The Strengths and Weaknesses of Historical Mathematics

[Onasander]

http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/

 

Supposedly, there is a mathematical structure to the above website. It is not my intention to either refute nor assert any data within, merely the method behind the presentation.

 

For this task, I ask for everyone to focus on the logical constraints of his method. What are the strengths, and weaknesses. How is it structured, and is it better or worst, via specific aspects, over other historical methods in presenting theory.

 

Finally, what is the healthy role of a skeptic, as well as a loyalist to this method, how can we judge them to be sane and rational, or a crack pot?

 

Remember, we are not attacking any theory, much less the theory in the link, but the science behind the theory. It may be best, where possible, to recreate the methods used with your own data, to test it's validity in showing it's hypothetical faults or weaknesses.

 

Alot of writers and future historians read this site, so I expect this thread to be a teaching aid of do and don'ts. Be specific, analytic, and explain in detail the logic behind the issue, just don't gripe.

 

In my case, all I can say is he's trying to show out of context parallel s between selections of text, providing a context for them that intergrates a political dynasty covertly, yet cryptically not so covertly, with the founding of a puppet religion that got out of control.

 

I fail to see the link, but making the link is expected. I therefore assume the fault is my own, in being deficient in logic. Furthermore, it may be my religious background, as a Roman Catholic blinding me. I dont feel it is, but perhaps it is. Since I am blind to the logic that leads to truth in this historical mathematics, I cant use a historical method such as this until I am taught it. I request help here. Teach me how to develope a theory on equivalent grounds to Gaius. What are the methods, and theory behind the method, that I should use?

[gilius]

Good question! Joseph Atwill does a better job of explaining the system than I do, and since very few people have read the book or even the first page of the website, I have no feedback in order to improve my explanations and make them as clear as possible for everyone to understand.

 

Therefore, without discussion of the evidence to check we are on the same page you cannot blame your logic. I'm sure if I could guide people through it, it would be easier to understand. But then they have to have an interest; most people don't care. 

 

You seem to be making some progress. The parallels are indeed being placed in solid contexts as the "trees amongst the forest". If you fail to see the link then you need to say which page/line you get stuck on, in case I haven't explained it clearly.

 

Remember also, the site is not completed yet. Jesus makes about 50 prophecies and Titus fulfils all of them as I will show, focusing on his doomsday ones in particular and the "astronomical alignments" (for want of a better description) regarding Daniel's prophesies--even went as far as falsifying dates of Jerusalem's destruction and the fall of Masada (probably happened the year after AD 73). Also want to cover the blunders of Josephus not having much to say about Jesus as well as prophesying Zacharias in the past (getting fulfilled twice)! This will all get morphed into the story of the Flavians, Herods, Alexanders, Maccabees.

 

A lot of the stories in NT do not have any theological or moral meaning/purpose except when compared to their counterpart in Josephus, hence the gospels were built on the back of the much larger historical work of Josephus as a new religion, piece of satiric literature, and a way of bigging up Titus. I use minimal data, so I've only covered about half the parallels that Joe and other people have now discovered--there are many more revealing things like Nazareth not really existing--archaeologists found no Roman town there--the Flavians were really referring to Japha. Since the Flavians obviously embedded this information by design, uncovering it is a very simple exercise once you realise a system is there. A few of the parallels are out of sequence as it would have made it too obvious for even the hoi polloi to spot early on.

 

For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be ...
And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other ...
Then will the kingdom of heaven be likened to ten maidens who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride.

Matt 24:27, 31, 25:1

began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!"

Wars of the Jews, 6, 5, 301

Edited November 18, 2013 by gilius

[gilius]

About the Mathematics:

 

One equation in maths reveals the value of the constant Pi:

A= pr².

Pi (3.142) can then be used to test other things in the model of the universe (laws of physics) to confirm there is a pattern to it's usage, and indeed a pattern to reality at the macro level.

