FAQ - Frequently asked Questions
about our Chronologie are intermixed quite easily...
1. Is there really no positive evidence confirming our
arguments or ambiguities can always be found.
there a hypothesis matching with all the independent observations?
year-counts caused some 300 yrs deviation between AD and CE.
3. Is there hard evidence that allows easy verification of this hypothesis?
Yes! - 12 eclipse reports show identical offset against astronomical calculations.
4. Is it
possible to narrow down the date where the inconsistencies ended?
Yes! - this happened
around the year
all the dates of the antique times affected?
No! Only those
depending on the greek
tradition, including the masoretic Torah. The babylonian
records date the years correctly.
6. What may have caused the corruption of our chronology?
The embedding of the Seven Sleepers legend - indisputably God's greatest wonder.
How was it possible to maintain the pretense of continuity anyway?
With the aid of
manipulative duplications of persons -
Constantine I., Charlemagne, Rabbi Hillel and others.
there hints for such 'collateral' fabrications?
Yes! The 'Donation of Constantine',
'Gesta Hludowici', Ammian
9. Are there
suspicious facts identifying the responsibles for the
Yes! The empress
Theodosia, Constantine VII. and
Otto III. with pope Silvester II.
there plausible motives for their activities?
Yes! The impending
collapse of the Byzantine
Empire. The predominance of Rome
there documents confirming such manipulations?
Yes! - e.g. a
threatening letter adressed to Pope Gregory IV.
Why are the records from history nevertheless largely conclusive?
Because all the annalists
did presuppose the validity of the traditional chronology as
Were some inconsistencies detected and published anyhow?
Yes! Starting in the
- by Azaria dei Rossi, Isaak Newton and others.
Why then were the inconsistencies not resolved?
searched from within the dogm of traditional chronology only.
Why is the issue of critical chronology research even today still a
- 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 every 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
hypotheses (conspiracy theories) have discredited critical
chronolgy for university scientists.
Is there a chance, anyhow, to gather some new insight?
Novel data-recall facilities as well as additional and more precise
data restrict the chance to find plausible hypotheses under the
not the truth about chronology completely irrelevant for most
- 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.
middleages did not
produce an excessive number of faked documents.
texts can be verified
(e.g. 'Plagues of Egypt', 'Star of Bethlehem',
'Revelation of John').
- The development of arts and
science did proceed steadily.