Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Twelfth Hour
#1
Since posting my papers on academia.edu I am been approach by some well known academics putting forth such proposals as this:
 
“I have never heard of the proposal that the Roman military was influence by Greek philosophical ideas, but it is an intriguing suggestion. I would be interested in looking over your draft, if you would like.”
 
They also make suggestions as to how they can help me get published. My work on the Roman legion is broken into four parts, Rome’s Infancy, Rome’s Youth, Rome’s Manhood, and Rome’s Lost Vigour. This is the way the Romans describe their history, which as far as I know, no other culture follows. There is a major reason why the Romans identify themselves with the life of a man and this if fully explained in the book.
 
I’m more than happy to send my work to an academic that asks. I explain to them, that because of the size of the work (large), I will send Rome’s Infancy first, and then when they have absorbed that and any questions answered, I will send the next part (Rome’s Youth). The first half of Rome’s Infancy explains the Pythagorean system, the tribes, the five elements and how all this ties in with Rome’s chronology of events. For some this can be heavy going but I do not know of how I can dumb it down any further than what I have done.
 
The second part of Rome’s Infancy deals with the legion’s size, organisation history, and explains how the time line for the size of the legion and its organisation will follow over a period of 1,000 years. Basically, it’s a time table of the legion’s expansion. My research is data driven so it explores all the unit sizes, legion sizes and many of the army sizes as found in the primary sources. I trawl for these numbers and show how they all fit the model of the legion for that particular time frame.
 
One request for my work by a prominent academic was date the 3rd of March 2016 and thirteen days later I received this reply:
 
“You do not cite any of the literature dealing with the problem of numbers. Indeed you do not seem to have read any scholarly works on the army. I am sorry to say that, although you have clearly put a great deal of effort and thought into it, the manuscript is unpublishable.”
 
And that was all I got? No mention of anything about the Pythagorean system or how the data in the primary sources correlates with the Pythagorean system. Nothing! It seems my crime was I had not discussed the arguments or theories of other academics.
 
It must be pointed out that this book is an examination of the numbers given by the ancient historians and how they apply to the Roman legion. It is not an examination of the numbers in relation to the theories of academics.
 
The main problem as to why I did not originally intent to discuss other academic theories is most of my research does not conform to many of their theories that it would be like trying to compare the Red Baron’s Fokker Triplane of World War I with the B1 stealth bomber of today as there would be very little comparisons to draw on. The problem of discussing the many and varied theories of academics means their poor methods of research to make their theories work must be explained. These methods are very limiting and have continued on for generations that it brings into question the culture of the teaching in the universities themselves. I am not alone in believing this, there are academics also saying the same thing.
 
I wanted to avoid discussing academic methods, but my present thinking is to rewrite my introduction so as to highlight the poor standards of research that academics employ so as to make the reader aware of why there have been no major discoveries by academics relating to the Roman legion and why we continue to get the same old rehashed but recoloured theories presented over and over again.
 
Another idea is to introduce academic theories in relation to the topic at hand. So when I introduce the cohort, I could then introduce academia’s unfounded theory of the cohort being introduced in 210 BC, but then say wait, they believed it was first introduced in 102 BC and have now changed their minds due to 210 BC being in favour and most jumping on the new fad because it is easier to run with the sheep than be the sheppard.
 
If I go down this road, I will follow academic guidelines and name names, so the academic who sent me that reply will be in the mix because his work relating to the size and organisation of the Roman legion is one of the worst examples of laziness and primary source abuse. So now I am making it personal.
 
So part of me wants a war with academia to show their shortcomings and close minded attitudes. Other times I think not to go down this road as it is pointless. My whole work can prove most of them wrong without announcing it. So here I sit, should I or shouldn’t I, and never coming to a decision.
 
What say yee?
Reply
#2
(04-10-2016, 03:27 AM)Steven James Wrote: What say yee?


Know ye now, Bulkington? Glimpses do ye seem to see of that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore?