 

Simultaneous equations in the Flavian model reveals the patterns or underlining mathematics used by the authors regarding names:

-John... has a demon (Luke 7:33-35) vs. John was beginning to tyrannize (Wars of the Jews, 4, 7, 389)

-Joseph of "Arimathea" takes down a crucified man (Luke 23:50-53) vs. Josephus bar Matthias takes down a crucified man (Life of Flavius Josephus, 75, 417, 420-421)

 

-Certain young man, armour on, mount of olives, carried away, wall (Wars of the Jews, 6, 2, 157-158. 161-163)
-Certain young man named Eleazar, armour on, mount of olives, carried away, siege/raising of the banks (Wars of the Jews, 7, 6, 194-206)
-Certain young man, naked, mount of olives, escaped (Mark 14:26, 32, 35, 51-53)
-Titus, no head-piece or breastplate, mount of olives, escaped (Wars of the Jews, 5, 2, 54-61)

 

Therefore, Certain young man = Eleazar/Lazarus who gets captured

Titus = big man who escapes without wearing any armour!

 

This can then be used to test other things in the same model:

-certain young man, naked, mount of olives, escaped, linen cloth (Mark 14:26, 32, 35, 51-53)

-Lazarus, dead man in tomb, wrapped in cloth (John 11:1-48)

 

Therefore, this is confirmation that "certain young man" with a cloth = Lazarus (a mathematical constant in the Flavian model like pi is in the universe model)

 

It also tells you that the 4 gospels and Josephus work like jigsaw puzzle based on countless examples like the above! And they all reveal additional information that the Flavians wanted us to know as a subtext.

[Onasander]

I recall you mentioning Polycarp once in a post. His disciple, Hippolytus..... he wrote a work on philosophy, called the Philosophumena, within this work is a short treatise on mathematics, espousing the church's hierarchical understanding of a very, very similar style of mathematics.... with a unexpected twist to it.

 

Are you, or any historian here, aware what that twist is?

 

I won't say. I'll let you look it up and have a look. It's a short treatise on this sort of mathematics.

[Onasander]

After you digest and intergrate Hippolytus into your model, if its even possible, I will also need you to explain the nature of Proof and Observation:

 

It may be true that you and the authors your using are genius, but why is it that others, with diverse backgrounds, fail to see the truth fractallly distributed amongst these texts? We should have it explained so we may use this method in other aspects of history. Why are we failing, and how can we discover other similar truths in a range of texts, with each of us comming to similar conclusions?

[gilius]

This method can only be used in typological literature where the authors have designed a system of parallels to provide additional information beyond the surface narration. This was a special government project, and I've never researched the genre to find out what else exists, and if they can contribute to our understanding of history.

[Onasander]

Then manufacture a equivalent using the a similar fractal sequencing, and PM a neutral member on this site to judge our posts in advance. I think Caldrail would be a good judge. 

 

The whole point is to see if a objective method to a history via this method is even possible. Given you, and you alone on this forum, have the capacity to orient, observe, diagnose and determine a deeper meaning to a presumably falsely text, you should be able yourself to falsely another text using a similar distribution. It wouldn't be our goal to disprove the text, as we all before hand know it's false, we just need to be able to see consistently the same pattern within the variable as you. This means the possibilities of success and fail needs to be 1/4th Success to 3/4th Failure if we were to guess blind. 

 

We can take the statistical variation, and discuss how we came about out conclusions via your method and hermeunetically using more standard methods.

 

One very ripe, parallel scenario I can think of, Alexander the Great IS Buddha, or Manufactured the Buddha for Greek intellectual domination, but desired to get caught by future generations.

 

You can model your fake texts on any western work, or eastern works, like those from this Sri Lanka website: http://kataragama.org/index.htm

 

It's a awesome resource. Take a text, modify or add to it as needed. The philosopher Chanakya and Vedanta did a lot to merge Alexander into Hinduism, and it fought against Buddhism for a thousand years..... it parallels the monolith of Flavian-Christian conspiracy. 

