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.
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 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:01 am

Subdivo wrote:
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.


This extract seems intriguing and compelling. Is there a way we can access the full book?

One of my initial skepticisms is that the author Konstantin Sheiko mentions the Russian-Chechen conflict in a manner that seems sympathetic to media portrayals of the drama. Do you have an idea what his stance is on that situation? And/or do you have an opinion on it?

I am prepared to completely dismiss Fomenko, though. :lol:

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

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Subdivo » Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:07 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
Subdivo wrote:
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.


This extract seems intriguing and compelling. Is there a way we can access the full book?

One of my initial skepticisms is that the author Konstantin Sheiko mentions the Russian-Chechen conflict in a manner that seems sympathetic to media portrayals of the drama. Do you have an idea what his stance is on that situation? And/or do you have an opinion on it?

I am prepared to completely dismiss Fomenko, though. :lol:


Hello,

The question of the real age of the cathedrals has been discussed in volume 1 of "History, Science of Fiction?", which is fully available on: http://books.google.fr/books?id=YcjFAV4 ... ne&f=false

I am not aware of Fomenko's opinion on the Russian-Chechen conflict and I am myself not informed enough to have an opinion on that subject.

Roe77
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:00 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Roe77 » Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:37 pm

If anyone still reads this topic, I would like to bring to your attention the hypothesis that Pompeii wasn't destroyed by Vesuvius in 79 AD, but in 1631!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sc5PfjuCqQ
In our film we present arguments in favor of a hypothesis that the famous Pompeii in fact finally disappeared off the face of the earth as a result of the eruption of Vesuvius in 1631

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Sun Nov 02, 2014 9:01 pm

I haven't read Fomenko's book but I managed to get a pdf of it. On the cover I saw this text :
"Jesus Christ was born in 1053 AD and crucified in 1086 AD The Old Testament refers to medieval times"

Such a bad ass researcher with all these years spent studying among others the Romans and hadn't figured out that "Christianity" evolved from the cult of Emperors. "Catholic Church"/Jesuits work hard to conceal the truth about their origin . I don't know about the rest of the stuff but my bullshit radar is on.

I want to recommend Alexander Del Mar and his "Worship of Augustus Ceasar" . He points ( guy's been dead since 1926 ) to chronology falsification as well.

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 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:17 am

Yeah, not many people who are serious researchers in detail (on the subjects he covers) can vouch for Fomenko's wildly sweeping allegations. It doesn't look good for Fomenko so far. I still have to read one convincing counter point to see if it's worth my time to pick it up. We should probably glance at it anyway some time, though, don't you think?

Roe77
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:00 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Roe77 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:49 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Yeah, not many people who are serious researchers in detail (on the subjects he covers) can vouch for Fomenko's wildly sweeping allegations. It doesn't look good for Fomenko so far. I still have to read one convincing counter point to see if it's worth my time to pick it up. We should probably glance at it anyway some time, though, don't you think?
Yeah, but wouldn't you comment on the video I posted concerning Pompeii? The idea that Pompeii was finally destroyed in the Middle Ages is very interesting, and I personally find it plausible. By the way, the video is not by Fomenko, and it doesn't even mention him.

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:25 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Yeah, not many people who are serious researchers in detail (on the subjects he covers) can vouch for Fomenko's wildly sweeping allegations. It doesn't look good for Fomenko so far. I still have to read one convincing counter point to see if it's worth my time to pick it up. We should probably glance at it anyway some time, though, don't you think?
Calendar alteration was such a widespread phenomenon in antiquity at least Del Mar claims so and I tend to believe him that for example high ranking priests and other more influential individuals were pressuring newly ascending rulers to swear they wouldn't fuck with the dates and official time records. It was all connected to solar cycles, lunar cycles , "second" comings of "messiahs" and every new ruler and pullstringers behind him saw an immense leverage in it and tried hard to fit themselves to certain holidays, solar eclipses etc.

Gaius Maria aka Julius Ceasar while conquering Gaul got acquainted with the omnipresent cult of Hesus and later claimed to be his second incarnate. No need to mention that locals were awaiting second coming of Messiah/Hesus ( sounds familiar? ) It helped the Roman general in his politics a lot.

