Toto

Xenia Warrior Princess is not historical ??!?? But she comes from a city mentioned in the Bible - Amphipolis!

Don't destroy people's faith!

RED DAVE

From Toto:
According to principles taught by that incomparable teacher, Larsguy47, Xenia is actually the hitherto unknown twin sister of Xenophon. This is in line with his identity between Medes and Medusa.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

That's just a pre-theory actually. I wondering if there is a connection or not.

LG47

Larsguy47

Irrelevent since I'm changing the history to a different eclipse. Try and imagine this. The original date was 403 for the beginning of the PPW. Plato was 25. A plague broke out. Plato was consulted. It became a folkloric hisotry people liked to tell about. Xenophon comes along and wants to expand the rule of the Persian king paying him a fortune to revise history and add more years to the Greek Period. So he adds 30 years to the time between the two wars and finds an eclipse 28 years earlier in 431BCE that matches the same Olympic cycle. Great! He has now added 56 years of fake Greek history. He has to do a lot of revising but the history of Plato being consulted during the war doesn't get revised. It survives. So now, the War occurs 3 years before Plato is born. All you're saying is the revised history matches the revised eclipse. So it's irrelevant.

But this is WHY I gave you the NASA reference. I'll be telling someone that it is possible for eclipses to have been predicted by a certain method in ancient history because of an eclipse pattern that occurs in a predictable pattern. Astronomers acknowledge that possibility, just never came across. But someone will go to Nasa and read that no such was possible during this time period and try to contradict me. So they don't understand the situation completely; that is, that the NASA reference is now outdated. But sometimes you can't explain that to a person. They figure NASA should know better and that's it. They think they know something, but they don't.

I already told you, the scientists say that it wouldn't. The eclipse seen from Athens was only PARTIAL. To see the stars there has to be darkness and that occurs when you are only very close to the eclipse track or within it. The level of totality was not sufficient. But, if this is the basis for you wanting to keep that eclipse in 431BCE, be my guest.

He is suspected of editing Thucydides and Thucydides is defiitely considered to be edited. Xenophon is suspect because he picks up the history of Thucydides right where Thucydides leaves off. Anyway, you should have looked that up. I told you it's up to you to disprove, remember. I suspect you didn't look it up and want me to give you that reference. I'll see what I come up with but basically you need to research Thucydides and the commentary on his history.

So, does that mean it's not true. The significance of "folklore" is important in the context of historical revisionism. That's because primary histories get revised and the writing of the original history suppressed. But if a tale becomes popular and told by too many people, then it gets quoted on by many writers and survives in various writings part from a parimary source. Same with Artaxerxes being buried between Darius I and Darius II. People through the ages visited that tomb and it got handed down from generation to generation who was buried there. They could say what they want with inscriptions but it's hard to change something so many people knew about. Thus revionists play close attention to "legends" and "folklore" since they often help with reestablishing the original dating. Anyway, it's up to you. A judgment call. I like my eclipse and my date and I'm presuming Plato was indeed consulted with this problem and he taught geometry, both "planiometry" and spatial geometry. So that fits his being consulted.

You can call it a joke if you want. But I didn't make it up. I told you I stumbled upon it in a book. After that, I made comparisons and it makes sense. I don't reveal that source because it reveals who knew about it. But is also proves that that secret has been handed down in some academic circles who know the truth. There are too many coincidences to dismiss it though. For instance, let's say it's preposterous! It's not really if you know that Socrates was a lover of boys. It's not preposterous if Aristotle was a boy compared to Socrates. If not preposterous if you consider that Aristotle was bisexual as well. And its not preposterous if they knew the same people. Further Phaedo is a comparable age to Aristotle at the time of Socrates' death! So it's a matter of looking away from all this or presuming the "rumor" is true. Besides that, Aristotle became a famous philosopher himself, wouldn't that do justice to Socrates if he was his personal protege?

[/QUOTE]

It's not a "secret" book. It's just a book with a secret. Anyway, don't worry about it. You can always turn that light out in the closet after you close the door, hiding from reality. :>

This is only a THEORY I'm sharing. You can reject it if you want or presume it might be true. It's up to you. I've realigned this history to match the Biblical chronology. That's my primary intent. I've done that, and so I'm happy. The theory won't go over with a lot of people who don't understand revisionism, especially for this period, or know enough about astronomy as some have demonstrated. But for those who already believe there were revisions, like the followers of Martin Anstey, preterists and the rabbinical Jews, this might strike a cord for them.

Per the Bible, there are 82 years too many for the Persian Period. I've found a way to identify and eliminate all 82 years by 352BCE, the reign of Artaxerxes III.

