Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Sasha
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm

Unread post by Sasha » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:28 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
Sasha wrote:As for his research, who knows who supplied him with the valid material. The question is, how does a major zionist player become an opposition, apparently, to the main stream science (which is, like almost everything else, 100% controlled by zionism)? He nonetheless visits Einstein (‘Mordecai, I’m struggling, get me z’Coke from z’machine) in his home regularly, even boasts that he was one of the last people to see him before his death?
And all that jewish drama about his (last moment) escapade from Europe, how the (major) publisher pulled his book, chicanery from the establishment and academia, bla-bla…. poor martyr. And boom – Worlds in Collision sells millions of copies. Tell me, how does one sell millions of copies 60 years ago without the internet, television and without a major support mechanism? This is not some romantic novel; this book pretends to be a textbook, which Grandioso claims was sabotaged by the major textbook publishers.
Don’t be a sucker, these people are cunning. ‘Grandioso’ had a mission and an agenda, which he obviously did fulfill.
I find very interesting your references to Einstein and zionism (Kafka was also part of the same circles in Prague I believe). I think Einstein's public persona should be studied on this forum from the point of view of fakery, considering how the past century was so filled of big lies, and considering that many of the icons of the past century were also very likely "big lies". And isn't the whole comedy of the Nobel prizes (with the majority of jewish scientists and thinkers regularly rewarded) still today meant to confirm the myth first drawn using Einstein's public persona, of the alleged "superiority" and higher success rate of this "race" (there is no such thing as human races) above others?
Maybe Einstein's research was really produced by someone else, like someone says, while the real role of Einstein remained in the west one of propagandist of a pro-jewish culture and mentality (and how successful at that!)

As to Velikovsky: I cannot have an opinion in merit since I never read Velikovski nor Fomenko nor, honestly, have ever heard of them before. So if Velikovski was all that famous, I certainly missed it. However, I don't understand exactly what the connection between his research and zionism would be. How the rewriting of history and the reinterpretation of historical dates applies to the zionist agenda? You would think, like Maat said, that a reinterpretation of history goes to damage those who are in control of the official version of it (and zionists seem certainly, together with western elites, to have a lot invested in that control.) I would like more clarification on this...

Velikovsky was the father of "Catastrophism", you know, that comet (any) that is going to destroy the known world one of these days. Live in fear.
When it comes to jewish movements and strategies, you have to understand and remember this golden rule - they always organize, or lead (take over) the opposition, so they can control the damage at any given time. With that in mind, we have to check who is this Simon guy, he looks a bit jewish to me :P

As for studying Einstein's persona here, might be a good idea. Although many people became aware in the last few years, on the internet at least, of him being a fake, putting it mildly. I mean, he was a joke. He married that Serbian woman, who was cripple and older than him, but worked like a horse for him, doing all the intelligent work. They even agreed that he will give her the money from the Nobel Price, when they get it. How could he know this - this was years before he got it! And it was for another paper altogether...
Check this site:
http://jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm
Jon Bjerknes had written a huge book few years ago on Einstein, free PDF format, where he exposes him as a plagiarist and a zionist. But he fails to mention that the entire doctrine is cabbalistic, and that Einstein is not fit even for a cabbalist.

Actually, I might start a thread on Newton soon. He was the magician.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Unread post by nonhocapito » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:12 pm

Juju-la-trouvaille wrote:Please, look, at what you BELIEVE to be the ancient tribunes of a circus. And indeed there is no tribunes ! What you see actualy i nothing else than the remainings of the ROOF of a circular small workshops, small rooms… (I don’t know exactly) and this en two storeys. (**)

The Coliseum of Rome was never a roman circus with it’s gladiatorial fights with lions. It is actualy a building which dates back to the end of the » middle age, or from the beginning of the Renaissance and I think that it was maybe a kind of « stock exchange » for the farmers of the district of Rome. Moreover, there are numerous similar buildings all over Italy (Verona…), France (Nimes, Arles…), Croation (Pulo…)… You can examine on Google.

Well, here are already some elements of reflection which I hope will interest you.



(*) In archaeology, i tit a method used to know if we have to deal with a guinuine one or a fake one : to check the anachronisms in the tools which were needed (necessary) to make such or such object ! Too perfect cuttings of a stone, of a board which thus required the use of a saw either manuel or mechanical (a saw being a very modern toot because of the (blade)… and indeed these too much perfect cuts are almost an automatic sign that shows we have to deal with a fake.

