Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Sidney
Colonel
Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
|
Quote Reply
Topic: What if St. Peter's in Rome is not really Ancient? Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 19:01 |
The Tabula Peutingerian, made in 1265, but thought to be the final of a long line of copies. Detail showing St.Peters.
http://www.euratlas.net/cartogra/peutinger/index.html
|
|
Sidney
Colonel
Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 19:18 |
Map of Rome from c.1330. Best viewed as a negative;
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/vatican.html
This seems to show St.Peters as a similar structure to your picture. How this is reconciled with all the other images, I leave for later discussion.
Edited by Sidney - 09-Dec-2013 at 19:22
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 22:09 |
Exactly Sidney! Take nothing for granted! We have seen numerous representations of the same place, the so called same building/edifice over a period of perhaps 200 years without a duplicate!!!
Strange is not?
By the way, have you been able to play with the image I presented? As I mentioned earlier, the angles from behind this Cathedral towards the centre of Rome, tends for me, at least, to consider that this was a first hand view. Everything lines up! Either the cathedral which I denote as "Gothic", is incorrect, or everything expanded towards Rome is wrong! But if one looks long and hard then you will see just where I stand!
So, go ahead and really examine the site I provided and was taken down! It shows, from the basic ALIGNMENTS, by degrees, that it is the most reliable document/representation that can be considered. That is, at least four or more of Rome's most famous sites, can be both seen and via some geometry proved that they existed in the very spot of my representation might well give my site more authority than any other?
Regards, Ron
Regards, Ron
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 22:11 |
Sidney, from the post above "The Tabula Peutingerian, made in 1265, but thought to be the final of a long line of copies. Detail showing St.Peters."
Too me, at least it looks like bunkum!
Regards, Ron
Edited by opuslola - 09-Dec-2013 at 22:14
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
Sidney
Colonel
Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2013 at 12:04 |
Originally posted by opuslola
So, go ahead and really examine the site I provided and was taken down!
|
How do I look at a site that's been taken down?
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2013 at 17:19 |
I you see the domed structure to the left of the buildings, it is before this structure that the obelisk stood for many years. This dome also reportedly stood in the middle (the spina) of the circus.
Ron
Edited by opuslola - 10-Dec-2013 at 17:43
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2013 at 17:42 |
Originally posted by Sidney
Originally posted by opuslola
So, go ahead and really examine the site I provided and was taken down!
|
How do I look at a site that's been taken down? |
I am sorry Sidney, but I think that it was actually displayed here for a short while. I would do it but I have forgotten how, so if you wish, here is the address; http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg
I suggested that if possible a black and white copy might well be easier for one to see.
Ron
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
Sidney
Colonel
Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2013 at 18:28 |
This =
Illustration from a 1457 edition of Euclid, described in the Vatican catalogue as a view of Rome, although nothing in the text seems to say this.
Have taken liberty to show cropped version;
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2013 at 18:13 |
Yes! Indeed this is the one I spoke of! If you look closely, or blow up the image, you can easily see the Passeto, the Pope's escape wall, leading directly to San Angelo which stands directly in front of the left tower. To the right of the right tower you can easily make out the dome of the Pantheon. To the right of the rear spire, between the tree and the spire you can make out the "ara coeli", and to the right of it, in the far background you can see what I think is the coliseum.
It is a view of Rome, reportedly in 1457, with everything mentioned above being in its correct relationship to St. Peter's Gothic style cathedral.
Regards, Ron
Edited by opuslola - 14-Dec-2013 at 20:13
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 20:11 |
It looks more like a barn!
OH! This is Roma! http://www.euratlas.net/cartogra/peutinger/4_picenum/picenum_8_3.html
How silly it is!
Regards, Ron
Edited by opuslola - 14-Dec-2013 at 20:46
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 21:39 |
Originally posted by Sidney
This =
Illustration from a 1457 edition of Euclid, described in the Vatican catalogue as a view of Rome, although nothing in the text seems to say this.
Have taken liberty to show cropped version;
|
Yes! It is a very good version, and it begs a question.