Melville, Moby Dick, Chapter 23 [Image: wink.png]



I'd say that declaring war on 'academia' might not be a winning strategy, depending on your intended readership. 'Academia' (the work of professional historians) is not, I would suggest, a citadel of received knowledge, but rather an ongoing conversation. Like all conversations, it has its own grammar and vocabulary, its own methodology. Certain voices are louder and more assured than others, but as with most disciplines there is a hierarchy of authority. That should not be surprising. Academic scholars disagree all the time - often they agree only that some things cannot be established with our current understanding.

Citing your (secondary and tertiary) sources is a good way of demonstrating that you're not trying to reinvent the wheel. The ancient texts you're looking at have been studied for millennia, and most interpretations teased out of them long ago. I've often come across some inticing detail in my reading of (translated) sources, only to discover on further reading that it's been noted and discussed many times already, and often isn't as clear or as telling or I'd assumed. It helps to keep an attitude of humility before the vast corpus of prior knowledge; such an attitude is not the same thing as slavish devotion to dogma.

Talking of language: I can't read either Greek or Latin, and I believe it's the same for you. So both of us are relying on translations (which are often in turn the work of academics), and, as we've seen repeatedly, these translations can be inaccurate or partial. If you truly want to cut out all previous interpretations, you'd have to learn both Latin and Greek and make a study of source criticism, to fully understand the context of the text you're looking at. Once you start down that road, I'm sure that you'd pretty soon develop a much closer engagement with 'academic' interpretations, and no longer regard them as the enemy!
Reply
#3
Generally speaking, I agree with Nathan. What this academic seems to be saying is that, without demonstrating that you have engaged with current scholarly opinion and explained why you consider it to be flawed, you run the risk of having your theories rejected as those of one who simply has a bee in his bonnet and has not considered that there may be alternative interpretations of the material that he is examining and that, consequently, no publisher will touch it. To get round that , it seems to me that you do have to identify and challenge the opinions that you disagree with and explain what you consider to be wrong with them. A potential publisher might possibly submit your work for peer review and, if that produced the sort of response that you have received, would decline to accept it for publication. You, therefore, would need to show that you had anticipated that sort of criticism and had addressed it. You do not have to declare war on academia or be discourteous but you do have to justify your position. The danger is that this may make your work, already large, unwieldy so you will have to try to make your response as succinct as possible, while still getting your point across as firmly as you can.

I agree with Nathan that you are at a disadvantage, if you do not know Latin or Greek. I am fortunate enough to have learned Latin at school but my knowledge of Greek is rudimentary, to say the least, and I am about to enter upon a course to learn the basics of the language. You could do the same and I would recommend that you do so. I am not, of course, suggesting that you embark upon years of study but, rather, that you undertake something that will give you at least a superficial understanding of both languages. As Nathan says, some translations are unsatisfactory and it helps to be able to satisfy yourself whether or not you agree with them. My advice would then be that you find a scholar of the languages whose opinion you trust and ask him or her about the meaning of any passage that might prove controversial, particularly if you are at variance with an established academic over the interpretation of that passage.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#4
(04-10-2016, 03:27 AM)Steven James Wrote: What say yee?

I think that many historians (personal experience) do not have the time (now I'm being charitable) to read other theories, but limit themselves to reading what is said about their own work on the subject. This they know and this they can react to.
So indeed, I think that you may have to include (at least in part) what your opponents thought of the problems that you address. I take it you used their works so that should not be much of a problem.
Is that personal? No, that's academics. And yes, because academic history is often (always) personal opinion vs. personal opinion. But if you want to be taken seriously that's a hurdle you will have to take. remember, if you researched your topic properly (and I think you have), don't be daunted by names and loud voices. If they show errors in your work, be graceful enough to take the hit, but stand your ground if you can defend it. Welcome to the shark tank.
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#5
I think we are digressing introducing the need to study Latin or Greek. Let’s look at the situation. An academic specialising in the Roman army approaches me asking if he could review my work. He was interested in the Pythagorean association. He then tells me I am unpublishable because I have failed to introduce scholarly works on the Roman army.
 
This is like sitting for an exam and when you hand it in to your teacher, the teacher immediately informs you you failed because you did not staple the three pages together, which is a little unfair as there was no warning of having to staple the pages together. In fact it's like having a script rejected because it doesn't have a sex scene.
 