We need to give Fomenko a credit for researching fake chronology but an extreme caution must be applied to his work. From the cover alone it's obvious that he is trying to cement Jesus Christ/Bible myth as if it refers to the actual events. This is the very basis of Roman Empire's/"catholic Church" criminal rule over us whether we consider ourselves "Jews" , "Christian" or "Muslims" . This is the ultimate psyop.

@Roe
The film you link to is useful and supports the thesis that everything mainstream is bullshit, used to mindfuck us so we are easier to manipulate. I suspect that they decided to dig out Pompei in 19th century ( maybe sooner please correct me if I am wrong ) and altered the site to help spread their agenda about persecution of "Christians" and other lies about Rome that create our mental model today. Yes I can easily believe it was buried under ashes in 17th century.

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:01 pm

I spent some time browsing through Fomenko's book. I am sorry but it's a total joke :) "Researching" new "chronology" of biblical, allegorical "events" looks like a giant disinfo project to me. Morozow , another "scientist" referred a lot to by Fomenko ideally fits proverbial "Soviet sage" archetype falsifying every field of interest/science ( not that Western ones were/are different ) and commonly joked about in Poland and other Eastern European satelites in the past. Protege of Lenin himself , and publishing his book " Christ" in 1921 during the atrocious civil war.

Bolsheviks were Anglo-American/Vatican creation and everything that comes from them must be treated with utmost care and prejudice.

Dates and chronology has been continously fucked with since the day one , like everything else of any significance but Fomenko is an equivalent of Alex Jones to this subject ( I think somebody said it before in this thread and I 100% agree ! )

To summarize:
The whole thing is a Jesuit sponsored history alteration, their main field of interest right next to wars and genocide, designed solely to hide the truth behind "catholic church" , "Jesus Christ" , fuck with people's minds , spread confusion etc. Exactly what we are trying to fight here on CF.

Alexander del Mar is an author I recommend to anyone interested in this area of research. His name doesn't pop up too often , not surprisingly.

Definitely not worth your time Hoi

ReadyToBeDeployed
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:41 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by ReadyToBeDeployed » Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:33 pm

I highly disagree here.

The topic of reviewing history is massively important, and Fomenko's works are a MUST.

I strongly urge every reader to read his works and start checking history.

Where are the sources? Does it make sense, logistically? What do the technicians say on this subject, was it possible to do that at that time?

A simple example, the term Silk Road was invented in 1877, by Ferrdinand von Richthofen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Richthofen

I've been researching this subject for 4 years, and I'm 100% sure history was re-organized and created in the second half of the XIX century up to the beginning of the XXth.

It's simple, to keep power, you must control ideas, the past, you have to show that you are the legitimate ruler, that your families have been ruling you for centuries... heck, the Vatican overdid it to 1900 extra years!

Think, what was the biggest war before WW1?

The same world war that was isolated in different small wars, secession in the US, Austro-Prusian an Franco-Prussian in central Europe, Carlist War in Spain, Unification war in Italy...

The key moment was the legal and economic change.

1870-1890 silver was substituted by gold and land was privatized, taken from the small towns and religious orders and offered into the market.
Legal code was changed, corporations were created. Capitalism as we know was created.

Before that, history doesn't make sense. Printing press... in the XV century... but papers don't get popular until the XIX century...

Galleons and cannons... 4 centuries of no military development, shooting each other metal balls without thinking.. "Gee, maybe we should protect our ships with metal plates". See the US Civil war, huge development and testing, continued until WW2.

Check the dates of the discoveries of the Pacific Islands, discovered by Spain in 1500... and something... then 3 centuries of nothing... "re-discovered" in late XIX and finally settled and used...

Check the West coast of the US, until the "gold fever" nothing... the Spaniard take Cuba in 1492... are in Mexico in no time... then... wait three centuries and a half to get a bit deeper in Mexico...yeah.

And... they conquered America with these wooden boxes? How?

No, you need logistics, big army, food, horses, big ships.

Check the statistics of population, Argentina, 1869 and they weren't even 2 million! A huge paradise, with cows everywhere, full of grass, the food basket of America!

The four digit date we use, wasn't four digits before, it was a three digit number, and a letter, I or J, in reference to Julius, (Julian calendar) or Iesus, Iulius (either Iulius Caesar or Iesus, or both).

