Don: 0:26

Hello, Hello everybody. Welcome back to The Uncannery. I'm Don.

Doug: 0:32

I'm Doug

Ron: 0:32

and I'm Ron.

Don: 0:34

And we're here on a beautiful day.

Ron: 0:36

It's a beautiful day. It's a beautiful day to be inside, it's beautiful to be talking amongst friends.

Doug: 0:41

Can I push for outdoors at least one time, though? I know that we're gonna get some bird sounds, maybe a little bit of wind, but it might change the atmosphere completely.

Ron: 0:50

It could it could take us out of our doldrums. Is that what you're saying?

Doug: 0:53

no, I don't even think we're in the doldrums, it's just like keep it wild, let's they're outside now I'm perpetually in the doldrums.

Ron: 1:00

I don't know if it comes through in my voice. Just Just want everyone to know.

Don: 1:02

We should do it when it's storming, though. That way it's, you know, creative atmospherics behind us.

Ron: 1:08

Yeah, yeah, the pathetic fallacy. It's that way that the the weather mirrors our content. There you go, yeah, perfect.

Doug: 1:17

Sounds good.

Ron: 1:18

It's time to move outside. Give us a second folks we got. Give us a second folks We've got to set this up so well.

Don: 1:24

I'm glad you guys are here. I would like to talk today about a topic that I think is really super interesting. But before we get to my topic, I have a question I've been wondering about. I was thinking recently, actually I was having a little nostalgia moment back to my teenage years and singing music in the car with my friends, and I was wondering you guys ever, uh, have any songs you used to sing out loud, you know the lyrics, and you're just belting them out so confident and then somebody tells you that you're singing the lyrics wrong all the time, all the time.

Ron: 1:57

No, that's not true, I'm just yes anding here no, but yeah, of course. So the first one that comes to my mind isn't like a song that would be sung, I guess I mean, I did used to sing it because I have a brain that really traps ad jingles. Oh yeah, I remember too many ad jingles.

Doug: 2:19

I mean, all of our brains are wired for that. That's the reason that the people who make jingles make the big bucks yeah, it's so ridiculous.

Ron: 2:27

But yeah, they do yeah, and so the one that I always remember hearing in the car as a kid was a like an auto mall, uh, ad, uh for keys. Uh, in van nyes, which is a city in Southern California, and the jingle went keys, keys, keys, keys on Van Nuys, keys, keys, keys, keys on Van Nuys yeah, and we'll keep going. But I always thought it was keys on thin ice, and I would like sing this among my friends because we would just be, like you know, bored and just making noises at each other.

Doug: 3:03

Keys keys, keys, keys on Van Nuys, keys, other keys, keys, keys, keys on that ice it's like a lost beach boys track.

Ron: 3:12

It is like it's very good, barbara ann. Yeah, yeah, you're right. Literally it's not lost, it's stolen. Yeah, it's stolen. And the?

Doug: 3:21

beach boys stole from, it's gonna beless.

Ron: 3:24

But the idea in my head was like oh, these keys, you got to get them. They're so hot, they're burning through the ice.

Doug: 3:31

They're built in the ice.

Ron: 3:33

So you better get your keys while you can, because we're not going to have any cars in six months.

Don: 3:36

For sure, and that makes total sense, because ice in Van Nuys is not going to last very long?

Doug: 3:41

No, not at all not going to last very long at all, at all. The most concrete city ever poured. I took it so differently that the keys are in trouble, like you're on thin ice young man yeah what keys on van eyes are. Did they specialize in a certain automotive brand?

Ron: 3:57

I don't know uh, kias, yeah, let's say that yeah kias on van eyes, now Nuys.

Doug: 4:03

Now that's going to be the new, but I just imagine it's like all these terrible Kias they're the rotten ones. They've done jail time. You want a wild one.

Ron: 4:14

Doug, you got one.

Doug: 4:16

Yeah, I do, I'll never forget. I want to say it was either sixth or seventh grade when puddle of mud came out. Do I even know the name of the song? Puddle?

Don: 4:28

of mud.

Doug: 4:28

Puddle of mud.

Don: 4:29

Yeah, that's a deep cut yeah.

Doug: 4:32

There you're looking at, um, like post grunge, I think it's like so you've got the classic wars doing this thing, yeah, like it's a lot of that. But the famous chorus uh says can you take it all away? Can you take it all away and shove it in my face? But then there's a part after that that I don't even know what the words are. I just phonetically kind of say something that's close to it and I've never even bothered to look it up, so I always get get to that part.

Doug: 5:02

It's like it's over near my face, it's buying and I'm ready Like kind of sounds like Spider-Man, Kind of sounds like Spine.

Ron: 5:12

Spider-Man is me.

Don: 5:17

What are you even saying when you sing? That? You're just making noises.

Doug: 5:19

Yeah, it's just phonetics, Like I'm just thinking of the vowel sounds opening and closing in a certain way close to what his mouth is doing.

Don: 5:28

that's it so the lyric is this pain you gave to me oh, I was gonna say explain again to me, I.

Ron: 5:51

I think that's closer explain again to me.

Doug: 5:54

This pain you gave to me is so dumb.

Ron: 5:56

Give me a break but that's very, it always very keeping with the genre. Yeah, like, yeah, that was that time it's always gonna be to me.

Doug: 6:12

No, even they're more clear, I think, than that. But yeah, the the uh mumble mouth is quintessential to that. So that wasn't. I wasn't even corrected, I think. Like anytime I've seen that with other people, we always just break in the laughter at that part because nobody knows what he's saying right there, except now I do, but now you do and you're still refusing to accept the uh the truth, of course, gonna hang on to all right, yeah it's way better.

Don: 6:36

This way it's your.

Doug: 6:36

Uh, it's your prerogative, I guess I think like if I was at a puddle of mud concert and he was like anybody want to come sing with me? I think I could literally be like looking at him and do the same thing and he'd be like he's got it, yeah, it's always been about the energy man.

Don: 6:55

Words are a construct that's right, very puddle of mud point of view, yeah so mine, I, I, I knew all along it wasn't the right lyric, but I wasn't ever able to hear what the right lyric was and I didn't care enough to do any research on it. But it was man for Man's Earth Band.

Doug: 7:14

Oh, I know.

Don: 7:15

Blinded by the Light. Wrapped up like a douche.

Ron: 7:19

Yeah, yeah, Blinded by the light.

Doug: 7:31

They're for sure saying douche yeah.

Don: 7:33

Yeah, it totally is.

Doug: 7:34

So the lyric is actually Feminine hygiene products.

Don: 7:38

Revved up like a douche. Another runner in the night yeah, but this is actually a cover. Did you know man for man Was actually covering?

Doug: 7:45

Yes, bruce Springsteen and Bruce. Actually I think you can hear him a little bit. Yeah, bruce makes sense.

Don: 7:52

It's a different lyric. Bruce doesn't sing the same lyric.

Ron: 7:56

Really I thought he said deuce.

Don: 7:58

No, he, I know it's not that, it says caboose.

Ron: 8:05

Ripped up like a caboose at the end of the tree Made me at the lake Mary caboose in a boost.

Don: 8:13

Cut loose like a deuce.

Ron: 8:15

Oh, he does say deuce, but he still says deuce, but I think when he says deuce.

Doug: 8:19

I don't know, Do we have that one cued?

Don: 8:23

I don't, that's all right. That's all right.

Doug: 8:25

That's all right.

Don: 8:26

So here's, bruce.

Doug: 8:28

Yeah, yeah, beautiful.

Don: 8:38

His is a lot clearer that it's not a douche.

Ron: 8:41

I think even Bruce. I read that Bruce has commented on the cover and been like, yes, they say douche and he's like pissed you know when they're sitting on there, and they did that cover.

Doug: 8:51

It didn't come out the way that we wanted it to.

Don: 8:54

Thanks, Bruce.

Ron: 8:55

I don't do drugs. I don't. I've been clean, I'm a good man.

Doug: 9:00

This is my friend, obama Do you hear Bruce's rhythm section on that. Oh, I know, so good, so good.

Ron: 9:11

Any others, enter Sandman I always heard I'm still light Like it's like a hockey game. Yeah, yeah, which is a cooler lyric? It makes sense? I don't know if there was an ad that did do that like a beer ad. That changed the lyric, but I just always heard Amstel Light and no one I knew ever drank Amstel Light. I don't even know why it was in my brain, yeah.