This is an old academic trait; dismiss someone’s work based on what they did not cover, I’ve seen it done before in journals by academics criticising the works of another academic who wrote on their speciality subject. As this academic wanted to help me, then why didn’t he recommend I do that and show me how? After that the academic, who wants to be helpful, could have then discussed the rest of the work and whether it has merit or not.
 
Now if my work was faulty, he would highlight the faults to show my theories do not hold up. The reason why this academic did not do that was because he couldn’t. After sending this academic the first part of the book, I emailed a friend who is a published Napoleonic historian and stated I think my actions will backfire as the information contained in the first part of the book can and does categorically prove most of this academic’s theories to be wrong and nothing but fantasy. And that I believe is the crutch of the matter. His offers of assistance just all vanished in the blink of an eye....all because this black duck didn’t introduce scholarly theories into his work.
 
Nathan wrote:
I'd say that declaring war on 'academia' might not be a winning strategy, depending on your intended readership.
 
Nathan, I am not declaring war on academia. If I decide to go down this road and show some of their theories (naming names), and then showing the how and why as to why they are wrong I am merely following academic practices as found in many of their books and papers. So how can I be declaring war? Is exposing the short sightedness of their methodologies making war or revealing a truth? In the words of Dr. Syvanne (page 10):
 https://www.academia.edu/17972624/Dr._Syvanne_A_Response_to_Arch_Stantons_Review_on_Amazon.com
 
“It seems incontestable that most of the departments of Classical Studies have become self-perpetuating organizations which produce exact carbon copies of themselves from one generation to another without any critical thinking or input regarding the way in which they analyze the sources.”
 
Nathan wrote:
Citing your (secondary and tertiary) sources is a good way of demonstrating that you're not trying to reinvent the wheel. The ancient texts you're looking at have been studied for millennia, and most interpretations teased out of them long ago.
 
The primary sources make the claim that Pythagoras developed the Roman institutions and religious practices. If as you say “most interpretations teased out of them,” besides my work, where can I find academia’s investigation into Pythagoras’ connection with Rome, and what that investigation has revealed? Why has no one explained why the Romans viewed their history in relation to the life of a man? Why are there only 35 tribes? To answer the questions, there is none.....absolutely nothing, and the reason as to why is because academics keep churning over the same old material and theories.
 
Nathan wrote:
It helps to keep an attitude of humility before the vast corpus of prior knowledge; such an attitude is not the same thing as slavish devotion to dogma.
 
Unfortunately, academia is a slave to dogma.
 
Renatus wrote:
Generally speaking, I agree with Nathan. What this academic seems to be saying is that, without demonstrating that you have engaged with current scholarly opinion and explained why you consider it to be flawed, you run the risk of having your theories rejected as those of one who simply has a bee in his bonnet.
 
Michael, I do not need to demonstrate I have engaged with current scholarly opinion. My research is completely different, we are miles apart. And I do not want to pollute my book, and most likely the only book I will write, with their ridiculous theories that have been constructed by academics with little respect to the primary sources.
 
I’ve posted four papers on academia edu for people to examine and if so criticise. Not once in those papers did I need to introduce the theories of academia. Anyone who has read them will see I work with the mathematical data in the primary sources and show how they are applied. I cannot introduce academic theories on the tribal century being homogenous and no one has written about it except me. I cannot discuss the academic theories on the internal structure of the tribes, that is how many centuries and how were they arranged because no one has except me has written on the matter. I’m breaking new ground so why do I have to show I am informed of the theories of academia? I can list in the reference section the titles of all the books and papers I have read on the Roman army and Pythagoras and that should be more than sufficient to show I am informed of the scholarly debate. And why is it that many consider academia to be the pinnacle of authority on such matters?
 
I posted four papers on academia in order to silence my critics, especially those on this forum. I have given you a chance to tear me down and all I have gotten is silence, and to me I will interpret that as the sound of acceptance. My work is original because I am an original thinker and question everything. I do not follow the theoretical fashions of academics until I have proven to myself they are right. More academics should follow this example....question...question...question....regardless of what the multitude think......otherwise we are nothing more than blind and obedient followers of fashion.
 
Renatus wrote:
To get round that, it seems to me that you do have to identify and challenge the opinions that you disagree with and explain what you consider to be wrong with them.
 