The books of Fomenko have plenty of proof, and links to names, dates and sources you can verify yourself, and are free on the internet, easy to search and download.

I like this forum and follow it, but every time I think about this subject I'm a bit ashamed it doesn't have a section on this critical research, and of the negative comments it received...

Check it yourself, ASK, for the originals, for the sources they are using, ask technical people on every subject... how were the armies in the early XIX century? Was it possible for the Grand Armee to be 600.000 and travel this distance? Were there roads?

Look at the drawings, go to archive dot org, to google books and download originals.

Check the dates of construction of famous buildings, look for any key moment, was that building "reconstructed" after a fire, an invasion, a war?

It's basic common sense, the farther back you go into history, the less we really know. Any coup'd etat, any war, any fire is a chance to rewrite history, it's crazy to suspect documents from thousands of years are still intact... and that the paper has magically survived. In fact, they will tell you they are "copies" of "translations"... so things of 3000 years ago are based on a copy of a copy in the XVII century... and they even said that! It could be even worse and really be a XIX century fake (They mostly are).

ASK. RESEARCH. Use your logic.

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Critical Mass » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:58 pm

ReadyToBeDeployed wrote: Galleons and cannons... 4 centuries of no military development, shooting each other metal balls without thinking.. "Gee, maybe we should protect our ships with metal plates".
We should indeed look at history with a critical eye (I've been wondering things recently like 'was there ever really a Spartacus?') but before we do that we must first understand any official story we wish to debunk.

Your statement above for instance makes absolutely no sense... there officially is a great deal of difference between a 15th century fighting vessel & a 19th century one.

An early 19th century Royal Navy lineship, lets take the 3rd rate Rochfort as an example, could deliver a broadside of fourteen 32 pounders via its main gundeck & fourteen 18 pounders on its upper deck. It would have had had copper lined hulls, heavy 32 pounder cannonades on its quarter decks, flintlock firing mechanisms on its cannons & used the best available (machine tooled) bores & powder.

Rochfort would have blown a 15th/16th Century ship like the Mary Rose out of the water... whose main broadside would be delivered by a half dozen one pounders (although it did have a handful of larger guns, some vaguely equivalent to a 15 pounder, on board).

How can you say then that there was no development?

As for the idea of covering a wooden sailing vessel with metal sheets... even the first US Civil War steam powered ironclads were meant to be wholly unseaworthy. I doubt a 'sailing ironclad' could even have a main gundeck (it'd be so low in the water as to make gunports unusable). A slow, heavy sailing ship is effectively useless... and god forbid it if it were to encounter a tide.

The whole idea is pretty silly.

I don't think Cluesforum has a thread on a 'Sailing vessels hoax'... perhaps you should start one ReadyToBeDeployed? I'll even give you some magic numbers to start with... Nelson 'died' at the age of 47.

ReadyToBeDeployed
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:41 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by ReadyToBeDeployed » Thu Apr 16, 2015 11:28 pm

Critical Mass wrote: We should indeed look at history with a critical eye
Look at this article. Use google translate.

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1713329 ... s/tesoros/

1449 spanish ships detected and located, to avoid hunter treasures... the oldest of this 1449 Spanish ships is considered from 1767!!!

From almost 1500 sunken Spanish ships the oldest they found was from 1767? No old "columbus" style ship? No XVI o XVIIth centuries galleons? None at all.

Unified time, unified geography (maps, greenwich meridian), unified coinage and international standards of all kinds happened only in the XIX century...

They can write anything on paper, but real events happen in their time only, red cross, the arrival of goods from america, the new words of this goods, the population changes...

It's a hard truth to digest, I know. But I'm shocked you rush, here! to defend old events... when you know how they fake in real time, now, today, in front of the internet and communities like this!

How can you be so certain of past events of centuries and centuries ago?

What I'm saying is not that radical, I'm just saying events were more recent, and copies of them went to history books as duplicates.

The new rulers couldn't say "you were living good, free, in peace and huge development, we murder you all, leave you, few kids alive, to be schooled by us into loving and serving us as good slaves, will you please?".

No, they sent our good civilization, that they destroyed, to the remote past, invented middle ages of chaos that only the illuminated, the liberals, the reformers rescued us from.