(**) I think that in the 19th century, we put a kind of concrette in certain places instead of the roof, to give an impression of tribunes.
Sorry if I respond to this a little late, but I must comment on your ideas about the colosseum.

1) it is not that romans would send expeditions to catch lions. Rather, there certainly was a market for wild animals to be used in circuses, which meant (I imagine) that locals in the african continent would catch lions, sell them to certain merchants that would bring them to north africa, to sell them once again to roman merchants that would bring them to the cities of the empire etc etc.
Romans were nothing like the british: they knew how to delegate.
So, if the Roman civilization existed, and if that civilization had a taste for wild animals fighting in the circuses, it is not so unthinkable that they would find a way to obtain creatures that probably were also much more numerous in the African continent than today.

2) The elements that you don't see in this ruin, the tribunes, where either wooden elements or metal elements that were destroyed or used for other needs during the following centuries. Nothing strange in the strange appearance of the structure as it is today.

3) To think that this building was created in the Renaissance is preposterous and utterly impossible. For starters the italian Renaissance produced an enormous amount of writings about the very ruins of ancient Rome: after the so called middle age, the very term "Reinassance" indicates a renewed interest for classic antiquity. Rome in particular was considered the center of the classical period, and such ruins were studied by architects and artists that wrote about it, made copies etc. The ruins are described in a state that pretty much resembles the one we see today, except that more metal/movable part were still in place back then.
Similarly, Michelangelo admired the Belvedere's Torso, a broken greek statue with no arms nor legs nor head, in the same state we admire it today. He would have known, I suppose, if the Torso had been in fact just produced by the same civilization he was finding himself in.

More importantly, the Renaissance was a Christian era, and Rome was under the dominion of the pope; we know very well all the buildings that were built in that city during the Renaissance: we can recognize them by their style and purpose. The Colosseum doesn't fit into it. Simply put, the Renaissance man had no use for such a building. The gigantic hadrian mausoleum was turned into a castle in the middle ages and eventually it became the house of the pope: for that the Renaissance had some use. But the Colosseum was left alone to rot.

4) One has to visit in person these ancient ruins: if possible many and many times over. One has to visit them in north africa, in greece, in italy, in spain... One has to witness how all these ruins are in fact filled with incredible feats of architecture. I have seen in Cyrene roman walls that are still perfectly smooth and vertical. I am open to the idea that the dates or the contexts are all wrong, but the fact that this old civilization, whatever it was, was capable of extraordinary results in architecture is not surprising or a sign of fakery. It is in fact to be expected. We are not that different from them, they were not that different from us.

Consider this: in Italy there are many old buildings. Many many many old buildings. Simple houses, villas, farms, churches etc. They are made of stone, bricks, wood etc, and are eternally renovated because they are centuries old. Now, there is not one single person or team of builders in the whole world today that would be capable to create such buildings from scratch today. How about that.

We have to understand what progress really mean: it certainly does not mean getting always better in every field! There is nothing strange in imagining that men in the past were better than us at many things.

Then there is all that we still don't know. For example, the ruins of Cyrene, in Libya, are still largely underground; so is a grand part of Pompei, in Italy. And obviously the layers of ancient Rome are all buried under the present city, only to come to the surface when some excavation is made. So there are a lot of blanks in history, and yet to get the feel of "time" or the feel of "fakery" one cannot sit at home and look at a pictures and declare that archeology is a lie. And, mind you, I'm not saying that only professors are entitled to say the last word on these matters: but at least the context has to be the same one. If we want to discuss the faults of archeology, can we really do it staying at home?

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Unread post by fbenario » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:43 am

Sasha wrote:
Thank you for your comments today on Fomenko. What are your thoughts on the problem of a trustworthy method of dating the past? My comment his morning:
Specifically, I want to know how to disprove his theory that much of our dating of Ancient History is a fabrication. If we can't depend on carbon-14 dating, dendrochronology (tree rings), or ice-cores from long-term glaciers, what method can we use to date events in the past? Most Roman/Greek manuscripts are only known through medieval copies found years later in monasteries, and thus aren't original sources for dates.

