Obviously the readjusted dates that Daniel proposes cause a whole slew of issues with some dates of certain cycles and events that I'm certain a number of us have come quite fond of. I haven't read anything in quite awhile that has stretched my beliefs near to the extent that this paper has, and for that, Daniel, I thank you. I had already gone over Bruce Peret's "At the Earth's Core: The Geophysics of Planetary Evolution" which, among other things, sheds light on the issue of radioactive dating being off and its resulting consequences for what most believe to be the chronology of events; however, Bruce's paper was far more conservative in its dating attempts than Daniel's. The relative conservatism is a result of putting references to the mother civilizations in in their traditional time periods which doesn't change the advent age of man nearly as much as Daniel's assertions. My personal view of the sequence of events was left far more intact after "At the Earth's Core" than the shredded and tattered remnants of my chronological view as of now.
I've been trying to put events back into a chronology that fits the gamut of information on readjusted dating, and it is quite a lot to wrap the mind around; as well as, a size able amount of information to correlate. Now finally getting to my original intent for posting (sorry for the rambling). In trying to piece together a more coherent chronology of events questions came to mind concerning astrology, among other things.
If the readjusted dating scheme put forth by Daniel is an accurate representation of the history of the earth and man; where does this leave astronomically based dates and cycles? One cycle already touched upoun seems to be the precession of the equinoxes.
daniel wrote:Yes, it does pose some problems for David... the current 26k precession cycle did not start until 748 BCE, when the Earth's axis shifted to where it is now and we got those 5 "evil days" added to the calendar. We haven't even been through ONE precession cycle yet!
Could you elaborate on how you deduced this starting date? You mentioned in the paper that the 5 Uayeb days were added in 1548 BCE at the same time as the last destruction of Atlantis.
Now considering Reciprocal System (RS) Geophysics, which calls for changes in the dynamics of Earth's rotational velocity; its position in space relative to the changing stellar class of the sun; the orientation of the crust, magnetic poles, and as quoted above by Daniel the axis, how can the precession have any coherent precession? It seems as if something would always happen to disrupt the cycle, such as a change in orbit or shift of the axis, before it could be completed. In addition, what; according to RS thinking, would be the cause of the wobble of the axis?
WhiteFyre wrote:Beyond that, my gut reaction to the corrected calendar states that the calculations are most likely right (I have yet to go through them myself), everything correlates, the mythos makes sense, but this seems to pose a problem for David Wilcock's research. In my mind, without having confirmed it, it seems to wreck the 26,000 year cycle because the 26,000 year cycle is incorrectly measured? Or is the numerology still there, just basically reduced by a factor of 10? I can't figure out whether or not this means the cycles are essentially nonsense due to improper counting or what.
WhiteFyre brings up major point in my opinion with regard to David's research. In his Divine Cosmos series and book Source Field Investigations he attempts to prove, among other things, the reality of a 75,000 year 3rd density cycle of experience mentioned in the Law of One series, and its concluding harvest and ascension to 4th density experience. The 3rd density cycle, for those who haven't delved into his work or the Law of One, are comprised of three 25,000 year segments termed "major cycles". In his research he elucidates the connection between the aforementioned cycles; the Mayan calendar cycles; the precession of the equinoxes; cyclically repeating extinctions, cataclysms, and how all these things point towards the restructuring of the environment (density) of our solar system and planet for ascension (4th density experience).
I don't remember specifically, as its been awhile since I've read any of those sources, but he may or may not have mentioned the Yuga cycles as well. If he didn't he should have since they fit quite snug within the group of cycles mentioned with their 24,000 year cycles, and can be broken down into smaller cycles of 3,000 6,000 and 12,000 years. There is the Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapara Yuga, and Kali Yuga, which correspond to the Golden, Silver, Bronze, and Iron ages respectively. The Maya major cycle is 25,627 years made up of five 5,125 year cycles. Now, with all of the cycles mentioned thus far having been repeatedly stabbed and slashed in vital arterial regions I feel it might be prudent to attempt to staunch the bleeding and preform some major surgery.
To attempt to answer your questions WhiteFyre, yes the cycles as previously known seem rather discordant in light of the proposed dating adjustments, chief among them being the recalibrated start of humanity at around 6000 years ago. Unfortunately a quick fix such as reducing by a factor of 10 most likely wouldn't work sense, if I am correct in understanding your question, attempting to squeeze what was once thought to be 75,000 static years of proposed humanity into 6000 dynamic years isn't a walk in the park, at least not a park I would frequent. I don't believe the cycles are complete nonsense, as we most assuredly do have measurable time cycles. The physical evidence for these cycles include, but are not limited to, ice core samples showing major changes in planetary environment, geographic strata displaying the same, fossil records revealing extinction level events again pointing towards major planetary climate changes. Also a look into cyclology, the study of how events cyclically repeat themselves throughout history, with the adjusted age of human civilization in mind combined with the physical data might reveal the re-harmonized cycles.
Revisiting the beginning of the 3rd density cycle 75,000 years ago mentioned by Daniel in a footnote on page 3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the readjustment of what is commonly thought to have happened 50,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago most likely preclude something happening 75,000 years on the adjusted timeline from having anything to do with a law of one reference of 75,000 conventional years ago. That is unless it is being suggested that Ra encoded the years to correlate to both time systems, two analogies come to mind to attempt to convey what I'm really trying to get across here, the layers of an onion, and the octave (sub octave).
I've always wondered how many people my age were actually into this specific vein of knowledge. It's nice to know that there are others out there. Thanks for piping up WhiteFyre, it gave me a kick in the pants so to say. I've always been the lurker and never actually participated in forum conversation. I second your comment on not noticing a change in the brightness of the son in the past 20 years. Again I apologize for the rambling nature my post. I didn't intend for it to be anywhere near this long, but got a little carried away.