What does the system say of the past? That it was poor, evil and tyrannical! They want us to think only about the bright future they are sheeping us to!

Look at old images of the XIX century, look at their clothing, look at the coins, the kings all dress in "roman" style, they use latin everywhere, look at the architecture, "neo"-classical" look at the "translation" of classical works...

Critical Mass wrote: Your statement above for instance makes absolutely no sense... there officially is a great deal of difference between a 15th century fighting vessel & a 19th century one.
There are no 15th century vessels, point, there was no 15th century, humanity is less than a millennium old, they knew that, and, around what we called now the second half of the 19th century, they changed the calendar, the victors imposed a new one, for the first time based on JesusChrist, and reorganizing all history, reinterpreting old dates with a new reading habit, the first I or J as a thousand from now on.

Go to any cementery, I dare you to find the oldest grave... of course it will be a famous king or something like that, and he will be alone, the only one of that century, and his grave will be a masterpiece of the 19th, when he will have been "moved" there...

In Spain, where I live, all documents, painting and statues of Colon (Columbus) are from the 19th, they acknowledge they don't even know his real face, he is painted different each time!

Look, official information, the niece of Columbus...

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducado_de_la_Vega

Empty dates all around the 18th and 19th century.... they have no information of who own this title between 1787 and 1866... but they claim to have every single small detail of it previously, to the smallest year in the 16th century!

Have you ever wondered why they give so much time to the "ancient" past and none to the most recent and important one?

Go to any museum, castle, fortress, they will tell you all about the middle ages, in Europe at least they will bore you with dates of everything previous to the 15th century... then nothing.

The obvious proportion of information to give regarding a historical object would be, something akin to this ecuation.

40% information regarding the 20th century.
30% information regarding the 19th century.
20% information regarding the 18th century.
10% information of previous centuries.

They don't do it this way, they start with "it was built by the romans... then... in small letters, only if you check carefully, will you find it was destroyed, rebuilt, burned, rebuilt with 3 different architects, new towers and sections added..."

Do you know about the technical and logistics aspects of history?

I don't know, when was paper publicly and cheaply available? When was it white finally and of good quality? Which key chemical process made that possible?

How about logistics? Why isn't history taught together with the development of sailing, first of rivers then of oceans? How about old maps of cities? How about population statistics and theorizing of how much it could have taken to procreate to that level giving the typical amount of daughters in that era?
How about the time when national languages were firstly used in universities and official documents instead of latin?
When were national academies of language formed?

Spanish-American foundation dates of their Language Academies, 1870 and 1880s... why?
http://www.rae.es/la-institucion/politi ... /siglo-xix

Why not immediately after kicking out the spaniards and gaining independence? Or were those independences later?

It's paper, you can put anything in a paper, it will hold, it won't sink because of the lies, you will have to check it, ask a navy officer to comment on the massive "roman" fleet and how it could have coordinated itself, ask him about the rams, ask an engineer... those things only happened in the US civil war... with METAL SHIPS, they created this "ancient roman" history at that time.
Similar with "Greece", Fomenko cites a book I have, Prolegomena of Jean Harduin, there, this 18th French is claiming there are more "greek" books in France than in "Greece", and that they are pouring this there, in contraband.
"One century" later (actually, less) the British were brainwashed with histories of ancient Greece, and their navy went there to steal if from the Turks (hm.. remainds you of something? How about modern "Israel" in Palestine, good geography, like "greece").

Come on, Asia minor? What's that? Those small islands near Turkey? That's Asia minor? No way. How about Western Europe, or Europe in general, could that be Asia minor? Doesn't that make sense?

How about Troy? Troy in Turkey? Really?

Paris was founded by the survivors or Troy, so... how could they travel all from Turkey to Paris?

Maybe Troy was up around the baltics, Denmark, Sweden? That's easy, all the coast to the west, river up, and you reach Paris...

I don't "need" to explain this, I don't win anything, it's just for you and the readers, I could be happier doing other things...

Anyway, cluesforum members, read Fomenko, use logic about history, how many first hand sources do you have, or do they claim to have? How much respect for truth do you see in this world? If so, why would history be sacred and an exception?

Know who you are, where you are and where you come from, or, at least, know where you aren't, so there's room for the truth and a lust for it.

