This is interesting and thought provoking.

The Antimatter Radio Show 5-12-10. www.AntimatterRadio.com. Host: Jeffrey Grupp. THE HOAX OF HISTORY! History does not exist! Work of Antoly Fomenko, Russian Mathematics professor, and author of History: Fiction or Science?

Part 1 of 6:

Link


Other videos about this topic:


Link



Link



Link



Link



Link



Link



Has history been tampered with? The documented history of human civilization is supposed to reach several millennia back into the past.
And yet if we consider the rate at which civilization is supposed to have progressed, we encounter periods of obscurity and informational vacuum following the alleged decline of every ancient empire, and then everything starts anew. Inventions are presumed lost for centuries, then re-invented by people whose names bear suspicious semblance to those of the ancient inventors. Just how true all of this is? Could history as we know it really be a collation of several chronicles relating to one and the same period of time?

Apparently, this is what the Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko claims. He is the author of the first volume in a series of seven that came out in English recently, and generated incredible controversy amongst professional historians worldwide. Many are trying to put the author into one league with numerous paranoid conspiracy theorists and mad inventors - however, all of his work conforms to the highest academic standards and is backed by solid scientific facts; furthermore, some of the most lucid minds of our time support many of the theories put forward by the authors. Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, says the following in his preface to volume 1:

"Let us consider the factor of a mass character that I shall be referring to as psychophysical. Documented history tells us of the insatiable need of human beings to make discoveries. The vector of technological progress is a strictly vertical one. Every ten years something happens: discoveries, sea voyages, explosions... Everything keeps on changing, we see constant evolution - from Columbus to the landing on the Moon, from crossbows to nuclear bombs. Forwards and upwards. However, the traditional ancient history tells us of periods when humanity apparently remained dormant for centuries - "ancient" Egypt, the mediaeval "Dark Ages" - whole epochs of utter stasis in human thinking. It appears that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt and Rome had a different genetic code, and couldn't be bothered about anything at all, so they froze in their development, the result being a total lack of innovative activity. At the same time, there had been prosperous ancient empires where those among homo sapiens who possessed penchants for arts and sciences could get plenty of opportunities for growth and development. But, alas and alack, all of the prosperous "ancient" empires had ceased their development at some point."

--------------------------------------------

Has history been tampered with? Did events and eras such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Roman Empire , the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance, actually occur within a very different chronology from what we've been told? Yes, they certainly did! The history of humankind is both drastically shorter and dramatically different than generally presumed.
Why is it so? On one hand, it was usual custom to justify the claims to title and land by age and ancestry, and on the other the court historians knew only too well how to please their masters. The so called universal classic world history is a pack of intricate lies for all events prior to the 16th century. It's likely that nobody told you before, but
there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably and independently dated prior to the 11th century.
Naturally, after what you've learned in school and university, you will not easily believe that the classical history of ancient Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc., is manifestly false.

You will point accusing finger to the pyramids in Egypt, to the Coliseum in Rome and Great Wall of China etc., and claim, aren't they really ancient, thousands of years ancient? Well, there is no valid scientific proof that they are older than 1000 years!

The oldest original written document that can be reliably dated belongs to the 11th century!

New research asserts that Homo sapiens invented writing (including hieroglyphics) only 1000 years ago. Once invented, writing skills were immediately and irreversibly put to the use of ruling powers and science.

The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the 16th century by Jesuits.

Early in life, we learn by heart the names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, cunning high priests and greedy scribes. We learn of gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, emaciated saints and low-life traitors. Dr debunks not merely the odd pillar, but the total, entire bastion of historical dating, proposing a 700 to 1000 year fictitious "add-on" section between 400 AD and 1100 AD (or larger) & argues that the conventional chronology sequence of almost EVERYTHING is erroneous.
Even if partially true this would be scary stuff.
Forget forbidden archeology which is for kindergarten....


_________________
Happier Abroad Grand Ebook
Meet Foreign Women

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Btw, the founder of this theory is supposed to be a mathematics genius from Moscow State University. He has written telephone sized books about it which you can get from Amazon.com. The readers on Amazon said that he does make a compelling case, though they are not sure that everything he says is correct. The thing is, he claims to base his claims on real serious scientific analysis, which historians do not usually do.

Here is his first volume of work:

History: Fiction or Science?
http://www.amazon.com/History-mathematical-statistics-Eclipses-Chronology/dp/2913621074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292311550&sr=8-1-spell

Quote:

Review

Earth was flat. Humans saw that it was flat, books were telling scholars that it was flat, teachers were teaching students it was flat; scientists knew it was flat. There was some disagreement about the way it was kept afloat, most common versions were elephants, whales and turtles, but that was subject for scientific discussion. Until Magellan sailed around the globe and proved all this science wrong. This book is precisely about same situation. Although it is written for casual reader, it still bears all the traits of scientific research. Anyway, history as a science is based on books written by previous generation of historians, who based their works on works of previous generation of historians, supplemented by archeological digs (great deal of assumptions was made there too, as people didn't usually mark their belongings with dates), so it definitely needs some mathematical treatment. It is very difficult to digest the new version of history from Fomenko without getting allergic shock. Official timeline is accepted in the same way as gravity, and movement of the sun; many nations have developed their identity based on official history. Literally speaking chronology is in our culture, in our roots, personal identity. Someone said here that this book was written by Russian nationalist to reassure Russian national identity. May be so, but I think for Russians will be very difficult to swallow that they were actually Mongols and Tatars too. This book will turn your world upside down. Literally. --New Book Review, 03-03-2007 (CA, USA)