 

Make certain it's complex enough that we can get it wrong if we don't follow your method.

 

I think 1 month is ample time to put this together text wise and give us a briefing on your method so we can try our hand at this.

 

We can set a time for everyone to turn in our results to Caldrail or whoever would be the judge to score the results. This should give us evidence if there is something to the Mathematical-Historic Model you speak of. One we get what you are talking about, we'll be able to figure out where other such texts are.

 

This is how The Republic of Science works. You have a new method, it deserves to be tested.

[gilius]

Here's a typology example based on the New Testament's system of parallels uncovered by Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah:

 

MOVIE A

16:00 - A Westerner travels to North Korea and is wearing factor 3 sun cream
33:00 - The Westerner takes off a pair of trousers
62:00 - The Westerner walks past a department store and sees luxuries

73:00 - The Westerner is told by the tour guide about the leaders of the country
84:00 - The Westerner travels back to the US

MOVIE B

16:00 - A native visits a capital city and sees 3 giant posters of men
33:00 - The native is told by a police officer to change one item of their clothing
62:00 - The native enters a shop but is told nothing is for sale to anyone but they are only there for show, for sake of the foreign media.

73:00 - The native makes a gibe about one of the men in the posters
84:00 - The native is not allowed to return home and is instead taken to a prison camp

 

What does this tell you about:

1) The country that the native is in?

2) The sex of the westerner?

3) Trousers in North Korea?

4) Who are the men in the posters?

5) What is the name of the city?

6) Did the westerner buy any luxuries?

7) What happens to those who oppose the regime?

8) Is North Korea really a nice place to go?

9) What does it tell you about someone who watches only MOVIE A but not MOVIE B?

This is how much additional information (subtext) can be gleaned from such a short text and understanding the context.

 

The point is: it seems like the westerner on vacation in a nice country somewhere, but this is not true. Don't just read the bible, but read other books also to find out the truth.

Edited November 21, 2013 by gilius

[Onasander]

I do read alot of other books, Im probably the one westerner with the strongest grasp on the Hamsa Gita, have spent alot of time reading Zoroastrian works, spent months learning both Nicheran and Suzuki's Zen, been to kabbalah groups, shiva temples, six months study lessons with the Baha'i, a gnostic church and discussions with a gnostic 'bishop', two different tibetan sects, and a crazed cabalist from louisiana. Oh yes, we cant forget the 5 percenters.... or my exploration of Islamic sects in general.

 

As you pointed out, being a academic, even a P.hd , doesnt amount to crap when in comes to presentation. I possess nothing of the sorts, and I eat such people for breakfast. I have a uncanny knack for not just winning a argument, but also for explaining why the argument is false, and giving stronger alternatives.

 

I am the very shinning opposite of the kind of person you are used to. I have a wonderful background in deciphering texts, Im doing it right now for 'The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa', which has some unexpected pre-stoic Cynic ideological strains in it you dont find in Upanishads or Sutras.....

 

You have a beginnings, via study of context, of a pattern generated, fractally distributed truth. I won't deny putting texts together, you can find parallels. That is not the point. The point is, why should those texts go together in the first place? Can I slap any random texts together, and more often than not do something similar? Is not the comparisons between two texts, once it gains it footing convincingly and begins to grow, increasingly our own intellectual creation and not inherent in any text?

 

The problem in comparison, seeking a greater truth, is that the arching aim of the scattered truth values can demand a sense of unity, a unity that doesnt exist in any text. This unity isnt seen by people who first read the texts, but is obvious to anyone who knows it is there. It is a sense of knowing. The issue is, the sense of knowing ISNT in the texts! Its something we add to it, and convince ourselves of.

 

For your method to have validity, it needs to be testable, and should have a larger test pool than just one known case, and of course, science cant be hidden or not replicable, or else it ceases to be science and becomes magic.

 

You are advocating a form of hermeneutics. Its something philosophers, lawyers, and historians use. The books written on the subject are quite thick. They cover many, many literary typologies. Have you ever looked into it?

 

By your own admission, your getting all your information from Atwill, he inserted thd belief of this a priori unity into your mind, by leading you down this path, where only you can see, like him, the truth.

 

However, I haven't actually seen you falsify any factoid..... your not changing the texts you present, your merely adding meaning that is not apparent. It doesnt occur to you why we think this is wrong, or how you can go about convincing us of your truth.

 

I think there is a underlining honest streak to you, however, in your current state, you are unable to live up to your ambitions, given your admitted success rate on this site, which is next to non-existent.

 

Your probably the first person I ever said to 'Hey, you should really learn Hermeneutics', but in your case, given your attraction to it, I would strongly suggest you take it up, immediately. If I recall, Godel's PDF is on the internet. It is a good introduction. After reading if, youll be in a much better position to explain yourself and convince us.

 

While it is true you dont have to be a academic historian to develop good theories, or write good histories, it should come with a stipulation..... we, as such men, must do better, by pushing ourselves harder to shame the academics into a sense of freeloading complacency. I am not a amateur, but the zenith of excellence. As you should be too. You cant get there from relying on the ideas and guidance of one man, Atwill, alone. A rose is made of more than one petal.

 

I recommend starting here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

[Onasander]

The PDF is by Gadamer, not Godel. 'Truth and Method'.

 

Its been a while since I read him.

[gilius]

 

The point is, why should those texts go together in the first place?

They go together to provide an additional layer of information - by design.  

 

 

Can I slap any random texts together, and more often than not do something similar?

The texts are not random, but appear in sequence as unique parallels between 2 movies, hence proving they are not there by accident. They were designed, in this case - by me - in about 10 minutes. You haven't answered any questions, but my exercise in recreating typology is there to test and confirm that everyone reaches the same conclusions - providing they know a bit about the geography of North Korea, or in the case of the New Testament, some knowledge of Jewish customs and about things like generations and demons/spirits who can't travel in water.

 

The only information coming from Atwill is that he's discovered a proven typological system between the New Testament and Josephus indicating a common authorship with a different agenda to what's on the surface. You can then choose to go away and research this yourself coming to the same conclusions as Atwill, or you can read his book and be spoon fed all the satires and other information that the Flavians wanted us to know.

 

All the academic mysticism you've learnt doesn't count for anything when it comes to typology and common sense. Your country has been fooled just like North Korea, but you can't see it.

[Onasander]

Have you giggled my user name? I have a lineage via several online topological websites stretching back over a decade..... using a wide variety of methods. 

 

I'm really, really, really good at predicting your cognitive mode of thought in conversation. It's my Jedi mind trick, I had a small following in SF for this alone.

 

And please, bring up your parallels ideologically as well as cognitively between North Korea and the US. If you visit the DPRK's Spanish embassy's website, you'll find all of their past three leaders English translated papers. I have literally google earth the entire road system, read every text they produce, read their website, and studied what I could of their philosophical and military history.... I'm obsessive about it. I know about as much as you can know about it's illicit operations via its restaurant chain, in both internet searches and straight up asking people who have claimed to of visited.

 

If you somehow think I am like a North Korean, speak up, and test it.

 

Likewise, you should slap your test and key here, part of my topological background was learning the in and outs of manufacturing such texts.

 

And since I mentioned Korean history, everyone should head over to www.transceiver.com and watch Li San and Queen Seon Dux, two very awesome South Korean Historical Dramas.

[Onasander]

I'm not participating in the other thread because it has become little more than a hate fest, however deserved, it's still not how we should challenge history.

 

I'm more than willing to write you off for the time being as a quack, given your combination to assert, while admitting to your inability to express your methods. 

