Guest Post by Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink - Roman Termination Event

Historical revisionism has identified a chronological and archaeological problem of post-Roman times where according, to some, 700 years of stratigraphic evidence is missing from the archaeological strata (Heinsohn various articles etc). Others propose an outright falsification of history (Heribert Illig), and the argument also involves ‘historical literature’ which is, perhaps subconsciously, accepted as authoritative and thus ‘true’; However the recent publication of the series “The Fabrication of Australian Aboriginal History” by Keith Windschuttle in Australia suggests that any officially sanctioned historical account may not necessarily be exact, let alone correct. The role of aprioristic belief in interpreting physical facts is seriously underestimated.

This is easily demonstrated by the interpretation of one of the Greenland ice cores by one Michael J. Oart, a biblical creationist who shows how the uniformitarian and creationist beliefs interpret the same data in the following note to the oxygen isotope data of the GRIP ice core from Greenland:

Keigwin et al

Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists
Michael J. Oard
http://creation.com/wild-ice-core-interpretations-by-uniformitarian-scientists

The scientific consensus also accepts the following stratigraphic representation of the recent past, the Quaternary period, and which also shows the approximate stratigraphical location of the Garzweiler open-cut brown coal mine.

Illustration 1: Cenozoic Schematic Chronology with Garzweiler Mine Position

Illustration 1: Cenozoic Schematic Chronology with Garzweiler Mine Position

Theoretically human civilisation is interpreted to be limited to the Holocene though interpreted stone artefacts have been found scattered among the Pleistocene strata and in Australia associated with Pleistocene megafauna, leading to an interpretation that Australian Aboriginals have been on the Australasian continent for some 50,000 years.

During 1994 lignite mining near the Elsbachtal west of Cologne uncovered a buried Roman era aqueduct dated 214 AD under 6-7 metres of sands and gravels. The aqueducts were used to pipe water from a spring in the Elsbachtal Valley using wooden (alder wood) channels that were dated 214 AD.; a second aqueduct was discovered nearby and dated 200 AD. The channels seated in solid bedrock and were covered by 15-20 cm broad bricks and covered by colluvium (Hagedorn pers.comm).

Colluvium is a term for slightly moved in situ weathered rubble derived from adjacent outcrop but the sand and gravel in this location aren’t colluvium but well sorted transported sands. However calling these sands over the Roman water works colluvium avoids producing a geological and archaeological anachronism. One wonders what archaeological material was found in this ‘colluvium’.

Illustration 2: Roman Aqueduct reported by Horn etc.

Illustration 2: Roman Aqueduct reported by Horn etc.

An appreciation of the magnitude of the sand deposits can be gained from the following picture. The Roman aqueduct was found ‘under’ this sand.

Illustration 3: Elsbachtal Pleistocene sand deposits over Brown Coal

Illustration 3: Elsbachtal Pleistocene sand deposits over Brown Coal

The standard explanation for these buried Roman aqueducts is difficult to find on the internet, apart from the references linked above but the fact remains that the Roman structures are buried under Pleistocene sand deposits and perhaps even upper Pliocene strata. It is possible that the Roman engineers buried the aqueduct to ward off frost etc but this explanation will be fruitless considering the geographical location of the occurrence and the distance from the Eifel Aqueduct supplying the ancient Roman town of Cologne. 1 Metre burial is plausible, but not 7 metres of unconsolidated sand. In any case aqueducts are built to supply towns and from the location of the mining operation, it is possible that the remains of the aqueducts were transported to their final location above the brown coal by destructive inundations that demolished the Eifel Aqueduct.

Since we can be reasonably certain the images were not photoshopped, we are led to conclude that the Roman era was terminated by the Pleistocene event. This interpretation will undoubtably result in serious cognitive dissonance. The implications will be profound for this interpretation completely nullifies the existing paradigm.

As neolithic artefacts have also been recovered from the overlying Pleistocene and Holocene deposits, it is also clear that at least the Neolithic period has to be post Roman Era. This seems to be supported by the presence of Roman gold coins in the neolithic Newgrange structure in England and Stonehenge as described by Ginenthal elsewhere (Pillars of the Past series); the standard explanation is that roman visitors must have visited this structure years after it was constructed and left some artefacts behind. But this interpretation is based on the apriorism that the stone age preceded the bronze and following iron ages. Perhaps the older lithic age did but the neolithic period with its anachronisms seems more logically placed after the Roman Termination Event – the Pleistocene extinction event.