Doug: 9:51

That is strange.

Don: 9:51

Yeah, Doug any others.

Doug: 9:55

I'm not off the top of my head. I want to say that there was something Beatles related at a certain point, but it's not coming to me right now.

Don: 10:04

There's one running around right now, but it's not coming to me right now. There's one uh running around right now because it's uh, it's taylor swift um, it's a season of swift. It is um from uh blank space which is yes, right, the classic starbucks got a long list starbucks lovers yeah, which I think is cooler.

Ron: 10:27

Yeah, to me that sounds more like contemporary or like like kind of fun. Yeah, yeah, because, like you, you write a person's name on a starbucks cup and then what do you do? You drink it, you love it, then you chuck it, you toss it. I think it's a beautiful yeah, taylor, swiftian metaphor. So she's like we?

Doug: 10:46

yeah, there's got to be some like underling uh songwriter right now that should write a song called starbucks lovers. Yeah, it would be a hit.

Ron: 10:54

We could check spotify this guy 20 of them yeah phoebe bridgers, if you hear this, please write.

Doug: 11:00

Starbucks lovers like you you are the candidate that would just make this really special.

Don: 11:05

Any Adele fans Sure Got a great voice. Yeah, yeah. So apparently in this song she likes to shave penguins. Let's see. Yeah, I've made up my mind, don't need.

Ron: 11:20

Should I give up, or should I just keep chasing pavements?

Don: 11:26

Yes.

Ron: 11:27

Yeah, I hear that, totally yeah.

Doug: 11:30

Chasing pavement. Yeah, it's a really strange phrase to me, chasing pavements, plural Penguins can be shaved, pavements can't be chased.

Ron: 11:41

Yeah, see, it's a logic problem right, it's for sure All right how about one more, and it's a logic problem.

Don: 11:44

Right, it's for sure. Um, all right, how about, uh, one more, and this one's a deep cut, it's so it uh. Remember the bangles.

Doug: 11:52

Oh yeah.

Ron: 11:53

Yeah, um the. I mean no, I'm too young, but yes, no Did I wear it out?

Doug: 11:59

Have I watched Mo Rocca talk about the bangles on VH1 classic?

Don: 12:08

Yeah, all right. So this is the lyric that is misheard and it's. Doesn't it matter that I have to feed the buffalo Parmesan. Ready, okay, ready, all right ready okay.

Doug: 12:37

I have no idea what's going on there. The parmesan is really a stretch it is, well it's.

Don: 12:42

It would be like a fancy British person saying parmesan, yeah, yeah, um. Do you know? There's a name for this uh phenomenon a mishearing, uh lyric no so all right time to learn a lit term.

Ron: 12:58

Yes, please all right, I've got my notebook good.

Don: 13:00

this is called a mondegreen M-O-N-D-E-G-R-E-E-N. It was coined in 1954 by an American writer named Sylvia Wright, who was writing an autobiographical story about her childhood. A book of poems that her mother used to read to her when she would go to sleep called the Reliques of Ancient English Poetry, which included the Bonnie Earl Amore, a poem by Thomas Percy, and had the line oh ye highlands and ye lowlands, oh, where have you been? They hath slain the Earl Amore and Lady Mondegreen, is what she would heard. So apparently in this story she thought they killed the Earl and they killed this lady and two deaths and go to bed Like I don't know why you'd read that to your kid.

Doug: 13:50

Yeah.

Don: 13:51

But uh, apparently, as an adult, she actually looked at the book again and that's not what it says. Um, they had slain the Earl of Murray and laid him on the green, like they put him down on the lawn.

Doug: 14:03

Lady Mondegreen lives on.

Don: 14:04

That's right. So the word Mondegreen is actually a Mondegreen, so that's a little Mondexception going on with the term.

Doug: 14:14

But you just created Mondception.

Don: 14:16

That's right.

Doug: 14:17

A lot of things happening on the Uncannery folks. You heard it first here. You heard it first here.

Ron: 14:22

Did she ever talk about which one she preferred? Because I feel like if you grow up with one narrative you're going to, it'll always be that for you, right?

Don: 14:30

Well, I wonder if, looking at the rest of the poem like how does it make sense that there's two people dead of the poems about this one?

Doug: 14:37

guy right.

Don: 14:38

Like there had to be a logic problem that her childhood brain wasn't paying attention to as she was going to sleep.

Ron: 14:43

If there's a lord, there's got to be a lady, right?

Don: 14:45

Right, well, that's true, but they wouldn't have different names. They wouldn't be Lord Murray.

Ron: 14:53

A side lady Side lady Mondagrain Mondapurple.

Don: 15:01

Sorry, it's getting real dumb out here. Did you all have the experience of when you learned that metallica wasn't singing about amstel light or? Uh, like I know, you don't care about puddle of mud, apparently but um, I had the correct version, so like was it was it ever? Was it shocking that you had learned a different? I actually have that shock experience with a different, a different mondegreen. But what about, like? Was it surprising that the guy wasn't selling keys, I think in like the cases of mine.

Ron: 15:30

They were always sort of nonsensical, so for me it was a relief, like oh, okay, that probably makes sense like I wasn't that tied to what the keys guys wanted me to know. Um, trying to, I feel like I have. I don't know if they are attached to songs, but I do have memories that uh like, oh, I remembered it this way and I thought it was way cooler this way, I think.

Ron: 15:51

Um, I remember my mom reading trumpet of the swan to me and eb white, if I'm correctly remembering that like kids book about a swan that learns how to play a trumpet and there was like a passage in there that I always remembered thinking was really cool and it was something about like the dad swan was talking to the swan and he was like you gotta be careful not to like dive. Go back to diving.

Ron: 16:17

Don't dive into the lake and be under there too long, because it'll be nice and calm and peaceful and you will be like lured by the comfort of how quiet and peaceful it is under the lake and then you're gonna drown and die. Uh, and this was like sage goose advice and I remember that's like the only part of that book I remembered as a kid, thinking like wow, that's cool. And I went back to it, like when I was in college, to see if I could find that to use it in something. And I think it was a little bit different than how I remembered it, like wasn't quite that metal or something, and I was kind of disappointed but or maybe it is I don't know, someone tweet us about EB white quotes.

Doug: 16:56

Well, don you you kind of passed over Polo mud very quickly but my reaction.

Ron: 17:03

music critics of the 1990 mud very quickly Um, but my reaction it was early.

Doug: 17:07

Two thousands, brother. Um the. You notice, my reaction was anger immediately. Because it's like it. It almost feels ridiculous hearing the in quotes. Real thing Actually there is no quotes on that, but it really is. See, I'm having trouble letting go, even through the words that I'm choosing right now. You can see, yeah, I think there's a certain amount of attachment. It feels like the rug's been pulled out from under you a bit At least that's my experience.

Don: 17:36

So mine was learning the Pledge of Allegiance in kindergarten. Oh yeah, we pledge allegiance to the flag. One nation under God, invisible.

Doug: 17:46

Right right.

Don: 17:48

Was definitely what I heard and believed as a kindergartner, and it makes total sense, because who can see God?

Ron: 17:53

Yes, yes, right, and also the country. Very much is divisible.

Don: 18:00

Famously has divided Famously has divided. My kindergarten vocabulary didn't include the word indivisible, and so I specifically remember when I had friends who had a different opinion about how it went, and fighting them that no, it's about invisible. God, it's not like. What is this word that you're saying? And then I saw it on the wall and it wasn't invisible and I thought they spelled it wrong.

Ron: 18:28

And I was like Don, why aren't you saying the Pledge of Allegiance anymore?

Don: 18:32

I've been hurt. That's right, because God is not invisible.

Doug: 18:35

I love the idea that that would be part of the declaration, like in case people didn't know One nation under God, you can't see him.

Don: 18:45

He's omn See ya For sure.

Doug: 18:47

Absolutely Proud.

Don: 18:50

All right. Well, how about if we uh, we change gears for a second? Let me ask you a different question Um, what year is?

Ron: 18:56

it Easy. I love it when we start easy. Yeah, don, it is the year 2024.

Doug: 19:05

It's weird Sometimes when Don stares at me for too long I go. He wants me to say something else but I'm going to also confidently say 2024.

Ron: 19:12

Here we got him. This time, Doug, we got him on the ropes. It's 2024, Don All right? Follow-up question.

Don: 19:18

How do you know?

Doug: 19:23

See, this is what I was worried about.