LG47

Larsguy47

GRAPHICS OF 402 BCE ECPLISE

Below are two graphics of the 402BCE eclipse. Various computer programs vary on exact eclipse placement but Redshift-5 is considered one of the more accurate programs. In this case, the eclipse is shown not to be directly over Athens but to be nearby so that Athens is outside the direct total eclipse shadow. If this rendention is accurate, it would revise my previous statement that the eclipse went directly over Athens, which is where another program had placed it. If this more updated reference is more accurate, then it explains why the eclipse was said to cause darkness but still had a small crescent remaining. Of course, that description fits better with this eclipse track position than one which occurred directly over Athens since some in the city would have experienced the total eclipse. This eclipse track would mean that everyone experienced the same view of the eclipse.

Therefore, I'm trusting this as a better reference both historically and astronomically and it improves this reference since everyone in Athens would have experienced the same eclipse that was almost total.

Again, some eclipse programs show the eclipse in a different place which is what I based my information on previously, but if this indeed is more accurate it matches the description of the eclipse more precisely, as one that was near to Athens but not total over it.









LG47

RED DAVE

From Lartsguy47:
And that secret is that it doesn't exist.

Now, to your latest admission. Problem, dude, is that if there is a slight crescent, it means that there were no stars, so any reason for choosing that eclipse over the 431 annular eclipse, which could also be descrbed as a crescent, according to a graphic you once posted, goes out the window.

And you have to deal with the fact that Thucydides clearly refers to an eclipse that takes place in the summer and in the afternoon, whereas your eclipse takes place on a winter morning. And you have produced no evidence concerning your fantasy that Xenophon edited that particular entry.

The eclipse of 431, is, thererfore, the real eclipse, as everyone knows except you. And it doesn't require Socrates to be fucking Aristotle.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

The comparison between the eclipse of 402 BCE and 431 BCE has to do with a better match to the historical details. This eclipse was apparently not completely total in Athens but close enough for the stars to come out while a minor crescent of the sun light was still seen. The Redshift-5 astronomy program attempts to assimulate true sky variations during the phases of the eclipse. It utilizes three phases, daylight, evening light and night. For the 402 BCE eclipse the program reaches the maximal phase of night, the same phase used where the eclipse was completely total. When the 431 BCE eclipse was tested similarly, it's maximal eclipse did not trigger the maximal darkness phase with only the evening light phase being reached.

The following chart compares the computer-generated images. As scientists have noted in commenting about the 431 BCE eclipse, it would not have been sufficiently dark for stars to be seen. However, that is apparently not the case for 402 BCE eclipse, which reaches maximal darkness.




The location of observation for both eclipses was Athens, Greece.

DISCLAIMER: These images were produced by the Redshift-5 astronomy program and thus are subject to their error margin, if any. I do not claim absolute accuracy of these calculations but feel they sufficiently represent the comparison between the two eclipses.



LG47

Larsguy47

Sorry Red, it doesn't work quite that way. I finally reloaded by Redshift-5 astronomy program and posted their calculations. You can dismiss the results if you wish, but the fact remains the 402BCE will always be a better astronomical match. As far as being a historical match, that's another story.

I don't know why this point is so difficult for you to grasp. Let me try again. When revisions are made in history, usually you can move up and down as you need to. But if there's an eclipse or an Olympic cycle involved, it limits what you can revise. Revisions where the Olympic cycle is involved has to be moved in line with the Olympics. The Olympics occurred every four years. In the case of a well-known eclipse, if you make revisions, you try to align an eclipse-linked event with another substitute eclipse. As a result, a large number of the historical eclipses have their original eclipse counterparts, and it seems the habit was to give enough details about the original eclipse so that it gives away the original chronology. Herodotus did this when describing the Thales predicted eclipse during the reign of Nabonidus, though the substitute eclipse happened much earlier. Josephus does the same by mentioning an eclipse in connection with the death of Herod. There is no substitute eclipse but mentioning that eclipse and associating it with a Jewish Fast just before Herod dies points to the correct date for Herod's death in 1 AD.

Likewise here. This event allegedly did not happen in 431BCE originally, but in 403 BCE. A substitute eclipse had to be found to move this event. One was found in 431BCE. This eclipse alignment allowed the PPW to begin in the first year of the Olympic cycle as it does also in 403BCE. Per the "conspiracy theory" it was Xenophon who was paid by the Persians to redact Thucydides, so of course he would include the new time of the new eclipse. What he didn't have to do, though, was describe the eclipse so precisely so that it points to the astronomical match of the early 402BCE eclipse. He didn't have to say "the stars came out" and it was just a crescent. By saying that, he gave the specific location of that eclipse where Athens was very close outside the total eclipse track. Further, that reference could mean the critical difference between referencing a TOTAL vs ANNULAR eclipse. Thus we have to assume if Xenophon truly wanted not to hide the identity of the true eclipse, he likely would not have mentioned the details so specifically. His description thus puts in dobut a match for 531BCE, even though he gives us the new time, which is in the summer. In the meantime, the very eclipse he describes as seen from Athens aligns in 402BCE, the 1st year of the Olympics, and you can date back to the 1st of Cyrus using this dating quite perfectly. That's too many coincidences! So we can presume it was intended for some to use these eclipses to maintain a secret confirmation of the original chronology.