I half expect modern academia to fall back on explaining the presence of those roman aqueducts in the Garzweiler lignite mine as the work of God to confuse us; or at least a modern version of it.

It has long been accepted that the geological Quaternary Period remains highly disputed and controversial and the theory put here, that the Roman Era was terminated by the Pleistocene event, will only increase the controversy.

There remain serious geological problems as well, especially the geological origin of the thick Pleistocene sands and gravels. Uniformitarian explanations are simply not capable of resolving this problem. There is a physical limit to which mineral grains can be reduced in size by abrasion in a hydraulic environment. The standard explanation is to invoke vast expanses of time to result in the slow deposition and accumulation of sand derived from the erosion of granitic and gneissic hinterlands, but apart from being another logical fallacy of arguing the consequent, it is unclear where these sediments originated. If the buried Roman water works in the Garzweiler mine were transported by some enormous flash-flood, then that flood had to come from the south east of the mine, towards Cologne, and then there must be physical evidence of erosion and destruction of the Eifel Aqueduct system, assuming that the aqueducts found in the Garzweiler mine were originally part of the Eifel Aqueduct.

And of course there is the matter of the global sea level rise associated with the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, which in this interpretation means that it actually happened at the same time the Roman Period was terminated; 235 CE? This could make sense in that the Romans may not have invaded England over the channel, but that England was connected to France etc and it was only the raised sea-level that forced historians afterwards to logically assume the Romans had to boat their army to England. Maybe they didn’t and the channel was dry land? I always wonder why the English had territorial claims to parts of France; perhaps this geological scenario might allow a different interpretation; And it will definitely open a rather smelly can of worms.

Not to be dismissed is the possibility that the survivors, perhaps hundreds of years later, post-Neolithic period, which seems to be dated for some 300 years duration, confronted with a watery channel between France and England logically assumed the Romans boated to England; the act of fabricating history from ignorance is all too present, even to this present day when technically implausible, let alone impossible, absurdities are proposed to represent history. This problem is especially acute with survivors who defer to the extant authorities, whether secular or theological, in preference to empirical evidence; the role of belief is most strong indeed among uncritical populations.

And of course if this new interpretation of the Roman Terminating Event is correct, then the edifice of anthropogenic climate change seems unfounded. One may rightly ask who the real deniers are.

Illustration 4: Magenta line possible land extent of Roman Period

Illustration 4: Magenta line possible land extent of Roman Period

A last point is a minor reorientation of the Earth in terms of latitude, or pole-shift as it is commonly known. It is clear that ‘something’ happened after the adoption of the Julian calendar and before the Gregorian calendar of 1582 CE. Pole shift of a minor nature? Given Lynn Roses’ retro-calculations of astronomical data, any proposed minor pole-shift must be compatible with his data as published and summarised in Ginenthal’s Pillars of History series.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Dendrochronology, Earth, Fluid Mechanics, Fossil Fuels, Geology, History. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Guest Post by Louis Hissink

  1. Pingback: The Wroxeter Chronicles: Broken Red Sandstone | MalagaBay

  2. Pingback: Roman Mystery in Elsbach Lignite Pit or Hissink’s Heresy | Louis Hissink's Crazy World

  3. Pingback: Roman Mystery in Elsbach Lignite Pit by Louis Hissink | MalagaBay

  4. calgacus says:

    I would like to know your opinion regarding the retro-calculations made by Lynn Rose. Can the 700 years interpolation in the first millennium AD be reconciled to these retro-calculations made by Lynn?
    The Pillars of the Past series initiated me into the chronological revisionism(maybe 2-3 years ago). I probably discovered this blog 1 or 2 years ago and I have to say that I find Heinsohn’s hypothesis plausible. But the hardest thing to reconcile between the Pillars of the Past and Heinsohn is found in these retro-calculations. Lynn talked about the Ulster Annals, but it is fair to be suspicious of the annals. I believe you wrote about these Ulster annals in one of your post. They are probably relatively recent, so they writers could have employed retro-calculations to fit a certain narrative. The bigger problem is regarding the Lahun papyrus used by Lynn in her retro-calculations.