Ron: 19:24

Don, because intelligent people. You walked right into my trap. Intelligent people have figured this out for me and they've relayed this information to me, Don. Well, I have no reason not to trust them. So just because somebody else told you, you believe it. Yeah, that's how I know how a combustion engine works, right?

Don: 19:45

So you always believe everything people tell you.

Ron: 19:47

Of course, if they pass a certain set of criteria that I have decided.

Doug: 19:57

What are your qualifications for? Yes, it's this year.

Ron: 20:00

This person is underpaid. Oh, these are my qualifications for an expert. They're underpaid. They uh have been repeated. The things they say have been repeated by more than 20 other people and 19 you're out, yeah, yeah and um. They're on reddit, no I don't know.

Doug: 20:23

I started the subreddit 2024. Yeah, um, for me it's. The y2k bug did not go through as we anticipated. Therefore the year 2000 existed. That was like the big moment for me. I said, if all computers crash in the year 2000, then we know we got it wrong. But they kept on spinning. So that was a big life event for me and I I said, yep, it really is the year 2000.

Don: 20:45

So the turn of the millennia is a marker for you.

Doug: 20:49

I was waiting in anticipation with my AOL American Online 6.0 discs that I was going to have to reload With 300 free hours 300 free hours and dial-up sound ready to go, just in case, everything was wiped out and I was holding on to my $17 that I'd earned from allowance, which is all the money I had in the world, and I went as long as Y2K bug does not hit, then it really is the year 2000. As we know, it didn't. We kept going, the computers kept running, so it had to be the year 2000.

Ron: 21:16

As long as Y2K doesn't wipe out these $17 in my pocket.

Doug: 21:20

Yeah, I'll pocket.

Don: 21:27

yeah, yeah, I'll be good, I'm ready for them. Out of there. They vanished in the thin air. What does it mean to either of you that it's the year 2024? Like last year was 2023, now it's 2024. I'm assuming next year we'll call it 2025 good assumption so what, uh, what does that number mean to you?

Ron: 21:41

it means we're in the future, at any point, uh, cybernetic humans can occur. Um. What do you mean? What does it mean to me?

Don: 21:51

like so so well, if we're counting sequentially, right. So next year's going to be 2025. What are we counting from like? Why? Oh sure why are we at 2024 and not at just like 1000 would be a much rounder number.

Doug: 22:04

Anno Domini, I believe, is the expression that we use.

Ron: 22:08

The new one is what Common Era we use, Common Era now.

Doug: 22:11

But it's the same date right.

Ron: 22:13

0 AD or 1 AD is the same as 1 CE.

Don: 22:18

Correct? Yeah, but what is the one? Why are we counting from there and why not the year before?

Ron: 22:24

Oh, it's the death of Jesus Christ. Right Is the traditional Catholic.

Doug: 22:28

That's the year Jesus dies in oh, he's born, oh Anno.

Ron: 22:32

Domini would be year of our Lord. Anno Domini. I thought Domini was death for a second.

Don: 22:38

Some people think that the AD means after death.

Ron: 22:40

Oh yeah, that's what I was always told.

Don: 22:42

Yeah, it's a common, it's a common thing, but it's Latin and it is uh, as, as I don't know, the demon in Doug is telling us um, it's uh. It means year of our Lord in Latin Um, and uh, and so we are counting from one. But what? What happened in year one? We already said it. What was jesus?

Ron: 23:07

born, jesus born, yeah so um and this is julian calendar. Am I right um?

Don: 23:15

at the time it was invented? Yes, it was the julian calendar. We're not using the julian calendar now?

Ron: 23:20

we're not, we are not. Oh, the gregorian. We, we are the Gregorian. Are we in Russia.

Don: 23:26

Funny story about Russia and the Julian calendar coming, so hang on to your hat Spoilers. Yeah, so, yeah, so we're ostensibly counting from the birth of Jesus, which was believed to have occurred in 1 AD. It's no longer believed to have occurred in 1 AD. It's no longer believed to have occurred in 1 AD. We think there was a mistake. But setting that aside for a second, what if I told you that it's not 2024?.

Doug: 23:55

I'd be ready for the follow-up immediately.

Ron: 23:57

I might be primed to believe that Really.

Don: 24:01

Because I'm not well-known, underpaid and 20 people will repeat what I have said.

Ron: 24:06

Yes, you make too much money.

Doug: 24:08

You got too much cheddar yeah.

Don: 24:12

So what if I told you it was actually 1727?

Ron: 24:15

1727, that's going to be harder to swallow.

Doug: 24:18

Yeah, we're missing a lot of years in there.

Ron: 24:20

Yeah, I don't see like tricorn hats on Main Street.

Don: 24:25

No, not wearing your powdered wig, yeah.

Doug: 24:28

Going back in time.

Ron: 24:31

Is that the dinosaur ride?

Doug: 24:35

Only if you grew up in Southern California in a very specific era, when there was a ride at Knott's Berry Farm in Buena Park, are you going to know that reference. So I apologize to all of our other listeners.

Don: 24:46

So, ron, to go back to your criteria, what if I told you there was an expert that said it's 1727?

Ron: 24:52

Certain experts. Uh, I'm very my hackles get raised because everyone's an expert now. Don Um, but I would hear him out, cause I got nothing else to do.

Don: 25:04

Let me tell you what he said. His name is Herbert Illig. He's a German historian and publisher. No-transcript we should be wearing uh powdered wigs, but he's saying it is 1700 if we count continuously from the proposed birth of of uh jesus this would would support Doug's claim about why 2K didn't happen. That's right. We've still got a couple hundred years before the computers blow up, right $17 is safe still.

Doug: 25:53

I need to go back and find my AOL disks.

Ron: 25:58

They're future artifacts now, yeah, shoot, okay. So why I need him to unravel the threads here? How did 300 years get invented?

Don: 26:12

So he's got a lot of evidence, but his primary hypothesis is that two powerful people, a guy named Pope Sylvester II and Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, colluded to change their dates. They looked around he says that they were alive in the 6th to 7th century, 7th to 8th century, and they looked at each other and said, hey, wouldn't it be cool if, instead of being the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor here in the 7th century, we just changed it? And who's going to know?

Ron: 26:47

So that we would be the Pope and the King in the first Emperor. Sorry, otto, we would be in the first millennium. That's the idea. That sounds cooler. That sounds cooler. That's it.

Don: 27:03

Just because it sounds cooler, we'd be remembered as the powerful people in the world in the year 1000. Who's going to remember who was the pope in the year you know, 694 nobody's going to know that, but the pope in the year 1000 is this a time when, like uh, sort of christian doctrine was that like the world would end in the next 100 years anyway?

Ron: 27:24

is that? Do they think they're going to be? Like the world would would end in the next hundred years anyway? Is that? Do they think they're going to be like the, the last Pope and King, or something?

Don: 27:31

Possibly. They're um, just like, just like contemporary times. There's a series of predictions about when the end of the world would happen. They thought it would happen in in the year 500. Then they thought it would happen in the year 600.

Doug: 27:46

And so I was going to ask you then 602. Has there? Ever really been a time where, like Christianity is not pushing for end of the world, I mean cause, a lot of the events are contingent on the end is is nigh.

Ron: 27:58

Every generation must have their end, like in history, every single generation must have their end of the world moment. Have their end. Like in history, every single generation must have their end of the world moment. Right for us, it was the mayan calendar right, what was that?

Don: 28:08

2010, 2012, yeah, yeah, right.

Ron: 28:10

So, and for doug it was y2k, so y2k baby I want to know what gen z's end of the? It might just be the end of the world. Yeah, it already happened, man election 2024.

Don: 28:22

I think that's right.

Ron: 28:24

Okay, so they just think it's cool. There's got to be more illig than they think it's cool right.

Don: 28:31

Well, that's why he thinks that they did it.

Ron: 28:33

But he's got more evidence than just you know how could how also could a pope and an emperor conspire to change the calendars?

Don: 28:41

well, because who's keeping track of the calendars? Like the only reason that the calendar mattered at that time was to celebrate the religious festivals, and the Pope is the one that gets to decide when those are. So they're in charge of the calendar and for everyday Joe working in the fields or whatever, it doesn't matter that it's May 23rd, because May 23rd sucks as much as May 22nd.

Ron: 29:01

Hey, one of those is my birthday. It's not so bad.