Michael, why do I have to challenge anyone’s opinion? And who’s opinion? If I wanted to discuss academia’s theory that the cohort came into existence in 102 BC, ooops sorry, it is now 210 BC, which poor academic from 100 do I select for the firing squad. And should I include all their varying theories? That would take up page after page. Or how about I choose the latest paper on the subject, which is appears to be written by Mark Taylor, who believes that Caesar’s use of the term maniple, when maniples no longer existed, was done because “Caesar is a competent prose stylist, mixing up cohort and maniple for the sake of variation.” That must add to my list of all time favourites.
 
Robert wrote:
I take it you used their works so that should not be much of a problem.
 
The only academic works I use are one’s I am in agreement with. For example, I am influenced by Fronda’s paper that the reason why Hannibal could not break loyalty of many of Rome’s allies was his signing of a treaty of alliance with Capau. I do not credit Fronda with a just a footnote, his theory is discussed in the main section of the book. In all I have around ten references to the works of modern historians. From memory, three deal with Pythagoras, one is a mathematician, and one person who wrote on the making of the cornu.
 
There is no reference to the works of Breeze, Davies, Speidel, Goldsworthy, Delbruck, etc. etc, as there is no need. I work with the primary sources alone and trying to combine this with academia’s theories only has in the past caused confusion, delays and numerable problems. In a nutshell, they get in the way. My premise is to work with the primary sources and let them tell their story.
 
I ask anyone to look at my paper on Pharsalus and compare my breakdown on the numbers given by the ancient historians and compare this with everything else written on Pharsalus and then tell me where I am wrong, and why I need to introduce the theories of academics on the same battle? If it is just an exercise in showing their incompetency, what is the point?
 
Robert wrote:
If they show errors in your work, be graceful enough to take the hit, but stand your ground if you can defend it.
 
That’s the problem Robert; I have not been shown errors in my work, just attacked for doing something I don’t need to do. In fact my work was never discussed. If anyone points out errors to me, it is to my advantage.
 
Robert wrote:
Welcome to the shark tank.
 
Yes, a tank full of toothless sharks.
Reply
#6
(04-12-2016, 05:26 AM)Steven James Wrote: The only academic works I use are one’s I am in agreement with. [..] 
There is no reference to the works of Breeze, Davies, Speidel, Goldsworthy, Delbruck, etc. etc, as there is no need. I work with the primary sources alone and trying to combine this with academia’s theories only has in the past caused confusion, delays and numerable problems. In a nutshell, they get in the way. My premise is to work with the primary sources and let them tell their story.

Well, in part it's a PR thing of course. You want to be published and discussed too, right?
Of course you don't need to read and/or discuss every conflicting theory, but
a) know thy enemy, for it might come across as arrogant if you seem to indicate that you used just the (agreeable) parts of what was written before,
b) if one would ask you how/why your theory conflicts with what X or Y wrote about it would be helpful to your own credibility to have an answer,
c) if you are actually asking X or Y to review your theory, at least show that you have read theirs?
So perhaps it's also a courtesy thing.
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#7
(04-12-2016, 05:26 AM)Steven James Wrote: I am not declaring war on academia.

My comment was a response to your own statement in the first post: "part of me wants a war with academia".


(04-12-2016, 05:26 AM)Steven James Wrote: In the words of Dr. Syvanne (page 10):
 https://www.academia.edu/17972624/Dr._Syvanne_A_Response_to_Arch_Stantons_Review_on_Amazon.com

This particular exchange is a test example of how not to respond to negative criticism, I think.

Historical study is not a competition, and the intention should not be to 'silence critics'. In my opinion, of course...


(04-12-2016, 05:26 AM)Steven James Wrote: I work with the primary sources alone

But you don't! You work with translations of sources, which means you're at the mercy of somebody else's interpretation from the very start.

Surely if your study is devoted to texts in Latin and Greek, then learning Latin and Greek is pretty essential?
Reply
#8
(04-12-2016, 12:33 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
Quote:In the words of Dr. Syvanne (page 10):
 https://www.academia.edu/17972624/Dr._Syvanne_A_Response_to_Arch_Stantons_Review_on_Amazon.com

This particular exchange is a test example of how not to respond to negative criticism, I think.

