Samuel Windsor

8 Mar 2017

Sam Windsor has commented on the sudden increase in geomagnetism in the 8th century BC by saying that if heavenly fire was part of the destruction of Sennacherib's army (which he dates to 701BC) then it may have an origin in a passing celestial body (he favours Mars) one consequence of which would almost certainly be an increasing charge in both bodies. He also notes that Etruscan pottery in Italy displays a magnetic anomaly.

We may also wonder if the anomaly was responsible for the C14 discrepancy in the destruction level at Nineveh, dated fairly firmly at around 605BC. The C14 dates derived from human skeletal material came out 150 years too early - at around 750BC. This is smack in the middle of the 8th century and close to the date of the pottery from Judah where the magnetic anomaly was discovered. This would seem to combine a geomagnetic anomaly with a high injection of C14 into the atmosphere. One then has to wonder if that implies a plateau event (meaning C14 dates over a prolonged period came out at roughly the same date as a result of an injection of C14 into the atmosphere, that eventually dissipated over time). This then makes one wonder if this was why historians and archaeologists came to the view that calibration of C14 was necessary - resulting in the calibration curve (of which several versions were created). This begins in mid first millennium BC but the effect of calibration was to iron out the plateau event - and therefore is projected back into the past. This, in effect, means all previous C14 derived dates have been misdated (and since initiation of calibration many other plateaus have been discovered but are dealt with rather differently). One then has to wonder if the calibration curve was designed to get the Egyptologists onboard the 'science in archaeology' bandwagon (they had been vigorously resistant to raw C14 data). If so a question mark is raised not just towards the so called Greek Dark Age (which may have been considerably shorter than mainstream permits) but the dates usually assigned to dynasties 18 and 19. This would not help Velikovsky type revisions a great deal as he spliced and diced the dynasties - but it may go some way to support the ideas of revisionists such as David Rohl and Peter James. Funnily enough, there was a book published a few years ago that claimed a 150 year revision was necessary (based on the Nineveh C14 dates). This was Nick Thom's 'History Rewritten', Grosvenor House:2008 - completely ignored by mainstream and revisionists alike.