Don: 29:06

The sun came up, the sun went down he also looks at things like um, architectural evidence, um, and basically he got two, two main points about architecture. One of them is related to a later point, but he looks at at the style of architecture in the sixth century we got roman style arches. And then you look at the style of architecture in the 6th century and we got Roman style arches. And then you look at the architecture in the 10th century and it's the same. There's no difference. Like, in that 300-year period architecture didn't change for the most part. If you look at any other 300-year period, like if we go back and look at a building that was built in the 1600s 300 year period, like if we go back and look at, um, you know, a building that was built in the 1600s, you could tell that, apart from a building built in the 1950s, cause, the architectural style, the construction methods, the construction materials, all those things change between the sixth and the ninth century. That's not true.

Ron: 29:55

Right. So okay, if we're taking a traditional view of history, what are the things that, uh, traditional historians, non-ilwigian historians, would tell us transpired during the six hundreds and the nine hundreds? That's like, so what? That's Byzantine empire. That's like, uh, that's the like, early dark ages, or early middle ages and Constantine the seventh.

Don: 30:18

uh is the Byzantine emperor, and he might be involved in this conspiracy too. So it might be all part of it, might be a trio rather than a duo doing this, but what Illig says and to bring your other point is that basically nothing happens.

Ron: 30:34

Right the 600s and the 900s.

Don: 30:36

There's nothing important in the world that happens, minus one thing which we'll get to, but for the most part nothing, and we used to call it the dark ages.

Ron: 30:45

Right, right.

Don: 30:46

I was going to say the records that do exist are forged or somehow uncredible, so basically there's nothing.

Ron: 30:56

I thought that was always part of the narrative of the dark ages, though right, which is like oh. In the power vacuum of the collapse of the Western ages, though right, which is like oh, when the power in the power vacuum of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, you just had, like, all these feuding warlords and nothing really happened because, like, it's hard to create new stuff and probably make sick new buildings if like there's a new warlord every month, right?

Don: 31:20

Right, and what Illig says is that it doesn't. That is true, but that is true because it was just an invented time period.

Ron: 31:28

Okay, hmm, All right, what happened? What was the one important thing that happened? Charlemagne oh yeah, he's cool.

Don: 31:39

Then I remembered, and I remember it. So Charlemagne is known for he's called the father of Europe, right? He unified the continent, he spread, he's the first Holy Roman emperor, so he's the ancestor, I guess, of Otto, and he was supposed to have ruled from 7 48, or live from seven, 48 to eight, 14. And in that time he unified Europe, um, founded the judicial system, invented the jury, um, he founded the Holy Roman emperor, he protected the Pope he like. So what Illig says is Charlemagne is credited with so many things, he has to be a fiction.

Don: 32:26

One person cannot have done all the things that he is credited with having done in that short period that he was supposedly the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire.

Ron: 32:36

And is this part of Otto and Pope Sly's idea of erasing the like? Oh he, we should. We should change the time, because we all know charlemagne didn't exist and we'll just plug charlemagne in. Did they invent charlemagne? They?

Don: 32:51

invented charlemagne, that's. That's what ill exists.

Ron: 32:53

Yes wow, okay, but if you're gonna, okay, I'm trying to be, I'm trying to be an evil, conniving medieval pope. Uh, if I want to rule in the year 1000, because I think it sounds cool and it raises my cachet amongst history, my legacy, why would I invent a guy who's cooler than me? That's a good point.

Don: 33:14

But you need something to fill in that time period, right, rather than invent 30 guys to do cool things.

Ron: 33:21

It's easier to do one, just do one guy.

Don: 33:26

Charlemagne is credited with building an important cathedral. His cathedral is in a city called Aiken and it was built in the year 800, basically Sometime between 790 and 800, which would be in this phantom period, and 800, which would be in this phantom period. So supposedly he built this cathedral in a in a time period that Illig says did not exist. And here's the here's the conundrum about this cathedral. The cathedral in the main part of it that was built by Charlemagne has an octagonal cupola, so it's got a octagonal shaped hall that is several stories tall, it's 150 feet tall and it's 50 feet wide and it is mounted by a stone roof. This building technique didn't exist in the 800s.

Ron: 34:18

Oh man, this is some alien stuff.

Don: 34:21

So there are domes that are earlier than that. I think the Pantheon in Rome right Built by the Romans. That was built out of concrete though, so it's.

Don: 34:29

it was liquid and they made a dome over it, but this one in Aiken is is carved stone. It's thinnest part is 30 inches thick, so it's it's many, many tons of weight in a 50 foot dome across the expanse. And in history, when we have other domes, like the dome in Florence, the St Peter's in Rome, there are predecessor buildings that lead up to it. So you start with a dome that's, you know, 10 feet wide, and then it grows and it grows and it grows. Aitken Cathedral stands alone. It's the only building in the ninth century that has this architecture. There's no like sample buildings before it, there's nothing that comes after it. It's like by itself. And then we've got about 600 years before they build another dome. Whoa, 600 years.

Doug: 35:17

But doesn't this just mean that Charlemagne was that great?

Ron: 35:20

Yeah. They're going to reinvent architecture for the man, because he is I get that it's weird, but this is my problem always with like the alien ancient alien built the pyramids thing, which is like I think it just sort of like undercuts the ingenuity of people, like even ancient people were smart. And also you can do a lot when, like you command thousands of slaves so it's like yeah, at the expense of like it's hard if they die.

Ron: 35:46

Yeah, right, like so, uh, I guess what I'm saying is like, I'm not 100 convinced by that, because it's like every now and then something crazy does happen, right?

Don: 35:56

but then why didn't they continue to do it afterwards? Because maybe they were like that was a lot of work.

Ron: 35:59

That that was not worth it, it's not that it's not that cool, right, yeah, like maybe labor relations changed at that point. It's hard to muster that many peasants to put their labor into. I don't know. Ask the name of the Rose Guyer.

Doug: 36:14

What's the Umberto Eco. Yeah, man, is that a great book.

Ron: 36:21

So I don't know, that can happen right.

Doug: 36:26

I mean like.

Ron: 36:27

Are there other cathedrals being built at this time and they all just. That's the problem. This is the only one.

Don: 36:32

And it's anachronistic in its architecture.

Ron: 36:37

Okay, I'll give a point to Illig, but it's a small point. He needs like 50 points and I'm giving him one point 20? How much does he make 20 people?

Doug: 36:46

make the expert 50 points, makes history 100 points, religion yeah.

Don: 36:54

All right, let's uh, how about, if we turn the page for a second, we'll talk about a different historian. So we'll, we'll try to get some, uh, some points in this. Uh, this theory, um, uh, this is a Hungarian named Gyula Toth, who looked at and separately, so he is not associated with Illig, he didn't study with Illig, but he looked at Illig's work and he said, oh my gosh, this makes total sense. No, no, here we go, because in Hungarian history there's a series of books that are collectively called the Hungarian Chronicles and they're written in the Middle Ages, so learn the 12th century to the 14th century, and there's three of them that I know of, and they recount basically the history of Hungary from its founding to what would have been the contemporary period. The problem is, as a historical document, there's two problems with it. One of them is that it includes some legendary content, so content that is known to be fictional but is being purported as history. But the bigger problem is that these All the erotica in it.

Ron: 38:01

Is that the other problem? That's right. It is not All the erotica in it. Is that the other problem? That's right?

Don: 38:06

It is not. It's that the description of known historical events is out of order. In the Hungarian chronicles they happen to be off by about 300 years.

Ron: 38:18

Okay, that's great. It's over Two points. Two points, two points, so Gula.

Don: 38:22

Toth says well, thank you, illig, because now we understand why these chronicles have these misdated events. It's not that they happened in the wrong order or anything like that, just that they did happen in the right order and they were recorded in Hungarian in the right order, but in the Western historian they added these 300 years.

Ron: 38:48

So Toth, this is.

Don: 38:49

Toth, isn't it Okay?

Ron: 38:50

He's. I'm assuming this has been a perpetual problem in Hungarian historical studies. Is that, like I guess I don't do, other like Hungarian historians vouch for these chronicles? Or for a long time has it been like, yeah, the chronicles are cool, there's some interesting stuff there, but we don't need to take it all seriously and it's toast, like sort of being contrarian or radical in that he's like no man. The chronicles have always been it.

Don: 39:17

They've been problematic because of of these issues. Um, but in the way that you know, we have earlier texts in English that are similar to this, where a blending even Beowulf, for example blends a history, actual history of Denmark with, you know, legendary content of fighting monsters and dragons, and so it doesn't necessarily negate either side of it, but because it's blended, it makes it more complicated to unravel one from the other.