If other members are interested, I could open a good organized thread.
Last edited by ReadyToBeDeployed on Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by fbenario » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:26 am

ReadyToBeDeployed wrote:If other members are interested, I could open a good organized thread.
Please do so. I am extremely interested in this subject.

Continue your analysis above, using more specific examples debunking modern chronology, and fewer insults.

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 » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:31 am

Please, do improve your spelling, punctuation and formating. Some here may be very interested in your point of view, but we'd like even our humor and incredulity to be written well. You are free to use this thread to make your case, and I volunteer to help you proofread and format it, if you can agree to try your best.

ReadyToBeDeployed
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:41 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by ReadyToBeDeployed » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:35 am

Ok, I will think about how to organize the topic.

Yes, Critical Mass I was shooting different examples to awake interest and force the readers to think.

Of course it needs to be organized.

For starters, I would ban, for a week, any talk of history, first we would need to think about information, about saving and protecting it, about theory, just in abstract with no details or specific references.

Just take a week to meditate on how hard it is to save information from the past, against wars, new dynasties, occupations, revolutions, new governments, mistranslations, personal egoisms, natural catastrophes, religious and cultural changes, political changes...

Only after such thing has been done, could we proceed to question, in a serious matter, history.

How? As in a trial.

Easy, simple, fair, in a trial you have to prove that such an event happened this way and only this way for this reason and at such time, beyond any shadow of doubt.

And any witness will be questioned, the key elements will be questioned, when was the homicidal weapon found? By whom? What happened later? Was it under custody of the police all the time? Who had access to it?
Is it unequivocal and absolute proof? Could it be faked? Would we detect it?

Has the event been remade with actors/volunteers/models? Is it physically possible?

History should be treated like that, in a Sherlock Holmes way. Not as a religious dogma as it's today.

Once we realized how politicized it is, how it is used, how fast it can change (see Nazi Germany, before Hitler, during and after, in 13 years there were three Germanies, and after the occupation 35.000 books were made illegal and burned, house by house searches in every city, for prosecuted books, statues, buildings take down, just simple geometric symbols were made illegal, in front of our eyes, in the time and name of freedom and democracy...) then we will start to have the mind's attitude to research on our own and see what's there.

Any previous war will be like the occupation of Germany, another 35.000 books forbidden, a complete political change, prosecution of the old order, censure, massive brainwashing...

The scope of the war will be minimized, see Dresden, see the bombing of civilians, it will be hidden as "only military and industrial installations", millions of displaced and murdered east-germans will be censored.

Would you trust a history of pre-Hitler and Hitlerian Germany only to Soviet sources? Of course not.

In this case there was too much information, it already was a highly globalized and almost information-age epoch.

But, in the 1860s? That's different, information about other countries was slower, only the telegraph (easy to block), travel was way slower, no planes, books were more scarce and expensive, and more centralized in known key archives.

And we have time, old documents of and before that era will eat the dust.

I highly suspect the discoveries of new biblical and gnostic documents, they want to give the impression that paper survives forever, therefore supporting official history. No, paper ages very fast.

And the culture, the way of thinking of centuries ago is impossible for us to guess, the cultural differences between us and the 60s for example is enormous... expand it to a few centuries... no, we have no idea, we can't put ourselves in their brains, the idea of history, of a linear chronology, of the necessity of writing down historical events... there may be reasons or technologies we just don't suspect.
They were more clever, they wrote in stone, we are the stupids who "save" information in paper.
The word lithography gets its root from lit, stone.

How much do we know about the past? Do we know the situation of the continents, the sea-level?

We don't. Carbon dating and other methods don't work. We know the sea-level changed, and we know many sunken cities, from England to the black sea and the Mediterranean.

Are we really sure of how Europe was 300 hundred years ago? How?

Ask your family members, do any of you know of one single ancestor's tomb of 300 years ago? I bet none of you.

So, they managed to get us into believing we were under Christianity for 1600 years, we managed to keep even older ruins, but we have no graves of 300 years or more?

Why? Why the discrepancy between the official history (know it all, to the details, sacredness of the past and truth) and the real, popular level of our families, who barely know their grand-grand-parents and didn't give a f...

How is it possible that all cultures of all continents... decided to paint maps with the north up? Could it be that they are fake?