Oh, I learned so much from that! Especially about the author and his position towards academia. Syvänne is of the opinion that ‘classicists in general are unable to understand any military content’, and he is not prepared to accommodate similarly unaccustomed readers. Wink
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#9
Nathan wrote:
But you don't! You work with translations of sources, which means you're at the mercy of somebody else's interpretation from the very start.
 
I would not say at their mercy. Translations can be checked and confirmed from other sources.
 
Nathan wrote:
Surely if your study is devoted to texts in Latin and Greek, then learning Latin and Greek is pretty essential?
 
How long have you been studying both languages?

Robert in case the PM fails, the Marius posting has gone missing, in which I answered your question about the ceremonies.
Reply
#10
(04-12-2016, 12:51 PM)Steven James Wrote: Translations can be checked and confirmed from other sources.

From other translations? We've seen again and again in our discussions on this board that translations - even good ones - can be faulty or misleading. Only the original wording will do, and in many cases even the original source documents are later copies anyway and possibly contain errors and omissions (which is why source criticism is a vital part of study!)..



(04-12-2016, 12:51 PM)Steven James Wrote: How long have you been studying both languages?

I haven't, as I said above. I'm strictly an amateur reader. But I wouldn't make any claims to new or groundbreaking research based on what I know to be a partial understanding.
Reply
#11
Nathan wrote:
But I wouldn't make any claims to new or groundbreaking research based on what I know to be a partial understanding.
 
Is that indirectly aimed at me? If so I do make such a claim and I can back it up to the hilt. I have posted four papers on academia edu, so if anyone wants to take shots then there is the proof.
Reply
#12
(04-12-2016, 01:24 PM)Steven James Wrote: Is that indirectly aimed at me?

No, I was responding to your question above.

Much as I would like to learn Latin, and perhaps Greek too, I think I can get by without them as I'm not directly studying ancient texts in those languages. But I think it would helpful for you, that's all. It's a suggestion, not an attack.
Reply
#13
Nathan wrote:
No, I was responding to your question above. Much as I would like to learn Latin, and perhaps Greek too, I think I can get by without them as I'm not directly studying ancient texts in those languages. But I think it would helpful for you, that's all. It's a suggestion, not an attack.
 
Never really felt it was an attack. My work centres on the numbers given for legions, units and armies in the primary sources, so basically number centric. Most of them are very easy to translate from the Loeb, and the fact historians have been providing the same numbers in various translation (example Servian constitution having 193 centuries etc.) means I am on safe ground.
 
I’ve shown in my paper on the Roman tribes how to reveal the number of centuries in a tribe and how each tribe is structured by using the Servian constitution. So that is one mathematical system. I have another and I can get the number of men in each of the 35 tribes by simply using the following four integers, which is the 6:8:9:12 Pythagorean tetrachord. It is a completely different mathematical system, yet the results will be the same as using the Servian constitution. That is no fluke or mathematical coincidence. I simply learnt how the Pythagoreans used numbers and applied the process.
 
Another Pythagorean mathematical system is the five elements, amounting to 14,400 degrees. That also can be, by using Pythagorean processes, turn into the Servian constitution. So the 6:8:9:12 tetrachord, the five elements and the Servian constitution, all work to prove the existence of each other. I can use the Pythagorean system, and by following the Pythagorean ages, I can create the size and organisation of the legion for each age as dictated by the Pythagorean system. What makes it interesting is in relation to the legion and its organisation, the primary sources adhere to the Pythagorean system.
 
However, the discovery that has given me the most satisfaction and reward is understanding what the eight celestial sirens are and the whorls they stand on. Added to this are the three daughters of fate that sing in unison with the eight celestial sirens. How the Pythagorean system works is it is looking you in the face. The Pythagoreans believed in eleven sacred tetrads. By adding the 8 sirens with the 3 daughters of fate produces the number 11. But to the Pythagoreans the number 11 is 10 + 1. The fiscal property wealth of the Servian constitution as given by Dionysius and Livy is divided into 11 tetrads, with the capite censi making the eleventh.
 
When you multiply the 8 celestial sirens by the 3 daughters of fate, this produces the number 24 and these are in the Book of Revelations, the same 24 elders sitting around the throne. In Revelation five verse nine, the twenty four elders are mentioned as singing a new song.
 