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Unread post by Maat » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:06 am

Sasha wrote:
Maat wrote:­
Sasha wrote: I would have considered agreeing with this 7-8 years ago, but not now. Velikovsky is the Alex Jones of the 'science'. How sensible is Velikovsky? Let's see:
1. He had several severe nervous breakdowns.
2. He was a key player in the Zionist movement in the 1920's in Berlin (in the hierarchy above Einstein-the-idiot Kabbalist).
3. He was a racist Jew through and through - read his jewish supremacy anti-Arabs bullshit here:
http://www.varchive.org/obs/index.htm
4. He is as important in the historic chronology and revisionism as is Newton - they are not. Couple of hundred years, give or take, over a period of thousands and thousands of years.
5. His most important book is "The Worlds in Collision", where, according to Velikovsky, first Venus and then Mars comes close to the Earth and thus causing havoc. Hmm.. did you say occultism & cabbalism? :wacko:
It was released in 1950, in the midst of the 'alien invasion' hysteria, one world-one government. Millions of copies were sold.

I want to make clear that I don’t agree with everything Fomenko and his team is claiming. Actually, there are a number of things that I disagree with (some of his claims are ridiculous and bordering on total nonsense). But parts of his research confirmed a lot of suspicions I had for years regarding the official (supermarket) History, while some of his findings coincided with my findings derived from my own research. So, Fomenko holds no special status with me, just another researcher.
Thank you for demonstrating the same kind of selective/presumptive research I was actually pointing out to Juju-la-trouvaille here, as well as confirming that you evidently haven't read either of those Velikovsky books mentioned — and not even the Forward to Ages in Chaos I provided the link to (e.g. re context: begun in 1940, first draft in '42).

Repeating the same kind of ad hominem fallacies that have been used by very determined defenders of the scientific and academic establishments' dogma for the last 60 years is all too familiar, especially so to veterans of this forum re 9-11!. (Your gratuitous "Alex Jones" comparison is a non sequitur at best.)

According to your reasoning then, Newton's Laws of Motion should be dismissed as bunk because he had a personal interest in metaphysics?

FYI, since I first read Worlds in Collision & Ages in Chaos in the 70s (i.e. as an agnostic, without preconceived ideas or prejudice), I have yet to see any seriously credible dispute of Velikovsky's actual research or findings on ancient history chronologies, on the contrary. Other independent researchers have confirmed the same 600 year discrepancy with discoveries of their own.

I should also mention that, since his whole thesis was not only meticulously and scientifically researched but virtually atheistic, it would not have found favor with any religious fundamentalists at all. In fact, he contradicted most of the prevailing Judaic religious dogma by demonstrating how supposedly 'miraculous' events attributed to 'God' in the Old Testament were misperceptions and mistranslations, figurative and literal (including Hebrew), of real physical cataclysms with practical explanations.

Remember folks, if the work itself couldn't be objectively and scientifically "debunked" by 'academia' in the last 60 years without resorting to emotive hyperbole and character assassination, there's your sign! ;)

P.S. Velikovsky's work was not based on radiocarbon dating either, already known to be unreliable in 1952. Ref Supplement, The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating [Ages in Chaos II: Ramses II and His Time]
Dear MAAT,
True researchers deal with facts only, not emotions. Personal believes and opinions are irrelevant and of no interest to me, only facts.
How can you actually state that, then immediately contradict it with the following incoherent list of assumptions, opinions and beliefs based on hearsay and prejudice?
I don’t speak about things I’m not familiar with, unlike some people. So yes, years ago I have read almost all of Velikovsky’s work (still have three of his books somewhere in my library) and, generally, I liked his ideas. Until I put the pieces together and realized that he was a major shill, just like Alex Jones.