Remember, it's not so much that 431BCE is simply not such a good match, it's that that description is a perfect match for 402BCE and everything falls right in place. Further, we know that 403 BCE is the right date because Plato was consulted during the war to try to help solve a mathetmatical problem to stop the plague. Plato wasn't born in 431 BCE.


I know, but this isn't that big of a secret. A few commentary books on Thucydides notes that he was "redacted"; in fact, that's the specific word they use. Xenophon begins his History right where Thucydides leaves off and his history is the only one whose complete works survives. I don't have a book with that reference now, but it might be on the net; otherwise, I'll have to look it up the next time I'm at a university library. So just forget I said that until I come up with a reference if you like. But the idea that Xenophon might have redacted Thucydides is not original.

It is astronomically incorrect. Thucydides meant to leave a clue to the original dating as other historians seem not to be able to resist doing. Plus, you're up against a lot of evidence confirming the conspiracy. First of all the Bible requires the 1st of Cyrus to fall in 455BCE to be correct and for Darius I to die in his 6th year. If that's the year of the Battle of Marathon then that dates the Battle of Salamis to 424BCE, the year there was an eclipse mentioned by Herodotus, mind you, that doesn't show up in 480 BCE. The 30-year peace agreement would have expired in 394BCE. But that is precisely the 10th year of the war. So we could have dated the 10th year in 394BCE and still come up with 403 BCE for the first year of the war. Plato is the right age to be consulted but the well-known eclipse would have been a problem if there was no eclipse in the first year of the war. But it just so coincidentally happens, why, mymymy, there is an eclipse! And it's not an annular eclipse, but a total eclipse. And now it turns out that Athens would have experienced it just as is described, it got dark but a small crescent could be seen.


Well, I never would have come up with that one unless I was pointed in the right direction. The ages work out and it makes sense that Aristotle's later greatness is a reflection of Socrates. He could not not mentioned him at all or only a couple of times. Instead, he mentions in 80 different times!

I should share my favorite 25 quotes from Aristotle to see how long you hold out. But here's one out of the beginning of the list. Now remember, we considering whether Aristotle knew Socrates personally or not and just forgot to edit all of his works. Amazingly, a lot of the quotes as I look at them are Aristotle telling us what Socrates said:

FROM: Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics book 7, section 1235a

Others hold that only what is useful is a friend, the proof being that all men actually do pursue the useful, and discard what is useless even in their own persons (as the old Socrates used to say, instancing spittle, hair and nails), and that we throw away even parts of the body that are of no use, and finally the body itself, when it dies, as a corpse is useless—but people that have a use for it keep it, as in Egypt. (2.74)

How about this one? Here Aristotle is quoting Socrates, once again, a man he never met, right? Well why does he call him "the old Socrates"? And why does he say "used to say"? That is, if Socrates died in 399 BCE it was another 14 years before Aristotle was born. Thus everything Socrates said that he would have read about would not have implied an "old man" necessarily. Further, he simply could have quoted him as having said something, instead of "used to say" as if he heard it over and over and over again, and as if he heard it live and now Socrates was dead. This, in my opinion, is very consistent with someone who actually heard someone say this while they were old and now they have died and you're referring to what they "used to say." Here Aristotle is quoting Socrates authoritatively as if he's an expert of what Socrates said.

Furthermore, "the old Socrates" has some familiarity about it. If you admired someone so much as to learn all their works, would you call him "the old Socrates"? But if you knew him and he was your lover you might. So this has a ring of affection to it. So you see, Aristotle has formed a concept of Socrates as an "old man" when his reference should have been less specific and about the person in general. Plus this quote is so specific as well. Of course, Aristotle was 10 when he was orphaned and 18 when Socrates died. Socrates died around 69 or 70, so Aristotle knew him from through his sixties. Sixties is not 70's or 80's. 60's is still a man interested in and likely able to perform sexually. But that is still an "old man" for a young man of 10-18 years, especially toward the later 60's. So if Aristotle did know him, his direct impression of him would have been of him only when he was old, unlike Plato and others who knew him when he was a younger man.

This is just one quote I chose afte skipping three others where Aristotle is quoting what Socrates said.

But, oh yeah, sure, he never knew him!