Ron: 39:44

um, so, yeah all, right, but the 300 years does is is pretty convenient and convenient, or just the truth that we've pulled.

Doug: 39:54

We finally uncovered it. That's right that's right.

Don: 39:57

Um, it both points out another, another interest, interesting aspect of this uh, this problem, this problem with the, the timeline and the chronology of history. Um, we assume that, um, uh, dates have always been right.

Ron: 40:13

Yeah, of course. Um, if you have a day, you gotta have a date but it hasn't always been that way actually.

Don: 40:21

Um, it hasn't always been that way actually. Do you guys know?

Ron: 40:27

when we came up with ADBC timing, if I had to guess, it was going to be one of these Nymian councils or something, right, nymian council, or Nicaea? Yeah yeah, nymian is a lion, right, nymian?

Don: 40:38

is a lion, that's true.

Doug: 40:40

Yeah.

Don: 40:41

We will talk about the Council of Nicaea, but that's not when they invented counting the system. No, okay, it was invented by a guy named Dionysius Exigius, who was a monk living in the 6th century, so in 5, somewhere between 525 and 532, he devised this system. The reason that he did was because up until then, we had been counting dates from different earlier events. So there was, the primary way we were counting back then was to count from the date of the consul of Rome taking his seat.

Don: 41:19

So it'd be like the seventh year of Caesar's reign or the eighth year of Augustus's reign would be like the seventh year of Caesar's reign or the eighth year of Augustus's reign, and by the time the sixth century rolled around, they were counting still from Diocletian, who was famously one of the Roman emperors who persecuted Christians. So Dionysius says why are we counting time from this guy who killed all of our, you know, friends? It wasn't contemporary and Diocletian was several hundred years before then, but they still had been counting since then. So instead of counting from from him taking the seat, uh, Dionysius idea was hey, let's count from another important date. So he picked, um, the birth of Jesus, and which would make sense as a monk, that would be important to him.

Don: 42:04

So he invented the ADBC timing. And so he looked at the Gospel of Matthew and decided that it said that the date of Jesus was the 15th year of a certain emperor's reign in Rome. So he picked that date. We think he was wrong. Reign in Rome. So he picked that date. We think he was wrong. So, uh, so current belief is that Jesus was probably born like around four BC, but we haven't changed the dating system.

Ron: 42:32

Is it just more trouble than it's worth at this point?

Don: 42:35

Well, cause I think the the important thing is that we have a convention and we all are agreeing. Right, but, uh, but the invention comes from from Dionysius in the sixth century and it has to do with his computation of the date of Easter. He was actually working on a table of dates so that priests around the world would be able to figure out when Easter was. But the problem, getting back to Toth, is that that's one system we have for dating is the system that was invented in the sixth century by this monk, but we also have other systems the founding of Rome. So Roman calendar was actually counting two different ways. It was counting from the founding of Rome. It also then would count from the date of Rome. There's a 752 year difference between that date and the AC, ad, bc, ac DC.

Doug: 43:30

AD.

Don: 43:30

BC date. If you're looking at a Greek history, then they're going to count from the first Olympic games, so the difference from then to the AD BC would be 775 years. There are some texts that date things from the death of Alexander the great, so that'd be 323 years difference. Um, there's then the Julian calendar, and this is the one that you guys brought up before. Um, what do you know about the Julian calendar Anything?

Doug: 43:58

I was actually just going to say Ron brought it up. I've never referred to a calendar as the Julian calendar and I would love the background.

Ron: 44:05

Oh, this is where they change. I'm an idiot, but I think this is where they change the names of months right when we get the July and all that.

Don: 44:15

July is named after Julius Caesar. They do that after. So, if you guys remember our calendar episode a couple weeks ago. So Rome had a 10-month calendar and that's why the months at the end of the year are all misnumbered. So November should be the ninth month, october should be the eighth month. Based on the prefixes, december should be the 10th month. So there was a 10-month calendar and then there would just be winter after it. So after december was over, we just didn't count until the spring equinox came. So we counted on the experts to tell us when the spring equinox would happen and that would be the start of the new year. So there just was this dead period where nothing wasn't happening, nothing was growing, it just was winter.

Doug: 45:01

We didn't count, um, we were just waiting for the spring equinox it's amazing that if you don't put time attached something I mean like that instantly, I just went how much more bleak is winter?

Don: 45:11

yeah like time has stopped.

Don: 45:13

It's not even worth evaluating whatever is happening in these events they figured that out too, though, and so they invented the months of january and february really early, so that was like 700 years before Julius Caesar. But Caesar does do an important thing with the calendar, and this happens in 46 BC, which is called the year of confusion. 46 BC, it was actually 445 days long. Oh cool, because Caesar was he? He not by himself, he hadn't helped, but he was trying to standardize the calendar so that the calendar would get back in sync with the seasons. So their calendar had begun to drift.

Don: 45:53

The spring equinox is not happening when it was supposed to, and that, of course, is important for things like harvesting and planting, and so it was important that the calendar match what was actually happening on the planet, and up until up until then, there were um people who were in charge of, uh, of deciding when the spring equinox would happen, and in Rome they started to kind of abuse that power, so if they didn't like who was in charge, they would end the year and say the spring equinox is now, even though it was nowhere near. This is like a precursor to Puxatani Pete.

Ron: 46:24

Is it like Exactly?

Don: 46:27

We have turned over our tyranny to a muskrat Puxatawney.

Doug: 46:33

Phil so.

Don: 46:35

Caesar standardized the number of days in the month. So the current layout of days in the month comes from Julius Caesar's revisions in 40. So he did them in 46 AD, but they took place in 45 AD the January 1st. He also invented this idea that we're going to have 365 days per year, except.

Ron: 46:59

On a leap year.

Don: 47:00

On a leap year. He invented the leap year, yeah. So in the Julian calendar a leap year happens every four years. So every year that's divisible by the number four is a leap year. Ad, bc timing. So what Toth? So all that has to do with Toth saying let's look at some of these events in history and, oddly enough, some things seem to happen more than once. Or you know, the same city will be invaded more than once and the number of years apart is about 44 years. So he's saying I wonder if every 44 years decides, hey, let's go invade Rome again, or if, in the process of that history being recorded and copied and recorded and copied by humans over time, that it's the same battle, the same event just being recorded?

Doug: 47:56

twice Duplicated because of how something wow, yeah.

Don: 47:59

So one example that Toth brings up is Attila the Hun. Are you familiar with Attila the Hun?

Ron: 48:03

Yeah, I've played his video games.

Don: 48:06

Nice. So the Hun part of Attila the Hun is actually the root of Hungarian, so he comes from the part of the world that we call Hungary today and famously was a captive in Rome and then invaded the city and overthrew as part of a sack of Rome. But here's a strange thing Prior to Attila the Hun, who did most of his things in the 400s, 440s, in 410, there was a Goth, also from the east side of Europe, who invaded Rome and he sacked Rome in 410. 44 years later, in 452, attila the Hun sacks Rome Um sounds familiar right.

Don: 48:48

There's a battle in Gaul in 406 led by Alaric the Goth in 450. There's a battle in Gaul led by Attila the Hun. Uh, after everything is done, um Alaric dies in 410. 44 years later, attila the Hun dies in 453. So he's looking at these parallel events saying I wonder if this is the same guy. Attila the Hun and a Larik the Goth are not two different people who did the exact same things 44 years apart? But rather is one story that, over hundreds of years being copied, it got out of sync because a scribe was looking at it thinking it was the julian date and another scribe was looking at it thinking that it was the adbc date but his name is alaric.

Ron: 49:33

His name is alaric the god, yeah and which starts with an, a does start with, names are always getting kind of permutated in these sorts of records, though, right, like that's not an actual argument, right, it's hard to know, like what was a person's actual name. Frequently it's just what was the popular or even like vernacular version of their name based on the region right. Right, that is interesting. That's pretty cool. Three points, illig Three, so we're up to four?

Don: 50:01

Well, because you had one point before.

Ron: 50:05

Oh no, no, up to four or four. Well, because you had one point before, so oh no no, this new tally is three. I gave them two for the hungry thing, and now I'm giving them three for a lark. All right, tough critic how about math?

Don: 50:11

will math do it for you?

Ron: 50:12

my weakest point on oh man tough for me as well, but math is math is a science and if we can apply science to this fudgy field, then that could be a sizable chunk of points at the end of this for itig.

Don: 50:24

All right. So we talked about Julius Caesar redoing the calendar in 46 BC. The trouble is, the earth doesn't actually rotate as slowly as the Julian calendar assumes it does. So on the Julian calendar, a year is actually 365.25 days.

Ron: 50:48

Yes.

Don: 50:48

Right, because we're having a leap year every four years. The actual number is 365.2423 days.

Ron: 51:00

I mean, we got pretty close. I think we could give it to them Pretty close.

Don: 51:04

So it's 365 days, five hours, 49 minutes, 1.1 seconds. That means he's off by about 11 seconds a year yeah, we're losing time, so are we gaining time? So time is going longer than the earth is rotating, yeah, so what's happening is things start slipping backwards. So the ver vernal equinox that that uh should be happening in March starts slipping back earlier and earlier and earlier in March, about one day every 120 years or so.

Ron: 51:35

That would explain the weather this year.

Don: 51:40

So this is actually why we have the Gregorian calendar, which we mentioned before. So we are on what's called the Gregorian calendar, which is a revision to the calendar done by Pope Gregory in 1582. And his mathematicians helped him out with it and they corrected for this drift and they basically said that we're going to have a leap year every year that's divisible by four, except for centenary years that are not divisible by 400. So it's taking one leap year out every 300 years. So the year 2000 was a leap year, but the year 2100 is not divisible by 400, so it will not be a leap year that's much more accurate.

Don: 52:21

by that calendar we're not going to have, we'll have an extra day added in our calendar, like in the year 3370. So it takes all your kids, that's right. So good job for Gregory. But here's the trouble is that by the time Gregory and his mathematicians figured this out in the year 1582, it's already been 1500 years since Julius Caesar came up with this plan.

Doug: 52:44

So we're off.

Don: 52:45

We're off. We're adding a day about every 120 years, right, so by 1582 from Julius Caesar's revision of the calendar in 45 BC. It should have been a 13 day correction. We should have drifted 13 days, which means that the spring equinox is happening 13 days earlier in the month than when uh, when we wanted it to.

Doug: 53:08

It seems like there's an easy fix here. You said 13 days, hi government declaration. Oops, we messed up on the math days. We're closed. It's holidays for 13 days. It doesn't count as time. Back to work on Monday.

Ron: 53:21

Yeah, exactly.

Doug: 53:22

And then bust out the kegs find a dog, have some fun, find that dog.

Don: 53:29

Pet a dog. It's almost like you lived back then, Doug, because you know what they did. Government declaration we messed up on the calendar.

Doug: 53:36

Good leadership.

Ron: 53:36

That's all I'm going to say Doug for king.

Don: 53:41

It's declaration by the Pope Gregory, but actually the problem is the time goes the other way. So it's declaration by the pope gregory, but actually the the problem is the time goes the other way. So it's not that we had these extra days. We needed to burn.

Ron: 53:50

Oh no, we took it out of their salary.

Don: 53:54

Everybody went to bed on october 4th, 1582 and tomorrow when they woke up it was october 15th I mean I'm okay with it.

Doug: 54:05

We're closer to Halloween and I love Halloween, that's true.

Don: 54:08

Not in 1582,. You wouldn't love Halloween. We get burned at the stand.

Doug: 54:13

I love that too. Come on.

Don: 54:16

I love seeing a burning, so it was a big deal, though People in the streets protesting like give us back our time, you stole our time.

Ron: 54:23

That's like harvest season. Now you got to harvest twice as fast, right? I don't know yeah.

Don: 54:30

But do the math If you go to bed on the 4th, you wake up on the 15th. How many days?

Ron: 54:36

did he take away 11?

Don: 54:38

10. Oh, 10 days, yeah, but it should have been a 13 day correction right.

Ron: 54:43

So he meant why didn't they commit?

Don: 54:45

how many years would he be missing if you didn't do that three extra days?

Ron: 54:51

let me guess 300.

Don: 54:55

So illig says look, even pope gregory knew about this conspiracy. That had happened hundreds of years before and he was continuing to cover it up by only making a 10 day correction Instead of a 13 day correction. That would put him back in line with the Julian calendar In 45 BC.

Doug: 55:11

Okay, here's the thing. Let's just use the same logic, folks 300 year vacation Coming your way.

Ron: 55:19

Stop the prices. Non-taxable, non-taxable.

Doug: 55:23

So we can get caught up with this actual day. Enjoy yourselves. We want to fast track us to the French Revolution. Let's get it going.

Don: 55:34

So what do you think? We on board with the league now. Have I convinced you all?

Doug: 55:40

I'm very, very close. Who are like the big counter? Do we have any big counter arguments to this? Everybody else.

Don: 55:56

Not a single person except Toph in the Illig court historian named walker hoffenheim, who, um in 2004, published a study that that agreed that the aiken cathedral that we talked about probably isn't a, um, an 8th century or 9th century building, that it is probably, more closely, uh, belongs in the 11th to 12th century based on its building methods, but um, so there's some some oddball here, and there.

Ron: 56:22

back Back to the cathedral. Is that just a thing that the locals were like, oh yeah, charlemagne built that, because that's a part of our history? Like is it we're saying like it actually was built in the 11th century, but people just thought it was Charlemagne? Is that what they're saying? Or can we radiocarbon date it to the 800s?

Don: 56:40

So the cathedral publishes itself that it was built in the 800. Okay, so finished around the year 800 or so, um, but uh, historians are looking at it saying I'm not sure um charlemagne's buried there.

Ron: 56:54

Okay, well, sure, but there's probably if charlotte charlemagne, corpses right right so well, here's what's also difficult for me.

Doug: 57:04

The counter argument to this, the everyone else category, is it was the dark ages.

Don: 57:10

It was tough for history that's their argument, correct, like I know I'm being crazy, incredibly, uh generalistic here.

Doug: 57:16

But I mean, that is the counter argument. It's not a very strong one, you know it's tough.

Don: 57:22

What's their proof?

Doug: 57:24

right, you know what I mean. It's it's very convenient. Yeah, I like this way too much, but but how?

Ron: 57:31

how are our um our mainstream historians? How are they countering the this pernicious attack on the calendar we love and know today?

Don: 57:42

any thoughts like what, what, what would? How would you attack it? What would be your?

Ron: 57:47

I would say I would call him a fascist and log off. No, I mean it's, it's a lot. I still think the motivation is flimsy, Like the two guys were just like oh, I'd be sick to be in 1000. Man, I need more. There's got to be more there.

Don: 58:08

Is there anything in history that could be recorded that you guys can think of? That wouldn't be. You couldn't fake that. People around the world would all agree this event happened at a particular date and time.

Doug: 58:23

No, would all agree. This event happened at a particular date and time?

Don: 58:27

Hmm, no, because, like a tale of the Hun, like we can't tell for sure, because I've got different accounts of that and even stories that focus just on the tale of the Hun. Like it's usually a date range, Like it's between these three years that he sacked Rome. It's not like a date and time.

Doug: 58:42

And when you say history like we're not alive for it, that's what you mean yeah they're saying like a single date, that everyone is like this is a real date.

Don: 58:50

This is a date that this thing happened.

Ron: 58:52

Yeah, okay, the yes I can, and it's the. It's the impact of the asteroid 65 million years ago that's right. Everybody who's alive back then knew exactly oh, I thought you meant contemporary historians today.

Don: 59:06

Well, it could be the same system. Is there something that can happen that everybody agrees? That's the moment that happened. Look around the universe.

Ron: 59:17

Why the universe Don.

Doug: 59:19

Position of stars in the sky. Yeah, is that it.

Don: 59:22

Or random objects that fly across the sky. Ah, okay, periodic, periodic, oh comets, great comet, and we have other records in china and japan that record those dates and those dates okay, here we go.

Ron: 59:35

Yeah, so this is he's.

Don: 59:37

He's stuck in europe mindset right, right, he's like no one else existed right. So looking at, looking at the astronomy records of other cultures, including Western Europe, everything lines up. There's no like missing period of dates because of that. So that's the primary evidence against Illig's point.

Ron: 59:59

Does he counter this in any way?

Don: 1:00:02

He hasn't published since the 90s so I don't like he still holds strong to his belief, but um, he's uh so do we think this guy was like a, a flash in the pan, hot, renegade historian?