So what part of Velikovsky's work are you "familiar with"?
And again, what is the similarity between an obvious shill (left alone and actually promoted by the Media he protects) and the author of scientific works that created a storm of reactionary anger in the establishment's scientific circles for 60 years?
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/index.htm
Did you know that Velikovsky means “Grandioso”, the Great, like in Alexander the Great, Napoleon the Great etc (Velikovsky, of course, is not his real family name – more likely Shmuel, Barenbaum, Kerensky, Levy or sorts). Now, would you change your family name to a name like that without having some delusions of grandeur? Did I mention the severe nervous breakdowns throughout his life (his admission)?
Who cares what his name is or even if there were evidence of any "change" (many eastern European immigrants changed or Anglicized their names, anyway); or what "breakdowns" he may have had — hardly unusual for highly intelligent pioneers in a controversial field; Carl Jung had his 'episodes' too following his rift with Freud (known as "breakthroughs" by real psychoanalysts, btw).
And what does it have to do with the validity of his work?
As for his research, who knows who supplied him with the valid material. The question is, how does a major zionist player become an opposition, apparently, to the main stream science (which is, like almost everything else, 100% controlled by zionism)?
Absolutes now, based on what evidence in this context?
He nonetheless visits Einstein (‘Mordecai, I’m struggling, get me z’Coke from z’machine) in his home regularly, even boasts that he was one of the last people to see him before his death?
And all that jewish drama about his (last moment) escapade from Europe, how the (major) publisher pulled his book, chicanery from the establishment and academia, bla-bla…. poor martyr.
That is only uninformed and gratuitous ad hominem, not evidence. You've apparently not read about the "Velikovsky Affair"! Ref. http://www.velikovskian.com/gould.htm
And boom – Worlds in Collision sells millions of copies. Tell me, how does one sell millions of copies 60 years ago without the internet, television and without a major support mechanism?
The same way any other hot topic of controversy became known at the time, and by the scientific establishment's drawing attention to it with their own hysterical efforts to silence it! :lol:
This is not some romantic novel; this book pretends to be a textbook, which Grandioso claims was sabotaged by the major textbook publishers.
No, it was written for the layman, because he knew it would be buried by academia. Again you seem to have ignored all the well documented evidence of the attempted sabotage and suppression of his works, so it was not just his "claims".
Don’t be a sucker, these people are cunning. ‘Grandioso’ had a mission and an agenda, which he obviously did fulfill.
I'm sure statements like that find favor with groups like Stormfront etc., but we strive to maintain an objective protocol here that requires inconvenient things like evidence, carefully examined in context with verifiable facts.

Food for thought: How unusual was it for any European Jews of that period to think a 'homeland' in British controlled Palestine was a reasonable idea (especially if they had lived &/or had relatives living there)? Or that people in scientific circles with previous acquaintance and common bonds might consult each other on relevant subjects?
Velikovsky was the father of "Catastrophism", you know, that comet (any) that is going to destroy the known world one of these days. Live in fear.
When it comes to jewish movements and strategies, you have to understand and remember this golden rule - they always organize, or lead (take over) the opposition, so they can control the damage at any given time. With that in mind, we have to check who is this Simon guy, he looks a bit jewish to me :P
Referring to "Catastrophism" as being instigated by Velikovsky and as something contrived to make people "live in fear" is not only inaccurate but intellectually dishonest. Velikovsky examined a mountain of evidence that indicated cataclysmic events in antiquity have influenced human perceptions, beliefs and cultures around the globe.

As he stated in the forward to Ages in Chaos:
"And here is a rule by which to know whether or not a book is spurious:
Never in the history of science has a spurious book aroused a storm of anger among members of scientific bodies. But there has been a storm every time a leaf in the book of knowledge has been turned over.

"'We are most likely to get angry and excited in our opposition to some idea when we ourselves are not quite sure of our own position, and are inwardly tempted to take the other side." — Thomas Mann: Buddenbrooks '"

As for studying Einstein's persona here, might be a good idea. Although many people became aware in the last few years, on the internet at least, of him being a fake, putting it mildly. I mean, he was a joke. He married that Serbian woman, who was cripple and older than him, but worked like a horse for him, doing all the intelligent work. They even agreed that he will give her the money from the Nobel Price, when they get it. How could he know this - this was years before he got it! And it was for another paper altogether...
Check this site:
http://jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm
Jon Bjerknes had written a huge book few years ago on Einstein, free PDF format, where he exposes him as a plagiarist and a zionist. But he fails to mention that the entire doctrine is cabbalistic, and that Einstein is not fit even for a cabbalist.
I find it rather ironic that even an anti-Zionist like Hufschmid rejects "Christopher Jon Bjerknes" as untrustworthy: http://www.erichufschmid.net/EinsteinAndZionism.html
Actually, I might start a thread on Newton soon. He was the magician.
I'll repeat my earlier question: According to your reasoning then, Newton's Laws of Motion should be dismissed as bunk because he had a personal interest in metaphysics?

HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:41 pm

pov603 wrote:I remember reading about some guy whose theory was that the Earth is constantly expanding which would explain some of the 'tectonic plates' drifting.
I'll find a link and post it up/edit later as I thought I would just get this out there first.
I remember the guy saying that the imagery on Google Earth showing 'stretch' marks out in the Pacific as well as showing what the Earth would look like if the process were reversed.
Yes, you may have guessed, all of the profiles of the land masses we see on maps all fitted together pretty much hand-in-glove.
Are you talking about Neal Adams? http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

pov603
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by pov603 » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:47 pm

@HonestlyNow
Yes!
Many thanks for posting that vid.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:33 pm

Sasha wrote:When it comes to jewish movements and strategies, you have to understand and remember this golden rule - they always organize, or lead (take over) the opposition, so they can control the damage at any given time. With that in mind, we have to check who is this Simon guy, he looks a bit jewish to me :P
Sorry folks. Just started to catch up with this new thread. May I ask Sasha if "this Simon guy" is referred to me - or am I perhaps missing something?

I will be expecting an answer from you, Sasha. As a new member of this forum I welcome you - but please be aware that when a person gets tagged as 'jewish' today, this instantly confers a handicap to that person's credibility: a great deal of jewish people have been exposed as compulsive liars, con-artists, warmongers and hoaxers. I abhor such repulsive tendencies and - if you really want to know - have absolutely no jewish background in my family tree. I don't know that such wicked tendencies have ever been the trademark of Norwegians/Swedes like myself. Call me a 'viking' if you like (they were apparently also horribly ferocious - according to many historians) - but NOT jewish. Thanks!

ps: If this thread is about the many question marks of ancient history, it would be absurd if anyone contributing to this forum couldn't even reassure him/herself about a contemporary person's (yours truly's) family background. That's why I keep saying: "Call me on Skype, talk to me. If I like your voice and vibes, I'll invite you to visit me in my house. I'm still alive."

my Skype username: simon.shack

pps: I clearly remember a Norwegian uncle of mine assuring me that our family tree went back all the way to Erik the Red, father of Leif Eriksson - the guy who landed in America 500 years before Columbus. This is of course hard to verify, but what I know for sure (as stated in another thread) is that my grandmother was related to Nicolai Wergeland, one of the founding fathers of Norway. I'm not boasting about this - only saying that I have only norse origins - as far as I know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Ericson


Leif Eriksson's path to America (Vinland, as we called it...around the year 1000):Image

waterwitch
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by waterwitch » Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:19 pm

So, regarding catastrophism, the expanding Earth theory, Velikovsky's ideas and the tie-in to the Electric Universe theory, here's a link to a free book which takes the view that Velikovsky was mostly right. The author's Big Idea is that Earth was once one of a number of satellites of Saturn and over the course of billions of years the Saturnian System interfaced with our Solar System and Saturn lost its satellites to the bigger boy on the block. What happened next is extremely complex ( the author describes it in great detail and backs everything up with footnotes) but the essence is that Earth went through a number of catastrophic encounters with the plasma fields of different planets such as Saturn and Venus which caused mass extinctions and changes in the Earth's orbit. Even more interestingly, he connects these events to changes in human consciousness ( don't worry - there is nothing New Agey about his take on this, he follows the work of Julian Jaynes) and attitudes to authority.
Here's the link and the preface. Enjoy:-)
http://saturniancosmology.org/tab.php

This book presents a cosmology based entirely on the supposition that the coherent worldwide mythology is history, rather than creative writing in antiquity. The first six chapters will assert this and give the philosophy behind this alternative cosmology. The next six chapters deal with accepted archaeology, but at times recast as plasma interactions between planets. That should not present a problem; the physical results are identical with the academic conclusions.

In the following section of six chapters mythology is addressed. This section starts with the oldest records of Mesopotamia and ends with the pyramids of Egypt. After that we are into modern history: the last section of nine chapters starts with the Flood of Noah and ends with the destructions of the 8th and 7th century BC. Yes, there was a flood. There were two massive floods, and a third metaphorical flood. Only this last is known as the Flood of Noah.

This text was written between 2001 and 2011, drafted in short pieces and bursts of inspiration, but written almost continuously. The text is somewhat longer than War and Peace, but it can be read in 40 or 50 hours or in as many evenings. The narrative themes are developed one at a time and are presented in historical order.

But still, it is a long book, because the events of the last 10,000 years are complex, and I needed to set them out one by one against the handed-down past that we have been given. If you are simply looking for evidence of the Noachim Flood, for example, you will find the information spread over four chapters, and alternately asserted and denied. The real history of this world is not simple.

