Posted by Gary [GLamotta] on March 30, 1999 at 05:01:00 {.Oe37V.qjQMSSTtTA17sboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: **ANSTEY'S CHRONOLOGY DEAD # 2 posted by COJ on March 29, 1999 at 22:35:34:
Hi Carl,
One reason why you in particular need to discuss these things are because you have written a book about chronology and Jan's excellent thesis on 1914 and 607BCE is based upon your research and your work.
So you're in the
middle of this discussion because you are a major contributor to a false chronology.
So you need to be discussing this, or at least defending your failed 568BCE dating.
Furthermore, I'm encouraged by you since you avoid a direct discussion of any of the really critical aspects of this chronology, such as the specific assignment of Lines 3 and 14 to 511BCE.
At any rate, I certainly enjoy every single word
you write and the special research you've
done
certainly has added to all of our knowledge,
whether or not we interpret the information
the same.
Cheers,
Gary