More Greek chronology problems

[Lars Wilson]

Let's see how smart the archaeology scientists are. Some say certain things
cannot be taught but you have to have a "knack" for them. I think
scientists, looking straight ahead or through a microscope can't see too
many forrests for the trees. They are great at the details. That's good.
But a good investigator needs imagination. People can have knowledge and
wisdom, but do they have UNDERSTANDING! Case in point the OJ Simpson
murders. It appears that based on the evidence and knowledge that he did
it. But if you know cultic symbolisms, you could tell from the marks on the
two bodies that a secret cult performed the murders professionally and
framed OJ Simpson for the killings. Even so, you wouldn't understand WHY
this occurred unless you knew about the cult and Los Angeles racist
politics. Key: Anybody can get your blood from your doctor and put it
wherever they want--it doesn't mean you were actually there. People are too
dumb to realize this. Another topic totally, but just an example.

In this case, ARCHAEOLOGY is trying to maintain a straight face by insisting
upon using an outdated, fake timeline. By use of that timeline they make
comparisons and decisions that have now begun to look incompetnent,
especially with the advent of more precise RC14 dating! But it still
boils down to correcting the timeline. That has already been done based
upon astronomical text event realignments. But you still have to get rid
of 82 years of fake Persian history and 28 years of fake Greek history, upon
which foundation the entire "fixed" timeline through the Assyrian Period
rests. Therefore, the new task of the day is destroying the current Greek
timeline by listing enough discrepancies all pointing in the same direction
so that it would be incompetent to think the Greek timeline is remotely
reliable. Once the extra fake years are convincingly removed, then the
entire timeline will fall and SELF-CORRECT since the astronomical events
limit the spontaneous or creative redating of events. There are only a few
choices.

However, this presentation is pure FUN! Unless you have an extensive
background in Greek history you would not be able to figure this out, thus I
present it to you, AS IS, and will explain the potential meaning.

Here's the quote from Wikipedia about "Charmides" the beautiful Greek boy:

"Socrates narrates the dialog, and says that he has just escaped from a
battle at Potidaea, a comment that recalls Alcibiades comment in the
Symposium, that Socrates escaped the battle at Delium with the general
Laches (Symp. 221a). Socrates says that, shortly after the fighting began,
he slipped back to his old haunts at the palaestra of Taureas where the boys
gather. With the help of Chaerephon, he found his way to the side of
Critias, and asked him about the present state of philosophy, and who among
the boys was gaining in wisdom or beauty, or both. Critias says that
Charmides is the boy of the moment, almost a young man.
Critias tells Socrates that Charmides is his cousin, son of his uncle
Glaucon, and just then Charmides enters the scene and causes huge
consternation in the crowd. Chaerephon rushes over and asks Socrates if the
boy is not beautiful, and Socrates agrees. Chaerephon says suggestively that
if Socrates could see his naked form, he would forget all about his handsome
face. Socrates says all this will be good and well if the boy also has a
noble soul. Socrates tells Critias that before they look at his body, they
will ask the boy to strip and show them his soul.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmides_(dialogue)

Wonderful!! Problem is, Glaucon is the brother of Plato. Also Charmides is
supposed to be the brother of Plato's mother. In that case, Charmides is
also the "uncle" of Plato. But as the context shows, Critias is old
enough to be the charge of this youth who is the son of Glaucon. Plus as
you can tell by the context, Critias is also a philosopher, one that
Socrates knows personally.

EXPLANATION: This beautiful young boy is not the "cousin" of Critias but
his young nephew, and "Critias" is just a substite identity for Plato, to
fill in the early life of Plato and Socrates, the same as "Phaedo" was
invented to substitute for the boy-lover of Socrates, who was really
Aristotle.

But this makes sense! That's because when the history of Socrates was moved
back in time along with the Peloponnesian War, suddenly he was no longer 7
years older than Plato (Socrates was born in 435 BCE, Plato in 428 BCE) but
now 41 years older. But Socrates and Plato had a relationship from his
youth. This scene, which occurs 7 years into the war, is thus when
Socrates is 39 and Plato is 32. Plato's brother, Glaucon would have been
around 39 as well and thus could have had a young son maybe around 15 years
of age which was born when he was about 24, etc.