History: Fiction Or Science? is a quite scholarly expose of the extreme limitations of our understanding of human history. So few physical records have survived hundreds, let alone thousands of years that it casts even the most conventional understanding of what really happened into doubt. Chapters address the problems of historical chronology in general, astronomical datings, astronomy in the Old Testament, methods of dating ancient events via mathematical statistics, the construction of a global chronological map, the Dark Ages, and much more. Black-and-white illustrations add a vivid touch to this scholarly work that may appear controversial yet deals with a very serious issue directly affecting humanity's comprehension of its own past. --Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA)

Product Description

History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data. The book is well-illustrated, contains over 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays, which never cease to amaze the reader. Eminent mathematician proves that: Jesus Christ was born in 1153 and crucified in 1186 The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486. Does this sound uncanny? This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic - validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources - to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals had vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late mediaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ecclesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue! For some of us, it shall possibly be quite disturbing to see the magnificent edifice of classical history to turn into an ominous simulacrum brooding over the snake pit of mediaeval politics. Twice so, in fact: the first seeing the legendary millenarian dust on the ancient marble turn into a mere layer of dirt - one that meticulous unprejudiced research can eventually remove. The second, and greater, attack of unease comes with the awareness of just how many areas of human knowledge still trust the three elephants of the consensual chronology to support them. Nothing can remedy that except for an individual chronological revolution happening in the minds of a large enough number of people.

Now, as to what I think. I don't know. I don't judge or come to quick conclusions about everything. Truth is not handed to you on a silver platter. It's something you gotta DIG for, and even then, you will only get fragments of it. The problem is that many assume that truth is handed to you on a silver platter, and that truth is simply whatever the official version told to us is. That's simply not true.

We all know that history is the propaganda of the victorious. It's very easy for the powers to manipulate history to fit their agenda of things. I'm sure you all know that.

Therefore, it's smart to question things, even cherished beliefs. When you do, you often find that the official version of things is often not the truth. That is the disturbing but liberating realization that you come to eventually.

There's a reason why society is set up so that you don't have much free time. In your youth, school keeps you busy. In your adult life, work keeps you busy. In your spare time, the mainstream media holds your attention with the official version of things. The reason for all this is that if you have too much free time to think about everything, eventually you realize that you are a slave on a prison planet and that most of what you are told are hogwash, lies and gross distortions. That's the scary part, that when you have too much free time, you discover a lot of disturbing things, not just in terms of conspiracies, but about the state of existence itself. We are kept from all that by society that keeps us busy and distracted.

That's what I've learned and what I've discovered anyway. Sorry if that sounds wacky. I'm just being honest about it.

Bottom line: The stuff I posted here is just something to consider and contemplate. If you don't agree with it, then fine. But dismiss it for good logical reasons, not simply because it contradicts the official version of things.

One more thing: Skeptics seem to have a double standard when it comes to evidence. When evidence supports the official version of things, it is accepted and counted. But when it doesn't, then it is dismissed and labeled as "nonexistent or invalid", to justify their "no evidence exists to support any alternative hypothesis other than the official one" claim of skeptics.

But of course, we all have biases and tend to be selective in what evidence we will accept in accord with how well it fits into our beliefs and views (aka confirmation bias). That's human nature. It's just that skeptics tend to be more rigid about it than the average person is.



Last edited by Winston on Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:49 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Happier Abroad Grand Ebook
Meet Foreign Women

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

I've never trusted skeptics, for the very reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility.

I find it interesting that one of the reviews says forget "Forbidden Archaeology", which is interesting because that book goes in the very opposite direction make history much much longer than previously imagined and showing possibly great advancements in millennia old societies.

I am always curious about history, and it is not hard for me to imagine that it could all fall apart with a single discovery.


_________________
__________________
"Every man who travels to a new land brings something from the old with him. He can choose to let it weigh him down, or he can wisely let it go." -- The Adventurer

Skeptics have a double standard.

Any idea that is counter-cultural and disproves 'the official version of things' is readily accepted with numerous flaws, mis-statements, omissions and logical fallacies.. But when it doesn't disprove 'the official version of things' it is ridiculed immediately.

The numerous CT posts that are now showing up on every sub-forum here are ample example.

Winston's flaw is that because he is a behavioral out-lier in his peer group and family, he projects this mindset on to every single aspect of his reality and identifies with anything that is outside the norm.

Even if it's absurd nonsense.

If it rebels against the status quo, then it must be true.

Gee um, if humans only invented writing 1,000 years ago, that's a lot of "fake" historical coins we'd have to produce and bury into ancient graves and shipwrecks around the world.



I can just imagine this photo caption: "Chinese cops stashing fake Tang dynasty coins in elaborate conspiracy to prove that Chinese writing dates back over 1,000 years".

Another problem is that the history we get is simplified and inaccurate. For example, I have a link below which clearly demonstrates that George Washington was not the first president of the United States.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/582763/posts