That Rome is a Pythagorean city is beyond doubt, and all Catholics are Pythagoreans. That will be my legacy to our understanding of the Roman world.
Reply
#14
I think maybe the problem is that the scope of your work is too broad. If what you're going for is showing a pythagoran system, then why not focus it on the Servian constitution and publish a book on that? By showing the Servian constitution is emulating a pythagorean system, it will lay groundwork for you and give something for scholars to build on and discuss, and then you can take a second step and move into pythagorean influence on military organization.

This is just my two cents. To be fair, I think it's possible that in some ways you could indeed be right, but in other areas I think you're taking your interpretation too far.

Respectfully,
~ Aetius
Reply
#15
Evan wrote:
I think maybe the problem is that the scope of your work is too broad. If what you're going for is showing a pythagoran system, then why not focus it on the Servian constitution and publish a book on that?
 
It is not possible to separate one from the other. The whole history of legion is a by product of the Servian constitution, which is a by product of the tribal system, which is formulated on the Pythagorean cosmos including the 6:8:9:12 tetrachord and the five elements.
 
Evan wrote:
By showing the Servian constitution is emulating a pythagorean system, it will lay groundwork for you and give something for scholars to build on and discuss, and then you can take a second step and move into pythagorean influence on military organization.
 
I’ve already done that in the book so there is no need for a second step. I’ve put some of my research on academia edu to show what I am doing and how I am doing it. So far scholars have not built on it nor have they discussed it, except for some pathetic individual on RAT Facebook who made the claim it was all wrong and he can prove it but does not have the time. Also this forum is now not a good forum for getting feedback. I notice a lack of feedback to your paper, and let’s not forget M. Taylor’s paper. RAT’s is now mainly for re-enacting.
 
Evan wrote:
To be fair, I think it's possible that in some ways you could indeed be right, but in other areas I think you're taking your interpretation too far.
 
To make a formed opinion you will need to read the whole work in its entirety. I am very careful not to massage the maths in the primary sources to make something from nothing. It has to be supported with other data from the primary sources. The adding and multiplying of the eight sirens and the three daughters of fate I had known about for some years but have never applied it as it seemed to be a case of massaging the numbers, or just a coincidence, of which I am always wary of. However, it is now supported by other evidence, and as it can stand up to scrutiny, it has been incorporated into the book.
 
I started my research based on the premise that academics have not considered Polybius’ understanding of the Roman legion to be wrong. I made a commitment to only include Polybius’ information when I was categorically convinced Polybius was correct. Looking back, that method of investigation gave me unlimited freedom for exploration. Unfortunately, for the period Polybius wrote about he has left us with many distorted concepts about the Roman legion and also the Roman army. This has been further magnified by those ancient historians who have used Polybius as their source.
 
In the beginning I had no concept Rome was Pythagorean and I had no concept that the very foundations of the Pythagorean system were used by the Catholic Church. The book of revelations is the Pythagorean system blatantly plagiarist. Censorinus claims there were six tones and Pliny there was seven. The book of revelations was written during the Pythagorean seventh tone, and during Pliny’s lifetime. Academics write about the Roman’s belief in the return of the golden age during the reign of Augustus, but academics admit they have no idea as to why it is referred to as the Saturnian golden age or the return of Saturn. During the reign of Augustus the Pythagorean cosmos has travelled 756,000 stadia, which positions itself with the planet Saturn, which in musical terms has the Pythagorean string length point 666. As one person commented, if my work is accused of being wrong, then I have to be acknowledged for finding the most coincidences in man’s history.
 
We have been told by academics for so long that there is a paucity of information in the primary sources and that we will never know what the legion is, that it is now ingrained in most people. This is the mind set I am up against all the time. As Albert Einstein said:
 
“Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
 
I have given my work to some of my worst critics. I never hear from them again. If it was incorrect, they would let me know and be publicly vocal about it. Yet they remain as quite as a mouse. I expect my research will follow the path as described by Albert Einstein:
 
All new ideas go through three phases
Firstly they are ridiculed
Next they are violently opposed
Lastly they are accepted as obvious
 
Steven
Reply


Forum Jump: