How Long Was the First Millennium?

Source: The Unz Review.

The writer presents the evidence for the proposition that the real events of the first millennium occurred within a time span of only 300 years. It appears that our historical record repeats in sequential order stories depicting the same events from different perspectives as though they were different occurrences, thus inflating the standard chronology by about 700 years. Archeology — especially the hard data of stratigraphy — may force revisions.

Science can be like that. Earth shaking.

12 thoughts on “How Long Was the First Millennium?

    1. RE: “Too bad you see climate science differently.”

      I don’t, actually. What you refer to as “climate science” is comparable to the false history of the standard chronology.


        1. Are you really saying that if your theory fails testing by experiment, you stick with the theory and assume the experiment to be invalid?

          You’d make a great mainstream climate scientist.


      1. Posting your own opinion piece is supposed to be supportive of your argument?

        I get it. You do not believe the science that the climate is being effected by man-made pollutants. Do you disagree that methane converts to CO2 and is one of the bigger drivers of climate change? Or so you deny it all?

        Not that it matters. You tend to only believe in science that backs your pre-conceived notions. So it is actually you, good doctor who is warped.


          1. Feynman didn’t post the article you did. When you did, you took responsibility for it (while preperly crediting the originator).

            The nature of science? I am more concerned with the science of nature, which we humans have tipped.


          2. Feynman’s statement is the basis of the article.

            The important thing to get is that authority does not overrule experience.

            The CMIP-5 models the IPCC and the pre Trump NOAA and NASA relied on have been shown to exaggerate the effect of CO2 in an exponential manner, and the CMIP-6 models currently being tested aren’t doing much better.

            A responsible scientist would simply admit they are wrong.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s