. global warming.
- Chronology is the sine qua non for
the understanding of our civilisation,
religions and culture:
- There were no dark centuries
without preserved artifacts.
- The
middleages did not
produce an excessive number of faked documents.
- Biblical
texts can be verified
(e.g. 'Plagues of Egypt', 'Star of Bethlehem',
'Revelation of John').
- The development of arts and
science did proceed steadily.
-> home
HEK
01/2011 upd. 1/2012