    • The problem with astronomical retro-calculation is the circularity of argument. The archaeologists date their chronology to the standard astronomical chronology, which is based on the Gregorian calendar. The assumption is that the Earth has been orbitally fixed and that its tilt has also been fixed over time. Mainstream chronology then is simply an extrapolation from the present to the past.

      Move the Earth orbitally and axially from its present position from 910 AD (Julian Calendar and whatever existed before that period) and the retrocalculation process becomes physically and chronologically meaningless.

      If memory serves me, GH excised 700 years from BC history as well as 700 +/- from recent history. This causes raised eyebrows, and a fresh look at the chronology needs to be done.

      Geologically we have Roman water works sitting in Miocene sediments that no one wants to talk about, or was published. The fishing expedition by this post has been unsuccessful so far. It would be useful if the report or book Hagendoorn had her collaborated research published is found. I cannot find any reference to it on Google so far. Email with EH implied it should remain in the past since having Roman remains in Miocene sediments is absolute heresy.

  5. calgacus says:

    I think that that this blog covered many things that point to a great disaster about 1000 years ago. The reason I don’t accept A. Fomenko is because he doesn’t mention any disaster. The Pillars of the Past also talk about the fall of a very centralize Roman empire. Because the empire was so centralize, it made things worse when it started to fall apart. But this explanation is very weak considering that we have aqueducts under the earth, the Roman Forum was under the earth, vitrified forts, plus other clues that point to tsunamis. Of course we can also point to parallel historical events that happen in the first millennium AD according to the standard chronology.
    Nonetheless, can we dismiss the retro-calculations made by Lynn? If the position of the Earth was moved, can the retro-calculations fit certain dates despite different rotation rates (for example there are a few post on this blog about the possibility that the year was 360 days in the past). Maybe the rotations were similar enough in order to make some dates fit the retro-calculations.
    Louis, I also want to ask you if we believe in one great disaster or maybe 2 or more. The great flood stories seem to be much older than 1000 years. Maybe there was another disaster around 800BC (standard chronology). Also what do you think about Fomenko. Fomenko uses mostly astronomical calculations, but I am more interested in your opinion regarding his historical parallels.

  6. Surfing around these threads (in respect of earth movements and calendar changes), the last three millennia appear to have been relatively stable. This conclusion derives from the research of GF Dodwell and later by A Wittmann in collecting ancient measurements of obliquity. See Wittmann paper with data here: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1979A%26A….73..129W/0000129.000.html See page 1 here: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1979A%26A….73..129W&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

    Tilt change is stable, though -in my view- not as predicted by mainstream. More like a superimposed exponential decay on Stockwell’s polynomial. Before 2345bce or thereabouts life is very different.

    In Wittmann’s paper the early measurements have been questioned since these depart substantially from the backward extrapolation by users of the Stockwell/Newcomb formulae, including Milankovitch. There is other evidence that it can be chaotic, a back and forth tilt change.

    • If links don’t work google: The Obliquity of the Ecliptic A. Wittmann Universitäts-Sternwarte, Geismarlandstr. …. secular rate of change determined by several authors (see Wilkins, 1960).

  7. An addition: “Pillars of the past” has an interesting section at page 391 ‘Temples and obelisks’. Especially where it refers to temples orientated to the rising sun on the equinox .

    Quote “Babylonian temples, also, had “the gate of the rising sun” and “the gate of the setting sun.””. It seems that changes in orientation due to Earth events was a fact quite well known. Now compare to https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.568685856639557.1073741851.430211163820361/568685883306221/?type=3&theater Today it is orientated some 42 deg CW from equinox orientation, same as all others of contemporary era, due to an event around 3200bce. The site latitude and the angle allows one to work back to obtain Earth tilt ( there are other ways of obtaining that directly – the technique used was very versatile but evidence is not so clear there). It seems the Babylonians already did not know why such alignment, and the two doors. At latitude 32deg north the doors should not be exactly opposite, about half degree S of E or W. By then the knowledge of the function of such orientation was already lost, leaving only cult (to obfuscate more).

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s