 

I'm left to assume your methods are unscientific, and whatever systematic rigor you may hold is clothed in your own bias and ignorance on how to approach history.

 

Notice in this thread, I am NOT attacking your ideas, but asking you to present the methods of your diagnostic logic. I requested a review of them to arrive at the soundness of them. To offer critique via peer review.

 

There is no time limit to this. You can finally get around to it someday, but know I am the only person here who offered you this chance, to essentially accedentialize you and your methods. History in my view will continue to evolve in its tools and methods. We shouldn't be automatically prejudiced, nor fall prey to our lesser nature in trying to ostracized or hound writers like jackles to defend history as a profession. It's not going away, don't sweat it. 

 

There is a larger, and more embarrassing psychological phenomena occurring here. Everyone is feeding Gilius and his Martyrdom Complex. It's not proper nor necessary. Not for historians.

 

We have tools, methods, and disciplines. If someone introduces themselves as Gilius has, making websites and eventually books, we shouldn't push them into the shadows because they arrived to absurd ideas via absurd methods, but rather, introduce them to elements of the science. Give them portions at first, and in time, the entirety of our arsenal. Introduce such people to new concepts, ask them to explain what they are doing in their thought process.

 

As I said, on a personal level, you disappoint me Gilius. Not for your ideas, but your own admitted lack of coherency in understanding your own ideas to the extent of explaining how others can arrive to similar conclusions. We are here in search of a common held history, that can be found and universalism by the diverse many..... not a mystery cult who's understanding is reserved to a esoteric few capable of interpreting the texts. 

 

Once you come around to meeting the challenges in this thread, do so. Until then, it stands as justification for anyone to source against you. I did try here. You only let yourself down.

 

Enjoy the masochistic strife you and the others are otherwise, embarrassingly engaged in. It has the truth seeking capacity of a medieval mob screaming witchcraft. It's not how we should do things.

[caldrail]

Logic? Snake oil more like. That's nothing to do with hatred or masochism by the way, just that the logic involved is distinctly dubious, reducinhg history to a 'Whre's Wally' book. Secret codes are very popular in the public sphere right now, but ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it's an exercise in imagination, or more insidiously, a con.

[Onasander]

Can I not say this about the vast majority of works out there?

 

The problem arises in claiming this when I seriously contemplated making a free equivelent, Alexander Invented Buddha book.... to parallel this and Atwill.

 

As a Satire and a Critique, I'm quite certain I can easily do this, and even build a more convincing case, and then systematically tear down both, using historical principles.

 

It slowly dawned on me I could do this for most any work.

He is young in mind, and is very enthuisiastic. These are not bad traits, they are the basis of positive growth.

 

Im just going to encourage him, given his interest in 'typology', to investigate the topics above. It has take at least half a year to align as otherwise unincorporated aspect of the mind into the conscious mix of routines we call 'the self'.

 

He will eventually drop the grudge against the learning, will take it up to understand it.

 

Give it time. 6 months, 5 years, whatever.

 

I just wont attack his right to hold a central belief, just because I know otherwise. There is no Empiricism without faith in some form of concepts. The root of all thought is paradox. Logic is merely how we shuffle the cards.

 

At worst, this become a cult. Harrassing and laughing at him like this ensures this. He'll keep pointing at Aliens, North Korea, Gnostic Ninjas, or 9-11 truthers. I can see why mentally this makes sense, having a understanding of the psychology.

 

This really is a matter of asserting the basic, underlining science behind history. We developed it as such, it overcame the silliness called history in the middle ages. How? By the slow, drawn out process of explaining to such historians better historical methods.

 

It is a ongoing process. The university historian no longer has a monopoly on publication. Demanding we only read their works isnt going to cut it. Its back down to the basics. This is how it is from now on. We have to explain the methods, because these 'wally works' are going to outnumber everything soon as more and more turn to self publishing.

 

Laughing or turning away isnt going to change it.