Many old maps of coastal cities were painted from the sea, to be as useful to sailors as possible.

This topic includes two subjects, one, proof of the artificial construction of history, another, awakening the truth that history is a pseudo-science, an impossibility, an ideal, you can't verify it as chemistry or biology or physics, history is either a "sherlock Holmes" detective art of enormous difficulty, or a political weapon and an easy way to earn money parroting the script.
But it's not science, it's not sacred.
It's paper, written by who knows who and when.

If you want truth, check it, as in a trial, "re-live" it, does it make physical sense?

Money is another factor, an example, many countries invented their legendary inventors to avoid paying patents in the XIX century.
Nationalism is also a factor, Fomenko points to a unified European empire (official history too, the caesars, napoleon, etc...) so, after the breakup, the same guy was remade with different names in every region/country.
It's known Europe was ruled by the same royal family, and it makes sense, power grows, economy of scale...

The key is to look at history from the present to the past, not from some particular date in the past and from there forward to the present, that method is absurd, it's used only to solidify that "ancient" past, to give life and "love" to something that doesn't exist.

Use the present, and look back, see how cavalry, armor, "roman" style, galleys, cathedrals, circus, medieval fights, musketeer clothing, walled cities, latin and greek, all that is already there in the first half of the XIX century, see the books of the time, "re"printing of the roman "classics", see the paganism of the time.
And go back to the second half of the XIX century, the masonic institutions, Royal Academies of History, Royal Institutes, printing press, the revolutionary change of advanced rifling and machine guns...
The last samurai is a good movie, in a few years the world was changed, he who had machine guns and steam power became ruler of the whole world, period. Could do whatever he wanted, his troops marched over every city, took every townhall, library, put occupation governments and the same ideology and way of thinking.

The same power still rules today.

What's the key message of the system? Stay calm, and pacifist, everything is good, known, and taken care for the good of all.

They immediately claim the ruins they created were "very old" from "romans from two thousand years ago"... nothing to see, keep walking...
They don't want us to check recent, 19th history, when they committed the biggest massacres possible to imagine, they destroyed it all, worse than WW2 level.
They don't want us to look at the legal changes of the 19th century, when capitalism and corporation were created, when they stole it ALL, when they privatized what we, our ancestors had created for centuries.

They waste our time with circus of ancient Greece and other worthless unimportant distant events.

They don't want us to look at the lack of legitimacy they have, all over the world, by their brutal revolt in the 19th century.

The incorrectly called French Revolution happened later, in 1848-1853 and from then on, all the possessions of Marie Antoinette were.. in Russia, in Saint Petesburg, in the hands of the richest family, Yusupov (the same family who killed Rasputin without a reprisal).

The French revolution was an anti-French revolution, French was spoken everywhere in all courts of Europe...and the legitimate power, the "French" or only Royal Family of Europe lost, was pushed out of Russia into today's France.
The hair of the Queen still has the date 1853.
Here;
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/23 ... c84fcd.jpg

After that, the cossacks, the savages of the east, the insurrected, led by Jews (who later betrayed their useful tools, 1888 murder of the Czar) continue bombing and destroying Europe.
Paris was leveled in 1871, Spain later, here called "Carlist War" and "Insurrecion cartonal".

That decade, 1870 all walls in all cities were destroyed, isn't it weird? Why were the walls destroyed?

If you check pictures or drawings, European cities still had big walls, in stars... I'm tired of seeing plaques detailing the dates of the demolition of the walls of towns. All in this era.
Why? Because the war had ended, we lost, and there was only one power in Europe, the army of the Jews, very soon to be changed to just the Jews, the money power, the banks.
There was no gold before that, they launched a huge campaign to give the impression that gold had been used before, but that's false, silver was the standard.
In the case of Spain you can compare the 1869 "Republic" coin to the early centuries "Roman Republic" coins, they are the same, the exact same design and drawings.

It was the same process, the old law, the old regime was destroyed and defamed, "stone age, dark age, brutal feudalism..."

In fact, they lost because of their low taxation!

We know very little, in Spain police (Guardia Civil) records of the 19th century show huge rural insurrection and the charges were usually "defending the republic", which is absurd, because it was very short lived and chaotic.
But "republic" could mean something different, the old "republican" order, the old "roman empire" before the coup 'd état, the empire and Christianity, before the privatizations, the "desamortizaciones" (from mort, death, "death" land that belongs to the villagers and can't go to the banks or the market).