How about this one:

Aristotle, Metaphysics book 1, section 981a

"To have a judgement that when Callias was suffering from this or that disease this or that benefited him, and similarly with Socrates and various other individuals, is a matter of experience; but to judge that it benefits all persons of a certain type, considered as a class, who suffer from this or that disease (e.g. the phlegmatic or bilious when suffering from burning fever) is a matter of art. (1.67) "
Here's another final cute one:

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (ed. H. Rackham) bekker page 1145b, bekker line 20
In fact Socrates used to combat the view altogether, implying that there is no such thing as Unrestraint, since no one, he held, acts contrary to what is best, believing what he does to be bad, but only through ignorance. (2.06)

This is another one where "used to" suggests he is no longer doing this activity, not because he changed his mind but because it was observed during his life and now he's dead. That is, he had the choice to sufficiently sayd that "Socrates combatted the view altogether." Under other circumstances, this would seem to be one of his students taught directly by him.

So it's difficult when you find a reference that links them together as lovers, you find both Phaedo and Aristotle orphaned and raised by "others" from that age and then both sent to Plato, to find Aristotle so "into" Socrates the way he is, quoting him can calling him "the old" guy, etc. It's hard to just ignore this and pretend they didn't know each other, it's just a coincidence Aristotle is just a big fan and a student of his writings.

LG47

spin

Convenient that you can get to choose and not history.

But naturally you can't supply a spring eclipse in the eighth year of the war. Do it. Try. Show that you are not just peddling a load of crap. -- Oh, but wait, I forgot you've got a built-in loophole: Xenophon for some ungodly reason that you can't demonstrate doctored the book (Thucydides).

Hippocrates had already considered the problem of doubling the cube, so it was nothing new. It was an already existent mathematical problem in the fifth century, which Theon, writing some hundreds of years later, placed in the context of a Delian oracle. Trying to use the legend told by Theon (about the Delians consulting Plato) as history is not wise.

Larsguy47 gets a G for gullibility, a gullibility tempered by apologetic zeal. (A G is a little lower than an F.)

This is impressive. Thucydides -- I mean Xenophon -- has deliberately decided to redate the eclipse to another one he just had up his sleeve for just such a purpose and coincidentally matching another one eight years later to his second reference to an eclipse, an eclipse which Larsguy47 can't match.

And this sort of stupidity makes more sense than the biblical account being simply in error. One has to totally confuse history in order to make one bad datum work.

Your revised "history" matches your fantasy. But it doesn't match the second eclipse that Thucydides talks about. That must have been put there by Xenophon, right?

I tell you what, give a serious early spring solar eclipse (ie late March) of the eighth year of the Peloponnesian War and you can keep your eclipse. Well, you can keep it anyway.

So, when Posidonius took up the history of Polybius he must have altered Polybius, right? You must be joking. This is merely more of your vacuous fantasy.

You might have told people this, but it doesn't change the fact that you are peddling a crock of sh*t. Your job, if you propose something substantive is to demonstrate its validity. You have avoiding doing so for every aspect of your stuff. This should be a sure indication to yourself that you are crapping on.

It means that you need a reliable source for your claims and as you've got nothing better we can scratch this as unsubstantiated.

It's not important to history until it can be shown to be historically verifiable. See the problem? No. I thought not.

Perhaps if nothing else you might be able to show that the tale of the Delians consulting Plato was popular? No. I thought not.

Historians deal with historically verifiable evidence. History might be able to show the grain of truth in a tradition, but the tradition is not a source of history. There is no way to verify it.

If that's the case you should have used a bit better judgment. You don't really think that Aristotle talking about Plato's Socrates is any evidence at all that Aristotle actually knew Socrates, do you? So if I cite the gospel of Mark several times, you'll conclude that I must have known Jesus. You must be joking. But I guess you're not. You can't see what's wrong with your lack of thought.

From what you've splattered over this forum, the only sense that can be seen in your stuff is the warning to others to avoid your path to confusion.

I haven't seen any yet. I've only seen a see of errors from Larsguy47.

Consider it said.

What is preposterous is your claim that Aristotle knew Socrates simply because Aristotle cites Plato's Socrates.
Preposterous.

When you start looking at the evidence let us all know.

That way is called self-deception.


spin

spin

Here are some Larsguy47 bogus claims:

1. Darius reigned for six years, yet several documents show that he reigned for over 35 years.
2. Xerxes I was Artaxerxes I, yet more documents indicate that they are different people.
3. Aristotle knew Socrates, though the former was born decades after the death of the latter and only knew Socrates from the writings of Plato (and perhaps others).
4. Plato really and truly was consulted by the Delians at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War despite Plato not having been born, because a writer several hundreds of years says so, without there being any better evidence for the claim. Obviously we go with the fact that Plato was born after the reputed time, so the claim is legendary.

Please feel free to add your own.


spin