Ron: 1:00:13

He made it onto Forbes for a month and he was like I'm, I'm, I'm upsetting the establishment. And then that was his claim to fame.

Don: 1:00:20

And then the establishment was like no, this guy actually isn't.

Don: 1:00:23

And then I think so, and I think one thing that makes his, his uh theory really interesting to to people is that it is somewhat based on observable phenomena. Like you can go to that cathedral and observe that it is built in a way that might not match the time period that it says it was built, um, so that's, that's observable. It's the uh, the 10 day correction. Um, that uh, that Gregory did in 1582 is observable. Like it's there.

Don: 1:00:52

There there's multiple records that say it was a 10 day change, um, but not everybody adopted the change at the same time. Uh, so in the UK we didn't adopt it until 1753, I think. Um, so that would have been the United States at the same time. So again, there's 150 years that happened where we're on the Julian calendar and Italy is not and France is not. So there's actually in letters and things that are written back and forth from England to France, there's multiple dates. So there'll be a Julian date and there'll be a Gregorian date, so you can get a letter from France that is, you know, 10 days ahead, and you get a response from England.

Don: 1:01:30

That is like happened in the past, because it was you know or it happens in the future, even though it's in the past. Um so, but did we figure out, like, how did Julian, how did uh Gregory, uh, miss that 10 days? What happened to those three extra days, that math? That's astronomy, math, like that's not something that can just be made up.

Ron: 1:01:50

Yeah, I don't, I'm. I got nothing there. What was he doing?

Don: 1:01:54

You actually mentioned it. You mentioned it before.

Ron: 1:01:56

Oh no. Yeah, something about thin ice, bring it in again.

Don: 1:02:08

No, it has to do with the Council of Nicaea.

Ron: 1:02:09

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Don: 1:02:10

Yeah, so Council of Nicaea is called in 325 to deal with the terrible heresy called Arianism, but one of the other projects that it has is to pick the date for Easter.

Doug: 1:02:25

Oh yeah.

Don: 1:02:26

Easter prior to that had mostly been celebrated on the Hebrew festival of Passover, because the biblical accounts put Jesus' crucifixion on Passover. But in 325, they come up with this system. Do you guys know when Easter is? What's the rule for when Easter happens?

Doug: 1:02:45

Third Sunday.

Don: 1:02:46

Yeah, some.

Ron: 1:02:47

Sundayay. Sunday is good, all right, we got the right day, but it's not even. It can be a march or it can be in april, am I wrong? Yeah, so it's got to be like what the heck am I?

Don: 1:02:56

12 sundays from january it's the first sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

Doug: 1:03:07

Okay, sounds pagan, it does Right.

Don: 1:03:12

It's. It's not, but it does sound that for sure it's a. It's so it because of the calculation for Passover and the Jewish calendar. The Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar and Passover is the first full moon of spring.

Doug: 1:03:24

Okay.

Don: 1:03:25

So they needed it to be that. But they needed it to be a Sunday because it was the Christian belief, and so Sunday was the holy day, and so they needed to draw a line about when the spring equinox was. And so the Council of Nicaea, in 325, picked March 21st as the equinox. So according to the church rule, the equinox happens on March 21st as the equinox. So according to the church rule, the equinox happens on march 21st. Astronomically, it can happen anywhere from march 19th to march 22nd. So, um, just depends upon the rotation speed that particular year. But, um, because 325 decided march 21st was the equinox, gregory wasn't trying to fix the calendar all the way back to Julius Caesar, he was trying to fix the calendar back to 325. So the 300 years that Illig thinks is missing is not actually missing, because they already took care of it in the Council of Nicaea.

Ron: 1:04:22

This is a very fascinating to me like concept that some guy would be like we got to like. I'm sure he was or is a. He's alive, right? Yes, I'm sure he's a trained historian, right? He probably went to a university, he's got degrees, he's he's read primary texts.

Ron: 1:04:37

Is this is this like, uh, he just found his like little loophole. Like, just found his like little loophole. Like, oh, there's something weird here. I gotta post this as fast as possible and and maybe make a name on this, um, because, like you said, it seems fairly debunkable, fairly easy. How much time did you spend telling us this argument? And then you spent 30 seconds being like yo, china also exists indeed they do.

Ron: 1:05:06

We've been talking about it for about 45 minutes so, like I mean, clearly this guy uh, uh, is, is capable, has the capacity to understand these. You know why he is wrong. Um, I do find these sorts of people interesting, like why, why would he need to stick to that, unless he is? That's where his money gets made, that's how he's getting booked to talk, right? I kind of get that. It's like the, it's like dinosaur man all over again. But are there other reasons why he feels like? Does he have a manifesto explaining why this is his project, why it needs?

Don: 1:05:44

to be. He's got a couple, yeah, but they're published in the 1990s and mostly they go over what we've been going over and he does lectures and things like that.

Ron: 1:05:50

But besides explaining why this is the case, does he explain his motivation for propagating it? Is it just like he literally loses the truth, Ron.

Doug: 1:05:59

I think it's because of people like you. And this is what I mean. You sat this whole podcast and said I'll give him another point here and he's somewhere right now going. It's only four points and he's like just desiring he wants the full 50. I mean like that's when the work becomes the ego, becomes the narrative, you become this person I guess I'm just like interested in people who need to hold on to a wrong idea.

Ron: 1:06:24

Right, like especially academics, when the whole concept of academics seems to be built on adjusting one's viewpoint in the light of new evidence or new argument. Right, and why can't this guy do that? So that's why I'm wondering is there a deeper reason? Like you said, he's German. Does this in some way? Is this attached to a nationalist project in some way? Does it heighten the prestige of figures that he finds important in history, or something like Not?

Don: 1:07:03

directly nationalistic, but I think that it is a, a product of growing up with a, a, a belief in nationalism, because it's a, it's a completely Eurocentric, as you point out, it's a completely Eurocentric view of the world. So if Europe was the only place that existed, it would be a lot harder to debunk what he's talking about. Yeah, so if you, if you, imagine Europe as the center of the universe, then then it makes a lot more sense that this could possibly be a conspiracy and the. The thing that I think is interesting about it is that he uses, like I say, observable phenomenon, and you know logic and math to uh, to try to prove that this, this time, is missing, and so it makes me realize how tenuous our understanding of history actually is.

Ron: 1:07:54

Yeah, yeah, um it.

Don: 1:07:56

It's based on a set of facts. There's a certain observable set of things that actually happen, but if you can think about your own life like we live in the 21st century, um it's it. Everybody you know can publish the. The democracy of being able to publish an idea online now, like we're doing, uh right, for free.

Ron: 1:08:14

And very kind of you to call these ideas widespread, and but then think about how often you record what has happened in your daily life, like I never do.

Don: 1:08:25

Yeah, yeah, no. So go back a thousand years or 1500 years to when, um, most people can't read or write. Like, who's writing all this stuff down? Yeah, the. The amount of actual firm evidence we have for events in history is is actually pretty sparse, and what history actually is is the story that weaves those facts together. So it's more about that narrative than it is about the actual. Oh, this was recorded in history and and it is, you know, on a dead rock foundation for sure happen. This is the way we understand it to have happened. But as our understanding changes, as our culture changes, right, that history, that story, that narrative can change too yeah, I think about, um, edward gibbon.

Ron: 1:09:08

Are you guys familiar with edward gibbon? He, he wrote the decline of the decline of the roman empire. Yeah, british historian in 18th century. I want to say, um. So I remember reading the first volume of that and it was interesting, um, because his whole theory was like, like, he was kind of credited as like the first guy to write like this omnibus explanation of, like, what happened to the roman empire and today his theories are like not considered uh, factual, right, like he's he's going back and reading a lot of primary historians from the Roman empire but he very much has a kind of narrative that he wants to promote which is like he's a big and this is the enlightenment. He's a big enlightenment guy and his kind of end thesis is that the Roman empire collapsed because they admitted the Christians and the Christians made them soft, like like it got rid of their warrior culture and they started, you know, losing battles and then they fell into like hedonist, like he's like the Eastern Roman Empire.

Ron: 1:10:06

Is this hedonistic, horrible? You know, they're wearing purple and people are dressed as cats and like they're just they're doing terrible things. It's all downhill and it's not like rooted in sort of like a material analysis that I think, like most modern historians try to try to hold themselves to the standard of um. But that was like the biggest, that was the biggest game in town for hundreds of years. That's that. That was what everyone thought the fall of the roman empire was because men became less manly and they abandoned their warrior culture. Um, and that was at least what I've been told, or like the analyses I remember reading at the time maybe it's changed, it's been a few years, but that Edward Gibbon was very much trying to use the Roman empire, uh, to promote enlightenment ideas, right Like.

