| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: Stonehenge 'older than believed' |
 |
|
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/7660860.stm
"New findings at Stonehenge suggest its
stones were erected much earlier than
thought, challenging the site>s
conventional history."
David Christainsen |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
imipak
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: Stonehenge 'older than believed' |
|
|
On Oct 10, 6:40 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]BBChttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/7660860.stm
"New findings at Stonehenge suggest its
stones were erected much earlier than
thought, challenging the site>s
conventional history."
David Christainsen
[/quote]
I>m not sure the new claim really challenges the conventional history
as much as it potentially extends it. I could easily imagine a site
switching from one primary purpose to another over 500 years,
particularly as there was a switch from using the Avebury complex to
the Stonehenge complex some time within that 500 years. Given that
there is evidence of wooden postholes in what is currently the carpark
for the visitor>s centre there, which generally don>t get a mention on
"conventional histories", I think we can take it as read that
"conventional histories" are the abridged versions and therefore not
useful points of comparison for new discoveries. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Elijahovah
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Stonehenge 'older than believed' |
|
|
So if stonehenge was founded on Koyak 21
(Jan 3 winter solstice solar ecipse) in 1554 BC
with Venus and the moon at winter solstice and
nodal,
we can be sure a change took place in 500 years
or 1054 BC. I find it interesting that the Amizaduga Venus
tablets (lunar dates of Venus) are debated as 56 years
or 64 years. The 56 years implies the nodal lunar cycle
of the 56 peg holes included Venus.
(As for nodal, i previously posted how 250 droconic months
are 18 lunar years (222 synodic months), an intercalary month
(223 months) and 7.5 synodic months (=230.5 synodic).
This means (twice 18.6 years), 37.2 years are whole 461
whole synodic months but the 56 years returns it to half
a synodic (691.5 synodics)
of which 750 draconic months would either
alternate new moon and full moon, or
691 synodics = 749.5 draconic
692 synodics = 750.5 draconic
Clearly the 56-year calendar is not from astral geniuses
in 1554 BC, however they did used 56 years. So of course
error accumulates. Stonehenge has a 56-year calendar
which spans 504 years to 1050 BC.
The interesting thing about 500 years is
this, that although 56 years cycles to 504 years, scholars
know that lunar Venus dates cannot be retained if a sothic
19-year lunar calendar is used because Venus is of the
365-day calendar. Yes it can be observed adavnced in the
Julian calendar but eventually Venus passes greatest elongation,
and solar conjunction within 243 years to repeat. Where as the
365-day method errs only 2 days per 40 calendar years, so as to
advance only 60 days in 1200 years (1199 Julian). So because of
this drift where lunar is regarded 19-year Sothic and Venus is
regarded as 365-day Egyptian dated, the end result is a 19-year
lunar date of Venus repeats in 275 years (Venus as 243 +8+8+8+8)
NOT in 256 years (4x 64 years) nor 280 years (5x 56 years) for
Stonehenge.
continuing a 56-year cycle from 275 years will thus reach 499 years
instead fo 504 years. Thus Venus lunar dates of 1554 BC
could be expected in 1055 BC instead of 1050 BC.
The 1199 Julian years of Venus takes you to 355 BC.
But Venus as 243 years totals 1458 years as sothic
to 96 BC.
and the moon in 19 years totals 1463 years as sothic
to 91 BC.
The lunar dates of 275-year Venus will drift back
8 Julian dates each cycle, so that
1554 BC Jan 4 Koyak 21 calendar absent new moon
1280 BC Dec 27 (Koyak 21 = Oct 27 calendar new moon)
1005 BC Dec 19 (Koyak 21 = Aug 19 calendar new moon)
730 BC Dec 11 (Koyak 21 = Jun12 calendar new moon)
455 BC Dec 3 (Koyak 21 = April 4 calendar new moon)
180 BC Nov 25 (Koyak 21 = Jan 25 calendar new moon)
The above Julian dates are expected to be the same synodic
Venus on absent new moon. Following 25- year calendar
of Egyptian moon. In the case of Jan 25 of 180 BC the date
Koyak 21 has become a 2-day moon for a Venus 183-days
past superior conj, and then Paopi 16
is a 1-day moon on Nov 16 so that Nov 25 is a 10-day moon
for a Venus 185-days past superior conj.
Considering the period fo 1055 BC we have David
as king in 1077 BC, taking Jerusalem in 1070 BC.
Solomon of 1037 BC building the temple in 1034 BC.