So here the historian revisionists are playing games! They don't mind
hinting that this beautiful boy, Charmides, is related to Plato, only they
change his brother to his uncle, and change the identity of Plato to Critias
so that he is old enough to know Socrates and be in charge of Charmides.

This fits the corrected history. Because Socrates would have been 39 at the
time and Plato 32. Charmides was not Plato's uncle.

GLAUCON PROBLEM:

But here's something else that is a huge problem. Plato's brother, Glaucon:

From Wikipedia:

Glaucon (Greek: ???????)(bef. 389 BC, d. 409 BC) son of Ariston, was Plato's
older brother. His mother was Perictione and he was born in Collytus, just
outside of Athens. Glaucon was eulogized after the Battle of Megara in 409.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucon

If Glaucon was close to the age of Socrates, born in 479 BCE then he would
have been 41 years older than Plato born in 428 BCE. If Plato's mother was
at least 15 years of age when she bore Glaucon, then she would have been
already 56 years old, 61 if she was 20 when she had Glaucon. But after
Plato, she married again and had other children. So she was still having
babies in her 70's?

No WAY!! Instead, when Socrates is corrected to being born in 435 BCE, just
7 years older than Plato, then the range of children makes sense, within the
normal age of childbearing for the average woman.

STILL THINK THERE WAS NO REVISIONISM? If you do then you're clearly not
that bright. That's all there is to it!

Lars Wilson

[JTEM]

Post by Lars Wilson
Let's see how smart the archaeology scientists are.

You'd have to take your meds first.

If you did, you might even notice that this is an ancient
EGYPT group, not an ancient Greek newsgroup.

Well, we can always hope...

[Lars Wilson]

Post by JTEM

Post by Lars Wilson
Let's see how smart the archaeology scientists are.

You'd have to take your meds first.
If you did, you might even notice that this is an ancient
EGYPT group, not an ancient Greek newsgroup.
Well, we can always hope...

In case you haven't noticed, all the timelines are interconnected and I do
believe Egypt was still on the planet during the Greek Period, right? If
you reduce the Persian and Greek Periods, that will affect a reduction in
the Egyptian period as well. Everything is connected.

I'm only trying to help.

My doctor did say I was a little weird and hyper and suggested I should take
up posting about Egypt to help with my therapy. But warned me to watch out
for dogmatic people with closed minds. I had NO idea!!!

Lars
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html

[Lars Wilson]

Here is a reference to something I'd been aware of for some time, and that
is that Xenophon claims to have been present himself at the Symposium, but
per current dating would have been too young. That would not be the case
if the PPW was moved down in time 28 years. There is also apparently some
support that one of the characters at the Symposium was actually Xenophon as
well:

Loading Image... (quote, Xenophon too young to
be present at Symposium)

Loading Image... (quote, Xenophon identity
with Cristobolus at Symposium)

Just another in the list of possible chronology discrepancies. Again, an
expansion of the timeline would cause this type of a contradiction. Again,
both Plato and Xenophon are covering the works of Socrates and this
important event both wrote about.

Here is another interesting quote about Xenophon's works. A revisionist
needs to do two things 1) Destroy the present contradicting historical
sources, and 2) Rewrite a new history to replace it. From "The Greek
Historians", Xenophon, page 382 it states a well-known observation:

"He was the first polygraph in Greek history, and it is sufficient measure
of his continuing popularity that every one of HIS WORKS, so far as we know,
HAS SURVIVED IN FULL, a fate almost without parellel among Greek writers."

Obviously, the idea here is that no other revisionist aggressively tried to
revise Xenophon though he did others. Thus they don't survive, but all his
works do. Obviously, the surviving historian is the first to be considered
the revisionist! Not that he did this on his own over time. But being
chosen as the official historical architect for this period, his works would
have been saved while others discarded.

One source mentions Xenophon would have been only 8 years old at the time of
the Symposium, so if born in 430 BCE we are looking at around 422 BCE, which
is 9 years into the war. When the timeline is corrected and the PPW begins
in 403 BCE the 9th year falls in 395 so Xenophon would have been around 35
years of age, and Socrates would have been 40. Xenophon also claims to have
met Socrates at an early age.

Lars Wilson

[JTEM]

Post by Lars Wilson
Here is a reference to something I'd been aware of for
some time,

....and stems from your experiences with LSD.