So, just why would any artist assigned to make a small painting of Rome, would deign to select a view overlooking a Rome that he was very familiar with, and would include his view of so many of Rome's great sites? If he/she? was this familiar with Roma, then just why would he/she fabricate a St. Peters? That supposedly never existed?
Just why? would this artist go against the very history of Rome and the Vatican? After all, the Vatican and the Catholic Encyclopedia only acknowledge the existence of but "TWO" buildings to have existed upon this exact piece of property other than the pre-Christian relics of a stadium, etc.?
WHY? WHY?
Common sense tells you I am correct!
And just as certainly the Roman Catholic Church, which is mostly responsible for a lot of this fake history, cannot refute my words and artifacts/ evidence.
Truth can recognize "truth" and I have posted nothing more than "truth!"
Please refute the above if you can?
Regards, Ron
Edited by opuslola - 14-Dec-2013 at 22:06
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
Sidney
Colonel
Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 22:57 |
Would it be possible to see both the San Angelo and the Pantheon flanking the Basilica from this angle? Wouldn't the buildings be lined up more and obscuring each other?
Besides, the Passeto does not connect San Angelo to the Basilica, but to the Papal Palace. This Palace is a large building to one side of the Basilica. Since the building shown connects directly with San Angelo via the wall, (something the Basilica did not do), then I suggest this illustration shows the Palace. The Basilica is lower down and to one side, and is hence out of view.
If this is the case, then there is no need to question the consistent view of the Old Basilica's structure as portrayed in the images I have provided from the 14th - 16th Centuries. There is no mysterious interlude of a Gothic Basilica that appears and then disappears mid 15th Century. The 1457 picture is not showing the Basilica, but the Palace.
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 23:09 |
Sidney, Sidney! Just how far will you go to defend our currently accepted History and Chronology?
Whether the Papal escape wall comes from the Papal chambers is but an illusion, since we really do not know the real place of them nor what the artist was trying to convey to the editor of the book itself!
And if you think that some of my identifications would be obscured by this obvious over head view, is impossible.
How could the palace of the Pope ever over shadow the church itself? How could it (the Basilica) be "kept out of view?"
Be sane for a while, and forget the consensual history that you have been taught! Just use your eyes and common sense, and tell me I am wrong?
Just because you have provided images, does not mean they were either correct or real?
My deductions are basically a "duh?"
Regards,
Ron
Edited by opuslola - 14-Dec-2013 at 23:12
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
Sidney
Colonel
Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2013 at 18:14 |
Hang on!!
First you tell me that we do not know how the escape wall connected to the palace because we don't know what the layout was, but then you tell me that the palace could not possibly have obscured the basilica.
Be consistent opuslola. If we don't know the layout, you cannot claim that the basilica couldn't have been obscured!
However, it is not true that we don't know the layout. Some of my images (for example the 1472 one) do show the wall/palace, and that the palace is at a higher elevation to the basilica, making it easy to think that the one could hide the other from a certain angle.
I came to this thread with no knowledge about the history of the basilica. I do not know what the consensual history of the building is (other than what you've been saying about it). But I do not see an inconsistency in the pictures in this thread (including the one you provided).
As you say yourself - we do not know what the artist [in the 1457 illustration] was trying to convey to the editor of the book. But if it was an accurate rendition of the layout (as you maintain), then the only accurate layout for San Angelo and wall as shown would require the building in the foreground not to be the basilica.
If that disappoints your perceived conclusion, then you will just have to maintain your own vision and common sense to assure yourself that you are not wrong.
But if you can provide any supporting evidence for your interpretation of the 1457 image - such as another image, or a written description - I'd be open to persuasion. If you opened this thread looking for such supportive evidence, then the quest has failed.
P.S. - but if I find any supporting evidence, for your interpretation or mine, I will post it.
Edited by Sidney - 15-Dec-2013 at 19:00
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2013 at 19:09 |
Well Thanks, I think? But, if you have seen as many representations of St. Peter's as I have, I just have to say, that it might well have been hidden by the Pope's palace is just something I cannot understand. Note the view is looking down and to the right! Unless the "ancient basilica" was a lot shorter than all of the other representations we have looked at, and if so, then the damn Egyptian "NEEDLE" might well have been seen?