You can skip chapters, and return later. The text is additionally clearly divided into what is based on Mediterranean and related sources, and Mesoamerican sources (7 chapters). These last are almost entirely from post-invasion documents, although based on very old codexes which are now lost to us. The Mesoamerican sources are at once radically different from the mythology of Egypt and Mesopotamia and yet they entirely validate the Mediterranean sources. It is almost beyond belief to think that this could be so.

hollycrap
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by hollycrap » Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:49 pm

I was acquainted with Velikovsky and Fomenko from before, but after reading all this interesting thread, Sasha's found a fan in me :)

LightCone
Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:07 am

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by LightCone » Fri May 04, 2012 12:27 am


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOpVkWzs-QA

pshea38
Banned
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by pshea38 » Sat May 05, 2012 5:54 am

LightCone wrote:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOpVkWzs-QA
Charles Darwin was A Fraud

note: 500kb 4 page pdf

disinpho
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:58 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by disinpho » Sat May 05, 2012 4:03 pm

pshea38 wrote:Charles Darwin was A Fraud

note: 500kb 4 page pdf
Interesting topic, I found an interview with the author of the article:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkrqKJSGdSw

Subdivo
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:08 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Subdivo » Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:41 pm

fbenario wrote:
What are your thoughts on Fomenko? I find it very hard to take seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chrono ... Fomenko%29


Hello,

In my opinion, Fomenko’s books are not the most interesting revisionist writings because of the numerous flaws they contain. Their caricatural aspect is also unattractive. Besides, Fomenko has had an agenda, as that extensive critical study brillantly demonstrates: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cg ... ext=theses

However, Fomenko do raise a few interesting points and we should be grateful to him for that. For example, his investigation on the real age of the "European" cathedrals is highly interesting.

Subdivo
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:08 pm

Re:

Unread post by Subdivo » Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:04 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
2) The elements that you don't see in this ruin, the tribunes, where either wooden elements or metal elements that were destroyed or used for other needs during the following centuries. Nothing strange in the strange appearance of the structure as it is today.

3) To think that this building was created in the Renaissance is preposterous and utterly impossible. For starters the italian Renaissance produced an enormous amount of writings about the very ruins of ancient Rome: after the so called middle age, the very term "Reinassance" indicates a renewed interest for classic antiquity. Rome in particular was considered the center of the classical period, and such ruins were studied by architects and artists that wrote about it, made copies etc. The ruins are described in a state that pretty much resembles the one we see today, except that more metal/movable part were still in place back then.
Similarly, Michelangelo admired the Belvedere's Torso, a broken greek statue with no arms nor legs nor head, in the same state we admire it today. He would have known, I suppose, if the Torso had been in fact just produced by the same civilization he was finding himself in.

More importantly, the Renaissance was a Christian era, and Rome was under the dominion of the pope; we know very well all the buildings that were built in that city during the Renaissance: we can recognize them by their style and purpose. The Colosseum doesn't fit into it. Simply put, the Renaissance man had no use for such a building. The gigantic hadrian mausoleum was turned into a castle in the middle ages and eventually it became the house of the pope: for that the Renaissance had some use. But the Colosseum was left alone to rot.
Hello,

Did you know that the popes - among others - in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries destroyed or badly damaged numerous monuments (temples, archs, etc?) from the "Antiquity" to obtain marble or make lime? In Gregorovius's book on Rome (History of the City of Rome in the Middle-Ages - Volume 7, Part 2), we learn, for example, that "Nicholas V. remorselessly destroyed several remnants of antiquity for his own ends. He carried off blocks of travertine and marble from the Colosseum, removing more than 2300 waggon-loads in a single year. He took materials from the so-called Temple of Peace, from the Circus Maximus, from Hadrian's Temple of Venus and Rome beside the Arch of Titus, from the Forum, from constructions outside the Porta Viridaria, and we have grounds for believing that it was he who caused the destruction of the wall of Servius Tullius at the foot of the Aventine. Of this, the oldest monument of the city, only a tiny fragment remains to present times." So, many of the "ruins" we can witness today - including the Colosseum - are the products of vandalism commited about five centuries ago.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:53 pm

Fomenko do raise a few interesting points
Thank you for your interesting posts, thusfar. I just want to remind you that in English, the s is reserved for single verbs and removed for plurals' verbs. So "Fomenko does raise" is correct, and "[they] do raise" is correct. I'm embarrassed to even play this role on this forum. My English is pretty bad and not very academic. But this tip will help make your future posts more readable. Sorry English is so confusing and dumb, mixing up the uses of "s". It's just how it is.

Anyway, I thought I would point that out. I am interested to hear more from you, thanks for bringing your thoughts to the forum!

Post Reply