The 40-year cycle of Venus falls on 1117 BC and 1077 BC
and 1037 BC and 997 BC. Where as Jupiter>s 83-year
cycle falls as Jova or kingship on 1117 BC and 1034 BC.
The return of Mars is the famed 997 BC on July 10 Tamuz
as it was in 1770 BC July 10 (Adam>s famed year 2256
which honors 600-year Venus as a 1200-year cycle).
So the change that took place 500 years apart, was it
the first 500 years? 1554-1055 BC
ELIJAH
judging the error in men who incompetent die in
the next global destruction tis year.
Competent is the one like Abram who took med
advice to have a child with Sarah though he could
have one with Hagar in the same unclean condition.
Competent is like Lot who took evacuation advice
when 10 men in Sodom could not be found to
evacuate the whole city to save them.
Competent like the bride of Christ who does not
know all things and just may someday glorify information
knowledge from their own members, yes from those
Jehovah gave to their own people, instead of from
the libraries of Jehovah>s knowledge that Jehovah has
given to the pagan United Nations, (UNICEF),
and NASA, catholic scientists, and born again physicists,
and rapturist medical doctors, etc.
Jesus said it was Elijah who had to seek shelter from
the unclean Syrian (a woman) because Jewish women
didnt want him around. Is the bride of christ its own
forerunner and Elijah that it regards knowledge that
Jehovah gives to the great crowd as inferior to worldly
sources of Jehovah>s knowledge. Why is it so important
to show that the world does have these facts or data
as truth about Jehovah, his earth, his animals, his science.
Why is it the bride is telling its children to not learn nor
school nor speak as if theyve learned any new unknown
truth because only the bride has that authority to claim
what Jehovah>s truth is, and then is is from worldly sources
not from her own children. Is the bride seeking to rid her children
so she can save the corrupt world instead.
I submitted an article that proved the Maya descended from
Noah and that Maya chronology though wrong is a twist
of true chronology of Noah. THE RESULT? A Maya article
on how the Maya have become converted to be children
of the bride. But the question is why is it more important
that the children be obediently stupid rather than understand
the truth as reason to be obedient. Why does the bride seek
to do it the Catholic way merely to crave and seek and collect
obedience. Jesus taught obedience to Jehovah not obedience
to himself. Thus he taught obedience to Jehovah not obedience
to the bride. So will the bride teach obedience to the bride as
above obedience to Jehovah. Yes, Jesus did say to obey him
is to obey Jehovah. To obey the bride is to obey Jehovah. But
why does she grieve and torture her children by holding back
knowledge that isnt too much for them to bear. Yes they can
decern what is too much to bear. Or is Judas discerning beside
the bride so that she can control the money box, and claim it
is for the bride. The bride will soon say to its Judas, be gone,
go do what you seek to do, you do not want my feet to have
the perfume of truth poured upon it. You withheld from my
children and now you dare to say it is i who have withheld
so i can have this wasted upon my feet. This is to Judas,
the non-anointed writing staff and legal reps of the WatchTower
Society, because of you you slaughter the bride this year.
You demon. The queen you sit beside will oust you like she
did Haman, you raper of Jehovah>s Witnesses. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Garry Denke
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Stonehenge 'older than believed' |
|
|
Researchers Disagree About Age, Purpose of Stonehenge
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/September-October/Researchers-Disagree-About-Age--Purpose-of-Stonehenge.html
I see that Pearson, Pitts and Richards have proven, a) SH did not
begin as a cemetery and, b) SH did not begin as a wooden building. No
bones were in any of the 56 Aubrey Holes at first, they were full of
56 Pembrokeshire Blue Stone. Those 3000 BC bones had to be buried
after Blue Stone was removed. That makes their SH arrival date earlier
(3100 BC) coinciding with the Ditch surrounding them. Pearson, Pitts
and Richards might consider 3100 BC Pembrokeshire Blue Coal
(anthracite) explorers from Preseli Hills marking SH fast silting-in
Ditch coal duster with 56 Pembrokeshire Blue Stone (volcanics) who
abandoned the duster later which became their cemetery. Wainwright and
Darvill might consider this also since that is what happened (great
Cursus Coal Cache found). In 7 days Public Consultation of the Future
of SH will end. Lt-Col William Hawley and Robert Newall original 1920s
evidence (56 'X' Holes) first holding Blue Stone has been confirmed.
Scroll Trench was also a Hawley and Newall discovery West-SW of
Heelstone (unfinished). Will it be Pearson, Pitts and Richards digging
up the Arc Trench ending? or will it be Wainwright and Darvill digging
up the Arc Trench ending? SH is just Stonehenge? or SH is Stonehenge
Hospital? In 7 days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_Trench
Garry Denke |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Garry Denke
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: Re: Stonehenge 'older than believed' |
|
|
On Oct 10, 5:41 pm, imipak <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 6:40 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BBChttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/7660860.stm
"New findings at Stonehenge suggest its
stones were erected much earlier than
thought, challenging the site>s
conventional history."
David Christainsen
I>m not sure the new claim really challenges the conventional history
as much as it potentially extends it. I could easily imagine a site
switching from one primary purpose to another over 500 years,
particularly as there was a switch from using the Avebury complex to
the Stonehenge complex some time within that 500 years. Given that
there is evidence of wooden postholes in what is currently the carpark
for the visitor>s centre there, which generally don>t get a mention on
"conventional histories", I think we can take it as read that
"conventional histories" are the abridged versions and therefore not
useful points of comparison for new discoveries.
[/quote]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/stonehenge/article4.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-Rome-Imperial-Julius-Emperor/dp/1906719012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223767034&sr=1-1
Finds Coordinator: Yvette Staelens; "Some of the artefacts will decay
significantly unless we introduce them to the correct storage
environment. For example items made from metal." Metal items include a
Roman coin made from a bronze alloy that is particularly susceptible
to decay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_invasions_of_Britain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_conquest_of_Britain
When the Romans came Druids kept 'The stone which the builders
refused' safe. Romans excavated Stonehenge center. Druids et al wise.
Heelstone downplayed. Vatican letters (Roman) say J.C. claimed Mishkan
beneath Stonehenge, count Roman coins Sarsen numbers 51-60 excavated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabernacle
Garry Denke |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
imipak
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:02 am Post subject: Re: Stonehenge 'older than believed' |
|
|
On Oct 11, 6:24 am, Garry Denke <GarryDe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Researchers Disagree About Age, Purpose of Stonehengehttp://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/September-October/Researc...
I see that Pearson, Pitts and Richards have proven, a) SH did not
begin as a cemetery and, b) SH did not begin as a wooden building. No
bones were in any of the 56 Aubrey Holes at first, they were full of
56 Pembrokeshire Blue Stone. Those 3000 BC bones had to be buried
after Blue Stone was removed. That makes their SH arrival date earlier
(3100 BC) coinciding with the Ditch surrounding them. Pearson, Pitts
and Richards might consider 3100 BC Pembrokeshire Blue Coal
(anthracite) explorers from Preseli Hills marking SH fast silting-in
Ditch coal duster with 56 Pembrokeshire Blue Stone (volcanics) who
abandoned the duster later which became their cemetery. Wainwright and
Darvill might consider this also since that is what happened (great
Cursus Coal Cache found). In 7 days Public Consultation of the Future
of SH will end. Lt-Col William Hawley and Robert Newall original 1920s
evidence (56 'X' Holes) first holding Blue Stone has been confirmed.
Scroll Trench was also a Hawley and Newall discovery West-SW of
Heelstone (unfinished). Will it be Pearson, Pitts and Richards digging
up the Arc Trench ending? or will it be Wainwright and Darvill digging
up the Arc Trench ending? SH is just Stonehenge? or SH is Stonehenge
Hospital? In 7 days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_Trench
Garry Denke
[/quote]
First off, they have not proved the complex did not start as a wooden
structure (quite different from a wooden building), as they made no
effort to counter the evidence of the postholes. They were concerned
with the blue stones only, so their conclusions are entirely unrelated
to any earlier works in the Stonehenge complex.
http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/stonehengepostholes.htm
Secondly, they don>t really have that much of a case for their claim.
Yes, you wouldn>t expect someone to dig up a huge stone, put charred
bone below it, then put the stone back. However, there is a limit to
what you can infer from that. The stones weren>t put there in a day,
so you>ve plenty of time to allow for "failed" healings and burials
inside the pits during construction as a byproduct of the healing
work. Yes, first rule is to go with the simpler theory that explains
all available data, and the burial hypothesis is simpler than
combining the two, but it>s this "explains all available data" bit
that gets me. Does the burial theory in isolation explain all the
data? If not, then it violates the paraphrasing of this principle: "a
theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler". If the burial
theory explains only some of the data, then it is too simple to
explain all of the data. (Another paraphrasing states that the
components of a theory should be both "necessary and sufficient".
Here, the burial argument seems to be necessary, but there is a lack
of evidence that it is also sufficient.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