By the way, I have never seen another representation of the Papal Palace with "TWO" spires around it? Or even a "spire" in the back of it! Have you?
In a court of law, my case might well win, however! Since I have shown motive, (hide the real history), means (the church has always had the means or money, and the opportunity, the destruction of information that was considered "anathema" to the church. It is known, from your considered version of the past that this same Roman Church ordered for hundreds of years, the destruction of any material detrimental to the Roman Church, and it still exists today in the "No read" directives.
But, you have been a great resource, and I give you my heartfelt thanks!
Regards,
Ron
Edited by opuslola - 15-Dec-2013 at 19:33
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2013 at 21:39 |
From E Brittanica-
Old Saint Peter’s Basilica, first basilica of St. Peter’s in Rome, a five-aisled basilican-plan church with apsed transept at the west end that was begun between 326 and 333 at the order of the Roman emperor Constantine and finished about 30 years later. The church was entered through an atrium called Paradise that enclosed a garden with fountains. From the atrium there were five doors into the body of the church. The nave was terminated by an arch with a mosaic of Constantine, accompanied by St. Peter, presenting a model of his church to Christ.
This is only for starters. Having a formal education in Art History, I was required to
study church architecture from the beginning. Not thrilling, but it was a req. course. Given a little time I can come up with more.
Just so everyone is aware, what this is mainly about is the Fomenko theory that all history was invented by monks in the 11th cent.
Right up there with the Pyramids being built by Aliens.
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Dec-2013 at 01:00 |
Aliens sounds good to me!!! We have lot of building phases for Basilica here. Rome wasn't built in a day!
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Dec-2013 at 14:40 |
Originally posted by red clay
From E Brittanica-
<P itemprop="deion" sb_id="ms__id960"><SPAN =srTitle><A id=ref8390 name=ref8390></A>Old Saint Peter’s Basilica</SPAN>, first [COLOR=#0066cc">basilica[/COLOR"> of St. Peter’s in Rome, a five-aisled basilican-plan church with apsed transept at the west end that was begun between 326 and 333 at the order of the Roman emperor Constantine and finished about 30 years later. The church was entered through an atrium called Paradise that enclosed a garden with fountains. From the atrium there were five doors into the body of the church. The nave was terminated by an arch with a mosaic of Constantine, accompanied by St. Peter, presenting a model of his church to Christ.
This is only for starters. Having a formal education in Art History, I was required to
study church architecture from the beginning. Not thrilling, but it was a req. course. Given a little time I can come up with more.
Just so everyone is aware, what this is mainly about is the Fomenko theory that all history was invented by monks in the 11th cent.
Right up there with the Pyramids being built by Aliens. |
Well Red Clay, that was some statement you just made. What's the matter? Are you afraid I might well be on to something?
As far as I know, no Fomenko work has ever touched this topic. It is my idea and possibly my discovery.
So, since you have this art background, what does it have to do with "Old St. Peter's"?
If you are so inclined, I would be very happy if you were to introduce some paintings or photographs of typical basilica constructed during the times of Constantine? I believe some of them still exist. And then point out the similarities of one of them with the one I have exposed here dating from 1457.
This very subject was made to show that some of our past may have been faked, and that there may have been at least one more building, bearing that name, and my representation is what I believe a true view of the structure. I would love to see two or three actual paintings or etchings of the structure that stood on this property before the construction of the New St. Peter's?
Hours have gone by and still no response from Red Clay! Perhaps he has nothing to say? Smile
Ron
Edited by opuslola - 17-Dec-2013 at 15:42
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2013 at 17:43 |
I just can't wait for Red Clay to respond with some great examples! I really look forward to some of his great responses.
Ron
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2013 at 19:47 |
I still await, with one of C. Dickens phrases stuck in my mouth, that is with; "Great expectations!" Smile!
Regards, Ron
Edited by opuslola - 17-Dec-2013 at 20:08
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|