Doug: 1:10:50

Oh, the Roman empire used to be great.

Ron: 1:10:52

It was a democracy and intellectualism flourished. But as soon as the dictators came in and they started blah, blah blah and it was like an analog for it. This is why Europe needs to liberalize via the enlightenment and why democracies need to return to Europe, was his main thesis at the time.

Don: 1:11:10

Which we've even done in our own country, right Like the scandal of the Republican nomination debates a year ago, was what was the cause of the civil war? Like we're still arguing about this in 2023.

Ron: 1:11:24

Right.

Don: 1:11:24

Um, because there uh you know, there was a narrative that was produced after the South um surrendered that cause hypothesis.

Ron: 1:11:34

Exactly.

Don: 1:11:35

That it was about um, um, you know, maintaining a tradition and a history and a and instead of about the economics of free labor.

Ron: 1:11:43

Yes, exactly, it was about the state's rights, uh, but not about the state's rights to maintain the enslavement of, you know, hundreds of thousands of people. Um, right, and that that became a project, which I think I mean clearly. If it's, if this was happening in 2023, a lot of people still believe or are invested in that story of American history, right, which, again, is not factual but helps explain feelings you have or identities you've been told you have, and things like that, right.

Don: 1:12:14

There's a historian named Paul Vane who published a essay on epistemology in the 1980s, and he brings up this issue that that history and readers of history are reading a narrative of facts and and the he uses the word reconstitution that the historian looks at there there's like a series of points, and then has to fill in those gaps with a narrative that makes sense in order to arrive at the end point. And that seems to be what history is about. It's a backwards explanation of a very sparse set of details in order to arrive at a conclusion that fits our current culture. I was I uh when I was little.

Don: 1:13:02

Um, my dad used to listen to uh, to uh AM radio, knx 1070 on the way to school and was the news radio was, you know, traffic every five minutes, kind of a uh a station, but, um, he never changed the dial of the radio. And so at nighttime, when we would be driving home from grandma's house or whatever, they would play old radio dramas from the 1930s, 1940s. So you used to listen to the Lone Ranger. I found them on iTunes and the way that Native Americans are portrayed and the way that Western culture is portrayed in those 1930s stories is completely offensive to our 21st century understanding of how to represent ethnic minorities and other cultures, and the fact that Tonto, the way that he speaks, he was played by an Irish Shakespearean actor.

Don: 1:14:02

Like he, you know, and that's acting baby, you can do anything, but they, they're, you know, they're called engines and and they're portrayed as savage. And they're called savages and like all these things that that are completely offensive to those, those ethnicities and to those cultures and we wouldn't think of as appropriate today. But in the 1930s and 40s it was the accepted way to view that history and for sure there was problems and for sure it was oppressive to those people back then. I don't mean that it wasn't something that they were aware of when it was happening. For sure they were, but the hegemic society thought of it as an okay way to to be inclusive right, right, right, hey, at least they're here, right, yeah, yeah, but yeah obviously, from our perspective today, that has changed and that's that fluidity of our understanding about how history like.

Don: 1:14:55

it doesn't change that there was a wild west, it doesn't change that there were battles between the U S army and and native American tribes. But our understanding today is that the stories we've been told might be from only one perspective, and there there probably is another perspective to how that happened which, dealing with the same set of facts, might result in a different narrative Totally, and then the different set of feelings attached to those narratives right and different way to view not only the past, but also the contemporary moment, right, the present.

Ron: 1:15:24

Um, I think it's the same thing that we saw with all the debates about the statues being torn down, right, which is like, oh like, if we take down these statues, we're losing a part of our history, and which I always disagreed with because, like, I don't think a statue, a statue isn't there to serve as a historical fact or a reminder that, hey, this person existed at statues always a value statement about who should be memorialized, right.

Ron: 1:15:48

Like there aren't statues of Irwin Rommel around just so we can be like oh, remember Rommel, he existed right, like you put up statues of people you want to venerate, and so I thought that was like a fun might be putting it the wrong way, because I think it was very visceral and dangerous for some people to have those conversations and to take those actions. But it was a eye opening conversation to see how society had evolved in our. In our, the way we digest a lot of those historical narratives has progressed and changed the way we digest.

Don: 1:16:21

A lot of those historical narratives has progressed and changed, which makes it tough when people we have debates about what should be in schools and what history should be taught and how it should be taught, and the cry often is you know, just teach the facts. Like, don't teach the opinion, just teach the facts. But when we're talking about history, everything is an opinion, it breeds opinion. Yeah.

Ron: 1:16:37

What like just what gets selected. You can't do all facts right, so which facts get selected and which facts get ignored, right, right, this is also part of the Columbus Day, I think. Debate, right, like, oh, why should it be Columbus Day? Well, because I think a lot of people had a hard time with that, because the only part of that history they were taught was about the arrival of Columbus and the Europeans, and there was a absence of facts regarding the native peoples who were here prior, so they just didn't have that knowledge or that narrative that they were ever attached to. So when you say history is different, I get it. It's like the songs, I get it. Now, don I get it? Why you're telling us about songs? Because now maybe we have a visceral reaction to, but I grew up thinking it was this but I think that's the fun part about history.

Ron: 1:17:24

I like it when things change Like that's. You know some like Illig is a bad change, right, right, not a great change, but we get to like at least assess it. We listen, we hear them out, right. And then we say oh yeah, maybe, right. And then we say oh yeah, maybe. And then you hear the other side and you say oh yeah, nah. But like we can do that with everything, and I get that some people don't like going through that process, but I think it's fun, I like it.

Don: 1:17:48

It gets stale, but that part about being emotionally attached to our beliefs comes into play as well, and there's been a relatively recent study by a British researcher named Gregory Travers. There's been a relatively recent study by a British researcher named Gregory Travers who highlighted the point. His study highlights the point that people don't change their mind because you convince them with facts. People are emotionally invested in what they believe, right? So if you grew up believing that history was a certain way, you grew up believing that. You know, native Americans were savages. You grew up believing that society, you know, uh, native Americans were savages. You grew up believing that, um, society should be a certain way. And now we want to tell you oh no, we are accepting of people with different gender identities or different, um, sexual identities, and that's not your belief. Like, a set of facts isn't going to change your mind. Yeah, you have to change the emotions that are attached to that.

Doug: 1:18:38

Change the heart. I um, this will be interesting, cause I am only about a hundred pages into it right now. But I'm reading a book called between two fires right now, which is about, um, this era of the black plague, in which they're adding fantasy elements to it, in which, like a very Milton ask, lucifer is the one who started the black plague. Like it's like, okay, god is gone, we're going to just have free reign, let's have the Black Plague go. And what's interesting is all the events surrounding it, from this knight who's been betrayed by this Norman group that he was with and he becomes a brigand in this time because there's more money in that.

Doug: 1:19:18

I think I've never been more invested in, like, probably this era that is always just looked at as like, well, everybody died during that time. Now I am 100% more invested because there's kind of this frame narrative and this poetic license that I'm very aware of that's being taken. You know that there's fantasy elements added to it, but the poetry is what gives it that emotional charge. And now I'm an invested in the black plague which, again, up until this point, the the touchstones that I have, is like that's the era where everybody died Oops, cats, rats, you know, like all of these things, or Edgar Allen Poe stories Right and and again, or this book that I'm reading, and then it becomes this entirely different thing in which the history kind of comes alive.

Don: 1:19:59

So well, next time I'm going to tell you about a plague it's not going to be the black plague, but we'll hang on to that till till next time. It's my turn.

Doug: 1:20:08

You guys got turns before I go, so that means I got to finish this book and, yeah, he's going to spoil the plague book for you.

Don: 1:20:15

But, but I want to thank you both for for a good conversation about the year 1727 that we are currently living in.

Doug: 1:20:24

It's good to be here. Yeah, everyone take out your sailing yacht Powdered wigs.

Ron: 1:20:27

And down with the establishment, monarchists and other 1700s things. Thank you, don, that was super fun.

Doug: 1:20:38

Yeah.

Don: 1:20:38

Brilliant. See you next time on the uncannery. Thank you.