In the middle of the 19th century, in Spain, the central government sent envoys to every town, they had orders to check "old roman ruins", and find details about them.

Why? How is it that the government doesn't know it's own history? Explanations? They were new occupants, invaders, a foreign troop.
Also, why would they ask about roman ruins, directly? Wasn't "Rome" thousand and four hundred years ago? Why not ask about Al-Andalus, about the Visigoths? Nope, that part of "history" hasn't been written yet.

There was both a cataclysm and a massive war and change of regime.

The research on "new-chronology" or just rechecking of history today is lead by Russians, who after so many soviet lies have learned to recheck everything.
They found for example, that there's not a single tree in the pictures of the Crimean war. The forests there are all "new" (from that era, 150 years old, not more).
I myself found and photographed German inscriptions in "russian" Saint Petesburg, and they accepted that it was culturally French before... Russian is new, Hitler in his book talks a lot about his impressions of the de-Germanization and the slavization of Eastern and Central Europe. You can check many cities there and find German founders.

Go to wikipedia and look for Bistro, in Russian it means fast, in Paris it's a type of "fast" cafeteria, the Russian troops shouted that word all the time demanding food... but the official history puts those events in the Napoleonic wars... the trouble comes when the linguistics show that it only appeared after 1871...there's no evidence of the use of that word before...
So... the Napoleonic war was in 1871, the "P-Russian" troops are very similar to Russian troops...a Napoleon was in power too... a Napoleon that went to Russia (Crimean War).
After 1871 journals started giving accounts of previous battles of long ago... the government started centenaries...

Did you know there was a IV centenary of the "discovery of America" but neither a III, nor a II or a first centenary? Hm Curious.. isn't it?

What's the most famous book on the Napoleonic Wars? Tolstoy War and Peace... When was it written... in the decade of 1860...

Wait.. 50 years later? Can you imagine Bush, or General Petraeus writing about his Iraq war FIFTY YEARS AFTER? Or Churchill writing 50 years later? No! They write about it immediately, or a few years later, not half a century later!

I close remembering what I said about Intellectuals, they are INTELLIGENCE operatives, they don't do science, truth or research, they do war, on you.
Last edited by ReadyToBeDeployed on Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Critical Mass » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:47 am

ReadyToBeDeployed wrote: You are defending what you don't know.
I'm not defending anything.

I've picked one of your (many, many) claims to illustrate that you're not doing yourself much of a favour with your writing style.

You claimed... you, not me... that there had been no military advancements between 15th century ships & 19th century ships thereby implying that several centuries have gone missing or were never there to begin with.

I pointed out that officially this is not the case... that there are meant to have been great advances in Naval technology over those four centuries.

Now you're making a new claim... that there are no pre-1767 sailing vessels. It's an interesting idea... I've seen what is claimed to be the Mary Rose myself but yeah we can go down the 'how do we really know how old it is' route.

However because you keep flitting from subject to subject, from claim to claim & then from question to question, seemingly at random, I doubt we could discuss in a calm manner the evidence for this claim.

You also stated that sailing ships should have been armour plated much sooner or as soon as they were developed in whatever century real, fake or imagined they were first developed in. However it takes but a few seconds of thought to realize why you cannot have a heavily armored sailing vessel.

I have no specific references for my thoughts on the Mary Rose other than the basic wiki article.

In terms of the late 18th/early 19th century, in the past my favorite read on the subject were the works of William James... 'allegedly' written in the early 19th.

https://archive.org/details/navalhistoryofg01jame

By the way there are several claimed military advances during that conflict alone... I'm uncertain if you think the Naval war of the late 18th/early 19th centuries are a hoax too* or where you think the large & extremely sophisticated naval vessels are meant to have come from.
I don't "need" to explain this, I don't win anything, it's just for you and the readers, I could be happier doing other things...
Then I hope you go do those things... here at Cluesforum we present & discuss evidence for the neutral reader.





* Might be a good racket come to think of it... pay for ships to be built but then don't really build them just say that you did, pocket the cash & fake the battle reports.

Post Reply